Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Usual onset

It is written as "early childhood" for answer. But due to genetic nature of autism, then usual onset will be present at birth. True or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1027:85F6:5553:1FEE:FFB2:935E (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In psychology, "onset" refers to the chronological age at which symptoms first present. You are correct that people are autistic from birth and do not become autistic in early childhood, however identifiable symptoms do not appear before two years of age. All babies are non-verbal and none of them understand social cues!

Hope that makes sense :) ImSirLaserOwl (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section needs a lot of work. For one, the second paragraph should also mention that with autism being a spectrum disorder, it ranges from mild to severe. I feel as though the second paragraph should distinguish between severe and high functioning (formerly called Asperger's), as those who are severe lack language while the mild form have normal language and often intellectual skills, but their challenges pertain more to having a reciprocal conversation, processing nonverbal cues and social cognition (i.e., body language, facial expressions, interpreting others' emotions and point of view), and exhibit perseverative interests. It should also specifically mention that other signs of ASD include stereotypic body movements, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Lastly, it should describe the controversy over the new diagnosis of social communication disorder, which was added with the goal of funding services for individuals previously diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified, but that it only led to a defunding of services and researchers are not able to determine how it differs from ASD (other than that it doesn't include repetitive behavior or restricted interests) or that the new diagnosis is even necessary. Any thoughts? ATC ^{. Talk} 16:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

In the autism community, autistic people themselves, the idea of the spectrum being linear, i.e. high to low functioning, is not popular. This is because an autistic person with high intelligence, who is articulate and possibly working in a skilled profession can have profound difficulties with anxiety, depression and sensory problems, and calling them 'high functioning' can be seen as being unfairly dismissive of their problems. The autism community stress, instead of functioning labels, that every autistic has a 'spikey profile', so that every individual has very specific difficulties and excellencies. The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria avoid the use of functioning labels by having three levels of 'support needs', Level 3 - requires very substantial support, Level 2 - Requires substantial support, and Level 1 - requires support. Because of an overlap between people with autism and people with intellectual disability, the problems caused by intellectual disability are often confused with the problems caused by autism. This is the case, even though the diagnostic criteria for autism make no mention of intellectual impairment, Urselius (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The 'mild to severe' is also not how Lorna Wing ever intended the spectrum to be understood. It's a common misconception that this is what 'spectrum' means, and not one that we should be promoting! In fact, we really need to go through the rest of the article ensuring it doesn't perpetuate this myth. Oolong (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please also keep the need for concision in the lead at the front of your mind with any edits. WP:LEAD recommends "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" and while the current lead technically contains just four paragraphs, they are all on the long side, one or two of them very much so.

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

With a topic this big it's very challenging to summarise only the most important points and sufficiently prominent controversies, which is presumably why the version of the lead we had a few months ago ballooned to something like eight paragraphs long. I wouldn't include social communication disorder in the lead section for that reason, for example, and we need to be careful about including redundant information or statements which require substantial expanding to render them neutral. Oolong (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds correct. However, the DSM-5 uses a number scale of 1, 2, and 3, so does anyone have sources that indicate that the diagnostic number scale is not based on severity? ATC ^{. Talk} 03:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure.

The first thing to realise is that the scales are based on support needs, distinct from severity. This review paper has

"To capture individual variation, alongside an ASD diagnosis, DSM-5 provides core symptom domain severity levels based on the level of support needed for individual functioning, in addition to specifiers which offer descriptions of common co-occurring non-ASD impairments (i.e., intellectual impairments, language deficits, medical and psychiatric conditions, etc.). Of note, while the concept of functionality through severity levels is important, the severity metric has shown questionable validity (Lord et al. 2012a, 2018)."

This chapter from 'Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement' notes that the levels included in the DSM-5, while an improvement, are still problematic.

The vast majority of discussion about how problematic functioning labels and simplistic ideas of 'severity' are, are from autistic people writing for a general audience, and are not necessarily Wikipedia-citable, but I'll see what else I can find. I think I already included a few more in past discussions... Oolong (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify this. I'd forgotten that on paper the DSM-5 levels are still about 'severity', but not in the sense that it's usually understood. As the NAS puts it:

"DSM-5 explains that ‘severity’ levels may vary by context and also fluctuate over time, that the descriptive severity categories should not be used to determine eligibility for and provision of services, and that 'these can only be developed at an individual level and through discussion of personal priorities and targets'." [1]

And again, severity refers to level of support, not 'severity of autism' as such. [2] Oolong (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with your replacement of 'conditions' with 'differences' in the lead on three grounds. First, that anything described as a 'difference' must have what it is different from defined, from pure logic, grammar and syntax reasons. Second, 'neurodevelopmental differences', as a phrase in this context, is just not appropriate as it invalidates autism as a concept - just 'a bag of differences', why would that be of any importance, why have a clinical diagnosis, why have an article on the topic? Third, that it is enormously 'ahead of the game'. A Wikipedia article on any subject should reflect the balance of relevant scholarship, not the viewpoint of interested parties, be they nationalists or pressure groups, and I'm afraid that relevant scholarship on autism is only just moving away from describing it as a 'disorder' and moving towards 'condition'. As a scholar and biomedical scientist, I would say that 'condition' is more appropriate. Additionally, I think what I have said rather invalidates claiming 'neurodevelopmental differences' as an uncontroversial phrase, in the context of an attempt at a concise definition of autism. Urselius (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm not super invested in changing this, but I think it's worth addressing your points.

Psychiatric categories simply are collections of (psychological or behavioural) differences. If you think this is a controversial statement, I wonder if you could expand on that? This is how they're defined, and I'd agree that the failure to clarify what they're different from is a problem, but it's a problem that underlies the entire system of psychiatric diagnosis! They are seemingly differences from an assumed, but never fully specified norm.

I don't think the fact that autism as a concept simply refers to a set of differences invalidates it at all. See e.g. The reality of autism: On the metaphysics of disorder and diversity (Robert Chapman).

Relevant scholarship on autism includes critical autism studies and many scholars working in the neurodiversity paradigm; but I also don't think Wikipedia does, or should, reflect only the views of scholars. It's relevant, for example, that Britain's NHS page on what autism is states 'Autism is not a medical condition with treatments or a "cure". But some people need support to help them with certain things.' It nevertheless refers to 'other conditions', to be fair! I also think that the views of the population an article is about can and should inform its content to a degree.

All of this aside, how would you resolve the question of whether autism is one condition, or conditions, plural? There is much disagreement on this point, and no obvious way to reconcile these two positions! Oolong (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Inasmuch as autism is a defined - as in it has diagnostic criteria - entity, it has to be grammatically singular. I know it has complexity and very fuzzy edges, but it should be treated as being unitary. The NHS website is, presumably, written or overseen by medically qualified people, it counts as a reliable source, if not strictly scholarly. It is also, presumably, led by relevant scholarship or medical best practise, which itself is scholarship-based (or should be). While a Wikipedia article should be comprehensive, and this one should include the social side of autism, neurodiversity and autism 'movements', when it comes to basic definitions, social usage is much less relevant than medical or scientific usage. It struck me that article should have more mention of successful autistic people, after all the richest person on the planet is autistic! A photograph of a successful autist would also be useful. Urselius (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, it looks like both the ICD and the DSM list it under the title 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' - although interestingly, there are actually more Google Scholar results for the plural form - 505,000 vs 496,000. There obviously is substantial disagreement about whether it is really one thing! Curiously 'Autism Spectrum Conditions' gets more than three times as many as 'Autism Spectrum Condition', but less than a thirtieth the number for Disorder either way. Probably a reflection of how Baron-Cohen likes to talk about autism.

Yes, the NHS is undoubtedly guided strongly by scholarship, although I'm sure it takes social usage into account as well - as it should! The language used to talk about something is not strictly a biomedical question, as Wikipedia:MEDRS acknowledges; how the people being described feel about it is relevant too (as are the views of family members and relevant professionals, up to a point).

Either way, more and more researchers are pushing back against pathologising language like 'disorder' (or 'condition'). See e.g. [3], [4], [5] and [6].

But I raise all this mainly because I just think it's important to bear in mind when writing and editing on a topic like this; I think there are much bigger problems with this entry than the issue of describing autism as a condition. Oolong (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that the number scale doesn't refer to severity (which is what the "level of support" implies). Do you have a valid source other than the neurodiversity one? The reason why the DSM didn't use, e.g., severe, "high functioning", etc. is because sometimes, for example, other diagnostic manuals used the term high functioning autism to describe symptoms similar to Asperger syndrome in that their is no spoken language impairment but differs from Asperger's in that it is associated with lower IQ scores, as well as to not confuse it with the "profound", "severe", "moderate", and "mild" severity chart measurement table used in intellectual disability. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The only defining difference between 'high functioning autism' and Asperger's in those diagnostic systems that use these terms is that there is a delay in language acquisition in the former, and not in the latter. Urselius (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think most people would see 'level of support' and 'severity' as synonymous at all! The DSM does conflate support levels with severity, but as outlined above, it clearly doesn't mean it in the same way many people understand the term, or the way a previous edit suggested it should be understood: it is somethign that varies by context and changes over time.

As for how the term 'spectrum' should be understood, I suggest going back to Lorna Wing's writing on the topic (also linked above).

Thank you! Oolong (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I have done some further work on the lead section. I think it's still too long, but I don't think it's badly balanced at this point, and I don't think it needs the 'lead needs rewriting' note any more.

What does anyone else think? Oolong (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I kinda agree, but also disagree.

I think it goes over the main points quite well. However, I belive it could be much more utilitarian in the information given. The part about neurodivergent mindsets, would be more fitting in an article about neurodivergency, but at the same time, this is a current happening and most likely something people reading the intro is getting useful information out of.

I think the current lenght is good for the moment, but should be revised in a year or two. Possibly be totally re-written. GustafSeb (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia page has the following introduction:

Autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neuropsychiatric diagnosis. The diagnosis involves impairment linked to social interaction, social communication, and repetitive and limited behaviour.

Before DSM-V and ICD-11, autism spectrum disorders were a category of different diagnoses[1]. Today, they are instead classified on a spectrum, based on the type of support the person needs, and how extensive that support is. The spectrum is divided into type 1-2 without intellectual disability, and type 1-3 with intellectual disability.[2]

What we today call autism spectrum disorder is a new diagnosis, and should not be confused with what in DSM-IV was covered by “pervasive developmental disorder.” The new autism spectrum diagnosis, for example, does not include Rett syndrome. The new diagnosis also includes other diagnoses, which were previously seen as separate from the autism spectrum.[1][2] In older texts (from before 2012), autism spectrum disorders can sometimes be used as a synonym for "pervasive developmental disorder", which can be confusing. The new definition has completely new diagnostic criteria, incompatible with the old one.

