Jump to content

Talk:Autism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAutism was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

The image

[edit]

I’m autistic.

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

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

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

It’s also the case that there have been very few times in my life when I have had absolutely no friends. This is true of most autistic people. The image might be able to hint at the fact that social interactions are not always difficult for autistic people. Language Boi (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Autism is a very large diagnosis - every autistic person has a different experience with it and no two autistic people have the exact same characteristics/symptoms of the disorder. It is true that repetitive lining up and stacking of objects is a behavior associated with autism, even if you're autistic and you didn't do that as a child. Also, very few pictures actual suggest internal complexity - that is the job of the article. I would actually argue that some kind of diagram trying to show complexity in autistic people would be counterproductive, and having the photo of a human being is a lot more fitting. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a diagram-that would be a bad idea. I just think that if we find a better image we should use it. The cans baby doesn't show the whole picture. I did lots of goofy things as a kid-but autism gives me serious feelings and ideas. It's more than just something that causes weird habits.
Note: I'm using "goofy" and "weird" here as shorthand for "things that don't have a direct purpose and arguably lack deep meaning". There's nothing wrong with such behaviors (I have several myself), but the picture should show autism from a more big-picture perspective. Language Boi (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The child is a toddler, the cans are stacked very precisely, the photo is showing a child with unusual skill levels for his or her age. It seems to me to be a relatively positive image of autism. Urselius (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - but I can see @Language Boi's point. Perhaps a similar but more impressive behavior, something that shows both intelligence and autistic behavioral patterns, would be better.
However - and this is something that can be difficult to cope with - we have to remember that not all autistic people are as fortunate as we are. Autism is a condition that can cause severe developmental disability. There are people who, due to autism, lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it.
With the scope and variability of Autism, I don't think there will ever actually be a particularly good well-representative lead picture. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about an image from some sort of autistic-related movement or protest? I think that some pages related to the LGBTQ community have that. Lots of those pages also have a symbol of some sort. Maybe we could use that rainbow infinity sign thing? It just seems really weird to have autism represented by a young child doing something nonproductive or antisocial. I’m not completely opposed to it but we can do better. Language Boi (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with using an image that doesn't have a singular person in it. What about this image? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Autistic_Pride_Flag.png. It's used on other articles about Autism and its community Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Autism is a medical diagnosis. Images about social movements do not represent medical topics. Autism rights movement (a social movement) already have that. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, that image I suggested has been added to one of the Autism articles one time before the merging. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are people who, due to autism, lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it."
That's not actually true. If any autistic person lacks either internal complexity or the inability to use it, that is due to a co-occurring intellectual disability, not their autism. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you sure? I'm pretty sure autism can be higher support needs like an intellectual disability Anthony2106 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read again: "...co-occurring intellectual disability..." Basically, I never said that intellectual disability never occurs alongside autism, as you seem to be implying I claimed, I only stated that two characteristics of intellectual disability specifically are not characteristics of autism generally. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@80.193.98.150 yeah but autistic people can "lack either that internal complexity or the ability to utilize and express it." even if they don't have a interlectal disability Anthony2106 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: most of the people commenting and who likely wrote this page and "protected" it from correction by calling it "protection for vandalism..." You denounce, people who are called high support needs, which isn't even a term used, by many people who are autistic. We do not like it. It let's you call me high supports need, while thinking no support needs. And, excuses your ignorance of the higher amount of needs that I do have. Nevermind that I can't afford to even get a diagnosis because it's such a racket. No doctor will diagnose it in adult and the few that do charge you thousands of dollars. And, insurance does not pay for it. Most who need the diagnosis don't have the financial freedom or capabilities to afford that. I'm sure, as you read this, you're reminding yourself "But, you're high support needs..." ignoring you are insinuating to yourself this means no support needs. Those who have needed support all their life, but have not gotten it. They have struggled along, are still struggling along, and can't afford it. I was diagnosed with savant syndrome as a child because my parent fought to keep the doctor from diagnosing me with autism. At the time, autism was still consider childhood schizophrenia. So, for that I am glad she did it. But, it does not help now. Getting a diagnosis now will be almost impossible, and convincing people that I struggle as much as I do is less so. It doesn't matter that even people who knew me that remember the entire family teasing me because they considered me speaking, walking, and hitting other early childhood developmental milestones late. I REMEMBER them calling me retarded, slow, and saying I was going to need lots of help or be put in a care facility; saying I was very "retarded" and not all there. Not knowing that I had a very rich inner dialogue, one that I used to help me teach myself to talk, and then I just one day started talking. Because I went from completely nonverbal to speaking like a little adult just before turning 3 yrs old; I was actually first classified as being a prodigy in the neuropsych evaluation before the start of school. It wasn't just the speaking, it was what else I was able to comprehend and had already learned, or taught myself by the time I had begun speaking. And, because I spoke so well, people tended to forget the earlier issues. When clear social issues and other issues that most people associate with autism (then and now) became apparent I would be reevaluated, and I would be reclassified as a savant. My parent would use that diagnosis to stave off and help people forget how they conditioned me to not present autistic in other ways long before any of that! While it was conditioning, I will not let people continue to be blind to the fact that most of that conditioning is a result of sheer trauma from abuse. You get to disavow yourself of damage done by telling yourself that if a person masks, that if they're able to not be autistic, or able to stop being autistic, then they must not be or must not be too much; NONE OF THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THOUGH. You have the children who were truly just conditioned through things like ABA; and if you have tried to convince yourself that ABA is anything other than that, then you are the worst kind of abuser. But, there are the children who were truly abused, terrorize, and traumatized into masking. Not that most will care anyway, as that would mess up their narrative. For many, it is to acknowledge that they have done something possibly horrific to someone they care about; and many people will not allow themselves to acknowledge that. For others, it is to acknowledge something that they see as a severe flaw that they can draw correlations or similarities to themselves. Once again, most humans will not allow themselves to do that! Trauma! That is how an overwhelming majority of us were "conditioned" into what I've had people call not "appearing to be autistic..." All because they are too ignorant to know, and too lazy to do actual research and find out what autism is, that you can have something comorbid with autism, and that can differentiate how a person presents (as with any condition). 96.234.220.222 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the issue with the autism baby? it shows an autistic person engaging in an activity that's typical for autism, in a natural and neutral way. boring isn't necessarily bad either—especially for an encyclopedia. it neither dramatizes nor glamorizes the subject.
you're never gonna show "the whole picture" of autism in a single pic because autism is too heterogeneous. and you're never gonna show the internal experience of autism in a single pic because by their very nature, pictures only capture what's outwardly observable (you can't capture what a person feels when sorting objects, but you can show that sorting objects is a common activity in autistics). a single picture is inherently reductive, there's no way around it. but an autistic person doing a typically autistic thing is still appropriately illustrative, in my opinion. as a comparison, the page for Intellectual disability shows children participating in the special olympics, Developmental coordination disorder shows a picture of shoes to illustrate the fact that tying laces is difficult for people with DCD, Obsessive–compulsive disorder illustrates hand-washing, Schizophrenia a piece of art by a person with schizophrenia, and Dysgraphia shows handwriting by an adult with dysgraphia. None of these pictures show the full depth and complexity of the subject matter, or the internal complexity of the people with the disability—and they don't have to.
