Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The movement DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) was founded in 1995 by Dr. Bernard Rimland - founder of ASA (Autism Society of America) and ARI (Autism Research Institute) of San Diego - and doctors Sidney Baker and Jon Pangborn.

The ARI, founded in 1967, has as its central purpose the search for new therapeutic perspectives within the official medicine, a new point of view of treating autism is no longer seen in its symptoms, but in its causes.

The ARI supports the theory that autism is not a neurological disease origin, but rather a mismatch biochemical caused, most likely, from a genetic vulnerability that makes some children ill-adapted to eliminate chemicals and heavy metals, introduced into their bodies through vaccines, drugs, dental amalgams, heavily polluting agents present in the environment, and even more heavily, the interaction of some of these factors. These cases lead to a biochemical decompensation, which in turn becomes a cause of neurologic decompensation, in turn cause the loss of skills. Dr. Bernard Rimland maintains that heal and restore the biochemistry of the body, through Biomedicine, leading to physical recovery of the affected, that at this point is in optimum condition for a return of deficits also mental and relational. The promoters of this treatment is talking about positive results of small patients, each with its personnel procedures and nursing second strict medical practices, depending on the specific degree of damage, but there is no evidence and scientific publications that confirm these results. In order to disclose these scientific information to the families of children belonging to the autistic spectrum, sull'Autismo Research Institute (ARI) convene the first intercontinental conference DAN! in January 1995 in Dallas. The following were present about 30 speakers, including doctors and scientists with specialties in research and treatment of autistic syndrome. There were represented areas of research in biochemistry, psychiatry, neurology, immunology,allergology, genetic research and gastroenterology. From that first conference DAN! originated, multidisciplinariamente, publication of the first official document with guidelines, practical experience and protocols on the treatment of pluridisfunzioni present in subjects covered in the autistic spectrum. This first document, represents the starting point for each subsequent refinement of the protocols of care by those doctors and specialists who wish to bring their contribution of aging. The document, "Manual Clinical DAN!" Published in the first edition in 1996, has undergone upgrades in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, represents evolutivamente, a common specification for the medical approach to treatment of pluridisfunzioni of the subjects covered in autistic spectrum. The biennial conferences are intended to upgrade all doctors concerned, the most recent refinement of diagnosis and treatment. |}

I now see that 10 minutes ago the POV tag was removed from the Italian page, after 3 solid days of no changes, by the Italian user Mkultra. If you go and edit the Italian page to remove the marker, that is hardly a sign that the POV problem has been fixed! Furthermore, even if the Italian page says something, that is not evidence for English Wikipedia: Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This set of edits inserted the following claim:

Notwithstanding the aformentioned, in early 2007, E. Michael Molnar, M.D., a world authority on fetal and xeno stem cell transplantation, in collaboration with several pediatricians, treated fifteen severly autistic children under the age of ten years with xeno stem cell transplantation. All fifteen children were normal until eighteen months. The majority of treated children can now attend normal school, with select parents preparing their children for eventual college (reference, Stem Cell Transplantation, 2006, Author, E. Michael Molnar, MD, First Edition,Medical and Engineering Publishers Inc.)

The cited source (Molnar 2006) is not a reliable source on autism (or on stem cell transplantation, for that matter); but even if it were, it could not be a source for events that are alleged to have taken place in 2007. At any rate, I suggest moving this topic to Talk:Autism therapies. Please see Autism therapies #Stem cell therapy for more info on the subject: it cites a far more-reliable source on the topic. In the mean time I undid the addition, moving the claim here. Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I read in the first alinea
Autism is a brain development disorder that impairs social interaction and communication and causes restricted and repetitive behavior, all starting before a child is three years old. This set of signs distinguishes autism ... et cetera
I have problem with the term "causes" and later on it is a "sign". So has every autist before the age of three restricted and repetitive behavior or do most of them? In the first case you say that you can diagnose allmost to a certainty that someone with that behavior has autism...
Change to Something like this
Autism is a brain development disorder that impairs social interaction and communication. The most prominent signs before the age of three are: restricted and repetitive behavior, problems on the field of Theory of Mind,...
On later age, as an autistic person has developed, these signs could become less prominent and so makes Autism more difficult to diagnose. 212.238.232.152 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Tdk

Thanks for reporting this ambiguity. I made this change to try to clear things up. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tdk "problems on the field of Theory of Mind,..., age of three" is pointed out to me by an user in the NL wiki is not accurate. Theory of Mind problems are messurable after the age of 4. 212.238.232.152 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Tdk

Sorry, I don't follow this comment. "problems on the field of Theory of Mind,..., age of three" is not a quote from Autism. This talk page is about Autism, not about some other page. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why my recent addition of "Partners in Policymaking" (www.partnersinpolicymaking.com) was removed with no apparent explanation. This is a free site for parents and adults with disabilities that teaches advocacy skills, how to obtain employment, community living, etc. It has proven extremely useful to literally thousands of parents and people with disabilities. It is not an "advertisement" under Wikipedia rules. Partners is funded by the U.S. government and the State of Minnesota. It is available at no charge to participants. Similar programs are found in 30 States and are funded abroad by at least four European countries.Edburke317 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#External links. Maralia (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:LINKS for Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. The link you added does not meet the criteria listed in What should be linked or Links to be considered. This is an article about autism with international scope, and there are hundreds of autism-related organizations that would be equally deserving of a link here, if not more so. I see that at the same time you added the link to Autism, you also added it to Down syndrome, Mental retardation, Blindness, and Cerebral palsy; this verges on WP:LINKSPAM and is generally frowned on. I see you've asked the same question at Talk:Down syndrome #Removal of recent addition so I'll respond there as well. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, beyond a bureaucratic knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I would like to know what qualifications people might have to judge what is relevant or not to an article on autism (or any other disability for that matter). I have spent the past 30 years working with and for people with autism and other developmental disabilities. I would think that one of the primary purposes to even have an article on autism, beyond the basic and imperfect description of what it is, would be to discuss possible methods of helping people with autism to adjust to society and having society adjust to people with autism. For decades, parents of children with autism have been subjected to almost unimaginable form of charletanism in terms of diagnostic and "treatment" gymnastics. The only reason people with autism are even entering society today is due to parental advocacy. It is not due to the work of clever professionals (of which I am one). It is not due to miraculous "treatments" or "cures." It is due to parents who have joined together as advocates and fought to have their children included as valued participants in everyday settings. THAT is what the Partners in Policymaking program is about.

The Partners program does have equal relevance to other disabilities precisely because advocacy is a cross-disability skill. The suggestion that the posting of this program as an External Link on more than one site constitues "spam" is an insult to the thousands of parents and adults with disabilities who have spent months of their time in training to become proud Partners graduates.

The only purpose in posting the link to the Partners in Policymaking program was to provide parents and adults with disabilities with a source of information and training at no cost. Virtually every other External Link listed on disability-related pages requires people to pay annual dues, if they want the listed group's full array of services.

If your organisation is internationally-renowned, it might be possible to mention it in the article on Autism therapies, however as you will know there are a very large number of these organisations and this article would rapidly degenerate into a list of links if we let everybody advertise their personal organisation here. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But dmoz (the only link allowed) is not internationally renowned, just it's popular inside internet and in fact its barely popular (only for webmaster, cio and such). So, in this case wikipedia is acting allowing "me and my friends" but the rest. Or, you could say wiki-autism (pun intent)--201.222.151.131 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008

DMOZ acts as a standard resource for people looking for more information on the web and can list hundreds of organisations - which we can't. To be honest I don't think it is all that much more useful than Google myself, but it does seem widely-used and there is something to be said for having a standard format for our readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It may also be helpful to take a look at WP:MEDMOS #Audience, including the caution about adding '"helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities'. Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts on how best to proceed! Actually, the Partners in Policymaking program is not a "therapy," so it would not fit in there. I can understand the fear about "opening the floodgates," however, please note that, (a) this is not a "personal organization," (b) it transcends specific "treatments" or "schools of thought" on autism per se, and (c) it attempts to serve an international audience. With autism being one of the most baffling of human disabilities, it is amazing that at present Wikipedia only offers one External Link for readers. Compare this with articles related to other disabilites or medical conditions that are far better understood in terms of etiology and treatment. Simply put, I believe that little harm would be done by adding a single line to the "External Links" section of this article to provide parents and interested others with what might be a free, useful resource. As this has also become a reference point for my suggested addition of a link to the Partners in Policymaking program to the Down syndrome article, I would also make the case that with a 90%+ abortion rate, based almost entirely on word of mouth opinion (as opposed to actual contact with families supporting/people with Down syndrome),it would also seem important to add a line here as well.Edburke317 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers "only one" external link (which is the DMOZ linking to potentially thousands of resources), but this article offers hundreds of reliable sources on the most current thoughts about autism by notable scholars. PIPM is a single website for a single state in a single country in a single language. It doesn't even seem to focus on autism. I don't believe it meets with the criteria required by WP:EL. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's common for high-quality medical articles in Wikipedia to have few, or no, external links. See, for example, Alzheimer's disease, Asperger syndrome, Chagas disease, Prostate cancer, Subarachnoid hemorrhage, and Treatment of multiple sclerosis, all featured medical articles. Partners in Policymaking is certainly a worthy organization, but many other organizations are no less worthy, and are more focused on autism; these include Autism Europe, Autism Research Institute, Autism Society of America, Autism Speaks, MIND Institute, National Autistic Society, Yale Child Study Center and many others. If we were to add a link to an autism organization, it would be to one of these organizations; but as the abovementioned Wikipedia citations suggest, we should leave well enough alone. Eubulides (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The way the media portrays autism makes it seem that alot of children have it. I know ADD is common but autism is a real condition and not many people can be in the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.77.248 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Autism #Epidemiology talks about this; if there's something there that's not clear, please let us know here. Eubulides (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit changed "first gives signs during infancy" to "first presents clinical signs during infancy". But "presents clinical signs" is medical jargon, and WP:MEDMOS #Audience suggests that we write for the general reader rather than for healthcare professionals. What was incorrect about "first gives signs" that required inserting the jargon here? Is there some better way to phrase it, which doesn't involve the jargon? The article already has too much medical terminology as it is, and I'd rather avoid making the problem worse, if possible. How about if we change it to "first shows signs during infancy"? Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers changed it to "first appears during infancy", which is even better. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically it works in a certain way, so it's not easy to add 'people' afterwards Logictheo (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "appears" is even better. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit that tries to say this in a more informative way. (I also at the same time removed the "relapse" part, since you really can't have a relapse without first having a remission.) Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "manifests itself as a pattern of different social interactions" is (a) much harder for the average reader to understand than "appears", and (b) not quite right, since autism is a triad of symptoms, and social interactions are just one leg of the triad. Let's just leave it as "appears"; it's simple, elegant, and to the point. The social-interaction bit is already mentioned in that paragraph and there's no need to duplicate that mention. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's better to avoid medical jargon like "presents" and "clinical" and "manifests" and so forth, if we can avoid it. Eubulides (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good place in this article for this video? It's about a new discovery about Autism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0tSAxS1ZW4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.213.150 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no; it's not a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS for the sorts of sources that we are looking for in this article. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