I’m a bit biased since I’ve helped write parts of it, but I think it covers most of the importaint things regarding AST. Of course it doesn’t mention neurodiversity, but the swedish government already has adopted that viewpoint, so it’s not really necessary in the swedish context.

Thought I may as well post it here since it could be useful in the further development of the introduction. GustafSeb (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have just found this page and had to go back through the edit history to figure out why that note is there. It looks like there used to be a lengthy paragraph discussing the use of the word "disorder" compared to alternatives. The current lead looks appropriately succinct (for such a complex issue) and doesn't "detail controversy about terminology" anymore. I'm in favour of removing the message! Anyone else?

ImSirLaserOwl (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

thanks very much, yes me too, will do Tom B (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

'Risk' factors

The labeling of what might cause autism as risk factors in the infobox has gotta go. The page for risk factors describes what makes you more likely to get a "disease" or "infection". Autism is a disability, NOT a disease or infection!!!! We don't even know for sure what causes autism like the article says, but the factors would not put someone at risk cos autism AIN'T a bad thing! "Risk factors" should be changed to "Possible causes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.95.74 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, let’s not get confused about what the article is saying.

“Risk” is the typical word used in clincial settings. I understand your anger, but given the specific context within this article exists, the word “risk” can be used without being derogatory. Keep in mind this is an article about a clinical diagnosis, not an everyday conversations.

The word risk in this context could more be likened to the term “unforseen consequences”, as in, something you had not planned for. Most people don’t plan for their kids to have autism, and that’s why the word can used even on this page. In other words, the word risk doesn’t mean that it should be avoided, just that it wasn’t forseen.

Secondly, in terms of the articles clarity, such terms as “probable causes” or “possible causes”, could very well be used. I believe sympathise with the fact that it may be confusing for people, not used to reading these kind of texts.

I also want to apologise in advance for any weird formulation I may have used. English is not my first language, and I haven’t spoken it in a few months so I’m a bit rusty.

Have a wonderful holliday period and take care.

With regards

// GustafSeb (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is understood, but @88.111.95.74 is correct: Risk is of course a typical word used in clinical settings, but it is not neutral. At one time it would have been common in clinical and research settings to talk about the risk of homosexuality; that would sound off to most modern listeners.

Better to use neutral terms like 'chance' or 'probability' in a case like this. Oolong (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@88.111.95.74 For many people autism may feel like a disability. I think of it more as a disposition. Even better, I can recall many scenario's in which it has been advantageous for me to be autistic. For this reason, I'm fond of calling autism 'Autism Spectrum Disposition' rather than Autism Spectrum Disorder, or even Autism Spectrum Disease. Infogiraffic (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

Autistic people prefer DBT over CBT and ABA as CBT AND ABA can be damaging.

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/cognitive-behavioral-therapy-may-be-only-mildly-effective-for-anxious-autistic-children/#:~:text=Cognitive%20behavioral%20therapy%20may%20be%20only%20mildly%20effective%20for%20anxious%2C%20autistic%20children,-by%20Niko%20McCarty&text=Autistic%20children%20tend%20to%20rate,of%2019%20randomized%20clinical%20trials. 58.178.115.88 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Echolalia

Within the “Common signs for autistic spectrum disorder” box, there’s a bullet saying “repetition of words or phrases”

Next to it in parentheses lies the speech condition Echolalia. However, upon reading the Echolalia article I discovered the condition has to do with repeating other people’s words/phrases. This seems like a mistake as “repetition of words or phrases” reads to me (and I assume the average reader) as words/phrases an individual might think of and repeat on their own, perhaps sticking to a few selected ones.

Sorry if this is a minor detail to make a talk thread about but since the Echolalia page does indeed say it can occur in people with Autism, I wasn’t sure what the correct fix would be, so I wanted some feedback. 24.113.231.103 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you think the mistake is. Do you think something is written that is factually incorrect or just unclear/potentially misleading?

Autistic people both repeat other people's words and phrases as well as words and phrases of our own! Mostly autistic people are repeating other people's words, like movie quotes or something like that, but sometimes it is just a word or phrase that they say that sounds good.

While that is not technically echolalia as defined by the wikipedia page, 1. the meaning of the word echolalia is expanding, especially in the autistic community to refer to any repetition of words or sounds. 2. multiple sources online aren't making a distinction. If anything we should expand the Wiki page on echolalia to include the ways it is being used currently. I could also see elaborating on echolalia in one of the sections to discuss that characteristic with more detail Catchant (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Autism is a “spectrum”, this means that each case varies in severity. Symptoms of ASD are often present in early childhood and persist through life causing difficulties in multiple areas of function (i.e. social participation, work, activities of daily living, etc.). Occasionally, ASD is also paired with other disorders and language impairments.

There is no immediate mention of anxiety, panic attacks, and meltdowns being mentioned as diagnostic qualifiers for an autism diagnosis (which makes sense, since not all cases present this way). However, parents, caregivers, and clinicians understand how prevalent these conditions are among those with autism.

Anxiety as a stand-alone word is a state of nervousness or worry. However, anxiety disorder is a full-blown mental health condition which causes debilitating and prolonged nervousness and apprehension with physical manifestations such as increased blood pressure and elevated heart rate. Roughly 40% of young people with autism have anxiety or at least one type of anxiety disorder (Burchi & Hollander, 2020). Several types of anxiety include phobias, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.

Adults on the autism spectrum may be prone to anxiety or distress, which in extreme situations could lead to panic attacks. Panic attacks are a terrifying experience where the body reacts as if it is in immense danger, in a situation where most people would not be afraid.

ShadowWizard162 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

summer myhill 2A01:4C8:411:2955:20E1:B4:FAEF:A356 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

New findings published 3 days ago may prevent some kinds of autism.

I'm not good enough to improve this already very complete article. But I think you should read this article and consider it for this page, since it may help prevent some autism cases in the future. Thanks.

Trine Tangeraas, Juliana R Constante, Paul Hoff Backe, Alfonso Oyarzábal, Julia Neugebauer, Natalie Weinhold, Francois Boemer, François G Debray, Burcu Ozturk-Hism, Gumus Evren, Eminoglu F Tuba, Oncul Ummuhan, Emma Footitt, James Davison, Caroline Martinez, Clarissa Bueno, Irene Machado, Pilar Rodríguez-Pombo, Nouriya Al-Sannaa, Mariela De Los Santos, Jordi Muchart López, Hatice Ozturkmen-Akay, Meryem Karaca, Mustafa Tekin, Sonia Pajares, Aida Ormazabal, Stephanie D Stoway, Rafael Artuch, Marjorie Dixon, Lars Mørkrid, Angeles García-Cazorla, BCKDK deficiency: a treatable neurodevelopmental disease amenable to newborn screening, Brain, 2023;, awad010, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad010 Erliond (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Also seen in https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/dietary-changes-ease-traits-in-rare-autism-linked-condition/?utm_source

Erliond (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is relevant for Wikipedia yet. First of all, the condition appears to be extremely rare, they had to search across multiple countries to find just 21 children. It is further a very early finding and it remains to be seen whether any substantial new, general insights on autism follow from this line of research.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Autism Spectrum Disorder" is used globally, not just the US

I noticed at the beginning of the article that "Autism Spectrum Condition" instead of "Disorder" is how it's used in the rest of the world - this is false. Spergsupreme (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I was certainly under the impression that the move from 'disorder' to 'condition' was American in origin. More neutral phrasing seems necessary. Urselius (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

The source for the infobox statistic Frequency - 1 in 100 children (1%) worldwide is reference [5], an article from the WHO. However, this article is simply citing a published study from Zeidan et all's Global prevalence of autism: A systematic review update. This reference should probably be replaced with the following to cite the actual primary source of this data:

Zeidan J, Fombonne E, Scorah J, Ibrahim A, Durkin MS, Saxena S, Yusuf A, Shih A, Elsabbagh M. Global prevalence of autism: A systematic review update. Autism Res. 2022 May;15(5):778-790. doi: 10.1002/aur.2696. Epub 2022 Mar 3. PMID: 35238171; PMCID: PMC9310578. Nomeatmashers (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Nomeatmashers: Diff. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude Wouldn't it make sense to keep the WHO reference at least within the text of the article? I believe the fact that the WHO bases its prevalence estimates on that particular study gives it additional credibility and distinguishes it from other current studies on autism prevalence.--TempusTacet (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@TempusTacet: Fair point. I've restored the attribution to WHO. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just re-added the reference to the study so that readers can immediately access it and it's clearly visible that the estimate at the top of the article and within the text are based on the same source.--TempusTacet (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Hi, just recommending a minor update of a reference. Reference #356, from the CDC, states that the prevalence of autism in the US was one in 44 as of 2018.

More recently, the CDC wrote: "For 2020, one in 36 children aged 8 years (approximately 4% of boys and 1% of girls) was estimated to have ASD. These estimates are higher than previous ADDM Network estimates during 2000–2018."

Source:

References

Delaneypa (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 06:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sentence regarding prevention/cure in the lead section

@HaydenTCEM, you have now for the second time removed the following sentence from the lead section at the beginning of the paragraph on therapies/treatments: "There is no known method to prevent or cure autism."

This sentence summarizes the article's content and is a factual, neutral statement. I'm fully aware that the idea that autism should be cured or prevented is highly controversial and the sentence does not say anything about whether such methods should be sought, should be used, or are even possible to find.

I believe it is important to explicitly state this fact in the lead section. Otherwise, I believe it is very difficult for the average reader to understand that therapies and other treatments do not cure or prevent autism and do not aim to do so.

What's your rationale for removing the sentence and why specifically do you want it removed from the lead?--TempusTacet (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Characteristics of syndromic ASD conditions wiki-table

I'm not convinced that adding a Template:Main to Autism_spectrum#Syndromic_autism_and_non-syndromic_autism is a good solution. @Mruanova what do you think about re-adding the wiki-table using the following parameters mw-collapsible mw-collapsed? In this way its length is compressed. Digressivo (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline Mruanova (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This guideline does not say that simply removing entire sections and moving them into separate articles, without leaving a summary, is the way to go. How would a reader even know whether to follow the link?