if you have a better picture, by all means bring it forward (especially if there can be improvement of the demographic diversity of the images on this page—e.g. most pics now are of kids, so an adult would be nice), but I don't think the autism baby is so bad that we should urgently look for replacement or flat-out remove it. TheZoodles (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose Greta Thunberg as the photo. She is a notable person with autism, and many other wikipedia articles don't use a photo to represent the entire subject, but to give a notable example. Here are some: Arch, Murder, Lesbian, Car. What these articles have in common is that their subject has a wide diversity in appearance - no one picture is going to represent all arches, all murders, all lesbians, or all cars. The same is true for autistic people, so perhaps a notable example of an autistic person is the best choice. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind what the picture is changed to but I feel like a picture of Elon Musk when he was a guest appearance on SNL, him saying he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. I suggest Elon as a picture because he is a very well known person, and how smart he is. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He’s also, arguably, an ass. This doesn’t mean that we should silence him, but Greta Thunberg is much less controversial when it comes to spreading misinformation. I would suggest someone like Einstein but he was never diagnosed with autism or anything. Language Boi (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greta Thunberg is also controversial - I do think that certain things that make both of these people controversial are actually autistic traits. People don't tend to be receptive to different communication styles - so when someone in the public eye has these autistic traits, they're disliked. I would support Elon Musk being the preview image for this article. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think content about Elon being autistic should be written in this article. We can put that in Asperger's syndrome article. I don't think he ever mentioned that he himself is autistic (he only mentioned Asperger's) so I think it'd be WP:SYNTH to deduce him this way (fwiw, he did mention his son being autistic though). Also, it doesn't matter if he's an ass or not - we don't add/remove content based on our personal opinions, see WP:NPOV. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if your idea here is to avoid offensive comparisons or stereotypes -- if we're assuming that someone will look at the lead image and have that be the only piece of information they retain about people with autism -- I would aver that "a kid having fun minding their own business" is infinitely better than "annoying celebrity who mouths off on Twitter about politics 24/7". I mean, imagine this conversation:
  • "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be a kid who stacks up cans of vegetables?"
  • "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be Elon Musk?"
  • "ah, I heard about that, that's the syndrome that makes you be Greta Thunberg?"
jp×g🗯️ 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if it absolutely needs to be a hot relevant celeb pic, at least have it be John Elder Robison or Temple Grandin or something, for Christ's sake -- we don't have a picture of Donald Trump at bone spurs or Rachel Maddow at depression etc. jp×g🗯️ 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are going to be idiots and make irrational comparisons, this is not something we can change, therefore not something we need to concern ourselves over.
Furthermore, I didn't choose Greta because I like her, or I think she represents autism well; but because she is a notable and influential and has autism.
Also, the two examples you gave are much easier to represent with an image than autism, which is why this discussion began in the first place. Nobody is going to say that an X-ray of bone spurs is misrepresenting the condition. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose using Greta Thunberg (or any specific notable individual) as the image. I think similar reasoning to MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY should apply here. It takes a judgement call to choose a specific person to represent a large group. (I think the "Lesbian" article is a different case as it's an artwork that clearly depicts the topic.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar image on the Simple English version.
The URL: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned of this and am strongly opposed to changing the image. Nothing was wrong with the initial one. Me and all of my autismal buddies loved the kid stacking the cans, which was not only a neat pic but one that clearly demonstrated the traits of being an autist. I never heard anybody say a bad word about it. The kid was beloved. Now it is some random photo of a celebrity -- awful. jp×g🗯️ 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Thunberg is only controversial in right wing political/petroleum industry circles, and who cares about them? The problem with trying to illustrate autistic traits is that no single trait will be universal. I am a diagnosed autist and I never stacked objects or arranged them in lines as a child. Having a the image of a celebrity in the infobox is an ideal way to prominently indicate that autism is not only a childhood condition, but is lifelong. Urselius (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this comment isn't a troll, it is wildly inappropriate -- are you really making the explicit argument that we should choose a politically contentious illustration for the pupose of annoying/demoralizing/etc people we disagree with? jp×g🗯️ 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that political and industry viewpoints should have zero influence on an image in an encyclopaedic treatment of autism. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should Eco-terrorists then. LinuxNCats (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a link to this discussion on reddit along with a snippet from the discussion.I am posting this notice to avoid accusations of unintentional stealth canvassing or meat-puppetry. This is a simple disclosure, you may respond or disregard at your leisure. (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Language Boi. I agree with you and have agreed for years. I believe a 22-year-old home photograph of a toddler stacking cans is an infantilizing and outdated view of an entire human condition.
While I believe it can stay in the article (no pun intended), it should not be the primary/representative image.
For example, note how the woman and man primary images are those of adults, not children.
An autistic adult engaging in autistic behavior would be far more representative of autism as a whole. Either that, or a strictly medical representation.
Here are my proposals for the primary/representative image:
  • "An autistic author, 2020."' This shows an autistic adult who is not a celebrity (Siena Castellon) achieving something related to autism (publishing The Spectrum Girl's Survival Guide). It is a high-quality modern photograph, not of a child or toddler, and not in a home, childcare, or medical setting.
    "An autistic author, 2020."' This shows an autistic adult who is not a celebrity (Siena Castellon) achieving something related to autism (publishing The Spectrum Girl's Survival Guide). It is a high-quality modern photograph, not of a child or toddler, and not in a home, childcare, or medical setting.
  • "A nonverbal autistic child (left) and a caretaker (right), 2020." This is closer to our time period and shows an older, happy child. It is a more high-quality photograph, though still suffers some infantilization and medical association.
    "A nonverbal autistic child (left) and a caretaker (right), 2020." This is closer to our time period and shows an older, happy child. It is a more high-quality photograph, though still suffers some infantilization and medical association.
  • "An autistic public speaker in Oxford, 2012." Another autistic adult, who is not a celebrity (Paul Isaacs), engaging in behavior directly related to autism (speaking about autism at a sensory issues event). A high-quality, closer-to-modern photograph. Not a childcare or medical setting. Would be best cropped, however.
    "An autistic public speaker in Oxford, 2012." Another autistic adult, who is not a celebrity (Paul Isaacs), engaging in behavior directly related to autism (speaking about autism at a sensory issues event). A high-quality, closer-to-modern photograph. Not a childcare or medical setting. Would be best cropped, however.
  • "The first winner of Mr. Autism Kenya, 2023." A slightly more historically significant event. Shows an autistic adult, who is not a celebrity, engaging in behavior directly related to autism (winning an award relating to being autistic).
    "The first winner of Mr. Autism Kenya, 2023." A slightly more historically significant event. Shows an autistic adult, who is not a celebrity, engaging in behavior directly related to autism (winning an award relating to being autistic).
  • "An image of an autistic mind versus a typical mind." Lastly, we can evade an photograph at all. I think the medical image would be the most accurate image as a header for such an expansive topic.
    "An image of an autistic mind versus a typical mind." Lastly, we can evade an photograph at all. I think the medical image would be the most accurate image as a header for such an expansive topic.