These changes had some good rewordings but also some problems:

• The correct term is "review", not "study", when we're talking about a scientific Review. For more, please see secondary source in WP:MEDRS #Definitions.
• "Cases of PDD-NOS comprise the vast majority of ASD diagnoses; Asperger's occurs at a rate of about 0.3 diagnoses per 1000 population" sounds really awkward and it's not accurate. A case is not a diagnosis. Prevalence does not count diagnoses per population.
• Let's not wikilink dates like 2000s, please.
• "it is possible that a real increase in the rate of prevalence of autism itself is occurring, and hitherto". There's no such thing as a "rate of prevalence". Also, the cited source doesn't make this claim.
• "and the unclear definitional boundaries of autism itself" The cited source doesn't make this claim.
• "The autistic pride movement shows noticeable similarities to Deaf culture." This claim is speculative and unsourced.

I made this change to try to improve on things. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for helping. I will continue to make minor edits when I have time. I'll try and be more careful about sticking strictly to the sources, as I can see that this section of Wikipedia is a lot stricter about that than most of the other articles I edit (which is partly why I've done so little here). Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think is a vandal added "Greek state" as a reason for editing the article. What has the Greek state to do with it? It seems they just want to add a bad name for the country Greece. Is there a smaller or greater relation, or do you think the 'summary' was random? Logictheo (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's please focus on improving Autism rather than worrying too much about the motivation for WP:VANDALISM. Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A forthcoming special issue of Neuropsychology Review will be devoted to ASD. It looks like it will have multiple useful sources for Autism. I'm putting in a notice here to help remind us to take a look at it when it comes out. Here's the intro (the rest of it isn't published yet): Baron IS (2008). "Autism Spectrum Disorder: complex, controversial, and confounding". Neuropsychol Rev. doi:10.1007/s11065-008-9070-1. PMID 18846426. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished writing an article about Denise Phua, a Singaporean politician dedicated to helping the special needs (especially autistic) community in Singapore. The article is currently on peer review in preparation for a GA nomination. Is there an active WikiProject about autism, which I can approach to request peer reviewers? I looked around but could not find any. If no such WikiProject exists, consider creating one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As this talk page's header indicates, Autism is currently under the scope of 5 WikiProjects: Psychology, Medicine, Medical Genetics, Neuroscience, and Neurology. If you are interested in starting an autism wikiproject, I suggest starting a discussion on the most-likely talk page among these projects, and seeing how much interest and help you can get. A wikiproject for autism was proposed in June, and had been proposed earlier too, but has not yet gotten much support. (It's not enough just to have a wikiproject page, of course; you also need editors who actively contribute to the wikiproject.) You might also check into Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics, a page that used to be active but is now somewhat moribund. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that of the four users listed under the heading Active contributors on autism-related topics, only one of them seems to be still actively editing any autism-related pages. Two of the others are still active users and one of them has left probably for good. The list also excludes all of the people who are the most prolific contributors on autism-related articles. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The five WikiProjects seem to focus on the medical and neurological aspects of autism, rather than the sociological and cultural aspects. Would these WikiProjects be interested in peer reviewing an article about a Singaporean politician dedicated to helping the local special needs community? If so, I will go ahead and canvass advertise the peer review at the talk pages of those WikiProjects.

If there is no WikiProject Autism, one should certainly be created. It would have great potential to help fight systemic bias by encouraging collaboration on autism-related articles. While autistics tend to be technically inclined, their poor social and communication skills may get them into trouble when editing - a WikiProject Autism may help them in those aspects. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to create or join such a WikiProject, as I only work on Singapore-related articles; there is very little overlap between Singapore-related articles and autism-related articles.

Regardless of whether a WikiProject Autism exists, Wikipedians who are interested in autism-related topics (such as those replying to this thread) are invited to participate in the peer review of Denise Phua. By pointing out issues which can be addressed, you will help the article attain GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just heard that rain might be a cause to autism. They said children who live in places with more precipitation are more likely to have autism. According to WTAE news, children who live in a region with more precipitation are more likely to stay indoors. This may cause them to be in contact with more television accessibility as well as cleaning products.Laluff (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)laluff

That unlikely hypothesis is discussed in Causes of autism #Television watching Causes of autism #Rain. Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Should We Insist on Eye Contact with People who have Autism Spectrum Disorders, IRCA Articles, Access Autism [sic].

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Although we want people to understand vocabulary there is links to the following articles to explain. It doesn't make sense that the article explains that is a brain development disorder linking to nerodevelopmental disorder. Their isn't even a reference footnote to it. I looked through the reference list and on the sixth reference -- the scientific journal says that it is a nerodevelopmental disorder, which would be more accurate (e.g. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is refered to as a being a neurobehavioral developmental disorder not a behavior development disorder). I wanted to see other people's opinion before changing the vocabulary and to add the reference tag. Here is the URL for the reference footnote -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#References. It's the sixth one down. Thanx! ATC (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• The question is, should Autism use jargon that is standard in medicine, or (as per WP:MEDMOS #Audience) substitute less commonly-used but more-understandable phrases? "Neurodevelopmental disorder" is the normal and accepted medical term, but it is also a phrase that most readers won't know. A few reliable sources do use the phrase "brain development disorder" to describe autism, for example: Honey K (2008). "Attention focuses on autism". J Clin Invest. 118 (5): 1586–7. doi:10.1172/JCI35821. PMC 2336894. PMID 18451989. It is true, though, that "neurodevelopmental disorder" is far more common, so there is a judgment call here as to whether it should be preferred to "brain development disorder".
• For an example of the jargon problem, please see Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism #For someone who has Asperger's, all Wikipedia's aspergers sections are HARD AND STRESSFUL TO READ., a comment about a related article that could just as easily apply to Autism.

Eubulides (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am finishing an RN program, and one of my instructors mentioned that some authorities are now questioning if lack of vitamin D plays a role in raising the risk for autism. Vitamin D can be taken orally or it senthisized in the body from exposure to sunlight. Apparently autism is almost nonexsistent in Africa where people have lots of exposure to the sun. Also in the USA it is supposed to be more prevalent in northern states than in the south, where again, there is more exposure to the sun. Unfortunatly I have no references, but maybe someone more attuned to Wikipedia would like to investigate this as it is a very important issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are more reliable sources, we could certainly expand Causes of autism#Vitamin D. If I recall correctly, the north/south disparity was better explained by urbanicity, though of course this would also require a source. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• The vitamin D hypothesis is untested, and there is no scientific evidence about it; at this point it's merely a guess and its coverage in Causes of autism is more than adequate.
• The prevalence of autism in Africa has not been studied and is unknown; see Mankoski et al. 2006 (PMID 16897390). I expect that Johnhenney's instructor, or the instructor's source, just made up the part about Africa. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up: I added a new subsubsection Epidemiology of autism #Africa on that topic. Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's something being studied about Somali refugees though, isn't there? I heard the incidence rates with them were nearly 1 in 4 (totally pulled out of my @r$e). Granted, there are almost definitely other variables at work, but that still means that it's not necessarily an "non-Africa" thing. 74.46.203.165 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of anecodotal reports of a higher rate of autism among Somali refugees in other countries, but no scientific evidence, and nothing yet published in a peer-reviewed journal or similar reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect white people in America have healthier Vit D levels than blacks in Africa. Reasons: 1) The American Southwest gets as much sunlight as most of Africa does; Australia gets quite a bit more. That Africa is the hottest, sunniest, or driest continent is nothing but a common misconception. 2) Most Africans have dark skin, which blocks out sunlight and therefore slows down production of vitamin D. 3) Even in the poorest areas of the world, most people spend most of their day indoors and wearing clothes, thus reducing sunlight exposure to a level much below what humans originally evolved for. 4) To make up any deficiencies that do exist, us rich Westerners eat vitamin D supplements in our food almost every day whether we realize it or not; I'd be willing to bet most Africans don't get those vitamin supplements. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent meta-analysis that may be worth folding into Autism #Pathophysiology:

• Di Martino A, Ross K, Uddin LQ, Sklar AB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP (2008). "Functional brain correlates of social and nonsocial processes in autism spectrum disorders: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis". Biol Psychiatry. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.09.022. PMID 18996505.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I read in my encyclopaedia that people who have autism are generally "physically attractive." Was there some study or something back then (1970s) which lead doctors/psychologists to make such a subjective conclusion? HomerChimpson (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole story sounds invented to me. Which encyclopedia was that, and where did it say it, exactly? Eubulides (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's real; it's Hans Asperger's wording. However, most people now believe that he was making a comparison to other syndromes such as Down's, Apert's syndrome, etc., the majority of which involve some sort of physical deformity. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 11:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find a source for this in Uta Frith's book Autism and Asperger Syndrome, which mentions it three times since it is a compilation of essays by different researchers. The book also includes Asperger's original paper, translated into English, and apparently still the only available English translation of the paper anywhere. I used to have the book but I don't have access to it right now; I searched the book in Google Books for "attractive appearance" and I found it on page 10, but that doesn't give the context I remember, which seemed to imply that Asperger was saying that children with AS are attractive by comparison to the other kinds of kids that turned up at mental institutions, not to the general population as a whole. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eubulides, it was in Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia 1975 edition. HomerChimpson2 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit added the following text to Autism #Communication:

"Researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia reported in 2008 that comparisons of real-time magnetoencephalograms of normal and autistic children have shown that autistic individuals respond to sounds about 20 milliseconds slower, making it more difficult for them to process syllables in continuous speech.^[1]"

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. However, there are some problems with the edit:

• The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• As the cited source makes clear, the study's results, although promising, are preliminary.
• As per WP:MEDRS, for medical facts and figures like this it's better to use secondary sources such as reliable reviews, as is true for almost all the other sources used in that section.