I'm not sure whether such a long table (that also requires a significant level of domain expertise to read) is suitable for the main article on autism. However, a section on syndromic and non-syndromic autism (that perhaps just names the most common or well-known cases) seems very important & appropriate to me.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the summary to the main article so the reader follows the link for more details. Mruanova (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that is is a separate article we can link it to Syndrome too. Mruanova (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Header Photo

Consensus is called for. On one hand we all know that we are adult autistics and that male child autistics lining up whatever is screams cliché. On the other hand, a generic photo of a conventionally attractive woman is likewise a cliché. How do we sail between between Scylla and Charybdis? (And on the other other hand, should we?) kencf0618 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I support using File:Woman lonely in a crowd.jpg. I don't think it matters that the image isn't autism-specific, as the articles on schizoid personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder (just as examples) also use an infobox image that is not obviously specific to either condition. The image is meant to illustrate something, not to suggest that some person has a condition, when it isn't specific to the condition. The infobox image for this article should reflect adult autistic experiences. HaiFire3344 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree. File:Woman lonely in a crowd.jpg The punding article where the line of toys image came from doesn't even mention autism. Tysto (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm neurodivergent myself, and I'm strongly opposed to the usage of a generic picture of a woman in a crowd- for the main reason that we don't know if the woman is autistic and it's unconfirmed if the woman even consented to being photographed. The child stacking cans is explicitly stated to be autistic and displays a common, unique symptom of autism (repetitive behavior) instead of a generic feeling of loneliness that many other mental disorders share.

Per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, using said woman would likely be a violation of the clause that "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject," due to the implication that she is autistic. It also might be offensive to autistic readers to imply that they are represented the best by a photograph of a non-autistic person. I understand the suggestion to use an adult subject, but doing so would be the best with an autistic adult who consents to their photograph being taken. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the point about autistic readers potentially feeling it may not be the best to have someone whose neurotype we don't know representing them. However, I don't understand how this would "ridicule or demean" the subject. I might be reading between the lines too much, but I don't think being autistic is something that implies disgrace or warrants ridicule, demeaning, or shame (even if some autistic people might feel shame), unless you're referring to the way allistics often treat autistics (but such ableism shouldn't be normalized or treated as something we should just accept either). And again, using the photo to illustrate a point isn't meant to be a way of implying that the subject has the condition the article is about.

Regarding consenting to being photographed, Unsplash requires consent and proof of permission for photos focusing on individuals, so I assume the subject consented. With regard to the point actually being illustrated, the photo was given a caption about how it is common for autists to feel like outsiders and be misunderstood, and while this is a common experience for folks of many different neurotypes, I felt the point particularly hit home with regard to autists' difficulties with social communication. HaiFire3344 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

sorry if i don’t know wikipedia etiquitte but the old image just makes a lot more sense to me. the old photo of a kid stacking cans, while stereotypical, does actually reflect a symptom of autism. while feeling lonely/misunderstood is a commonly shared experience by autistic people, it doesn’t feel as unique to autism as stacking/lining up objects is. Yoshikid64 (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted all changes to the long-standing picture of the child stacking cans. Further discussion needs to be had before additional undiscussed changes are made, as this is seen to be quite controversial. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In general, there are too many images of children in the article, for what is a life-long condition. The lining up of toys is a stereotype, I'm autistic and never lined up toys - I kept their packaging and replaced them in it after playing with them, but I played with them imaginatively. Urselius (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, the first two images in the article are identical!!!!

What about something neutral?, like this:File:Autistic Mind 2.png Urselius (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely, the lining up of toys and the current image of stacking are quite a stereotype, and not something everyone with ASD experience. I'm autistic as well, and cannot relate to that general stereotype that much. However, I think the longstanding image of the child stacking cans is much more focused on ASD, and is inline with images used on similar pages, such as Asperger syndrome. A generic stock photo, or a lonely woman don't really show much about ASD. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the tin-stacking child would say much to a reader unfamiliar with the subject - lots of toddlers stack things, that's why wooden bricks are so popular. However, the image I suggested says a number of things to any viewer: 'this is connected to the brain', 'something to do with the brain is making one person in a group different' and it also visually introduces the concept of a spectrum. Urselius (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think that having a stock photo in that place isn't in line with most other articles. I'd be interested in hearing input from other editors however. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Something needs to be done immediately about the infobox photo and the next one under it in the text being identical, however. Perhaps one can be replaced with the toys lined up on a bed photo: File:Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg Urselius (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I added that lined up toys image back at Autism spectrum § Restricted and repetitive behavior, where it was before, and removed the duplicate image from Autism spectrum § Features and characteristics. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think add adult female to boy photo such as temple grandin or Greta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.120.57 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I like the image of the boy stacking stuff, it's been on there for years, the other images used recently in its place were less fitting or neutral. ButterCashier (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is, however, a very big problem in how autism, a life-long condition, tends to be represented as a childhood condition. At present, the Wikipedia article in its text, but even more so, in its images tends to support this false bias. Every autistic child will become an autistic adult. Urselius (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The argument could be made in the opposite direction as well. Possibly a combination of two photos would suit. The article content definitely need to reflect that autism is not just a childhood disorder, yet the infobox image doesn't necessarily need to account for this age range. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not just the infobox, it is the other images. The article is rather sparsely served by images and could really benefit from more. At present there are three images of medics and scientists involved in autism, and of the five autistic people shown three are young children, plus there is an engraving? of a feral child who might have been autistic. If we are going to have images of people who might have been autistic, then we could go the whole hog and have images of Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton etc. Urselius (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I understand, I thought the main concern was simply the infobox. I'd 100% support increasing the diversity of the other images found on the page! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, we tested "Autistic Mind 2.png" and it was reverted so now we know it doesn't work. Thank you for the feedback. We are back to our beloved Infant stacking cans.

@AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer: (As much as I sympathize with adding a different image to represent autism spectrum. I find this art representing autism (likely from an ARM activist) somewhat biased towards neurodiversity perspective and may not be the best illustration to give accurate representation (an autistic persons brain contains rainbows?) Also again with the autism pride flag. Using a single image from a neurodiversity perspective to represent ALL autistics (who don't necessarily agree) seems extremely reductionist.) Mruanova (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

change article name

I think it would make more sense for the article to be called "autism," the name "autism spectrum" in this article seems to come from a misunderstanding of the term. In the it says that the autism spectrum is a "loosely defined cluster of disorders," which is not the case. autism ia a disorder with specific criteria, and it "is known as a 'spectrum' disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience." an autistic person may be referred to as "on the autism spectrum" but this is not meant to imply that two people with ASD have different disorders. Tekrmn (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a somewhat lengthy discussion (haven't yet read it entirely myself) on Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 4 that led to the article being under "autism spectrum". It seems there was a consensus and strong arguments in favor.

That said, the phrasing in the introduction that "autism, [...] sometimes referred to as the autism spectrum, is a neurodevelopmental disorder" that is easily read as "autism spectrum is a neurodevelopmental disorder" is odd. I don't think that anyone uses "the autism spectrum" and "autism" or "ASD" as synonyms.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

upon reading the archive and doing further reflection, I actually think it makes the most sense to rename the article "autism spectrum disorder." I think since this article is about a medical diagnosis we should use the full name of that diagnoses in the title. I think this would solve the phrasing problem, having the introduction read "autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder" or possibly "autism spectrum disorder, or autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder" and mentioning elsewhere that it may be referred to as the autism spectrum in certain contexts (and why) or ASC in some countries. throughout this article and in all of the other articles about autism, it is referred to primarily as autism or asd and not as the autism spectrum, and I don't really see any reason why the title should be "the autism spectrum" if we almost never refer to it that way (and a lot of places where we do refer to it that way it should say asd because it is referring to it specifically in a medical context). I did see some discussion about how to refer to it but it doesn't look like there was substantial debate over the name of the article or any real conclusion.

in the past autism was referred to as the autism spectrum because it included the diagnosie ot aspergers, but now there is only one diagnosis, asd, which uses the word spectrum to refer to the varying experiences of autistic traits and symptoms not to refer to other diagnoses under an umbrella of autism. the use of the term "the autism spectrum" was factually inaccurate before I edited the lead, and that outdated understanding of autism and of the terminology around it seems to be the basis of the article having the name it does. I'm not saying this isn't a term that is used at all or that we shouldn't use it where applicable, but I don't think it makes sense for it to be the title of the article. I have personally heard it used this way primarily by non-autistic people who feel they have authority on the subject of autism (eg moms of autistic children, organizations run by non-autistic people, etc), and not by actual autistic adults or medical professionals except where they are describing autism to someone who isn't familiar with spectrum disorders (again, I do think it makes sense to discuss why it may be referred to that way and to use that name in some places). Tekrmn (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the full name of the condition should be used as the title rather than a name that comes from a misunderstanding. HaiFire3344 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your feeling on changing it to "Autism" ? if you are for it and nobody else says anything I'm going to move it, and of course if that is not an appropriate decision for some reason we can always move it back. Tekrmn (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen the discussion below, but I still feel like changing the title to "Autism spectrum disorder" would be better. Any information about pre-DSM-5/ICD-11 autism can just be moved to the classic autism article (which was part of the purpose of the complex merge/split in June 2022; Special:Diff/1094874534). Bringing this article back to where it was before June 2022 would not be good, and it could lead to more unnecessary articles being created; the intro for the article currently titled "Autism spectrum" makes it clear that the subject is specifically autism spectrum disorder. Autism spectrum disorder as a diagnosis in both DSM-5 and ICD-11 reflects the most current understanding of the condition. HaiFire3344 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: Would you suggest maintaining separate entries for each of the ICD-10/DSM-IV PDDs? And do you feel that topics such as autism rights and the history of autism are best covered in an entry named after its latest diagnostic nomenclature? Or would you prefer to have an entry on ASD (the diagnosis, including prevalance and diagnostics etc) as well as an entry on autism more generally? (I'm not necessarily opposed to your suggestion, just trying to understand it better!)--TempusTacet (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think maintaining separate entries for each PDD is fine. If there is enough information on the history of the usage of the word "autism", how it is defined, and the different experiences it has been applied to, to the extent where an entry separate from the history of autism could be created, then having one entry on ASD and another on the general concept of autism may be worth looking into. HaiFire3344 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the argument for naming it Autism Spectrum Disorder or naming it Autism. I am leaning toward Autism after what's been said in this discussion, I do think that having it encompass the current understanding of the disorder, some more recent history, and a bit about the cultural aspects would make a well rounded article- other information can be found in the other articles relating to autism. I definitely think it needs to be changed from Autism Spectrum, so if we can agree on either of the two I would be happy, but I think we should keep this as one article because there is already an article about the autism rights movement, which also touches on autistic culture and such. (though I think this article needs significant editing and some of the information should be moved to existing articles). in light of that I think Autism makes the most sense for a title here, at least until there's a consensus that the article should be split.