    • Evedawn99 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1, 3, and 4 are bad illustrative examples. For the brain image there would need to be secondary coverage of the study supporting it's validity. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm autistic and the picture is about the last thing to take issue with! If you could read that entire article and walk away with only issues about the picture they used; there's your trouble... 96.234.220.222 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Like any MOS guideline it is not applicable to every case and people who do not recognise this shortcoming have missed an important fact. Try finding an image that looks like disestablishmentarianism, for example. Having disposed of the MOS as not applicable and irrelevant, we are given a choice of having an image that has relevance to autism, or no image at all. Personally, I would prefer a related image to no image. Urselius (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is essentially impossible to highlight the diversity and complexity of the autism spectrum with one image. The picture of the toddler seemed okay to me. It shows a child on the autism spectrum engaging in a repetitive behavior, in this case stacking cans. It may not be very exciting, but it's an accurate depiction of a common symptom/trait of people on the autism spectrum. Besides, showing an image of a person with autism who also has extraordinary skills seems like it would perpetrate stereotypes, as the vast majority of people with autism do not have such abilities. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you like person first language better? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you try to communicate your idea/opinion more clearly? FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most autistic people like Identity-first language but if you like person-first lauguage I wont bother you about it. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As my name suggests, I am on the autism spectrum. I prefer to be refered to as a person with autism rather then an autistic person, which I suppose would mean I prefer person first language, due to "autistic person" implying that autism is the defining trait of that person, and common usage of the word "autistic" as an insult or synonymous with intellectual disability. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor (me) is an example of an autistic person who prefers identity-first language. :) Evedawn99 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose I can see why identity first language could be preferred. "Person with autism" could potentially imply autism is a disease. It is not. Autism is a part of my identity, and even if it causes significant difficulty and mental pain in my daily life, it is not something I would change about myself. And I, along with what appears to be the majority of people with Asperger's syndrome/High functioning autism, do not want to be cured. So, if "autistic person" implies it to be a part of one's identity, rather than a disease one suffers from, then I can certainly see why one would prefer to be referred to with identity first language. I still prefer person first language, as autism is, after all, not my ONLY characteristic. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinon telling people your autistic dosen't mean its your only characteristic. Say what you want Anthony2106 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Poll proposal

    [edit]

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

    See WP:RFC Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The disagreement about infobox image

    [edit]