All things considered I think in this particular area it's better to cite a reliable review rather than a news article about a primary study that hasn't been published in the literature. I looked for such a review, and found one directly on point: Roberts et al. 2008 (PMID 18336941), a recently published reliable review by the same group at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The review is not quite as up-to-date as the CBS news article, but it's considerably more reliable, which is better for an encyclopedia. I also suggest moving this point from Autism #Communication (which talks about symptoms) to Autism #Pathophysiology (which talks about mechanism, a better location for this particular point). I plan to draft a change along these lines, once I have time to read Roberts et al.

Anyway, the bottom line is: thanks again for bringing this news item for our attention, and we'll use a review to improve the topic's coverage further. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see what has been done to my contribution. As originally written, it said something. Now, as edited, it says nothing. In toto, the Autism article reads like a dreary excerpt from a technical journal, not an encyclopedia entry. As a career electrical engineer, I tend to avoid reading Transactions of the IEEE for that reason, as such arcane writings only seem to satisfy someone's academic "publish-or-perish" requirements, not the needs of the average Joe. —Quicksilver^{T @} 08:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the original text was not supported by a source that is reliable according to WP:MEDRS guidelines. For Wikipedia purposes it's better to have boring and reliable text than interesting and unreliable. Better yet, of course, would be both sprightly wording and reliable sources; specific suggestions for improving the existing wording are welcome. I did change "structural anomalies" to "delayed responses"; hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit added the following text:

This so-called “refrigerator mother” theory was popularized by Bruno Bettelheim and inflicted a tremendous sense of guilt on the already traumatized mothers, who were unjustly blamed for their child’s condition. Bettelheim’s specious theory was discredited by Dr. Bernard Rimland , who wrote the landmark 1964 book Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior . In this book, which is credited for bringing autism out of the dark ages, Rimland concluded that based on his research, autism was caused by biochemical and physiological factors, including genetics. Not content with merely explaining the origins of autism, Dr. Rimland devoted his life to finding out everything he could about this mysterious condition, including prevention, treatment and possible contributing factors . In 1965, Rimland , known as “the father of modern autism” (and the father of an autistic son himself ), formed the Autism Society of America, the largest parent–based organization in the country, with over 100,000 members. In 1967, he founded the Autism Research Institute, which was (and is) devoted to scientifically based research on treatments, causes and prevention.

This text is unsourced, and attempts to rewrite the history of autism from the perspective of Bernard Rimland. It would be better to use a reliable source for this sort of thing: I suggest Wolff 2004 (doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0363-5). Eubulides (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see now that the same editor has reinserted nearly the same text (except this time with a misspelling), without discussion. This text is unsourced and is not neutral. Please discuss changes like this, instead of simply reinserting them.
• I just now checked, and Wolff 2004 (doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0363-5) does not even mention Rimland, which suggests that this newly added treatment of Rimland does not pass the WP:WEIGHT test either.
• For now I have merely tagged the new addition, but really, the whole thing should get reverted. We should be using reliable sources like Wolff on the history of autism.

Eubulides (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This set of edits introduced the following text in what appears to be a new section Controversy:

"Some critics have argued that true autism is still rare and Autism Spectrum Disorder is not an epidemic but rather a result of a purposeful broadening of diagnostic criteria for poorly misunderstood and widely varying delays. Educators have noted a reclassification of children who were previously placed in special education for reasons varying from expressive receptive language delay to some level of retardation. Some critics question whether high functioning ASD (such as Aspergers) is in fact a disorder since children with high functioning ASD generally go on to live normal lives and are often more intelligent than average. Some have argued that the diagnostic criteria for autism are meant to reflect an extremeness of impairment in social skills and communication as well as behavioral repetitions and that poorly trained evaluators have loosely applied these diagnostics. It's also been argued that some highly intelligent and normal children follow an abnormal development curve exhibiting "autistic like" symptoms such as lack of communication, aloofness and intense interests early on. It is difficult to offer a prognosis for late talkers who are often put on the radar for autism and it is likely that the diagnostic rates and criteria for autism disorders will remain controversial."

This text is entirely unsourced, which runs afoul of WP:V. Also, it repeats material that is already in Autism; for example, its first point largely duplicates the following text in Autism #Epidemiology:

"This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness, though unidentified contributing environmental risk factors cannot be ruled out. It is unknown whether autism's prevalence increased during the same period ..."

Please take the time to read the existing Autism and Controversies in autism articles. I also suggest reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SOAPBOX. For now, I have reverted the change, as it is duplicative and unsourced. Eubulides (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the removal by Eubulides. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I also concur with the removal of this text, which runs afoul of WP:V, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here, glad it is gone, it had no place here for the above reasons. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Autism: When a child has much more male hormones than females hormones, or he only has male hormones and no female hormones, he will become autistic. The behaviors of the autistic children show that this is true. Our behaviors are affected by the hormones that we possess. Madonnacheung (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If only it were that easy. --Uncle Milty (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This topic is covered in Causes of autism #Fetal testosterone; I suggest directing further discussion to Talk:Causes of autism. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider adding:

Cyclic AMP is a signal transduction enzyme altered in Fragile X which is implicated in autism behaviors and several autism theories.

The cyclic AMP phenotype of fragile X and autism. Kelley DJ, Bhattacharyya A, Lahvis GP, Yin JC, Malter J, Davidson RJ. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008 Oct;32(8):1533-43. Epub 2008 Jun 17. Review.

Functional connectivity does not adequately describe the changes in autism connectivity because underconnectivity and overconnectivity are present.

Kelley, Daniel. The Functional Autism Connectome. Available from Nature Precedings <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.2724.1> (2008) http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2724/version/1

Djkmed (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that theory, while a worthy one, needs to compete with dozens if not hundreds of similar theories in the area. See, for example, the November 2008 issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, which has eight articles in that area. We don't have space to cover all this work in Autism, and as per WP:MEDRS we need to rely on high-quality reviews published in refereed scientific and medical journals to help us decide what to put in. Maybe in a few years, if and when the connectome theory of autism becomes more notable and reviewed, we could put it in then. In the meantime I suggest adding a line or two to Heritability of autism somewhere, but it should refer to a refereed medical journal article and not to a prepublication disseration. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is poorly written. I have perfect test scores and a Ph.D., yet I was bothered by the overly technical content. Perhaps the main problem was the lack of explanatory info at the beginning, before diving deep. Also having all the PDD stuff at the beginning, when it is really an aside for the subject of the article. Am amazed that this article passed as an FA. NOT a pleasure to read. TCO (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for wording improvements would be welcome. Or if that's too much work, perhaps you could identify exactly which phrases were hard to understand? Editors who have seen this stuff over and over again often don't see problems like that, and a fresh pair of eyes can be quite helpful. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me think about it. There were some ideas given in my post. I have heard there is a general problem with engaging readability on wikipedia. Part of this is just good style. But also has to do with technical content especially at front of the article. Also have seen some pattern on math technical articles of them being too technical, for e general (even smart general audience). I could probably struggle through and read it. but seriously, don't think it met normal standard of engagingness for a popular (encyclopedia is popular) article. suggest more of the basic so what content at front and technical issues (where it fits in DSM etc.) further back. sorry if this is not more specific, but it is honest (and I think correct) criticism from a reader (not writer) POV. TCO (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The only specific idea I saw in the original post was about "having all the PDD stuff at the beginning". I just now attempted to fix this problem by removing the phrase "such as pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)" from the lead paragraph. More suggestions are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am approaching this as an interested and intelligent reader. Saw a refernce to the term on the web and wanted to read more to know the basics as I have heard the term but don't really understand it. Would be better served by some other webpage than wikipedia given the non-interesting prose here. I mean look at the article on Hottentots or Matthew c Perry. Tehy read and give you some interesting window to something. Autism is INTERESTING, too. But you don't get that from this article, the way it's written now. I am not an expert on good writing, I just recognize the difference as a reader. Perhaps bringing someone in like this would help: User:Tony1. He's kind of more of a Elements of Style pusher, but he also might have some thoughts on making the article suitable and INTERESTING to a general audience. Some random thoughts:

• Look at the first sentence. Do you need all the "and" constructions (those tend to be boring to the reader and loquacious and overcautious (you get the idea?) when it is just citing multiple similar things like "sticks and twigs".
• Still on first sentence, are all these tough technical terms needed at the beginning. I mean I'm trying to get the basic concept here. Not read clinical or psychospeak ("impaired social interaction"). The captioned picture on the side was much better however.
• Entire intro section seems too long. Making it shorter might force you to be more crisp about (basically) what autism is. The caveats and disputed areas and more formal definitions could be kept in the meat of the article.
• Move classification deeper into the article. At least after characteristics, which is the most important thing to learn first for someone with limited knowledge and who may not bother reading the whole article. This is not a review article for a journal.

Hope the above helps. I really have a point here, but am struggling to get it accross as I'm not a super communication expert either. I do appreciate that you are a volunteer, not a paid writer. Same with me. TCO (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony1 had a go at the article, but maybe we can have him look at it again.
• We've just now reworded the 1st sentence to break it up a bit. Alas, the "multiple similar things" are all subtly different, and are worded carefully to match the official diagnostic criteria (which are the cited source here) so I don't easily see how we can get rid of all the "and"s.
• Likewise for the "impairs social interaction". The cited source says "qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:" and we've summarized that as "impairs social interaction". I don't offhand see how to simplify this further.
• The intro is a bit shorter now.
• I moved Classification to be after Characteristics.