I don't think there's any shortage of sourcing for the use of the word Autism to refer to ASD, and I think the fact that autism is already used as shorthand for ASD throughout this article only goes to show that it is a widely accepted term. Tekrmn (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I think "Autism spectrum disorder" would be the best title. "Autism" is also acceptable and accurate, and would be my second choice, but "Autism spectrum disorder" is in line with the titles of other articles about neurodivergencies whose names end with the word "disorder", where we use the full name for full clarity. In this case, the clarity would also help to distinguish the subject of the article, ASD, from the more general concept of autism and the word in general, which I now agree does not need a new article of its own. "ASD" or "autism" can be used throughout the rest of the article as shorthand. I feel we should rename this article and keep "Autism" as a redirect to it. HaiFire3344 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

what is your feeling on changing the name of the article to autism spectrum disorder? Tekrmn (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is a good idea. The article currently covers a lot more than the current diagnostic model and Wikipedia should have a timeless, general article on autism in my opinion. Perhaps it makes sense to create a separate article that focuses on ASD as a diagnosis?--TempusTacet (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has 8 sections about autism a disorder, one section about (medical) history and one section about culture. in any case, it is about a medical condition whether or not it discusses aspects of the condition that aren't strictly medical. the article for hearing loss has a section about social and cultural aspects of hearing loss but the article isn't about deaf culture. and there is already another article about the autism rights movement which dives into a lot of things about autism that are not medical. in any case, "the article title should be a scientific or recognized medical name, rather than a lay term" per the MOS. additionally would it be a bad idea to change the name of the article even if this was not an article about a medical condition?

I feel that this article's name doesn't really meet WP:CRITERIA currently- some people might not even know that autism is referred to as the autism spectrum before searching for this article, and I don't think many people will search for "autism spectrum" over "autism" or "autism spectrum disorder" as a first guess. even if someone did search that they would search "the autism spectrum" because that is the actual term, but that's against other naming conventions. it would be far more natural to rename the article. even if they do search "autism spectrum," I don't think it's a huge issue but I do think that this name is not in the top two best names to use in terms of recognizability. it's not precise because the title is not the name of the diagnosis or even common shorthand for the diagnosis ("autism" or "ASD"), the name isn't neutral because it is a (outdated) colloquialism where there are alternatives that are much more obvious. if we aren't going to name the article "autism spectrum disorder" then "autism spectrum" also isn't concise, like "autism" would be, and it's not consistent because, again it's about a medical diagnosis and uses a colloquial name.

I have to disagree about creating a new article. I feel that there are already too many articles about autism as a diagnosis and that many of them have significant overlap, and there is already an article about the cultural aspects of autism. Tekrmn (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the article shouldn't be about "autism as an disorder", as you phrased it. A large part of the article is not specific to the current diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (which exists in two variants, one in the DSM-5 and the other in the ICD-11, that are not identical). The sections on the history, the causes, the pathophysiology, and the management are not specific to ASD but are applicable to pre-DSM-5/ICD-11 autism diagnoses that are still current in parts of the world that have yet to complete the transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11. A lot of research and knowledge about autism is independent of the model used to diagnose it. Hence, I would disagree that the main article on autism should be about a medical diagnosis, rather, it should be a about the medical condition. I hope that clarifies my position.

I fully agree with you that "autism" would be the better title for the main article and that this article should present ASD as the most-recent diagnosis. (If there is enough relevant information to write about, there could be a separate article on the concept of an "autism spectrum", detailing its history, different conceptualizations, and problems.)--TempusTacet (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying, I see what you're saying. in that case, I agree that "autism" is the best name to use. is there any more formal process we need to go through first/do we need more editors to get a consensus or can we just move the article? Tekrmn (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I don't know what is required to reverse/override the decision to have the article under its current name.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with just "Autism" because it is a consensus that it is a spectrum, so there is no need to remove the word "spectrum" for the title. Do you not see autism as a spectrum? Mruanova (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about the title "Autism spectrum disorder"? I feel that such a title is more precise, including because it has the full name of the diagnosis, and it isn't based on a misunderstanding unlike the current title. After all, this article is about the condition in general, not just the spectrum concept (which is also important, don't get me wrong). HaiFire3344 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Many autistic people perceive themselves as different but not necessarily disordered.

The current diagnostic framework categorizes autism as a disorder, but future updates may introduce changes based on new research and knowledge.

I think "Autism" alone was used to separate "Aspergers" from "autism" but then they got merged into "Autism Spectrum".

Using words like "disorder", "suffering" and "victim" focuses on the negative side of it and leads to low self-esteem and bullying. Mruanova (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct: "Autism" is the generic name for the kind of disorder that is currently diagnosed as "autism spectrum disorder". The idea that Asperger's is separate from autism was a belief held by some in the 1980s to the early 2000s (roughly speaking). You might find this overview helpful.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel that "autism spectrum" is imprecise, nobody looking for information on autism will search for that. to me, it also implies that the article focuses on the spectrum of traits that can be included in ASD, when the article is much more broad than that. there are several other reasons I feel the article should be renamed which you can read in my previous comments Tekrmn (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

apologies, I'm on mobile and I thought this was directed at me. Tekrmn (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look for "autism" you get redirected to the main article so that is not a problem currently. Mruanova (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a problem in the sense that it will make it impossible for people to find the article, however when I google "autism wikipedia" the first two articles are "autism spectrum" and "outline of autism" which does not clearly tell me which article is the primary article even if I am familiar with the term "the autism spectrum". if we were following WP:TITLE we would be using the most recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent name, which would be "autism". you can certainly make an argument for "autism spectrum disorder" for precision, but "autism" clearly fits each of these criteria and "autism spectrum" doesn't fit any of them. Tekrmn (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe "autism spectrum disorder" is not a great title as it can refer to a number of different things. It's the name of the current diagnosis but was previously used to refer to the group of autism-related diagnoses in the ICD-10/DSM-IV (see eg this overview) and carries yet a different meaning in the context of syndromic autism (see eg the discussion here). The timeless, generic term to refer to the topic covered in the article would be "autism".--TempusTacet (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I would prefer using autism spectrum, and feel that using "Autism spectrum disorder" leads to incorrect assumptions about autism as Mruanova points out. As such, I have to disagree with Tekrmn on this, and having Autism spectrum disorder as a redirect to this page (as it currently is) is fine. I would also add that if this page is being kept at its current name, then Autism spectrum disorders in the media would probably need to be changed to "Autism spectrum in the media" or something along those lines. Historyday01 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I add this to the talk page of "Autism spectrum disorders in the media". Requested move Autism in popular culture. Reason: Autism spectrum "disorder" leads to incorrect assumptions about autism as pointed out on autism spectrum main talk page. If autism spectrum main page is being kept at its current name, then "Autism spectrum disorders in the media" would probably need to be changed to "Autism in popular culture" or something along those lines. Mruanova (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

if you're concerned people are going to get the wrong idea about what autism is then I think calling it "autism spectrum" is not the move, I've said a lot about that in this thread already but I think it's pretty clear cut that the article should be called either "autism" or "autism spectrum disorder" Tekrmn (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving back to the simple "autism" while having "autism spectrum" and "autism spectrum disorder" as redirects. Historyday01 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many autistic people do see themselves as having a disorder, and we are using the term disorder in the titles of entries for other mental conditions right now. It is stated in the first sentence of this article that autism is formally known as autism spectrum disorder/condition. I really don't think we should leave out autistic folks who do see their autism as a disorder, nor should we lean toward a particular way of viewing autism outside of what the DSM-5 and ICD-11 call the condition, as it's probably best to remain consistent with other articles about neurodivergencies with disorder in their names. HaiFire3344 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

what incorrect assumptions would using the actual official name of the thing we're talking about lead to? I think it's a bit silly to say that the words "disorder" and "victim" have the same connotations, you obviously should not say that autistic people are victimized by autism, but to say that they have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is to state a fact. the only reason the word disorder would be harmful is if we start treating it like it's harmful by censoring it (also, see WP:NOTCENSORED). it's true that some people do not like that autism is viewed as a medical condition rather than a natural variation in humanity, however literally everything that makes someone different than a "typical" person is pathologized. int he case of autism specifically, we need the infrastructure of the medical system and governments to identify people who are struggling because they have a disability and to provide support for them. we would be completely out of luck as individuals who might need support and as a community that needs people to be researching the ways autism effects you and the comorbidities to be aware of. Tekrmn (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I found this link from the NHS in UK https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/documents/covid-19-guide-autism-spectrum-condition-asc Mruanova (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

is your point that we should use the word condition rather than disorder? if so, I don't think it makes sense to use the UK name for the diagnosis when the majority of information available about autism refers to it as ASD not ASC. this would still be an attempt to censor the word disorder, and I don't see how the word condition doesn't imply the same medicalization of autism that disorder implies? the way I see it, the fact that autism is diagnosed under a different name in different countries would be one of the many reason to use the title "autism" in keeping with WP:TITLE Tekrmn (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the name as is, with the focus on the term "spectrum" which relates to neurodiversity, we are not censoring, but we are choosing the more generic term that will accommodate for everybody, the disorder is part of the article, but it is not the title of the article. In an extreme example, it would be comparable to going to the article on homosexuality and suggest to rename it to "Homosexuality disorder", which I would also disagree with. Mruanova (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good comparison because unlike homosexuality, autism is commonly viewed as a disorder even by autistic people themselves to this day, even if there are some folks who do not see it as a disorder (both are valid!). This article is not just about the concept of the spectrum, or the specific uses of the term "autism spectrum" in general, it's about the condition in general. Also, neurodiversity is not the only perspective from which autism may be viewed, so we might want to choose a title of the article that does not lean toward any particular perspective (I now think either "autism" or "autism spectrum disorder" would be good for the title, both seem equally valid to me). HaiFire3344 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly feel like you're not taking into account what has been said in this discussion by myself and others about the terms "autism" and "autism spectrum" or wikipedia policy. you're right, that is an extreme (and offensive) example. it's not even remotely comparable for many reasons, but most notably that homosexuality disorder doesn't exist anymore because being gay isn't associated with any structural brain changes, symptoms, or support needs, while autism is associated with those things and autism spectrum disorder is the actual official name. we can't censor the fact that autism is called asd and we can't decide that it's actually not a disorder, given WP:NOR. I'm sure there are many sources saying it shouldn't be viewed as a disorder, but I don't think you'll be able to find any saying it isn't, because at least right now it is, and as HaiFire has said, many people feel that it should be. Tekrmn (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Three options:

1 - We have an article about the Autism Spectrum, that inside talks about the Autism Spectrum Disorder and Autism Spectrum Condition, and how terms evolve over time.

