Talk:Autism

The image

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neither should Eco-terrorists then. LinuxNCats (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 I believe a 22-year-old home photograph of a toddler stacking cans is an infantilizing and outdated view of an entire human condition.

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

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

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

Here are my proposals for the primary/representative image:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Poll proposal

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)

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

The disagreement about infobox image

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)

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)

The kid with the cans as folk hero

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Having more then one image

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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

The autism symbole

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)

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

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

PUT THE CAN CHILD BACK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Problems of the Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autism therapy with traditional games

There are many therapies that can be done for autism. one of them is traditional games that hone motor skills.[1]http://journal.unair.ac.id/filerPDF/JURNAL%20DIKS-HAMIDAH.pdf FIn4nwatin (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Article favors ABA

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

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

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

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

Should the lede be modified?

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

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

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

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

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

References

Modern severity ranking

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

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

Correction on eye contact

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

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

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

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

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

R.e., recent edits on the lede

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

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

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

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

R.e. Infobox Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References