Hope this helps, and again, thanks for the suggestions (and for any further suggestions you can think of). Eubulides (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence feels awkward in that it says that autism "impairs social development" and "produces" repetitive behavior. Whether the source says it or not, it seems more correct to say that autism is characterized by these behaviors, similar to the lead of the Down's syndrome article. II | (t - c) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The third sentence is unclear. What signs are referred to? Impaired communication and repetitive behavior are not present in the milder forms? Also, I removed communication since that is a synonym for social interaction, and restrictive is vague and highly similar to repetitive. II | (t - c) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The link used for the intro sources now leads to an assessment. I don't know where the DSM-IV online is. What the link does have on autism supports my above point: it doesn't say autism causes anything, but says it has essential features which manifest [1]. II | (t - c) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Basically, the "signs" referred to are any and all of the signs. If any core sign is not present, then it's not autism proper, but it may still be ASD. "Communication" is not a synonym for "social interaction", at least, not in DSM-ese. Communication is primarily about language skills, whereas social interaction is more often non-lingual. "Restrictive" is not the same as "repetitive": the former means a narrow range of interests, the latter means doing the same thing over and over again. The link was indeed broken but Google Books URLs are not reliable, so I fixed it to point to the more-stable CDC. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this article at EurekAlert today. The study is here. Not yet in PubMed, it appears. II | (t - c) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That single primary study is too much detail for Autism, so I put it into Epidemiology of autism #Changes with time. Eubulides (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH UNDER THE SCREENING SECTION. THE PETITION IS TO HAVE ALL CHILDREN ASSESSED OF A MULTITUDE OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

In Scotland, David Ballantine a member of the cross party group on dyslexia put forward a petition through the Scottish Parliament Petitions Website. The petition called:

"On the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standardised assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of 8 which will inform parents, pupils and educators as to whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty."

The petition was contrary to the other view that children should not be identified with Autism as it was felt that a significant proportion of these children who were Autistic and not identified did not have appropriate learning strategies in place and that it was the right of the child to know if they had a learning difficulty that would inhibit their education.

The petition runs till the 20th February 2009 and was accepting signatures from all over the world. Scottish Parliament Petitions Website —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ballantine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this sounds very much like WP:RECENTISM and WP:ADVOCACY and therefore inappropriate for Autism #Screening. Eubulides (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted text attributed to Fitzgerald that Kanner plagiarized Asperger: [2] this text needs to be sorted and properly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which was reinserted, and then I reverted it too.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fitzgerald's theory is possibly true, but it's a serious charge and the source is not reliable enough to be worth mentioning here. Here's Fitzgerald's allegation (I've omitted his footnotes):

'Hans Asperger was the first pioneer of autism research, and not Leo Kanner. I have no doubt that Leo Kanner was aware of Hans Asperger's 1938 paper because he mentions that "since 1938, there have come to our attention a number of children.... ' Sadly he did not mention Hans Asperger's name. This is plagiarism, Asperger and Kanner spoke the same language and came from the same city, Vienna. During World War II, Leo Kanner had much contact with medical refugees from his native country. Nonattribution or in this case plagiarism is always sad and is usually exposed even if it takes 60 years, as in this case.' Fitzgerald M (2008). "Autism: Asperger's Syndrome—history and first descriptions". In Rausch JL, Johnson ME, Casanova MF (ed.). Asperger's Disorder. Informa. pp. 1–6. ISBN 0849383609.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

• My Google Books preview stopped just before most of Fitzgerald's references section, but the likely citations are probably Asperger 1938 (Wien Klin Wochenschr 51: 1314–7), Kanner 1942 (Nerv Child 2: 217–50), and Lyons & Fitzgerald 2007 (PMID 17922179). The last source, coauthored by Fitzgerald, presents the evidence in question without once saying the word "plagiarism", and it also gives a plausible explanation for why it might not have been plagiarism.
• Fitzgerald is noted for making poorly-supported claims about historical figures. For example, he's speculated that Mozart had autism, which goes significantly beyond what the evidence says; see Ashoori and Jankovic 2008 (PMID 18644922), which briefly discusses the Mozart-had-autism theory along with the Mozart-had-Tourette's theory.
• My guess is that Fitzgerald's charge of plagiarism didn't make it into the peer-reviewed journal because the reviewers objected, so he stuck it into a book with lower editorial standards. As such, the source is not reliable enough to be mentioned here.

Eubulides (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur that Fitzgerald's self-publications aren't reliable enough for publication here; peer reviewed sources are preferable for such a claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In Fitzgerald's defense, the accusation was published in a book (ISBN 0849383609) that Fitzgerald himself didn't edit. However, there's no sign of peer review in the book. At any rate, it's a less reliable venue than the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, which published Lyons & Fitzgerald 2007 (PMID 17922179), the source I find far more reliable. Eubulides (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the section 'Causes', a statement reads "there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism." The term 'overwhelming' generally refers to an emotional reaction to some event. I wonder if in the case of this article the editor upon seeing the evidence, was so overwhelmed that she had to stop reading the articles and lie down in order to regain her faculties. But even so, anyone's emotional response to some piece of evidence is epistemologically irrelevant to the evidence being considered. Rather, evidence is a thing that exists outside of the observer and can be assessed by the observer on what justificatory qualities are attached to the evidentiary object. --Phiborjam (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment shows a lack of familiarity with the way many people talk about psychology research (or other) findings. In the U.S. at least, "overwhelming evidence" is a common phrase indicating that the weight of the evidence (objectively considered) is highly unbalanced, and that the weaker side's arguments are "overwhelmed" by a far greater or more compelling body of evidence in favor of a different conclusion.

Nevertheless, the sentence in the article was strangely phrased, though not for the reason you gave. I have changed the phrasing. Thank you for calling attention to it. -DoctorW 08:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic has come up before; see Talk:Autism/Archive 9 #MMR remark. Briefly, the cited source (Doja & Roberts 2006, PMID 17168158) supports the word "overwhelming", by saying in its abstract, "In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism." I reworded the sentence in question to match the source better, as it had strayed a bit with the recent editing. Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current issue of the British Journal of Hospital Medicine contains the following articles, which may be of interest, though I lack ready access to them:

• Jordan R (2009). "Medicalization of autism spectrum disorders: implications for services". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 128–129. PMID 19273998.
• Lord C, Bishop SL (2009). "The autism spectrum: definitions, assessment and diagnoses". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 132–135. PMID 19274000.
• Deeley Q, Murphy D (2009). "Pathophysiology of autism: evidence from brain imaging:". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 138–142. PMID 19274001.
• Aldred CR, Green J (2009). "Early social communication interventions for autism". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 143–145. PMID 19274002.

Eubulides (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit introduced discussion of Rossignol et al. 2009 (doi:10.1186/1471-2431-9-21) published yesterday, a double-blind study on hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). As far as therapies go Autism does not mention primary studies, but relies on reliable reviews as per WP:MEDRS, so I moved the discussion to Autism therapies #Hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Eubulides (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have twice removed the image of Kanner from the article, as I am not seeing how it is necessary in any way. I have no doubt that Kanner is significant to the history of autism (I profess I don't actually know much about the topic) but I am not seeing how knowing what he looks like aids the reader in any way. Per the non-free content criteria point 8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". Could it please be explained how not knowing what Kanner looks like would be detrimental to understanding? J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't mention that it was a non-free image in your edit summary and I didn't realise that was the case. Looking at the policy, I agree with you - this image isn't necessary for the reader to understand the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Now what about Hans Asperger's photo? Tim D (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's important for non-expert readers to know that autism was discovered by, and to some extent is a construct of, human psychologists, and that autism is not determined by abstract scientific principles or by God or whatever. It's essential for the article to put a human face on the history of autism research, and the image helps to significantly and easily increase readers' understanding of this part of the topic. I will take a look at rewording the caption to make this point clearer. As for Asperger's photo, the same point applies to it as well. I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 11 #http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asperger_kl2.jpg to remove that image, and it's premature to be removing the use of the image here while discussion is still ongoing there. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that people need to see an actual face in order to comprehend that a human being is behind something. If you say "/something/ was discovered by /So-and-So/," and a reader wants to see a picture, all you need is a link to So-and-So's biography article, and there they'll have it. Easy as that. Tim D (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very rare for anyone to need to see an actual face for anything. For example, Andre Malraux doesn't discuss Malraux's face, so what is that fair-use image of Malraux doing there in the lead for that article? The standard "people need to see an actual face" is not the standard that Wikipedia uses for fair-use images, and we . Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty clearly different when the article is about the person pictured Tim D (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference from the point of view of Wikipedia policy. The policy doesn't say that a fair-use picture of Joe Schmoe can be used only in an article named Joe Schmoe; it says that the picture can be used in an article Whatsit only if the picture significantly affects reader understanding of Whatsit. The photos of Kanner and of Asperger significantly affect reader understanding of the history and classification of autism. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Asperger seems to me to be much more important to the history of autism than Kanner. Is that an accurate summary Eubulides? Or are they of equal importance? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources rate them about equally as pioneers. For example, please see:

• Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2007). "Asperger (1906–1980) and Kanner (1894–1981), the two pioneers of autism". J Autism Dev Disord. 37 (10): 2022–3. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0383-3. PMID 17922179.