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

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

    The kid with the cans as folk hero

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    The image has certainly become a meme, and I, too, have been following the repercussions of its removal on X, Reddit, and other platforms. However, this is an encyclopedia, and its main (only?) goal is to be informative. Some of the tweets you quoted actually illustrate how out of place that image is. The main tweet didn't go viral because it showed how appropriate the image was. The mere fact that the child became known as "autism baby" and that stacking cans became immediately associated with autism should be enough to show that the child's "folk hero" status stems from how out of place the image was.
    Stacking objects (cans included) is important developmental milestone as well as a broadly recommended activity. Images are important, and as one of the replies you quoted shows, if you come to read about autism and see a baby stacking cans as the most prominent image, and if you (or your child) are among the large majority of people who enjoyed stacking things at some point—most of whom are perfectly neurotypical—it's very possible that the image could be misleading. In that regard, the other image of a child sleeping next to different objects lined up would be much more representative of ASD, because that particular trait isn't a developmental milestone (although I don't support using that image either).
    Is Greta the ideal choice? I don't think so, but it is more informative than the previous image. Ideally, we should come up with a meaningful visual representation of autism that visually identifies the article while being informative. I like the previously proposed idea of having something like a 7-sided polygon with each side filled with different intensities as an illustration of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
    Rkieferbaum (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there is clearly no consensus to change the image, which has lasted on Wikipedia for a very long time. The replacement was immediately criticised by two IP editors.
    The reasons to remove it are not policy or guideline based but instead complaining about it being 'basic' and 'boring', which are hardly issues with an image in an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason to remove it as specified in #Why is there a picture of a person with autism at the top of the page at all? (not sure if that topic would have been better added here) was "guideline based", i.e. MOS:LEADIMAGE. Ybllaw (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The image was a representation of the topic; it was a boy with autism engaging in a stereotypy. The guideline supports inclusion of said image. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Autism, as a non material concept - a specialised concept as it is a neurodevelopmental condition - cannot be illustrated in a literal way. There are no images of autism. Therefore, it is either no image in the lead or an image at some remove from the subject of the article. Any image showing a behaviour, even a stereotype, will be unrepresentative of a considerable proportion of autistic people. However, an image of one well-known autistic person can, with some level of legitimacy, stand for all. Urselius (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An image does not have to be representative of every single person, see Woman. As for the 'non material concept', see Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which is a WP:GOODARTICLE or look at Beauty, Greed, Philosophy (featured article), and Altruism. Just to name a few. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between a general image and an image illustrating a stereotypical behaviour. Using one particular behaviour to illustrate a neurodevelopmental condition may give it undue prominence. In an extreme case it might inhibit a potentially autistic person who does not show that behaviour from seeking a diagnosis. We need to be careful. Urselius (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a general image.
    >In an extreme case it might inhibit a potentially autistic person who does not show that behaviour from seeking a diagnosis
    So we should also remove the ducks in a row and the cork images too? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are problematical, but the lead image has much more impact than others. The major problems in autism are communication-based and sensory (with resultant problems including anxiety, OCD etc.), stacking/lining up objects, rocking and hand flapping are irrelevant to the real impact of the condition, and not all autists do them. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To address Greta: it does nothing to illustrate or inform a reader about autism. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither does an image of a child stacking cans. It says nothing about life-long communication problems, alienation or sensory difficulties that make life really difficult, or increased suicide rates and lower life expectancy in autists. Plus an image of a small child merely reinforces the common misapprehension that autism is a childhood condition. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It demonstrates an autistic behaviour. You can't exactly illustrate any of those other things via an image, text is for that. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But these behaviours are trivial, not universal and pander to the childhood condition stereotype. These represent considerable downsides. Perhaps an image of a non-vocal autistic person using a communication device would be ideal? It would eloquently indicate the communication difficulties common to all autists. Urselius (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to easily find several articles discussing can stacking. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00606-6 even uses videos of stacking then compares how autistic and non-autistic children react to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not enumerate the number of books and papers on communication problems in autism I found on Google Scholar, even autistic non-verbalism had very many. But mere numbers is not really relevant to the marginality that the occurrence of the lining up and stacking of objects in small children has to autism as a condition and the centrality of communication problems. Urselius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an autistic person, I agree with you on this. The can stacking baby does a great job at representing an autistic behavior in an image. 🎸✒️ ZoidChan23 🥁🍕 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an autistic person, I profoundly disagree. The image merely reinforces a widely-held and incorrect opinion that autism is a childhood condition. Urselius (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. And that it’s “childish “. Language Boi (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly I did decide to post about this after seeing that tweet Language Boi (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Autistic here. I share with you the feeling for the change, but bear with me here;
    The boy stacking cans is an extremely iconic figure for us all, and, like the meme version of the C&BT article, will remain in our memories for generations to come, but it is most important that we remain focus in our objective to portray an informed picture of what is Autism, and if sacrificing the presence of this legendary image in favor of concreteness is what it takes, then we must adapt.
    May our beloved boy live a thousand years more, forever in our minds. ThaNook (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, as a person with autism, feel marginalized. You’re creating a false sense of consensus that doesn’t exist. Language Boi (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stacking objects (typically blocks) is a common behaviour of all children - in fact it is a developmental milestone (search "developmental milestones stacking blocks"). I don't think it's "iconic" of autism to have a picture of a child doing what all children normally do. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having more then one image

    [edit]

    Making a new section so it's organized better.

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

    @Tonkarooson can we just put like 5 images of the most common autistic traits so everyones happy that one of the photos is one they they did? Anthony2106 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    cats have more then one image Anthony2106 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like an excellent idea, but the images would have to be found. Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can make drawings, but they may not be that good as I almost never draw. Anthony2106 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lunascape has 2 images and buttons to swap them, maybe we could do that. Anthony2106 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The autism symbole

