This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Autism spectrum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Autism spectrum 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. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Regressive autism was merged into Autism spectrum with this edit on 03:20, 27 November 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from Autism spectrum was copied or moved into Pyromania. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Autism page were merged into Autism spectrum. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (10:15, 15 May 2022) |
Material from Autism spectrum was split to Syndromic autism on 18:35, 10 June 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Material from Autism spectrum was split to Diagnosis of autism on 10 June 2023 at 18:50 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This is described as "1 in 100 children". Autistic children grow into autistic adults so surely "1 in 100" is more accurate. Polymath uk ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes included language to highlight that autistic people show differences in "reciprocal social communication [...,] social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication", though this change was reverted because it was "POV writing". Personally, I would argue that "differences" has a lesser perspective than "deficits", which places a judgment on how people should communicate, indicating that autistic people communicate poorly. Proponents of the neurodiversity paradigm have argued against such deficit language for multiple reasons. On the other hand, nobody is arguing that there are differences in communication styles between autistic and non-autistic people. As such, wouldn't using the word "deficit" instead of "difference" have more POV issues than vice versa? (ping @ ATC) Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
While I generally sympathize with the proponents of neurodiversity, I think we should adhere to WP:NPOV in Wikipedia and state what the medical literature actually characterizes autism as. Changing definitions for perceived judgment or stigmatization is not a valid reason. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder
To meet diagnostic criteria for ASD according to DSM-5, a child must have persistent deficits in each of three areas of social communication and interaction (see A.1. through A.3. below) plus at least two of four types of restricted, repetitive behaviors (see B.1. through B.4. below).
- Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
- Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
- Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
- Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.
[...] view autism as a medical diagnosis- Autism is still a diagnosed condition, meaning only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not, which makes it, a medical diagnosis. After the diagnosis, they can view their condition/difficulties/traits as a difference (as in, part of neurodiversity and self-acceptance) or deficit (seek accommodations and therapies ( Autism therapies) on areas that affect their functioning) - but that doesn't affect the fact that the condition itself is diagnosed using certain parameters of social deficits (mainly) and other traits. WP:SUBJECT of this article is about a neurodevelopmental disorder. It is recognized as a developmental disability in many countries (such as Canada, United States, UK, etc.). And why exactly should Walker's opinion be given undue weight here? Are you quoting from a peer-reviewed publication? -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not as if autistic individuals would have no difficulty communicating with other autistic individuals and only have difficulty when communicating with non-autistic individuals. On this Wikipedia page, we have provided evidence that "autistic–autistic interactions are as effective in information transfer as interactions between non-autistics are, and that communication breaks down only between autistics and non-autistics". That is, autistic individuals communicate with other autistic individuals fine. Autistic individuals can also have great conversations with non-autistic people.
Only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not. Even the American Psychiatric Association recognizes that medical practitioners often fail to diagnose people, particularly women and people of color (see also [3], [4]). They're still autistic regardless of whether a doctor can figure it out. This is of particular issue for individuals who can function in a society and thus, don't display the typical "deficits". It doesn't change how they process sensory inputs. This feels on par with saying someone is "cured" if therapies make it possible for someone to thrive. They're still autistic.
Hi all. This is something I'd normally
be bold about, but because there were two previous inconclusive discussions about this (
1 and
2) and because I'm not sure what else I'd put, I'm proposing this here, hopefully with a defintive consensus.
I feel like the current image is far from representative enough of ASD to be there and this is for multiple reasons. All children like (and are
encouraged) to stack things up; a child stacking up objects in what could be a perfectly neurotypical situation is, to me, not the best image to be the most prominent one in the article. This trait feels way too specific in an article that's about a spectrum. Besides, this trait is far from the most significant, prevalent or relevant one for autism. The image could still be used in its context. Just not in the infobox.
There seems to be a consensus that "any image is better than no image", so the problem of what image to put in its place arises. Some of the previous propositions suggested using an image with an identifiable person, apparently violating Commons'
rule that "Images must not unfairly (...) demean the subject". I feel like that's reasonable. So that leaves us with more generic images.
File:Autistic Mind 2.png has been suggested. Me, I'd adopt the
infinity rainbow. I think both are good choices.