This source gives an edge to Asperger, but I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find another source which would do the same for Kanner. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. While neither image is necessary for a reader to understand the topic, I suppose it is a valid argument that showing the "discoverers" of autism is encyclopedic content and could "significantly increase" the reader's understanding of the topic - I think we can all agree that these are obviously not purely decorative images. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Further research shows that the Kanner image is out of copyright; I have updated File:Kanner kl2.jpg accordingly and have restored it to this article. Eubulides (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What make you sure "The photograph was published in 1955 without a copyright notice." I don't see that information explicitly on the full record or marc record (found with this Google search) but I'm not familiar with that system. Why does the NLM feel the need to watermark their image if it is public domain? Colin°^Talk 13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The photograph was deposited in the NLM as a single photo. It was autographed by Kanner but there's no copyright notice on it. The NLM routinely puts its watermark on many of its public-domain images (see, for example, its portrait of Joseph Leidy), so the presence of a watermark on Kanner's photo is not a useful indicator. Just to be safe I did a copyright search for the photo and came up empty, so even if there were a copyright notice on it we would be safe. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that problem seems to be sorted. The image of Asperger is currently at IfD. For future instances, the general practice is that a single non-free image of a deceased person in their biography is acceptable, as knowing what the person looks like is important for a full understanding of the person. Knowing what the scientists look like is not necessary for a full understanding of a disease, or, if it was, then the appearance of the scientist would be discussed in the text. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit to Autism added the unsourced phrase "Many problems can be treated with the help of physical, occupational, and speech therapists." But Autism already covered that topic, saying "Available approaches include applied behavior analysis (ABA), developmental models, structured teaching, speech and language therapy, social skills therapy, and occupational therapy." and citing Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921). The new phrase is redundant and (contrary to WP:V and WP:MEDRS) isn't sourced. It should be removed, or sourced and better-integrated with the existing text. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

should there be a mention about how autism is treated in fiction and stories written about Autism Tydoni (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Sociological and cultural aspects of autism #Scholarship and literature for that. Eubulides (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A cool study recently came out in Nature:

• Klin A, Lin DJ, Gorrindo P, Ramsay G, Jones W (2009). "Two-year-olds with autism orient to non-social contingencies rather than biological motion". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature07868. PMID 19329996. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Not sure whether or how this should be put into Autism, though, as it's just a primary study and WP:MEDRS suggests caution in this area. Eubulides (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit removed a reference to a new image Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg with the comment "The consensus at the FFD page was clear- an image of Asperger is not required. This image is not being used in a different way." Two points:

• "This image is not being used in a different way" Good point, and I moved the image to Autism #History, the section where it should have been put in the first place. The image now directly illustrates the following discussion of the historical period when Asperger co-discovered autism.

"The word autism first took its modern sense in 1938 when Hans Asperger of the Vienna University Hospital adopted Bleuler's terminology autistic psychopaths in a lecture in German about child psychology. Asperger was investigating a form of ASD now known as Asperger syndrome, though for various reasons it was not widely recognized as a separate diagnosis until 1981."

• "The consensus at the FFD page was clear- an image of Asperger is not required" The consensus at the FFD page was that a simple portrait of Asperger's face, made well after his discovery of autism, was not required. The new image is quite different: it shows Asperger at work, conducting a psychological test of a child, in the clinic where he discovered autism, near the time when the discovery was made. As such, it is a historical photograph that is directly relevant to the article's discussion.

A followup comment at User talk:Eubulides #Asperger image argued that adding the new image was "bordering on disruptive". That is certainly not the intent. The intent is to illustrate the discovery of autism, which is an important topic within Autism. We know of no free image on the topic, and given the topic's historical nature it will be impossible to generate a free image on our own. Eubulides (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And now you're just wikilawyering. Sure, the fact Asperger discovered or named or developed or whatever is significant, but why is how he looked at the time? What do you actually see the image as illustrating, that needs to be illustrated? That sentence works perfectly fine without illustration- it's not like you read it and think "hmmm, I wonder what Asperger looked like when he was doing experiments?". J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "And now you're just wikilawyering" This is not wikilawyering: it is improving the encyclopedia. The old image was objected to because it was just a portrait of Asperger's face, which is not that relevant to Autism. The new image is quite different: it's a portrait of Asperger in action, doing what he was doing when he discovered autism, a topic highly relevant to Autism.
• "why is how he looked at the time?" The image is not just one of Asperger's personal appearance: it is an image of Asperger testing a child, and it gives the reader an easy-to-see impression of how psychological research was conducted back then. Asperger's white coat indicates that he was using a medical approach (as opposed to other approaches, common at the time); his one-on-one encounter with the child shows how data were collected.
• "That sentence works perfectly fine without illustration" No it doesn't. It doesn't convey any of the points mentioned in the previous bullet.
• I see now that you removed the image again, with the comment " New image is strikingly similar to the one just deleted." No, actually, the new image is not at all "strikingly similar". They are quite different. Are you sure you're looking at the correct images? Here they are again:

• old image; no longer present on Wikipedia, so I'm linking to an offsite copy
• New image: Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg

The two images are strikingly different. One is just Asperger's face, as an older man, long after the research in question. The other one is contemporaneous, and focuses on the autism research, not on Asperger per se.

• I have the impression that this image was removed from Autism without a clear understanding of autism, the history of autism, or why Asperger's involvement was so important. Please take the time to read the article and its historical sources to get a better feeling for what's important (and what's not) about the history of autism. Here are some good sources, which Autism already cites:

• Wolff S (2004). "The history of autism". Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 13 (4): 201–8. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0363-5. PMID 15365889.
• Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2007). "Asperger (1906–1980) and Kanner (1894–1981), the two pioneers of autism". J Autism Dev Disord. 37 (10): 2022–3. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0383-3. PMID 17922179.

and here is another source (cited by the image itself):

• Frith U (1991). "Asperger and his syndrome". In Frith U (ed.). Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–36. ISBN 0-521-38608-X.

Eubulides (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd honestly love to read about Asperger, Asperger's syndrome and autism, I'm sure eventually I will (a book I read skirted on it recently, but ended up going in a different direction- I digress). However, I do not need to be an expert on the subject to contribute here- just as I do not expect you to be an expert on Wikipedia policy. If you believe that this image is necessary, can you honestly say you would have added it if the previous image had been deleted? Perhaps they are not actually strikingly similar, but when an image of Asperger is removed, adding an image of Asperger with a child and claiming it is unrelated to the previous discussion is stretching it a little. However, I am happy to treat this as unrelated to the previous discussion, provided you do not add the image to the article until there is a clear consensus to do so (as explained in the non-free content crtieria, the burden of proof to demonstrate the image necessary lies with you). As such, let us now look at the merits of this image. What does it show? Asperger, in a white coat, talking to a child. Why does there need to be an image of that? The photo itself is not famous, and nor is the appearance of what it shows significant- perhaps his methodology is, but methodology should be discussed rather than illustrated. In what way does this really increase the readers' understanding in the way that text alone would not? J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "can you honestly say you would have added it..." Absolutely. Autism needs images about its two pioneering researchers, just as Tourette syndrome needs an image of Tourette and Schizophrenia needs an image of Bleuler. When I first helped to edit Autism to reach FA status, one of the important parts of that editing was to add images relevant to autism, including images for Asperger and Kanner, the two research pioneers for autism. Had the old Asperger image not been available, I would have searched for and found this one (or perhaps another non-free one).
• "Perhaps they are not actually strikingly similar" Agreed. They are quite different. Thank you for conceding the point.
• "claiming it is unrelated to the previous discussion" No such claim was made.
• "The photo itself is not famous" There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that the photo itself must be famous.
• "What does it show? Asperger, in a white coat, talking to a child." No, it shows Asperger testing a child. The distinction is important. Asperger is not just idly talking to a child: he is doing psychological testing, which was essential for his research that discovered autism.
• "nor is the appearance of what it shows significant" Yes, the appearance is significant. It expresses details about the early discovery of autism that are not in the text and which would not be easily movable to the text. Please see the above bullet with the text "The image is not just one of Asperger's personal appearance".
• "methodology should be discussed rather than illustrated" Not when an illustration is a more convenient and immediately-accessible way of conveying the relevant information. Furthermore, in this particular case, the illustration conveys relevant information that we have no other reliable source for.

Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're just plain wrong here. The article does not need images about its two pioneering researchers, as the IfD clearly indicated. A free image of a researcher would be nice, but showing what the researchers looked like does not help the reader in any way. If there is no reliable source, it can hardly be considered significant, and if the information is conveyable by text, it should be conveyed by text, even if the image is more convenient. It would be more convenient to use images from news websites than use loosely related images or have no illustrations at all- we do not use images merely to be "convenient". This image is not in any way improving the article, and has clearly been added only because the previous image was deleted. Please simply explain to me what the image is illustrating, and why it is imperative that that is illustrated. Vague mentions of white coats aren't really working for me. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this new image is not about "showing what the researchers looked like"; it is about showing how autism was discovered.
• "If there is no reliable source" There is a reliable source: the image itself. It is this image that Frith's book Autism and Asperger Syndrome (ISBN 052138608X; a reliable source) uses to illustrate how early research was done. Frith's book doesn't use text to say that children were tested one-on-one at tables by men with white coats, and it doesn't need to use text to say it; it uses the photo. Autism can and should do the same.
• "we do not use images merely to be 'convenient'" Fair enough; I struck the word "convenient" from my previous comment. The rest of the point still stands, however. Images are highly-useful ways of conveying relevant information that cannot easily be conveyed in any other way.
• "Please simply explain to me what the image is illustrating, and why it is imperative that that is illustrated." Briefly, the image shows how autism was discovered. It is important to illustrate (and not merely describe) historical events in autism.
• Given the above discussion, it appears that an impossibly high standard is being asked for in this particular case. I don't know of any article in Wikipedia that would meet the standard that it must be "imperative that that is illustrated". Every single Wikipedia article that uses a non-free image can obviously be rewritten to not use the image, without violating Wikipedia policy, so it is never imperative to use a non-free image.
• I have asked for a third opinion.