    [edit]
    fuck it lets just put the autism sybole by commons:user:MissLunaRose12 as that one is a different colour to the nurodiversity symbole and should be the new autism symbole.
    This would make it consistent with AIDS and Diabetes. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this Language Boi (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Language Boi its good isn't it? Anthony2106 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah honestly that seems perfect Language Boi (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so you support puting the autism symbole? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notcharizard @user:Mitch Ames @user:Urselius @user:Tonkarooson @User:Puella mortua @user:Traumnovelle @user:Language Boi @User:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtlepeople what do you think about puting the symbole on the page. I pingned you to get you to see this section cus no one was responding. seeing this edit reminded me of my edit so I felt like coming here to ask about it. I also don't know if there is a rule about not pinging everyone so sorry if I broke that rule.
    also the person who made this edit made a new section #Poll proposal, maybe that should go under here Anthony2106 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't like the symbol, I think it doesn't convey anything of much inherently.
    And I don't believe the poll proposal should be here, a poll proposal needs discussion for itself in it's design.
    The difference between your edit and mine is you only had the support of 1 other on this page to put it up. Whereas there's many several voices to keep the can stacking picture on this talk page along with widespread public support on other platforms LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I do not like the image much, myself. Urselius (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No because the symbol is representative of a social movement relating to the condition and not of the medical condition itself. See homosexual which has no lead image versus LGBT which has a lead image of a symbol of the social movement. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As this article covers the societal aspects of autism (the autism community, political lobbying etc.) as well as the medical aspects, arguments to exclude societal images purely because they are societal lack merit, on the grounds of logic, if nothing else. I dislike the child stacker image because it panders to the widespread and false idea that autism is purely or predominantly a childhood condition. As such I would much prefer the infobox to be free of images and 'the stacker' image to be placed somewhere in the body of the text, to satisfy those who have some apparent fondness for it. Urselius (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Urselius. It's not just a societal thing; a medical condition is part of the person who has it, so you cannot separate the societal aspect. The can-stacking behavior is also very hardly representative of autistic people; I know many personally and obsessive stacking is not part of any of their childhood behaviors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so HIV/AIDS and Diabetes (the examples I used before) use the symboles because they are medical conditions that can be seperated from the person, unlike being autistic, so thats why we shouldnt use the symbole, is that what you were saying? Anthony2106 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nitpick: it's symbol, not "symbole" with an extra e, and "separated", not "seperated". Both of these can use symbols as well if there's a well-accepted one. There is also a community around being AIDS. In any case, what we do with those is a red herring; we are talking about autism, not AIDS or diabetes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes I know Im bad at spelling you don't need to remind me.
    I wasnt trying to make a red herring I was trying to use an example of other pages with symbols, but these pages are too diffrent form this page and may not apply, autism is not a disease. In that case maybe it is a red herring.
    Nitpick back: I think having AIDS or people with AIDS is the correct one for AIDS Anthony2106 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has a brief overview but it links to a larger main article. The article is still about the medical condition and not the societal aspects, hence why it says 'Main article: Societal and cultural aspects of autism' Traumnovelle (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No image is still a better option than an infantilising image to illustrate for a lifelong condition. Autism is a condition that primarily impacts communication, not dexterity. Plus there are plenty of autistic people, including children, with impaired dexterity who would find stacking cans at any age quite a challenge. The 'stacker' is not a good illustration of the condition and its effects or of autistic people in general. Urselius (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Stacking is non-specific to autism. The fact that Twitter thinks it's representative of autistic people is a problem, not something to base our editorial decision off of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I aggree that Twitter should not be involved with wikipedia editing, but there is one more thing we would try if we want a photo (but at this point I dont mind not having one I got used to it) we could try having more then one photo like I seid in #Having more then one image Anthony2106 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other problem is that you cannot "see" autism. It's not like a bone fracture that's seen via x-ray or MRI imagery.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    its common for autistic people to have developmental coordination disorder so technicly autism dose affect dexterity - in a bad way. so now there is another reason not to use the stacker image Anthony2106 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would chose the baby stacking the cans over the infinity. The infinity symbol is used in the autistic community, the article is mostly written about the diagnosis more than the traits associated with the individual.
    As to what Jasper said, even though you can't technically spot out autism until it's mentioned, you can describe it with the sentence including the word. Tonkarooson (discuss). 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tonkarooson: Your comment is confusing. If this is not about traits, then an image illustrating a(n) (incorrectly) purported trait (the can stacking image) is not the way to go.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can see some autistic traits if you know enough about autism (eg you can see stimming), but everyone is diffrent, not everyone stacked cans as a kid, and I aggree with user:Urselius it makes people think its a kid thing (disablility/disorder/condition) and autism has nothing to do with dexterity apart from what I seid about DCD before. but the photo was a sitmmy activity thats an autistic trait, but I don't think its a poplour stim. maybe more photos could help like I menitoned in #Having more then one image but at this point I don't mind not having an image and if we do add more then one photo I wouldnt pick the stacker image to be one of them Anthony2106 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasper Deng, @Anthony2106. It seems the best option is to have no image, or use the infinity. Tonkarooson (discuss). 00:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I see the reasoning behind using the infinity symbol, but I think the cans stacking image better represents the real-life experiences of autistic individuals, as made evident and obvious by the community support for it. It’s relatable and neutral, helping to visually connect readers to the topic. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle I agree user:Urselius it makes people think its a kids condition, and autism has nothing to do with dexterity apart from DCD being common amung autistics Anthony2106 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is certainly not neutral. It is a very prominent visual support of the widespread and pernicious viewpoint that autism only affects children. Given Wikipedia's prominence as an informational source for the general public we really need the lead of this article to be genuinely neutral, by not featuring any image. The 'stacker' can go into the body of the text to satisfy those who find the image endearing or relatable. Urselius (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    arguing for no image to avoid any kind of bias and be neutral? im sure you could make the case any image has a bias on every page on wikipedia.

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

    That would work if everyone read the infobox in detail, and if people were not more immediately impacted by images to a far greater extent than text, which they are! Using an image that is biased towards a particular, erroneous, viewpoint on a subject is not supported by arguing that every image might be perceived as biased. Which I am sure is mistaken. However, this argument is of no relevance because it carries no weight against the certainty that having no image at all is an entirely bias-free option.
    Responding because I was tagged.
    I like the kid stacking things - relatable content tbh. I don't make think it makes it look like a "childhood disorder" any more than it makes it look like a "people with short hair disorder" and I think it works better than the infinity symbol, which is great but doesn't feel as useful. It's more a community symbol, at least to me. I don't really have strong feelings on it either way, I think this article has a lot of huge issues and the image is not really one of them. -- NotCharizard 🗨 10:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PUT THE CAN CHILD BACK

    [edit]

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

    My icon is of St. Demetrios of Thessalonica. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed, he's been a staple of the article for quite some time, put him back. 82.132.6.172 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please bring him back 🙏 209.33.223.23 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed! 2601:1C2:1000:D2F0:1477:3E01:5E5B:A5AF (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Full agreement yes. No it doesn't represent every single autistic person but neither does the main image on many medical pages where you can only show 1 thing. Personally I don't think little symbols don't represent much at all LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Put him back. Bring our troops back home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.245.98.198 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very obviously a coordinated effort and will not be taken seriously. TheBritinator (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't know that for sure. These may just be unrelated people who all agree about the image. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, TheBritinator: these comments appeal to tradition and argumentum ad populum without presenting actual arguments/discussion of the image, as was done above. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. If the OP and the subsequent responders may attempt to give a justification for their position on the image, that would be great. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First sentence too long

    [edit]

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

    Unfortunately, Autism isn't something we can really depart a coherent definition for in the first couple of sentences of an article. I think what's there is pretty good, but if you can find a way to improve it, be bold. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ca – I agree. I edited the introduction (diff). The first sentence was 411 characters; it is now 263. I achieved this reduction primarily by dividing the introductory sentence into two sentences. But I also strived for clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent prose. I made other edits that I will address separately. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In these edits (diff), I had several objectives, which I will try to address here. First, the following text appeared in the first paragraph prior to my edit:

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

    I edited the writing to achieve conciseness, clarity of expression, and accuracy, e.g., I rewrote the first sentence (which makes an important point) and moved it to a new second paragraph, which is now:
    "A formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) according to either ICD or DSM criteria, requires not merely the presence of ASD symptoms, but symptoms that significantly impair functioning in multiple life domains."
    I removed the second sentence because it was not supported by either reference and it was muzzy.
    I rewrote the third sentence and moved it to its own paragraph. I was going to delete it because it essentially repeats information that is in the body of the article. From MOS:LEAD: "The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents ... it gives the basics in a nutshell." But I will leave that determination to other editors.
    I rewrote the last two sentences and moved them to the first paragraph since the content fits with the topic of the first paragraph (concisely explaining what autism is). "A paragraph is a self-contained unit of discourse ... dealing with a particular point or idea." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Autism

    [edit]
    Personal observations
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Before this contribution is hatted as "personal chat" and/or deleted, do you have any suggestion(s) on how this article could be improved (which is the purpose of this Talk page)? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking claims.

    [edit]

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


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

    Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on that. The World Health Organization, ICD-11 states: "Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development". See: https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624 . That means developmentally (or age) inappropriate. It is cited in the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular phrase "developmental inappropriateness", does not occur in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 wording, I was financed by a WHO grant as a researcher for a year. The DSM-5 does not use the term "impairment", but substitutes 'deficits". I would much prefer that the wording used in the manuals was used instead of an interpretation. I also consider that your particular phrasing is rather over blunt and exaggerates the wording in the manuals, which is, presumably, carefully nuanced and exact. The quotation you use above seems more appropriate to me, i.e., "Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development". Urselius (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for the definition we should WP:STICKTOSOURCES of what the DSM-5 or ICD-11 use and use their wording, especially in a case like this were WP:MEDRS applies, rather than add an interpretation that may change the words or imply more meaning. Raladic (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I believe you are correct that the term "inappropriate" may not used, having another look at the sources, so I apologise if I misinterpreted the ICD-11. However, "developmental" is repeatedly used to characterise ASD and specifically in this context.
    Note that the DSM states "Persistent difficulties in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication as manifested by all of the following: Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manger that is appropriate for the social context". So I am not certain about the term inappropriate being incorrect.
    (2) That is incorrect. First, the ICD-11 and World Health Organization state "The symptoms result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning" and " Deficits are sufficiently severe to cause impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning".
    Second, the DSM-5 (citation: https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc/subcommittees/resources/dsm5-diagnostic-criteria.shtml) states: "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning."
    So yes, impairment is to be used. "Deficits" refers to the description of the symptom, not the resulting adverse consequences (impairment). Even if the DSM-5 didn't specify impairment (it does), it was released in 2013 and thus the updated and global ICD-11 should be relied on. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your commitment to consistency with the diagnostic reliable sources (DSM-5 & ICD-11), and overall I like ICD-11's approach (dimensional, international) better than DSM-5, even though I live in the USA.
    Re: "inappropriate" - the article is written in American English (although there is not an editor's note to that effect), so we should look at what inappropriate means in the U.S.
    inappropriate, adj.
    Merriam-Webster Unabridged:
    "not appropriate : unbecoming, unsuitable" (unbecoming means "not becoming : unsuitable, indecorous, improper").
    Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary: "abnormal".
    American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
    "unsuitable or improper."
    Thesaurus.com - inappropriate Synonyms:
    disproportionate,improper,incorrect,irrelevant,tasteless,unseemly,unsuitable,wrong
    OED is closer to what you intend (I think), e.g., "unfitting" or "unsuitable to the particular case" although OED is grounded in British English, so the denotations and connotations of the word are a bit different than in the United States.
    OED:
    "not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper."
    Alternatives? I like mismatched or not adaptive, although I'm sure there are others (maladaptive is technically correct, but it carries a somewhat pejorative connotation - that's a subjective judgement though). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the suggestions and for contextualising that word, I stand corrected. Perhaps we could use the explicit sentence given by the ICD: "that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context" or something alike?
    By the way, on a separate note, I just want to emphasise the importance of ensuring the article always mentions impairment alongside symptom expression for defining ASD. This may need to be included in the first sentence, or at the very least, keeping it early in the lede. Unfortunately, there is a trend among some advocates online to focus exclusively on traits or symptoms yet both are equally important. If an individual presents with far more than enough symptoms, but are not impaired, they are not diagnosable and thus do not have autism. On the contrary, if they did not meet sufficient enough symptoms but were impaired they may or may not be diagnosable depending on the clinician - in such a case, it may be based on the extent to which they are impaired as well as the gap between meeting the symptom threshold (e.g. 1 symptom short). We would expect this from a dimensional disorder upon which we are imposing a categorisation or dichotomy. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "We would expect this from a dimensional disorder upon which we are imposing a categorisation or dichotomy." - Well said. I do think it's important to appreciate the lived experience of people with autism-spectrum disorders, including those who do not satisfy the arbitrary and rigid (especially in the case of DSM-5) categorical criteria that divides people into Yes or No categories: "You have a disorder" or "You do not have a disorder, so you're perfectly fine, what are you complaining about?"
    Autism diagnosis is a great example of this problem. Many adults and adolescents who had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, for example, all of sudden no longer had a disorder upon publication of DSM-5. So are they "normal" people who should not expect any special consideration or understanding? Of course not. (I assume you would agree.)
    I'm not saying we should include original research. I am saying we should not reify categorical diagnoses. In 25 years we will look at all this much differently, along the lines of NIMH's Research Diagnostic Criteria model and research approach.
    Finally I agree that ignoring deficits and functional impairment does a disservice to the suffering of many people with autistic spectrum disorders. It's similar to "all adults with ADHD are incredibly creative people - it's a blessing!" Anyway, I'm rambling. ;o) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mark, I completely agree. The DSM and ICD indeed have major flaws in them and I would agree with representing the status of research in the field rather than focusing exclusively on the diagnostic manuals. After all, the DSM is not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind where the research is at the time. The decisions made by the APA are also political, not just scientifically based, so its hard to know where this will go in the subsequent version.
    While I am not accustomed to the complex nuance of this with ASD, I can certainly attest to these problems in my field of ADHD where the DSM still frame it rather trivially, as merely inattention and of activity level, rather than as a far more complex disorder of executive functioning and self-regulation. Another example is the difficulty we have had convincing the higher-level DSM committees, for instance, to discard the value of the age of onset criteria due to problems related to recollection of onset as well as reconciling it with S-ADHD cases, or with including other symptoms (such as emotional dysregulation) in the criteria. Consequently, in the ADHD article here on Wikipedia there is a balance between the scientific literature consensus on framing ADHD, the view of people with lived experience of ADHD, and the view of diagnostic criteria. I hope a similar approach can be adopted here, if that could work! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bravo! An astute, compassionate analysis that was a pleasure to read. Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    R.e., ASD Severity