I'm glad to head what people have to say about this. Let's try to reach a consensus this time because, to be honest, I feel like the current image is a really inadequate one.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Add a section to "ASD in the media" that shows all historic and defunct organizations that cover autism and the many metrics that they can be 'graded' by.
Why? : Newsgroups that focus on covering ASD (or that spend a fraction of their time, money, and coverage on the topic of ASD) are a part of the media that we consume. Therefore, a page that is focused on "ASD in the media" is obliged to include a list documenting some of these organizations in some level of detail.
Definitions
'Austism Centricity': how focused a news organization is on the topic of ASD (for simplicity's sake, we could just include organizations that claim to focus on ASD or organizations that have a massive amount of content on ASD (comparative to the content they have on other topics) and have (or have had) a name that intentionally references some part of ASD (See spectrumnews.org as an example).
Newsgroup: any group that assumes/claims a role in the distribution of (factual) information (although it might be interesting to include and the amount of attention paid to ASD by satirical news networks)
Other Potential Solutions
- A wikipedia page/list of all groups that claim to 'dispense news', sorted by their primary foci and every other metric that we care to sort by.
- Another page that would categorize newsgroups by their coverage of and focus on ASD.
Thanks for reading this. This is my first time joining a talk channel on Wikipedia besides 2 minor edits I made on two other articles that I wanted to appends reasons for those edits to. I hope that this suggestion is decent and actionable, and that this did not read terribly. My reason for suggesting this was that I found this group called spectrumnews.org and their about page seemed pretty terrible. Naturally, I looked to Wikipedia for answers and was met with nothing but a linkless mention to this group in a disambiguation page for spectrum news.
If anything I wrote here was downright terrible, please feel free to let me know. If this falls into the category of original research, please let me know. Sorry if this was a bad 'idea commit'. In the case that this is a bad 'idea commit', please know that I did not intent for it to be so.
Robitium (
talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Many sources, including the CDC and the National Autistic Society (UK), state it as such. It is also a disability from a medical and legal standpoint. PicoMath ( talk) 00:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Autism spectrum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Autism spectrum 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. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Regressive autism was merged into Autism spectrum with this edit on 03:20, 27 November 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from Autism spectrum was copied or moved into Pyromania. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contents of the Autism page were merged into Autism spectrum. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (10:15, 15 May 2022) |
Material from Autism spectrum was split to Syndromic autism on 18:35, 10 June 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Material from Autism spectrum was split to Diagnosis of autism on 10 June 2023 at 18:50 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This is described as "1 in 100 children". Autistic children grow into autistic adults so surely "1 in 100" is more accurate. Polymath uk ( talk) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes included language to highlight that autistic people show differences in "reciprocal social communication [...,] social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication", though this change was reverted because it was "POV writing". Personally, I would argue that "differences" has a lesser perspective than "deficits", which places a judgment on how people should communicate, indicating that autistic people communicate poorly. Proponents of the neurodiversity paradigm have argued against such deficit language for multiple reasons. On the other hand, nobody is arguing that there are differences in communication styles between autistic and non-autistic people. As such, wouldn't using the word "deficit" instead of "difference" have more POV issues than vice versa? (ping @ ATC) Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
While I generally sympathize with the proponents of neurodiversity, I think we should adhere to WP:NPOV in Wikipedia and state what the medical literature actually characterizes autism as. Changing definitions for perceived judgment or stigmatization is not a valid reason. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder
To meet diagnostic criteria for ASD according to DSM-5, a child must have persistent deficits in each of three areas of social communication and interaction (see A.1. through A.3. below) plus at least two of four types of restricted, repetitive behaviors (see B.1. through B.4. below).
- Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
- Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
- Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
- Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.