Eubulides (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to illustrate the research. Yes, others do, but we have much stricter rules, and no doubt they discussed the matter for longer than a couple of paragraphs. An impossibly high standard is not being asked for- you're just realising how unneeded this image actually is. Compare to the use of paintings in visual arts articles, or compare to the use of old photos in articles about demolished buildings. A picture of Asperger doing his research is not needed- the article was fine without it. It does not tie to the text- at no point does the reader think "hmm, I wonder what Asperger looked like when he was doing his research?" Compare with my above examples- when reading the article, the reader is certainly going to think "I wonder what X looked like", and that's why the image is needed. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "There is no need to illustrate the research" By these standards, there is no need to illustrate anything.
• "Yes, others do, but we have much stricter rules, and no doubt they discussed the matter for longer than a couple of paragraphs." Sorry, I can't really parse that. But if the comment is referring to Frith's book, yes, it did discuss the history of autism research for more than a couple of paragraphs, and it also had multiple illustrations where Autism #History has just one. Clearly illustrations help, both here and in Frith's book; but the number of illustrations in Frith's book doesn't directly bear on the number of illustrations here, as Frith's book is meant for the expert, whereas Autism is aimed at the general reader.
• "An impossibly high standard is not being asked for" I don't see why not. I don't see how any image can meet the standard that it is "imperative that that is illustrated". Images are never imperative. One can always omit them, albeit at the cost of an inferior encyclopedia.
• "you're just realising how unneeded this image actually is" Not at all. The image significantly increases the reader's understanding of the topic.
• "Compare to the use of paintings in visual arts articles, or compare to the use of old photos in articles about demolished buildings." Those images aren't "imperative" either. No image is "imperative".
• "It does not tie to the text" Sure it does. It directly ties to the Autism #History text "The word autism first took its modern sense in 1938 when Hans Asperger of the Vienna University Hospital adopted Bleuler's terminology autistic psychopaths in a lecture in German about child psychology. Asperger was investigating a form of ASD now known as Asperger syndrome ...".
• "Compare with my above examples- when reading the article, the reader is certainly going to think 'I wonder what X looked like'" That is not the standard that WP:NFCC uses. It's not required that a reader must certainly think 'I wonder what X looked like' before we can include the corresponding image in Wikipedia.
• What appears to have occurred here is an overly enthusiastic interpretation of WP:NFCC, an interpretation that comes at the expense of a better encyclopedia, and an interpretation that many other editors do not share.
• In Autism #History we have a directly relevant historical image that significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and which has no free alternative (and for which, for obvious reasons, there's not likely to be a free alternative).
• As shown in #3rd opinion on Asperger image, we also have a third opinion in favor of the image. I restored the image for now.

Eubulides (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As a sometimes editor of the page I imagine I have a vested interest in this, but I have not come out with my feelings and opinions about this until now. The image is necessary and useful simply for the reasons Eubulides entered above. I should also note that knowing that the reader is thinking seems to actually be an impossibly high standard, unless we start surverying every reader of the encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A 3rd opinion on this matter was requested. I should state first that I am an inclusionist with regards to Wikipedia; More content, especially when it is of varying types, is one of my highest goals with regards to Wikipedia. I personally believe that the picture would fit well with the article. It is small (and therefore easy on bandwidth for the end-user), it provides an illustration of both Asperger as well as the climate in which his studies were conducted. It does not provide a direct benefit, but it pays out in spades with regards to it's secondary and tertiary value, both by engaging the reader (Images demarcate places of interest, and their summaries often work well to summarize the section they are surrounded by). Images like this have precedent; would you argue that the picture of Leslie Lamport is unnecessary in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing , or that the picture of Risperdal in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia are unnecessary? True, they add no direct benefit, but with 1 look at the picture of the pills, I realized that the section was there because the section was about medications. Then, reading the caption, I learned that Risperdone (commonly called Risperdal) is a common treatment for Schizophrenia. Leslie Lamport... Well, I can't really argue for his inclusion in the article on second thought; it doesn't exactly add much. But I still feel that this picture would add more to this article than it would take away. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the image helps satisfy folks' natural curiosity about what Asperger might look like. That's info that can't be conveyed in words, not even by the proverbial thousand words a picture is sometimes estimated to be worth (on average, I suppose-- cynical lol). Second, the image conveys a sense for the care that Asperger appears to have had for kids debilitated by this condition in a way that words cannot. I recognize that images can be abused to convey things that are misleading, but it seems to me this picture is quite straightforward and NPOV. Third, the image conveys an enhanced sense of the clinical environment in which Asperger worked in his day, in a way that words would be essentially useless to convey. Fourth, the image adds to the article by providing a visual reference independently of text. I know Wikipedians tend to be text oriented or we wouldn't bother to participate much, but there's an additional aspect of an arguably well-chosen image like this that adds to the article, which is an intuitive judgment that upon demand for proof that it helps the reader, doesn't stand a chance to prove to a determined naysayer. Fifth, if push comes to shove, experience has taught that among the vocal minority of WP users who cluster around the notion that "non-free" images are anathema to WP the determination to remove such images to the maximum feasible extent is strong, and that users who are thusly oriented have pretty-much figured out how to get their way if they set their sights on a target. So offhand I give this image less than a 50-50 chance at surviving-- but who knows? Now comes the probable dilemma, per NFCC #8, of proving to the satisfaction of the vocal minority that show up regularly at WP:NFCC the policy, WP:NFC the guideline, WT:NFC the talk page for both the policy and related guideline, and at WP:FfDs, that the image significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic, and that the removal of the image "would be detrimental to that understanding". To an opponent of such images you can't prove such a proposition-- it's tough to express at all, and impossible to fully express. IOW, either you like it or you don't, whatever your reasons might be that are largely unexpressable in words alone. Sad in a way, but a fact of life on the wiki. In sum, I think an image such as this is helpful and an excellent addition to the article even despite its crappy graphic resolution. But based upon experience I don't expect it to be around for very long. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

24.205..., you have completely and utterly missed the point. This image is non-free- please review our non-free content criteria and non-free content guidelines. The points you raise do not address the issue of whether we are justified in using an image for which we have not been given permission; the images you compare this to are free. If this image was free, I would have no opposition to its inclusion. Kenosis- what you say may be correct, but the reader does not need to know what Asperger looked like (if they genuinely have interest about him, they would be reading the article about him, rather than this one) and, as you state, it isn't really our job to throw in images to help the reader form opinions about how Asperger cared for the children- that's hardly the point of this article, nor is it discussed, nor is it important to this subject matter. The same is true of the clinical testing- if it's really important, it would be discussed. Adding a "visual reference" is not enough- it has to actually show something in particular that needs to be shown. Further, here is really not the place for random sandboxing- to a paranoid reader, you may give the impression that you are trying to villify me by insinuating I am part of some sort of cabal of users who have an irrtational hatred of non-free content. If that was to be implied, then people are really going to stop taking what you say seriously. Even if true, trying to imply my opinion is null and void because I'm one of "them" really isn't an acceptable way to debate a subject. It just makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware it was non-free; In that case, the case to delete it is much stronger, though I still feel it adds to the article. EDIT: and I am sorry that what I said gave the impression that I was attempting to pidgeonhole you into a stereotype of deletionism. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "non-free" is misleading-- highly misleading. It does not mean that it involves financial cost, or even risk of financial cost, but rather that the image lacks an explicit "free" license such as the GNU Free Documentation License or other explicit license such as listed in Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. Most often it is impossible to verify the authenticity of these licenses that are commonly attached to an entirely anonymous source. There is a vocal minority of WP users who've found a niche for themselves searching the wiki for "violations" of this ideological position that anything that's not explicitly free-licensed needs to be removed unless it fits into one of the very narrow exceptions developed at WP:Non-free content and WP:Non-free content criteria. And frankly, the reasons given for removal of such images are frequently quite subjective, and more than occasionally go so far as to misrepresent the actual policy and related guideline page that've been developed. Many of the users who go 'round the wiki asserting this position appear to see it as a mission to purge a plague that has set upon the wiki, and have developed plenty of ammunition in support of the position, which is most typically escalated until the target image is removed. So, good luck. I hadn't been following this closely, but I note that as of now the image has been removed at this stage. Not surprising actually. C'est la vie, I suppose. Nonetheless, my compliments to the editors at this article for the work that y'all have done. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion about the non-free status or the use for Asperger's portrait, or similar picture, in the article? Fenke (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A picture of Asperger - interacting with a child - does illustrate that autism affects real people more clearly then words could and it makes the content of the article more real then words, or even the MRI images, ever could. So, I'd say keep for the reason that it does enhance the article. But a possible copyright violation would be a stronger, more practical reason, to not include them. Fenke (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One more from the peanut gallery agreeing with the importance of using appropriate photos to humanize the topic - within guidelines, of course. I think this is a nice photo and like what it conveys. (But I'm also the mom of the red-haired boy on the autism pages here, so it may already be obvious that I agree with the general illustration concept.) Andwhatsnext (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, opinions expressed on this talk page will be ignored, when the question is whether the image should be deleted from Wikipedia. If you want your opinion on that matter to count, please add a Keep or Delete comment to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 18 #Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg. Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Or better, add a read arguments instead of just a Keep or Delete vote. --Damiens.rf 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently I read in my local newspaper about the expanding of the definition of Autism. They said it now includes anything that may just be a habit or phobia that is similar to "Autism's" traits. Isn't that essentially saying that Autism isn't real and they don't know what else to call it? Autism, a neurolgical developmental condition, it is more common in males, it occurs usually in infancy. It can be diagnosed with symptoms effecting three behavioral domains, social delelopment, communication, and repetitive behavior. Language delays are also common in children with autism spectrum disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.9.214 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDRS #Popular press, newspapers are unreliable sources for medical facts and figures. But saying autism "may be just a habit" is pretty far out; perhaps you misunderstood the newspaper, or perhaps the newspaper is even less reliable than is usual for newspapers. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The other issue is that autism is a condition defined by a series of symptoms. People know what causes certain types of autism but for the most part it is a bundle of symptoms that appear to have common traits. By the way- it isn't a casual connection - there are LOTS of related traits. SO people are struggling how to classify these symptom groups more and more precisely so proper medical and social intervention can be put in place to deal with it. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrases "Restricted Behavior" should be replaced with "perseveration" which is the word most often used in professional circles. "restricted behavior" seems to be a muddy area between "perseveration" and "ritualistic" and "sameness" which are in fact three different behaviors. Smibbo (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