2 - We have an article about the Autism Spectrum, and another article about the Autism Spectrum Disorder, and another article about "Autism Spectrum Condition" because we can now reference ASC separately thanks to NHS UK.

3 - We have an article about the Autism Spectrum Disorder and no article about the Autism Spectrum, that would imply that the NHS UK is somehow not up to date with the term because they used ASC instead of ASD. But the third option feels wrong, because people also use phrases like "I am somewhere on the autistic spectrum" and now you are not allowing that grammar.

You are focusing 100% on the medical side but you are ignoring the social side of it. I feel like you didn't read the article about Neurodiversity.

You are saying that a disorder should be called for what it is, I agree.

I am not debating the name of the disorder, I am debating the title of an article. Mruanova (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

why is "autism" not an option for the article title? and why would we have two different articles for ASD and ASC when they are the literal same thing?

I am neither focusing only on the medical side nor ignoring the social side. I honestly find it quite offensive that you assume I know literally nothing about the concept of neurodiversity just because I don't agree that we should use confusing and, in my opinion, outdated language for the article title for the sole purpose of emphasizing that concept, when doing so is at odds with several wikipedia policies. Tekrmn (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't caught up on this whole discussion and the back-and-forth between you and others, but I can agree that labeling it "Autism" would be the best option. In my view, it would be fine with having "autism spectrum" as a redirect (like autism spectrum disorder, which is currently a redriect), but that is about it. And I would say that having two different articles for ASD and ASC seems duplicitous, to be honest. Historyday01 (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I am going to agree with whatever you decide, I am no longer going to disagree or oppose. Mruanova (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Honestly, I jumped in this discussion pretty late to be honest. Historyday01 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I am changing my mind, we can rename this article to Autism Spectrum Disorder, and focus on the medical side. And We can redirect "Autism Spectrum Condition" to "Neurodiversity", and focus on the social side. Mruanova (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

ASC is a synonym for ASD in some parts of the world. The NHS is very clear about that on its website It is not a separate concept nor is it related to neurodiversity.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to ask if anybody here would oppose to rename the article to "Autism". The problem with "spectrum" is that it implies a outdate one-dimensional range from functional to non-functional autism. Also an article named "autism spectrum" may imply the existence of an article about "autism" non spectrum. Mruanova (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"Autism spectrum" is not an outdated term and usually does not refer to the low-functional/high-functional range, that's just one use of the term. There are multiple meanings (eg the spectrum concept proposed by Lorna Wing, the group of autism diagnoses within or even all of the PDD in DSM-IV and ICD-10, the spectra defined by the DSM-5 and the ICD-11, the spectrum ranging from "normal" to "autistic" as measured by the autism-spectrum quotient...) and most of these "autism spectra" are not one-dimensional. (One reason I like the idea of moving the article to "autism" is that we could have a disambiguation page or even a separate article on the concept of an "autism spectrum" discussing its history and the various different meanings.)--TempusTacet (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, let's keep "Autism Spectrum". I was also thinking that Schizophrenia is a mental disorder but we didn't change the title of the article to "Schizophrenia disorder". I am thinking that in fact we should rename "Bipolar disorder" to "Bipolar", and so on with the entire List of mental disorders which is very inconsistent in using "disorder" as a keyword in the title, being Depression the most well known. Mruanova (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I struggle to understand what you're advocating for and also why. It seems like you have argued for and against each title, as well as the need to change the title in the first place. It's completely fine to change ones view and position, of course! Could you please summarize your current opinion? I feel like that would be helpful for deciding on next steps.

We have three options for the article's title ("autism", "autism spectrum", and "autism spectrum disorder") that have some support, one of which is the current title that will just stay if this discussion goes nowhere. The potential benefits and disadvantages of each option have been discussed and to me it looks like that consensus could potentially be reached for renaming the article to "autism", while renaming it to "autism spectrum disorder" has seen significant opposition.

To move forward, we would probably need to have a straw poll (let's say for a month) asking people which title(s) they support/oppose and then see if one title receives significantly more support than the others, while at the same time receiving few (if any) opposing votes.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add to the conversation is that WP:POVNAMING is against the idea of naming an article to emphasize one viewpoint, and I do feel that keeping the title "autism spectrum" with the sole purpose of emphasizing the lens of neurodiversity would be at odds with this policy, in addition to the other policies I've already mentioned which seem to support renaming the article "autism" and at least some of which indicate that "autism spectrum disorder" would be preferable to "autism spectrum" Tekrmn (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to muddy the water further. The use of the term 'spectrum' and then the insistence that it is not linear, is a tautology. The term 'spectrum' comes from physical phenomena and scientific use, and all spectra are linear; they have upper and lower limits (sometimes arbitrary - like human-perceived colours within electro-magnetic radiation) and set gradations in-between. What is often used to illustrate the 'autism spectrum' is not really a spectrum, it is just a colour wheel. I am an autistic scientist and the use of the term 'spectrum' for something that is not a spectrum really grinds my gears. Urselius (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not true that all spectra are linear, see spectrum. That might be the case for the physical sciences but neither the spectrum of a spectrum disorder nor a political spectrum have to be one-dimensional. Some of the different meanings of the term "autism spectrum" are discussed in this paper, one of which is "the dimensional nature of the cardinal features of autism within the clinical population" as proposed by Lorna Wing, which is in some sense the predecessor of the DSM-5's and ICD-11's autism spectra.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

as TempusTacet spoke to, we aren't talking about a spectrum in the context of they physical sciences so whether or not the definition is identical in these very different contexts isn't really relevant. additionally, we're here to discuss renaming a wikipedia article and I don't see how this would have any bearing on that- just as we aren't in a position to decide that autism isn't a disorder we are also not in a position to decide that it's not a spectrum. we can't take this into account when making a decision about the title of this article. Tekrmn (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The primary meaning of 'spectrum' is undoubtedly derived from the physical sciences, for example Isaac Newton's work on refraction of visible light in the 17th century, therefore the physical sciences have priority over the definition of the word, however greatly it has been debased and/or loosely applied elsewhere. A colour wheel is not a spectrum, end of. I hate finding things that are wrong, incomplete or badly expressed, wherever they occur, that is why I edit Wikipedia. As an autist, I just see what is misapplied, the excuses for misapplication and the fact that a misapplication may be popularly used has no relevance for me. If something is wrong, it is wrong. The title of this article should not be changed, as 'autism' is too narrow a term and has too much unfortunate historical baggage, and the addition of 'disorder' or 'condition' is unsupportable as there is no consensus as to which is more correct, and both are in widespread use. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Disorder" could be considered more correct, as the main name of the diagnosis in ICD-11, DSM-5, and DSM-5-TR is "autism spectrum disorder" (ICD-11 doesn't even list "autism spectrum condition" as a synonym; not sure about DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR, apparently those might not use it either but don't quote me on that). Also, I still don't see how whether the autism spectrum is viewed as a color wheel or something more linear has any bearing on this discussion. Other replies in this discussion have brought up the possibility of a separate article about the concept of the spectrum and its different meanings and applications. HaiFire3344 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

it doesn't matter where "spectrum" is derived from because it isn't something we can change or choose not to use just because we disagree with the application. see WP:RGW (also, language changes over time. just because spectra in physical science are linear doesn't mean the it's wrong for the word to evolve and be used another way in another context).

what do you think the article should be called if you disagree with "autism" "autism spectrum" and "autism spectrum disorder?" I'm also curious why you feel that autism is too narrow, it seems to me that it is the broadest of the options we have. and what baggage are you referring to in relation to "autism" specifically?

I have to agree that ASD is definitely the more widespread term over ASC. Tekrmn (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that discussions whether "spectrum" is a useful/appropriate term are not helpful, as this term has been used in the context of autism for several decades. I just checked and the DSM-5-TR does not mention "autism spectrum condition".--TempusTacet (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) is a publication of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and is primarily used in the United States. It is considered the standard diagnostic manual for mental health professionals in the United States." it is not global though, the UK has their own. Mruanova (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"In the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), autism is described under the category of "Disorders of neurodevelopmental origin." The specific term used for autism in the ICD-11 is "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (ASD)." UK also uses ASD then. Mruanova (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That's just not correct. Please don't jump to conclusions just from a couple of sentences in a Wikipedia article. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (and they for sure have a strong say in what it contains) but experts from outside the US participate (eg Francesca Happé was a member of the working group that created the new ASD diagnosis for the DSM-5) and it is informed by international research. The US healthcare system as a whole operates/codes according to ICD. The DSM is also used by researchers throughout the world, eg it is the main diagnostic manual in Australia and I believe that it is also in clinical use in the UK but don't quote me on that. Since the ICD-11 just became official in early 2022 and there is a five-year transitional period (which is only for mortality statistics -- it might take even longer until it is used throughout entire healthcare systems!) many countries are still operating under ICD-10 and will continue to do so for some time.

In the UK, the NHS is the dominant healthcare provider and as we've established they call the condition/diagnosis "Autism Spectrum Condition". Many countries have their own "local" version of the ICD (including the US, where it is called the ICD-CM or Canada, which has the ICD-CA), which is quite often not only a literal translation of the English original but might include or exclude or rename some diagnoses.--TempusTacet (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Urselius "What is often used to illustrate the 'autism spectrum' is not really a spectrum, it is just a colour wheel." Color spectrum is a valid term, so spectrum is not a grayscale from black to white, so we can consider "autism" alone as classical autism and "color wheel autism" as "autism spectrum". I do not see the need to add "disorder" even if it is correct, it would feel like renaming "green" to "green color", or "depression" to "depression disorder" or "Schizophrenia" to "Schizophrenia disorder". Mruanova (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that your analogies apply here, since "autism spectrum" is not a condition or disorder, whereas "green" is a color and both "(clinical) depression" and "schizophrenia" are mental disorders. Also, let's try to stick to the established terminology (that is already confusing and ambiguous enough!) and not introduce new ideas or meanings for words. The title of this article will have to follow established terminology anyway.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

there is not difference between autism and the autism spectrum, autism is not one place on the autism spectrum, it is the entire spectrum. this is one of the many reasons I think "autism spectrum" is an inappropriate name for this article, because in the past "autism spectrum disorders" referred to autism and aspergers, and lots people are still under the mistaken impression that the spectrum refers to different diagnoses rather than different presentations of the same disorder. that was the implication in the lead of the article when I first read it and I'm sure it is still implied in other places in the article but it is not correct. it should also be noted that classical autism does not exist anymore, when people refer to autism in the present day they are not talking about classical autism, so we should definitely not consider that to be the case. Tekrmn (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Neurodiversity criticism discussion

The section on neurodiversity had an incomplete discussion of the issue of individuals with higher support needs being underrepresented. I have attempted to add some context around this to explain the reasonably well-understood complexities here. (e.g neurodiversity advocates are aware that this is an issue, and that this issue is not necessarily perpetuated by neurodiversity advocates, etc). I was aided by another editor who helped to assign the correct voice. In this edit the "undue weight" tag was added. I think this is not unreasonable, as I had focused in on a single strong source. As per the edit summary, apologies if my addition came across as attempting to "debunk" the critics, personally I think the criticisms are a vital part of the conversation. For NPOV, it's an important part of the subject to cover the fact that the criticisms are heard, understood, and incorporated, or we will give a false impression erring too close to WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm going to drop a couple links here to make it a bit easier to flesh out. I will probably take another pass at some point if nobody else does first.