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    There's no evidence that "Independent living is unlikely with more severe forms of the condition.". What's the point of saying something so definitive when, as I pointed out, there are autistic individuals like Temple Grandin who were thought of as "severe" who nonetheless grew up to live independent lives? functioning labels are very regrettable 1Veertje (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying, Vera, but I doubt that my points have been adequately addressed.
    Re. ASD Severity The citation you provided appears to be a blog post as opposed to a peer-reviewed, scientific article. It can also be said that it doesn't overturn results from controlled studies that the global scientific consensus is based upon. In my view, a failure to consider this perspective and instead choose to focus exclusively on the opinions expressed by advocacy groups risks becoming a theoretical exercise far removed from daily clinical practice, and whose output depends on ideological perspectives and the specific subjective choices made when assessing the evidence.
    Re. outcomes associated with independent living I did not contest that people with ASD are probably unable to live independently, but rather, contrary to your statements, that it is a disorder established with varying levels of severity. Regarding rates of independence, though, research seems to suggest that:
    "Autism and Severe ID seem to be at particular risk for poor community inclusion and living skills..." (Gray et al., June, 2014).
    "Factors related to psychophysical stability and daily living, financial management, and integrated community living and housing were all found to influence the ability of adults with ASD to live independently"(
    Ghanouni et al., Nov, 2021
    ).
    Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing: most of the people commenting and who likely wrote this page and "protected" it from correction by calling it "protection for vandalism..." You casually talk about the spectrum of autism, high support needs individuals, and whether comorbidity plays any part in presentation (hint: high supports needs doesn't mean no support needs)... I can't afford to even get a diagnosis because it's such a racket. Few doctor will diagnose it in adults and the ones that do charge thousands of dollars. And, insurance does not pay for it. Those who need the diagnosis most don't have the financial freedom or capabilities to afford that. I'm sure, as you read this, you're reminding yourself "But, you're high support needs..." ignoring you are insinuating to yourself this means no support needs. Those who have needed support all their life, but have not gotten it. They still need it, have struggled along, are still struggling still, and can't afford it. I was diagnosed with savant syndrome as a child because my parent fought to keep the doctor from diagnosing me with autism. At the time, autism was still consider childhood schizophrenia. So, for that I am glad she did it. But, it does not help now. Getting a diagnosis now will be almost impossible, and convincing people that I struggle as much as I do is less so. It doesn't matter that even people who knew me long enough to remember the entire family teasing me, or parent in front of me because they considered me speaking, walking, and hitting other early childhood developmental milestones late. I REMEMBER them calling me retarded, slow, and saying I was going to need lots of help or be put in a care facility; saying I was very "retarded" and not all there. Not knowing that I had a very rich inner dialogue, one that I used to help me teach myself to talk, and then I just one day started talking. Because I went from completely nonverbal to speaking like a little adult just before turning 3 yrs old; I was actually first classified as being a prodigy in the neuropsych evaluation before the start of school. It wasn't just the speaking, it was what else I was able to comprehend and had already learned, or taught myself by the time I had begun speaking. And, because I spoke so well, people tended to forget the earlier issues. When clear social issues and other issues that most people associate with autism (then and now) became apparent I would be reevaluated, and I would be reclassified as a savant. My parent would use that diagnosis to stave off and help people forget how they conditioned me to not present autistic in other ways long before any of that! While it was conditioning, I will not let people continue to be blind to the fact that most of that conditioning is a result of sheer trauma from abuse. You get to disavow yourself of damage done by telling yourself that if a person masks, that if they're able to not be autistic, or able to stop being autistic, then they must not be or must not be too much; NONE OF THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING THOUGH. You have the children who were truly just conditioned through things like ABA; and if you have tried to convince yourself that ABA is anything other than that, then you are the worst kind of abuser. But, there are the children who were truly abused, terrorize, and traumatized into masking. Not that most will care anyway, as that would mess up their narrative. For many, it is to acknowledge that they have done something possibly horrific to someone they care about; and many people will not allow themselves to acknowledge that. For others, it is to acknowledge something that they see as a severe flaw that they can draw correlations or similarities to themselves. Once again, most humans will not allow themselves to do that! Trauma! That is how an overwhelming majority of us were "conditioned" into what I've had people call not "appearing to be autistic..." All because they are too ignorant to know, and too lazy to do actual research and find out what autism is, that you can have something comorbid with autism, and that can differentiate how a person presents (AS WITH ANY CONDITION). Even Temple Grandin acknowledges that society has a flawed, ignorant, and biased view of what autism is. That view is often reasserted ignorantly by ignorance in the medical field. This causes society to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of what their autistic children will grow up to be?m. They know what autism is, they're told what autism is, and they will make sure their child is exactly what they KNOW autism is! But, if you have a parent like Temple's who was determined to show them that just is not true. Well, you never know what you'll get. 96.234.220.222 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ (World Health Organization: International Classification of Diseases version 11 (ICD-11)): https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624
    2. ^ "IACC Subcommittee Diagnostic Criteria - DSM-5 Planning Group | IACC". iacc.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2024-08-01.