DSM-IV-TR doesn't say "perseveration"; it says "restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities".[3] What reliable source says "perseveration"? Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We must remember that the two key traits that autism is classified as, is a person who is unable to form relationships with others or communicate with others. Other factors such as repetitive behaviour are secondary traits and should't be considered as the primary defining factors. sirrod2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by sirrod2000 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 April, 2009 (UTC)

If one goes with the DSM definition, repetitive/stereotyped patterns of behaviors or interests are actually a major and necessary component to the diagnosis of autism. -Tim D (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

..because the article is both highly-visited and very short in RuWiki.. ..and I was wondering if the latest English version is "the best to choose", or maybe there were some disputed changes lately, and I better take some "more stable" version, because the FA status was assigned rather long ago in WikiTime.. --CopperKettle 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the changes since FA have been to add reliable sources that were published after FA status. It's fairly stable except for that. Eubulides (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - good luck! - Eldereft (cont.) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've started.. --CopperKettle 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's one question:

• There are two definitions of autism in the article that diverge a bit, IMHO:

  Autism is a highly variable brain development disorder

  and

  Autism is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders

  The first one is close to ICD Q00-Q07 (as far as I understand), the second refers to ICD10 F84. Is it O.K.? I've asked at the Neurodevelopmental disorder if the article fits into ICD Q list. Or maybe the latter article is vague and overlaps several ICD sections.. --CopperKettle 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Q00–Q07 refers to congenital deformations, which can easily be seen as physical anomalies without fancy new hardware. In contrast, ICD10 F84 refers to disorders that historically were diagnosed solely by behaviors, and where no physical anomalies could be detected. Nowadays of course with fMRI and all, these divisions are blurring together. Autism is a developmental disorder of the neurons in the brain; this is currently summarized as "brain development disorder" because the lead sentence needs to be short, but perhaps you're right that the phrase causes confusion with the physically obvious disorders, so maybe we should change it to "neurodevelopmental disorder" (ugh) or "disorder of neural development" (double ugh). (I say "ugh" because many readers won't know what those phrases mean.) What do you think? Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the present formulation could stay, but thank you for explaining, it could be useful for the translation! --CopperKettle 11:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another quote:

  Its individual symptoms occur in the general population and appear not to associate highly, without a sharp line separating pathological severity from common traits.[14]

  - seems a little clumsy: "separating severity from traits" - maybe better would be "separating pathological from common traits" or somehow otherwise? Because severity has a bit of "adjective" role (don't know the exact phraseology of linguists), trait is a "noun".. Maybe: "separating pathological manifestation from common traits"? Best regards, --CopperKettle 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "separating pathologically severe from common traits"? Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. (0: --CopperKettle 11:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example, they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are more likely to communicate by manipulating another person's hand.[16]

  - meaning they mainly tug adults by hand to get what they want? (Translating word-for-word could expand the meaning to something akin to sign language, so I want to say in the Russian version: "they manipulate the other's hand to get something they want\indicate something they want"). --CopperKettle 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. Some nonverbal low-functioning autistic people use a sort of baby-like "hand and mouth" communication. I think it's somewhat akin to what you'll find if you ever try to talk to a young child who doesn't speak English. If they want you to do something theyll just bring you right over to wherever you have to be to do it. It doesnt necessarily indicate that they can't understand language spoken to them, just that they can't use it themselves. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• "desynchronization of vocal patterns with the caregiver"

  -- another part that baffles me. I did a short search on "vocal pattern autism".. and thought it would be faster to ask here. --CopperKettle 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know for sure what they mean there, but I am pretty sure that 'vocal patterns' in this sense isn't something related to autism; a child speech pathologist would be able to tell if there is some very specific narrow meaning assigned to that phrase in this context. Otherwise I would assume it just means that the rhythm of speech, i.e. phonology, does not match that of the child's parents as would that of a normal baby. Normal babies can perceive human speech with a different part of the brain than what they use to process other sounds; I remember reading in Donna Williams' autobiography that human speech was just another kind of sound and she found it difficult both to speak clearly and to hear clearly when she was very young. --- Plodoppum, away-from-home account of Soap

That terminology is derived via the cited review from the primary source, Trevarthen & Daniel 2005 (PMID 16182487), which analyzed videos of a 11-month-old child later diagnosed with autism. The child had problems developing a social rhythm when interacting with her father. I made this change to try to make it a bit clearer. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Autism is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are characterized by widespread abnormalities of social interactions and communication, and severely restricted interests and highly repetitive behavior.[11] These symptoms do not imply sickness, fragility, or emotional disturbance.[12]

I'm interested in the correct meaning of "not imply sickness.." etc. I have a general feel... but.. would be greatful if someone expands what exactly it means here, for better translation. Cheers, --CopperKettle 10:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence is intended to summarize the following passage from the source, Rapin & Tuchman 2008 (PMID 18929056):

Autism "has a wide range of severity and is defined dimensionally, which means that it has fuzzy borders that overlap normality at one extreme and profound intellectual impairment with other evidence of severe brain malfunction at the other. Children who have autism are not ‘‘sick’’ or ‘‘fragile,’’ nor are they ‘‘emotionally disturbed,’’ despite the behavioral nature of many of their symptoms."

Hope this is enough. Eubulides (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --CopperKettle 16:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A strange choice of words, IMHO:

Autism appears to result from developmental factors that affect many or all functional brain systems,[59] and to disturb the course of brain development more than the final product.[60]

. - maybe the "timing of brain development" or "timing of major steps in brain development" would be more readable? Of course I'm not a native speaker, just a personal opinion. --CopperKettle 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, changed it to "timing". Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neuroanatomical studies and the associations with teratogens strongly suggest that autism's mechanism includes alteration of brain development soon after conception.[5] This localized anomaly appears to start a cascade of pathological events in the brain that are significantly influenced by environmental factors.[61]

First clause does not say of any precize anomaly, moreover "early alteration" in a tiny developing brain implies a widespread effect (on the brain as a whole). Then follows another clause that says "This localized anomaly". Localized on what scale? The latter sentence seems to contradict the former and earlier sentences that tell of "many or all brain systems". --CopperKettle 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, removed "localized". Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Several neurotransmitter abnormalities have been detected in autism, notably increased blood levels of serotonin. Whether these lead to structural or behavioral abnormalities is unclear.[58]

- Does the "lead" here means "cause" or "lead the investigation" \ "linked to"? Thanks in advance, --CopperKettle 06:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Either interpretation would be correct, but interpreting it as "cause" is more useful, so I changed "lead to" to "cause". Thanks again for mentioning problems like this one. Here's a quote from the source, if that helps:

"The significance of neurotransmitter abnormalities in autism is not clear at this time. Atypical neurotransmitter levels could precipitate morphological abnormalities, as is suggested by some research regarding the effects of early exposure to serotonin. In addition, altered neurotransmitter levels could be closely linked to specific behavioral symptoms (e.g. opioid levels could affect and/or be affected by levels of repetitive behavior)." —Penn 2006 (PMID 16484102), p. 63.

Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The MNS operates when an animal performs an action or observes another animal of the same species perform the same action.

- probably a little error; I thought that monkeys should be able to learn from humans. --CopperKettle 06:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that "of the same species" was stolen from Mirror neuron, which actually says "(especially by another animal of the same species)" and cites Rizzolatti & Craighero 2004 (PMID 15217330). The bit about the species therefore wasn't quite right. Anyway, it is not that important here, so I removed it. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The two networks are not negatively correlated in people with autism, suggesting an imbalance in toggling between the two networks, possibly reflecting a disturbance of self-referential thought.[78]

- does this mean that in the autistic brain both networks are activated at the same time in contrast to normal people in whom they activate more in a swing pattern? --CopperKettle 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for mentioning the ambiguity; I added an "in time" to try to clarify. Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-systemizing theory hypothesizes that autistic individuals can systematize—that is, they can develop internal rules of operation to handle internal events — but are less effective at empathizing by handling events generated by other agents.[42]

- I would be thankful for clarification of the "internal events" here. Is is thoughts or\also physical events controlled by the autistic person only? Best regards, --CopperKettle 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Internal" means internal to the brain; I added that. This edit also addressed some other issues; please see #E-S theory below. Eubulides (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A strength of the theory is predicting stereotyped behavior and narrow interests;[90]

- does "Executive disfunction" view theoretically predict (explains) the two autistic features or is there more or less reliable practical tests that allow predicting the extent of these two symptoms in the person's future as he\she grows up? --CopperKettle 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The former interpretation is intended; it explains those features, but doesn't predict their future course. Eubulides (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In a couple of places "mapped well from" was replaced with "mapped well with". In English, when I say "theory A maps well from B", I mean that theory B explains many of the features of A. It's intended as an allusion to mathematical mapping, the idea being that we have an (unexplained, and approximate) function from elements of B to elements of A. The phrase "theory A maps well with B" doesn't have this connotation, so I'd prefer changing it back to "mapped well from". Or perhaps a better, clearer wording could be proposed? Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, when I was mistaken; sorry; feel free to change back! --CopperKettle 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Eubulides (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I revised Autism #Neuropsychology to incorporate a new review on the topic, Baron-Cohen 2009 (PMID 19338503); this affects some of the wording problems discussed above, and (I hope) fixes some of them better. Eubulides (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --CopperKettle 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After childhood, key treatment issues include residential care, job training and placement, sexuality, social skills, and estate planning.[121]

- "residential care" meaning "living in an instutution away from home"? "Estate planning" meaning roughly "fill the inheritance papers to give the autistic person's estate to someone"? Just a clarification; the terms are translated a bit ambiguously in the Eng-Rus dictionaries. --CopperKettle 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation is basically correct in both cases. Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, estate planning also includes things like rearranging one's financial affairs for tax and other purposes, i.e., it's more than just documenting one's existing financial state and bequest intents. Eubulides (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The sex ratio averages 4.3:1 and is greatly modified by cognitive impairment: it may be close to 2:1 with mental retardation and more than 5.5:1 without.[7]

- doesn't it just mean that in girls new cases of autism (incidence) are combined with retardation more often than in boys? Would be interesting to know exact percentages (% of A+R in girls vs. in boys) --CopperKettle 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "more often" sounds plausible, but I don't know of any reliable sources to that effect. Note the "may be": this "may be" comes from the source, and indicates that the "2:1" is somewhat speculative. The source says nothing to answer your question. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kanner's reuse of autism led to decades of confused terminology like infantile schizophrenia, and child psychiatry's focus on maternal deprivation during the mid-1900s led to misconceptions of autism as an infant's response to "refrigerator mothers".