• Psychiatric Times trade publication interview of Robert Chapman expert on neurodiversity, One relevant quote:

  "...we need to do more to center the voices of those with intersecting disabilities and high support needs when talking about those who sit at the same intersections. Interestingly, though, just looking through texts written by nonverbal autistics with intersecting disabilities and high support needs, it is quite easy to find many who hold views consistent with the neurodiversity perspective, as I have written about previously.5 Indeed, some of the most influential neurodiversity proponents, notably the late Mel Baggs, were labeled severe and had high support needs."

• Scientific American piece by Aiyana Bailin. Couple relevant quotes (though the whole article is full of them)

  "Few (if any) neurodiversity advocates deny that impairments exist in autism. Or that some impairments are more challenging than others, with or without accommodations. We, like Baron-Cohen, hope to solve the health struggles that often come with autism, such as epilepsy and digestive issues."

  "Respecting neurodiversity means respecting nonverbal choices... It means respecting the word “no,” whether it’s spoken, signed, or shown by behavior. It’s giving the same attention to a person using an AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) device that we give when a person speaks verbally. It’s understanding that muting an AAC device is the moral equivalent of taping over the mouth of a child who communicates by speaking."

• A community FAQ.
• Here's another article, hosted on a company's outreach page, not as sure how good a source it is on its own.

—siroχo 07:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The extensive usage of the term "Neurodivergent" can be inadequate, since neurodivergency is an even broader term than Autism Spectrum Disorder, and it can also lead to erroneous comparisons between two different diagnostics (Such as ADHD). Gabriel Gomes Almeida (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

autism & aluminum toxicity link?

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there might be a link between autism and aluminum toxicity? (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227) Tetrasgetras (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The publisher, WP:MDPI is questionable, I haven't the time to review the paper. Barring community consensus, this probably shouldn't be added until there is some peer review or alternative studies from a more reputable publisher. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "I haven't the time to review the paper" Well, maybe YOU could read it. Tetrasgetras (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Please see the article on Stephanie Seneff why this paper is not a suitable source. In addition, there is a "notice of concern" by the journal's editors & the method used in the paper does not even in principle allow for conclusions about a potential link between aluminum and autism.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "the method used in the paper does not even in principle allow for conclusions about a potential link between aluminum and autism" wdym? Tetrasgetras (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Counting words in reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System cannot provide evidence for a link between a substance and autism. This paper was published more than 10 years ago. If the claims made in the paper have any merit, it should be easy for you to find a current review article that cites this paper and summarizes research done over the past decade that provides further evidence for the claim. Unless you can present such a review that meets WP:MEDRS, any further discussion regarding a link between aluminum and autism is futile.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "This paper was published more than 10 years ago" And does that have any good significance? Literally none! Tetrasgetras (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) It has a huge significance. If the paper is of any relevance, it will have been cited often and follow-up studies will have been conducted, substantiating the strong claims it makes. This is how science works & progresses.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "muh it has a huge significance" Just because it is published like 10 years ago doesn't mean its a huge thing whatsoever, its just the dates. Tetrasgetras (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Calm down, it wasn't directed at you. Please keep it WP:CIVIL. You are the one asking for changes to be made. Being combative definitely doesn't help your case. Anyhow, I was stating that I don't have the time to review the paper in hopes that someone else here would. I would also take the time to review WP:Assume good faith, it helps keep everyone on the same page. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

ICD-11 Criteria and Definitions

It would enrich the discussion and article by adding the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). Using both DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 classifications and definitions, alongside a possible comparison table will help making the article complete. WHO standards are important to be at least mentioned alongside other views on any condition.

Summarizing, adding the International Classification of Diseases will add the World Health Organization conclusions on the matters - and therefore a broader view on the subject, making the article richer in information. Gabriel Gomes Almeida (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The ICD-11 description is already contained in the article, taking up about the same amount of space as the section on the DSM-5. No specific diagnostic criteria are listed for either ICD or DSM. I agree that the sections could be improved/revised but I don't think that a comparison table is particularly useful for readers. In any case, it would need to be based on reliable sources.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Autism management

I suggest that we edit the autism management section to include additional evidence based sections. Under non-pharmacological interventions, you mention occupational therapy (OT) but then you exclude it when discussing evidence based interventions. As an occupational therapist and a published researcher, I can confidently speak to the evidence supporting OT as an effective intervention for autism. It is also a highly sought out service by parents who have children with autism. For these reasons, I suggest you add the following:

Edited posting: Intensive, sustained special education or remedial education programs and behavior therapy early in life may help children acquire self-care, social, and job skills. Available approaches include applied behavior analysis, developmental models, structured teaching, speech and language therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, social skills therapy, and occupational therapy. (original text to be followed by):

Occupational therapy (OT) is an evidence-based intervention utilizing a person centered approach that supports autistic children in participating in meaningful activities that they want or need to do. Occupational therapists work with children to address difficulties in areas such as sensory processing, motor coordination, self-care, and social interactions. OT works to support a child’s ability to engage in daily activities such as bathing, dressing and eating. OT also partners with the child and family to adapt their environment to be more accessible to the child, and foster participation in meaningful activities. This intervention is grounded in qualitative and quantitative research (Case-Smith & Arbesman, 2008). OT also celebrates neurodiversity and promotes a more inclusive environment, allowing autistic children to thrive to reach their full potential (Wheeler et al., 2022).

Strengths based evaluations and interventions are utilized to support autistic children in their development. When educating those with autism, occupational therapists have the expertise to help develop skills for handwriting, fine motor skills and daily living skills utilizing specific tactics to relay this information to these individuals. Occupational therapists ensure to assess and target sensory processing differences, then providing each child with a unique and individual therapy and set of skills to meet their sensory needs depending on mood environment (Laurie, 2018). Using as much social interaction as possible is key in targeting the inhibition autistic individuals experience concerning person-to-person contact. Additionally, utilizing checklists, identifying meaningful interest- based groups and focusing on strengths based, positive qualities helps foster competence and autonomy (Wheeler et al., 2022).

The following resources can be accessed for further information: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/professional-practice/occupation-therapy https://www.aota.org/about/what-is-ot Malanizbu (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please add a section in Autism therapies (there is some information on OT already) properly citing all the sources in your text? Then, we can review/refine this together and create a summary that can go into the main autism spectrum article.--TempusTacet (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Issues with introductory line

Specifically, "Autism, formerly known as autism spectrum disorder",

As much as I appreciate the amount of thought and consideration everyone is giving to the title of this entry, I am truly curious if any of the editors would actually use a wikipedia entry as a reference, in any manner. Many of you appear to have scholarly backgrounds. I am quite confident none of you are using the exact language from this entry (unless it is a direct quote). However, the people that do use Wikipedia as a reference are likely the ones hearing about a possible diagnosis, or a referral for a diagnosis. They need to see it in the terms that would be used for medical, educational and insurance reasons, not an agreed upon definition as the result of a debate on semantics by a small group of people who can edit the page. Please think of the introductory purpose for the article. Is it to house a debate or provide an accepted definition people will hear moving forward?

This is my suggestion based on dealing with parents and students in the educational system (and even some teachers) who need a consistent and accepted definition. I cannot tell you the number of meetings I have been in when someone brought a printout from this wikipedia entry and angrily asked us "why aren't you..." conforming to the wikipedia entry.

Additionally, the current categorization of ASD is not just seen as neurological disorder, but a developmental disorder. Is disorder the best word to use? no. I think difference would be more apt, but again, the debate here won't change the words. Discussions with your legislators, APA and other decision makers can make a difference towards a change in the terms.

Autism is not formerly known as autism spectrum disorder. It is currently known and it is termed autism spectrum disorder. I believe that people are capable of understanding an umbrella term is being used to describe a series of (what are seen as) related patterns of behavior. Especially if clear language is used to explain the information.

"Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological and developmental disorder. Although autism can be diagnosed at any age, it is described as a “developmental disorder” because symptoms generally appear in the first 2 years of life." (directly quoted from the National Institute of Mental Health - link included below.)

Can someone please change the title to reflect the actual term? I also ask how many of you have to correct someone who has inaccurate information stemming from wikipedia?

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd#:~:text=Autism%20spectrum%20disorder%20(ASD)%20is,first%202%20years%20of%20life. Pkpdlsped (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially implemented – The article already states it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, however I've updated the alternate names to make it read that both terms are in common use still.

As far as the page move (changing the title); there isn't really a point. WP:COMMONNAME states that an article title should fit the common name, and Autism spectrum is common. Using the medical term would be less common than simply "Austim."

As a side note, you, as an educational professional (I could be wrong, but it appears that you are) should be able to explain why you aren't doing what's in the Wikipedia article. If it isn't Wikipedia, it'll be some other webpage they'll be bringing in; so I would get used to having to explain why things are the way they are. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the introduction states that autism is formally called ASD/ASC and not formerly called ASD/ASC.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are obviously correct. However, I also misread it as 'formerly'. Perhaps another way of saying 'formally', such as 'in formal medical contexts called' would avoid this misreading? If both U:Pkpdlsped and me misread it, this is likely a larger problem than the two of us. Cheers! --95.89.78.72 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to rephrasing the sentence, of course, but ASD/ASC is used more widely than what is usually understood to be a "medical context".--TempusTacet (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for edit

Can someone add a link to Thiomersal in the "vaccine hypothesis" section? It is just mentioned without explanation, which may be confusing. Thanks!--95.89.78.72 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Done.--TempusTacet (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --95.89.78.72 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Please change from: "myths—for example, that they have no empathy."