[...] view autism as a medical diagnosis- Autism is still a diagnosed condition, meaning only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not, which makes it, a medical diagnosis. After the diagnosis, they can view their condition/difficulties/traits as a difference (as in, part of neurodiversity and self-acceptance) or deficit (seek accommodations and therapies ( Autism therapies) on areas that affect their functioning) - but that doesn't affect the fact that the condition itself is diagnosed using certain parameters of social deficits (mainly) and other traits. WP:SUBJECT of this article is about a neurodevelopmental disorder. It is recognized as a developmental disability in many countries (such as Canada, United States, UK, etc.). And why exactly should Walker's opinion be given undue weight here? Are you quoting from a peer-reviewed publication? -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not as if autistic individuals would have no difficulty communicating with other autistic individuals and only have difficulty when communicating with non-autistic individuals. On this Wikipedia page, we have provided evidence that "autistic–autistic interactions are as effective in information transfer as interactions between non-autistics are, and that communication breaks down only between autistics and non-autistics". That is, autistic individuals communicate with other autistic individuals fine. Autistic individuals can also have great conversations with non-autistic people.
Only a trained medical professional can "tell" (that is, diagnose) whether a person is autistic or not. Even the American Psychiatric Association recognizes that medical practitioners often fail to diagnose people, particularly women and people of color (see also [3], [4]). They're still autistic regardless of whether a doctor can figure it out. This is of particular issue for individuals who can function in a society and thus, don't display the typical "deficits". It doesn't change how they process sensory inputs. This feels on par with saying someone is "cured" if therapies make it possible for someone to thrive. They're still autistic.
Hi all. This is something I'd normally
be bold about, but because there were two previous inconclusive discussions about this (
1 and
2) and because I'm not sure what else I'd put, I'm proposing this here, hopefully with a defintive consensus.
I feel like the current image is far from representative enough of ASD to be there and this is for multiple reasons. All children like (and are
encouraged) to stack things up; a child stacking up objects in what could be a perfectly neurotypical situation is, to me, not the best image to be the most prominent one in the article. This trait feels way too specific in an article that's about a spectrum. Besides, this trait is far from the most significant, prevalent or relevant one for autism. The image could still be used in its context. Just not in the infobox.
There seems to be a consensus that "any image is better than no image", so the problem of what image to put in its place arises. Some of the previous propositions suggested using an image with an identifiable person, apparently violating Commons'
rule that "Images must not unfairly (...) demean the subject". I feel like that's reasonable. So that leaves us with more generic images.
File:Autistic Mind 2.png has been suggested. Me, I'd adopt the
infinity rainbow. I think both are good choices.
I'm glad to head what people have to say about this. Let's try to reach a consensus this time because, to be honest, I feel like the current image is a really inadequate one.
Rkieferbaum (
talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Add a section to "ASD in the media" that shows all historic and defunct organizations that cover autism and the many metrics that they can be 'graded' by.
Why? : Newsgroups that focus on covering ASD (or that spend a fraction of their time, money, and coverage on the topic of ASD) are a part of the media that we consume. Therefore, a page that is focused on "ASD in the media" is obliged to include a list documenting some of these organizations in some level of detail.
Definitions
'Austism Centricity': how focused a news organization is on the topic of ASD (for simplicity's sake, we could just include organizations that claim to focus on ASD or organizations that have a massive amount of content on ASD (comparative to the content they have on other topics) and have (or have had) a name that intentionally references some part of ASD (See spectrumnews.org as an example).
Newsgroup: any group that assumes/claims a role in the distribution of (factual) information (although it might be interesting to include and the amount of attention paid to ASD by satirical news networks)
Other Potential Solutions
- A wikipedia page/list of all groups that claim to 'dispense news', sorted by their primary foci and every other metric that we care to sort by.
- Another page that would categorize newsgroups by their coverage of and focus on ASD.
Thanks for reading this. This is my first time joining a talk channel on Wikipedia besides 2 minor edits I made on two other articles that I wanted to appends reasons for those edits to. I hope that this suggestion is decent and actionable, and that this did not read terribly. My reason for suggesting this was that I found this group called spectrumnews.org and their about page seemed pretty terrible. Naturally, I looked to Wikipedia for answers and was met with nothing but a linkless mention to this group in a disambiguation page for spectrum news.
If anything I wrote here was downright terrible, please feel free to let me know. If this falls into the category of original research, please let me know. Sorry if this was a bad 'idea commit'. In the case that this is a bad 'idea commit', please know that I did not intent for it to be so.
Robitium (
talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Many sources, including the CDC and the National Autistic Society (UK), state it as such. It is also a disability from a medical and legal standpoint. PicoMath ( talk) 00:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)