    Risk?

    [edit]

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

    • Outside the term "risk factor", a phrase with a medical/technical meaning, the word here is used for instance in the phrase "risk of suicidality". Suicide is a pretty bad thing. You don't need to wikilink "bigotry", by the way. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Drmies, thank you for your clarification! However, I believe the OP's point is worth consideration.
      To be specific, the term "risk" comes up a 47 times in this article, not just regarding suicidality or video game addiction (which is appropriate usage, yes). Most of these usages are regarding ASD itself.
      For example, the infobox plus "higher risk of a child developing ASD"; "many risk factors identified in the research literature may contribute to ASD"; "autism risk"; and many more times.
      The infobox uses the term Risk Factor, which its article defines as "a variable associated with an increased risk of disease or infection". I do not believe autism is classified as a disease any longer. Neither disease nor infection comes up in the ICD definition. I more often hear the term "condition."
      A more suitable term than risk would be "Causes." In fact, this is the title of the article Causes of autism. It also is the heading and term the ADA uses in its description of ASD. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree "causes" is better but we might need more votes before a consensus is made Anthony2106 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is incorrect. The term "risk factor" is used widely for neurodevelopmental disorders, and the definition you are finding are superficial and not reflective of the scientific consensus. For instance, see the International Consensus Statement on ADHD (Faraone et al., 2021-2022) which concludes "Most cases of ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] are caused by the combined effects of many genetic and environmental risks". And further one, the ICS states "For most people with ADHD, many genetic and environmental risk factors accumulate to cause the disorder". Clearly, the use of both "risk" and "risk factor" in the context of neurodevelopmental disorders is warranted. A talk page consensus should probably be used to guide edits exclusively in matters requiring subject determination, and not overturn objective facts like these. Note that this is not to say the term "causes" cannot be used but the term "risk/risk factors" are not invalidated.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is the point that they're trying to make. This is what makes your point appear to be bigotry. I'm not saying that it is. But, you clearly missed the point that risk of developing autism versus environmental risks (i.e. risks as it pertains to chances of developmental differences manifesting in vitro versus risks as it pertains to outside source of stimuli as causes for the developmental differences. Correlation and causation are not the same thing, and I think that's what you're conflating here, and that does not look very good as the differences in the two appear obvious. Especially as the risk being discussed is the condition of autism itself, not the causes thereof. When the use of the word risk is stated 47 times in the article, many were specifically referring to autism itself, not its causes. HarmonyA8 (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks your comment but I don’t quite understand your point. First, referencing the scientific consensus should not even imply bigotry so that makes little sense to me. But the term ‘risk’ and ‘risk factors’ are clearly used in reference to the causes of neurodevelopmental disorders, not just disease. That’s essentially all my point. I’m not implying cause from correlational evidence; the consensus statement itself contextualises risk as a causal factor. Thus, the reasoning that these terms cannot be used because they are exclusive for disease is wrong. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns with recent edits

    [edit]

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

    When quoting the DSM or ICD we should use the word symptoms but other then that we should avoid it, Or at least not have it on the very first sentence. On this page we don't say "people with autism spectrum disorder" like the DSM/ICD say. we use different words to the books. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but we do use "ASD" as an acronym or "autism" just as the ICD and DSM do, as I recall. You haven't demonstrated why the use of the term "symptoms" per the scientific consensus is problematic. It is a good term, as it denotes the behavioural/cognitive expressions of the disorder and distinguishes them from impairments. In the first sentence, "symptoms of" indicates that the following e.g. "deficient reciprocal social communication" is a symptom dimension with a variety of ways it can manifest and removing it would no longer reflect our sources. Scientific papers also tend to refer to symptoms. I would also like to note that, in your edit, you removed references to the severity of ASD, which hasn't been justified and also contradicts the scientific consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "symptoms" are for bad things, like the flu or covid and maybe mental health disorders but not neurodevelopmental ones. me removing the word "severity" was slightly bad, but not too bad, you see I don't like to "rate" autism or make it sound 100% like a linear scale as its also a rainbow/spectrum[a] each colour is a different autistic trait. but it is true that some people are higher support needs so saying "severity" is fine but I prefer support needs Anthony2106 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that symptoms are not "for bad things" and are not exclusive to physical health issues. To take an example statement from the ICD-11 in the characterisation of autism under the World Health Organization:
    "The onset of the disorder occurs during the developmental period, typically in early childhood, but symptoms may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed limited capacities".
    And from the DSM5:
    "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning."
    The global scientific consensus seems clear here.
    Support needs and severity have different meanings, and are not interchangeable; both should be mentioned alongside eachother as is the case in the article currently, at least in my view. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlsoWukai what do you think about the word symptoms? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and whats the difference between "excessive for the individual's age" and "excessive for the persons age"? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Person" is a less stilted word than "individual".
    I don't think we have good reason to avoid talk of "symptoms". AlsoWukai (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't think we have good reason to avoid talk of "symptoms"." --> so we should talk about "symptoms"?
    also i personly dont see the diffrence between person and individual so maybe we should folow what Димитрий Улянов Иванов seid[b] and just coppy the DSM/ICD Anthony2106 (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that individual refers to the subject person with ASD while person could technically refer to just anyone, such as a family member being affected instead. Regardless, individual is the word used by the WHO, ICD-11 and DSM-5 and should therefore be used to better represent the sources accuratley. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Димитрий Улянов Иванов yeah but this page says autistic people unlike the books because most autistic people like it that way. so we often do what autistics like on this page, and i'm sure most autistic people don't use the word symptoms Anthony2106 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure many are operating well intentioned. So, I hope you really do start doing what autistic people would like on this page. But, I guess you can't please everyone all the time. HarmonyA8 (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term ‘symptoms’ reflects the scientific consensus and sources cited. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it should always reflect the data, so that’s not a valid reason to contradict the sources. We shouldn’t be determining facts based on people’s subjective opinions as to whether they like a certain fact or not. That said, I understand the term ‘autistic’ is preferred but I don’t dispute that because it has been used in peer reviewed articles. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism&oldid=1249756198"