To: "misunderstandings-for example, the word 'empathy' has more meanings within psychology than in common parlance. Autistic persons do have compassion (affective empathy), and may find it easy to read other autistic people's feelings where there is similarity in presentation of symptoms. However, the condition features limited, though not necessarily absent, cognitive empathy (see empathising–systemising theory) with the neurotypical majority, i.e. social naïvety, lower than average intuitive perception of the utility or meaning of body language, social reciprocity, and/or social expectations, including the habitus, social cues, and/or some aspects of sarcasm. To some degree, this may be due to comorbid alexithymia. As they progress through life, autistic persons observe and form a model of social patterns, and develop coping mechanisms, referred to as 'masking'. This limited intuition is bi-directional, in that studies imply neurotypical persons often have poor cognitive empathy with autistic people.

"A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction" "social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life" "D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning." DSM pp. 50

I am autistic. Please clarify, to avoid harm to autistic persons. The meaning of this word in psychology is not as narrow as in common parlance. There are multiple forms of empathy. The colloquial use is a reference to affective (also, reflective) empathy, has a relation to compassion, and the definition of ASD does not state a lack of such. However, to maintain the integrity of this article, please acknowledge that a very key component of ASD is reduced cognitive empathy, i.e. reading people. I acknowledge the 'double empathy gap', but please can we word this more carefully, because (a) there is an inherent assumption there all autistic person are the same, with the exact same set of symptoms, and thus have compete empathy with each other, when that simply is not true, and (b) a denial that we do actually face challenges in reading the majority of people. It's harmful to autistic people to deny we have social/communication challenges with the vast majority of humankind, just because this is not the case when we speak with a small percentage of people. We do not have an instinctive/intuitive perception of social habitus, social cues, some aspects of sarcasm, etc.. 2A00:23C8:7B93:2701:4D15:FAB8:42FF:11AE (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: I made the assumption that the first paragraph was your suggested edit and implemented it. Your second paragraph appears to be three quotations from some version of the DSM, but I do not know which version and the citation is incomplete, so I am unsure what your intentions for those quotations were. Please make an additional edit request if you wish to clarify what those were for, so that they can be addressed.

And an additional note: the original language used the word "myths", but this was not supported by either of the sources used for that sentence. Both those sources are also retained here in IP's suggested edit.

-- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Adult autism

At present there is not a single image of an autistic adult on the page. Given that autism is lifelong and that all autistic children become autistic adults, the article as it stands is visually misleading, as it is feeding into a general misapprehension that autism is a childhood condition. I remember that there used to be an image of Temple Grandin (a very well-known autistic adult) on the page, so suitable images exist. Speaking as someone diagnosed at 59 years of age, this strikes me as a major problem with the page. This needs to be fixed - pronto! Urselius (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Using the portrait of a single (somewhat randomly selected) autistic person does not seem like a good solution to me. Since autism, like most/all psychiatric conditions, is "invisible", the only suitable illustration involving people are depictions of "typical autistic behaviors". As far as I've seen, the only picture with an adult available on Wikipedia is the one used in Stimming but this is so subtle that I don't believe it's suitable for the main autism article.--TempusTacet (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Dunno, a picture of Temple Grandin might be appropriate. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well there are photos of random children, they are doing things that not all autistic children do. I certainly never stacked or lined up objects as a child, so that could be classed as random. Why should a photo of an autistic person have to depict them exhibiting someone's idea of typical autistic behaviour? Not all photos of actors show them acting, or musicians performing, or sportspersons engaged in sport, it sounds a little ableist to me. The point is that the article is visually supporting a damiging idea of what autism is, i.e. a childhood phenomenon. This needs to be counteracted, and picking on minor points of what would be an ideal image of an autistic adult is just missing the importance of having any image of an autistic adult. Any image is immeasurably better than no image. Urselius (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe your argument about actors etc applies here, as this is not the article about Temple Grandin (which of course should and does contain a portrait) but about autism as a condition. A portratit of one prominent autistic person does not really add value from a reader's perspective, in my opinion. (Please also have a look at WP:RGW, Wikipedia is not the place to counteract public perception of a topic.)--TempusTacet (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia is the place where misleading impressions are allowed to stand. Your argument lacks merit. You are basically saying that only images of people exhibiting what are generally perceived as stereotypical autistic behaviours are allowed. This is hugely ableist and somewhat disgusting. I have found that when people start referring to 'WP:...' they have usually run out of logical argument. Urselius (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never said that only pictures of "stereotypical autistic behavior" should be added to the article. I've just voiced (and justified) my opinion that I don't believe that portraits of famous autistic people are a suitable. Others might disagree and I'm more than happy to accept that my concerns aren't shared if that turns out to be the case.

Further, Wikipedia is not a "place where misleading impressions are allowed to stand". The article itself does not focus on children but autism across all age groups. Personally, I share your observation that autism is often perceived as a childhood condition and your opinion that this is problematic. Luckily, in the recent decade or so, we've seen a huge increase in research into autism in adults that is slowly trickling into clinical practice and public opinion. This can be (and increasingly is) documented on Wikipedia but Wikipedia is not the place to drive or otherwise facilitate this development. (Further, autism is still mostly diagnosed in children. In my observation, many editors of autism-related articles on Wikipedia write from the perspective of verbal autistic adults without marked cognitive difficulties, which sometimes leads to other parts of the autism spectrum being neglected. This is by no means specific to Wikipedia, it's also the case for many other online platforms.)--TempusTacet (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Your wording strongly implied that you consider, in order to appear in this article, photographs of autistic people are only admissible if they are displaying overt, stereotypical 'autistic behaviours'. The following statement from yourself is capable of no other interpretation, "... the only suitable illustration involving people are depictions of "typical autistic behaviors". As far as I've seen, the only picture with an adult available on Wikipedia is the one used in Stimming but this is so subtle that I don't believe it's suitable for the main autism article." This is what you said, unless you wish to withdraw it, my criticism of your opinion on this matter is entirely valid. You, obviously would not care phrase it in quite the bald and somewhat derogatory manner that I did, but that is just a matter of emphasis and not of core meaning.

Before the mid 1990s an autism diagnosis was only applied to children who were very severely and obviously affected. Therefore, very many older people with less overt autism, but who are still often badly affected, were missed as children and as a result adult autism diagnosis is an increasing phenomenon. Though intellectual disability is not feature of the autism diagnostic manuals, in previous decades the vast majority of autism diagnoses were of children with comorbid intellectual disability. In the early 1990s the proportion of people diagnosed with autism who also had lower than average intelligence was in the region of 70%, today it is around 38%, with 40% having above average intelligence; a seismic change. From 1998 to the present the incidence of autism diagnosis has risen by about 800%, the vast majority of this increase will inevitably be in people with average or above average intelligence, because people with comorbid intellectual disability were picked up by earlier diagnostic methods. The coverage of the concerns of autistic people of average and above average intellect is therefore entirely valid. This should not be at the expense of autistic people who are unable to voice their own opinions and needs, however. Having said this, most autistic advocates are aware of those less able than they are, and advocate for their needs also. Urselius (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel like I'm invalidating your position. It was not my intention and I hope that if you look at my contributions to Wikipedia you'll see that we're much more aligned in our views than it seems to you right now. I'm fully aware of what you mention in the second paragraph.

That said, for an introductory article on autism, it makes sense to illustrate it with behavior that is seen as characteristic of autism. Lining up objects, interest in "non-functional" parts of objects, sensory-seeking behavior, and what's known as "stimming" are all in the various diagnostic criteria past and present. I personally find examples of this much more informative and educational than portraits of say Grunya Sukhareva, Lorna Wing, or famous autistic people like Temple Grandin, whose faces do not really convey any information about autism.

Let's wait for more opinions and see if we can reach a consensus.--TempusTacet (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Using multiple photos (like, say, pages for taxonomic clades do) could help remedy any potential issue of improper representation of an incredibly diverse classification, imo.

I'm not sure specifically what pictures. I guess it'd be nice to see representation of people from subcultures with a lot of autistic people (e.g furries), adult people who need physical aids like AACs, and also people who aren't visibly autistic at all? 136.35.180.148 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. It says, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.. Given the nature of autism, only the images that clearly "illustrate" autistic traits in adults and aid reader's understanding meet this criteria. --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to add a picture of Temple Grandin where her words are directly referenced in the article. It's relevant to that content, and for some people, a picture of an individual will indeed help in understanding. —siroχo 06:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Societal and cultural aspects of autism have Grandin's photograph in the appropriate section. In this article, it may be put under Society and culture section, but definitely not on the infobox. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a remarkably narrow and unduly prescriptive viewpoint. It is certainly not supported by the Wikipedia article on bipolar disorder (a neurodivergence like autism) where there is a photo of Rosemary Clooney who is depicted singing, and not overtly displaying her bipolar disorder. Therefore, I submit, that a photo of Temple Grandin, who is both autistic and an extensively published writer on autism, is more valid for inclusion here than Rosemary Clooney is on the bipolar article, as she merely has the condition. I would add that the understanding of the reader is infinitely more important than "WP:anything". I am sure that anyone giving this article as it stands a cursory glance, would go away with the impression that it was a childhood condition. No Wikipedia article should wilfully mislead readers. Urselius (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify my stance, I support adding Temple Grandin's picture to the article but not in the infobox. I suggest placing her picture under Autism_spectrum#Society_and_culture section. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See also Category:People on the autism spectrum, Category:Actors with autism, and Category:Artists with autism. --WikiLinuz (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I commented above. I am seeing a bit of a trend moving consensus towards including Temple Grandin on this page, as part of a desire to include images of Autistic adults. I've added an image adjacent to the reference of her, in this diff, in § Social and communication skills —siroχo 21:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

physical restraint

Lots of autistic students and students with special needs are put in special education and physical restrained or locked in rooms this deserves to be somewhere on this site maybe even its own article.

if anyone has any ideas on including this information in Wikipedia then please share your thoughts.

here are links to stories of this happening.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/05/726519409/desperation-and-broken-trust-when-schools-restrain-students-or-lock-them-in-room

https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/abuse.index.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-life-aspergers/201812/restraint-people-autism-and-developmental-disability

https://www.ctinsider.com/projects/2022/child-deaths-school-restraint-seclusion/ Orson-gale2001 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It most likely belongs in Violence and autism or Discrimination against autistic people. --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Autistic Girls

I read this and realized there is not a single autistic girl: the stereotype around autistic kids only being boys only contributes to the under diagnosis of the condition in young girls. Is there a way to find some pictures? Papatitansgf (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Temple Grandin is pictured in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no child with autism. Papatitansgf (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Either the § Epidemiology or § Genetics sections might be appropriate contexts to put such an image (toward the end in both cases, I would say). As always, take care when putting an image of a child on Wikipedia —siroχo 22:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there specific guidelines for images of children on Wikipedia? Papatitansgf (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything specific. Generally, when it comes to children, we often choose not to name non-notable living children without a compelling reason to publish their name. It would be important to keep anything identifying out of the image, filename, caption/description, etc. And, here's the full Wikipedia:Image use policy regarding licenses etc. —siroχo 23:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Empathy

There are various levels and forms of Empathy among people with any type of Autism, including people with Asperger Syndrome. I was thinking maybe, we could add to the article, an entirely new separate subject for this matter, and add sources as needed to prove it. I am personally a person diagnosed with High functioning autism, and my Empathy can be very different, compared to other people with high functioning autism like me. The way they express or behave based on their Empathy also varies greatly. Noam111g (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Astrology

There are some astrology signs which seem to have a higher risk of developing a type of autism, like for example Capricorn, Virgo, Taurus, Cancer, and other similar signs which tend to be less social or prefer to be alone more, have less friends, and so on. Would you say this is worth adding to the article? I dont want to make any edits cause I dont have sources to add to this, but I have made some research around the internet around this subject, and it does seem some astrology signs are a risk factor, just like genetics are a risk factor, and older mother risk factor, and so on. Noam111g (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Astrology is not scientific. As such, you aren't going to find any reliable sources to back up your claim. Therefore, no, it should not be added to the article. Kimen8 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Early and personalized interventions, including behavioral therapies and specialized training, significantly improve communication, social interaction, and behavior management for individuals with autism. Jamielynn123 (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

change

As communication is bidirectional, research on communication difficulties has since also begun to study non-autistic behavior, with researcher Catherine Crompton writing in 2020 that non-autistic people "struggle to identify autistic mental states, identify autistic facial expressions, overestimate autistic egocentricity, and are less willing to socially interact with autistic people. Thus, although non-autistic people are generally characterised as socially skilled, these skills may not be functional, or effectively applied, when interacting with autistic people." Any previously observed communication deficits of autistic people may thus have been constructed through a neurotypical bias in autism research, which has come to be scrutinized for "dehumanization, objectification, and stigmatization". Recent research has proposed that autistics' lack of readability and a neurotypical lack of effort to interpret atypical signals may cause a negative interaction loop, increasingly driving both groups apart into two distinct groups with different social interaction styles.

to

As communication is bidirectional, research on communication difficulties has since also begun to study non-autistic behavior, with researcher Catherine Crompton writing in 2020 that non-autistic people "struggle to identify autistic mental states, identify autistic facial expressions, overestimate autistic egocentricity, and are less willing to socially interact with autistic people. Thus, although non-autistic people are generally characterised as socially skilled, these skills may not be functional, or effectively applied, when interacting with autistic people." Any previously observed communication deficits of autistic people may thus have been constructed through a neurotypical bias in autism research, which has come to be scrutinized for "dehumanization, objectification, and stigmatization". Recent research has proposed that autistics' lack of readability and a neurotypical lack of effort to interpret atypical signals may cause a negative interaction loop, increasingly driving both groups apart into two distinct groups with different social interaction styles.

Summary of Update: DOI of ref Mitchell2021 is incorrect (has an extra 1 at the end), updated. NinjaFB (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Example of Autism Spectrum is Rylee Anderson Ompate9209dde (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Wheel model

Though it appears that Wikipedians have begun to classify autism as a form of neurodiversity rather than as a "disorder," upon a dive through the site, I haven't seen any information related to a modern classification of autism on a wheel, not as a spectrum. There is a lot of misinformation about how some people are "more" or "less autistic than others. Some even say that everyone exists on the spectrum (when in reality, the spectrum is meant for only autistic people) and that neurotypicals are on one end while people with higher support needs are on the other. I feel it is important to recognize a new model (wheel) that addresses a variety of categories people might need support in such as communication of any kind, emotional regulation, and executive function. This model is important because it allows for the expression of different autistic traits without the comparison between "not very" and "very" autistic. I would like to add this as a category adjacent to ICD, DSM, and spectrum model to the Classification section. Psychstudentinboston (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Psychstudentinboston: Though personally in favor of this, I'm afraid we need WP:MEDRS sources, and then it needs to be also shown to be WP:DUE weight to add.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As has been said before, a Wikipedia article has to follow relevant scholarship and usage, it cannot lead. Urselius (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, we rely on reliable sources.

Now, I would not be surprised if there are better definitions of "spectrum" in MEDRS we could explicitly include, because what you are describing as a "wheel" is what is often meant by "spectrum". The linear "more/less" spectrum definition is only one, and is not used by many people.

From my own knowledge there has been a lot of discussion and growth in the wider community about what "spectrum" means for autism from a social perspective, so if we can find a couple RS that provide this social/community definition of "spectrum", it may be something to add as something explicitly distinct from the medical definition, which can only be sourced from MEDRS. —siroχo 06:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The article does spell out that 'Autism is clinically regarded as a spectrum disorder, meaning that it can manifest very differently in each person' and that 'The spectrum model should not be understood as a continuum running from mild to severe, but instead means that autism can present very differently in each person. How a person presents can depend on context, and may vary over time.'

There are plenty of Wikipedia:MEDRS sources to back up this general interpretation, including Wing and colleagues who originally promoted the 'spectrum' model; I certainly think we could make more of it, and other sections which read more like they're describing a linear continuum really ought to be rewritten to avoid this confusion.

There is a case for talking about a 'wheel' or 'constellation' model, I think - these are useful conceptual tools for dispelling misunderstandings about what 'spectrum' means. There are many entries for 'the constellation model' in Francesca Happé and Sue Fletcher-Watson's textbook Autism: A new introduction to psychological theory and current debate for example. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists guidance on autism talks about thinking in terms of a wheel: 'There is a wide variation in autistic characteristics and how these impact a person’s day to day experiences and life in general. An individual’s strengths and needs change throughout their life and depend on many factors including the environment. These individual variations can be thought of as a wheel'.

These are classic examples of MEDRS sources. Oolong (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't the document titled "autism spectrum disorder"?

Why isn't the document titled "autism spectrum disorder"? That's the official name for diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.227.216.169 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

i guess that is too formal. besides, "autism spectrum disorder" redirects here, so that's good enough for people who want to look it up. 110.138.95.45 (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be written under the official diagnosis name. That is the regulation. 58.227.216.169 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The official diagnostic name should be used as the title of the document 58.227.216.169 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, where we avoid titles that are longer than needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

then why isn't it just called "autism," the actual common name? Tekrmn (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a good question! There was some discussion of this in the summer, fairly inconclusive. @Tekrmn argued strongly against the compromise position we've ended up with. There was a lot of back and forth, and I'm not sure anything resembling a consensus was reached - scanning down, I can't see anyone really making an argument for 'autism spectrum'? Mostly just against 'Autism Spectrum Disorder', with some mild resistance to switching to just 'autism'.

I agree that it should really just be under autism. Until embarrassingly recently, that heading instead talked about 'classic autism', or Autistic Disorder as it was defined before the diagnostic models shifted wholesale to a spectrum model (although that entry also contained a bunch of stuff about the broader concept). I think that's probably the main reason this entry isn't already there, but I could be wrong. I note that the concept of 'spectrum' in this sense is very widely misunderstood, which could be a good reason to move this entry; Lorna Wing was clear that she had in mind something multidimensional, but most people are not familiar enough with Spectroscopy to understand it this way.

It has also been suggested that we could have two entries, with 'autism' being about the broad concept and 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' being specifically about the medical diagnosis, much as we have Transgender listed separately from Gender dysphoria, and Homosexuality separate from Homosexuality in the DSM. As long as we're not going that route, I think it would be a mistake to move this under ASD, which is not an NPOV title. Oolong (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to expand on the 'autism' vs 'ASD' thing a little, there's a new philosophy preprint with a section on this, Autism and the Pseudoscience of Mind, starting with this:

"Autism is a neurodevelopmental difference that affects how autistics relate to and interact with the environment and people around them. In contrast, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a medical (pathological) categorisation of those who exhibit certain sets of behavioural traits deemed deficits relative to the neurotypical majority"

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22817/1/LaCroix%20-%20Autism%20and%20the%20Pseudoscience%20of%20Mind%20-%20Preprint%20-%2004%20Dec%202023.pdf Oolong (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Pruning and Prioritising

This entry really tries to do way too much, and as a result the most important information is largely buried. Printed out, it would come to around 50 sides of A4!

There is no need to go into much depth on topics for which separate articles already exist.

We need to think about what it would be most helpful for someone to find if they come here looking to learn about autism - possibly for the first time, or the first time they're looking into it in any depth. It is likely that they, or someone they know, has just been identified as autistic, or realised they might be. Alternatively, perhaps they are doing a school project, or just wanting to understand autism better because they've realised they live in a society with autistic people in it! Some might be actively engaged in autism research themselves, but very few - no part of this general article should read like autism researchers are its main audience!

Which information is going to be most salient for an average visitor? How far will they have to scroll to get to it?

Is any of the information given outdated, heavily contested or actively harmful? Does the structure of the entry make it excessively difficult to prevent that on an ongoing basis?

A few of us had a go at a proposed outline for a rewrite a while back, but I think the scale of the project combined with the prevalence of unhelpful arguments here kind of stalled it! Would anyone be interested in trying to pick this back up? Thanks! Oolong (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Section on proposed different diagnosis methods for autism

"As of 2023, empirical and theoretical research is leading to a growing consensus among researchers that the established ASD criteria are ineffective to describe autism as a unitary biological entity, and that alternative research approaches must be encouraged, such as going back to autism prototypes, exploring new causal models of autism, or developing transdiagnostic endophenotypes. Proposed alternatives to the current disorder-focused spectrum model deconstruct autism into at least two separate phenomena: (1) a non-pathological spectrum of behavioral traits in the population, and (2) the neuropathological burden of rare genetic mutations and environmental risk factors potentially leading to neurodevelopmental and psychological disorders, (3) governed by an individual's cognitive ability to compensate."

While the fact this is listed as a consensus seems a bit undue to me, that's not what the main focus of this comment is.

What I really want to get at is why the current diagnosis can't define autism as an unitary biological entity, and, since the word "ineffective" is thrown around, why that's viewed so negatively in the first place.

I know, I'm asking stupid questions, but I really want people to actually discuss the way this section should go; that means, reviewing this claim for evidence, and more importantly, tweak the phrasing.

I'll be sticking around for a while, so feel free to comment on foolish ole me's opinion; I'll gladly hear it out :3 Alwaysgonnaedit (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)