- or maybe it was meant as "in the middle of XX century"? Thank you in advance, --CopperKettle 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The intent was that the 1900s began in 1900 and ended in 1999, just as the 1800s began in 1800 and ended in 1899. (Unless, perhaps, the context establishes that we're talking about the 1800s versus the 1810s, or the 1900s versus the 1910s, etc.) I see that the next sentence begins "Starting in the late 1960s", which does indeed mean that the use of "1900s" was confusing there. As it happens, the phrase "during the mid-1900s" was redundant, because of that "Starting in the late 1960s" in the next sentence, so I removed it. Thanks for pointing out the confusion. Eubulides (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit added this text:

"Recently, studies at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, published in the Brain Research Review, suggest there is a direct link between low grade fevers and the improvement of symptoms, with research ongoing."[4][5]

I looked for reliable sources on the subject (in the sense of WP:MEDRS) and found these:

• Mehler et al. 2009 (PMID 19059284) "hypothesize that febrigenesis and the behavioral-state changes associated with fever in autism depend upon selective normalization of key components of a functionally impaired locus coeruleus-noradrenergic (LC-NA) system". This corresponds to the popular-press accounts cited above.
• Curran et al. 2007 (PMID 18055656) "The data suggest that these changes might not be solely the byproduct of general effects of sickness on behavior". This is a much less speculative interpretation of the data

I didn't find any reviews on the subject. As per WP:MEDRS we should be leery of citing (in effect) one primary source on this topic, particularly when the source is clearly speculating and its speculations haven't been confirmed by outsiders, so I reverted the change for now. Eubulides (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this looks much too speculative to be currently included in the top-level article, but it is interesting and verifiable, so is there a more specialised sub-article that might accommodate this material? Maybe in Causes of autism? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is speculation on the mechanism of autism, not on the cause of autism. The hypothesized mechanism could operate due to a variety of causes, and could operate either pre- or post-natally. So, I guess it would belong to a (new) subarticle Mechanism of autism; this article could contain other speculations too (there are lots of them...). Which brings up a question I've been meaning to ask for a while; please see #Time for new subarticles? below. Eubulides (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for something to be a cause, it must have a mechanism - it isn't possible to cleanly separate the two, especially when cellular states like oxidative stress are already listed as "causes" in that article. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

True, true. OK, I added a new section Causes of autism #Locus coeruleus–noradrenergic system (whew! what a title!). If we create a Mechanism of autism article I think this section (plus a couple of others in Causes of autism) should be moved to it, but in the meantime it's the best home we have. Eubulides (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I came straight from Susan Boyle to here, Wikipedia is wonderful! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Autism is getting a bit large; is it time to split it into subarticles? Currently, the longest sections, which would presumably be the first candidates for subarticles, are Characteristics (which could be split off into a new subarticle Characteristics of autism) and Mechanism (which could be split off into a new subarticle Mechanism of autism). One thing that's holding me back, to be honest, is that I'd want these new subarticles to be Featured Articles, and given the currently daunting editorial and bureaucratic overhead of creating featured articles, and the evident difficulty of raising existing subarticles such as Causes of autism to Featured quality, means that perhaps we should let sleeping dogs lie. Eubulides (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are already subarticles for causes, therapies, epidemiology, and sociological and cultural aspects. Those aren't even GA, but then they are also some of the toughest subjects to deal with on WP. I'm not sure what's bureaucratic about FA but it is certainly daunting editorially. There's nothing stopping you creating the sub-articles while leaving Autism untouched for the present. Do you think you have enough material to expand these sections? It wouldn't be worth doing if there wasn't a GA-worth of material to write, but aiming for FA for a daughter article is a very high bar IMO. Colin°^Talk 07:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This series of edits inserted the text "Some autism sources are saying, however, that autism in girls might not be seen as commonly as for boys even though the girls are autistic.", citing a January ABC News story. However, the story does not state that girls are more underdiagnosed than boys are; it merely says that girls are underdiagnosed. (Mainstream opinion is that girls and boys are both underdiagnosed.) Furthermore, the ABC News story is reporting on what is apparently unpublished research; a quick search in PubMed for medical research articles published by Brenda Myles reports nothing since her 2003 paper on social stories (PMID 14516061). We can't base an encyclopedia on unpublished research. As per WP:MEDRS, the Autism article should be based on reliable secondary sources such as peer-reviewed review articles in medical journals. As WP:MEDRS #Popular press points out, ABC News and other popular-press media outlets are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine information. Instead, when talking about over- and under-diagnosis the article should be citing high-quality sources like Dover & Le Couteur 2007 (PMID 17515625), Shattuck & Grosse 2007 (PMID 17563895), and Baird et al. 2003 (PMID 12946972) (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list; it's just some examples). For now, I removed the text in question. Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The newsarticle does suggest that girls are 'more underdiagnosed' then boys, and if it doesn't say so straght up, there is really no other way to reasonable interpret the text. But it's still only a news article. Fenke (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the news article clearly suggests that in general girls are more underdiagnosed than boys. However, as you mention, the article doesn't say so straight up, which is part of the reason this source is unreliable. Separately, I looked for research articles on this topic, and came up empty. Eubulides (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add to the possible causes something about wireless technologies. This is a hypothesis recorded in PubMed (PMID 14962625).

• One study proposed recovery is helped when reducing wireless exposure: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/emr_autism_acnem_final_1.pdf
• This finding provokes other articles: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/11/19/228184/wi-fi-linked-to-childhood-autism.htm and http://www.eetimes.eu/uk/203102992;jsessionid=A2CXRAF3VXNS0QSNDLRCKH0CJUNN2JVN
• One article finds a cluster in a place with high wireless exposure: http://www.latitudes.org/articles/electrical_sensitivity_articles.html

We may ask ourselves the following questions:

• Is Autism genetic? Wireless has been correlated to DNA/genetic effects (European REFLEX study/Lai study) and infertility (some studies in PubMed)
• Is Autism environmental? Andrew Goldsworthy explains the mechanism by which electromagnetic fields can weaken tight-junction barriers (through removing calcium ions from membrane surfaces, enabling cell membrane leakage), thus increasing our susceptibility to environmental toxins/allergies. (http://www.der-mast-muss-weg.de/pdf/studien/04Goldsworthy_Thesaloniki.pdf)
• Is Autism related to neurotransmitters and neurodevelopment? The calcium efflux effect may also have effects on neurotransmitters since Calcium plays a significant role in the inter-neuron synapse in the release of neurotransmitters?

So directly or indirectly, wireless technologies may play a role in autism. And interestingly, autism rates start soaring around the time wireless becomes more popular (well, but it is debated whether that is just due to public recognition) Pensees (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Best as I can tell, the hypothesis is based simply on a correlation, and the recovery study leapt directly from heavy metals to autism. Until there is actually some good empirical evidence out there, new hypotheses like this should probably stay out of this article. Tim D (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This hypothesis that cell phones (or other wireless devices) cause autism has been around for quite some time. It hasn't been supported by any reliable sources (certainly the ones listed above are not reliable enough to make the cut for Autism). I suggest adding a new section to Causes of autism, which has lower standards for sources. A good place to put it would be between the section Causes of autism #Paracetamol and Causes of autism #Rain; this is because the latter section discuss the theory that watching television causes autism. Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If EMFs play a part in mercury exposures (as also suggested by PMID 18819554), that might help explain why heavy metal - autism link is so difficult to prove -- if it depends upon another parameter (whether powerline EMFs or wireless EMFs), levels of which may be different in different research environments. A book of testimonies of people whose health is sensitive to wireless technologies suggests a connection to their dental appointments and mercury amalgam (http://www.feb.se/FEB/electro-hypersensitivity-book.pdf). Pensees (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention also, award-winning medical and science journalist Blake Levitt had also posited a connection between EMF and autism in her book Electromagnetic Fields. This is probably the book that really grabbed my attention about the issue. Pensees (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is, however, not a peer reviewed piece of writing (from what I can gather from Ms. Levitt's website). It seems the above are weak, and, that much of the ideas presented here are either synthesis or OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never read anything supporting this theory in any peer-reviewed journal. I read AJIDD (fromerly AJMR) and I&DD religiously and a few others on occasion, and haven't seen any mention of this. I work with adults with intellectual disabilities and autism, and have a grad degree in the field. This is not an accepted theory in the field.Guinness4life (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's highly accurate that Autism will primarily affect boys/men more often than the girls/women. We students at the Univ of Wisconsin in Eau Claire are on another subject on Autism, which is not always addressed directly: gender bias. We're trying to raise discussion about the fact Autistic females may be more prevalent than the Autism studies are telling us. Furthermore, girls/women may be overlooked in regards to Autism. The sources, however, should be autism/medical studies, not newspaper matters. And also, the prevalence for intellectual disability in autistic people is being conflicted. Our college class could use help on this matter.

Intellectual disability in the regards to autism has varied depending on sources. Please tell us whatever connects autism to having mental disability-our class could sure use information about it.

12.227.185.235 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I will tell you that males greatly outnumber females with Autism, and I'm unaware of any research to the contrary (the NIH for instance says males are 4X more likely); additionally, in general males are overrepresented amongst all individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Look at the IQ curve. Male IQ curve is flatter (platykurtic), female curve is more closely grouped around the mean (leptokurtic); mean IQ's for both sexes are about the same, though. I don't think debating something that's plainly obvious is a fruitful area of research. Some conditions occur disproportionately to one sex. Breast cancer, Rhett's, etc. That there is a sex difference is largely a statistical fact. Why there's a sex difference is a very important question, though.

What connects Autism with Intellectual Disability? Good question. That's part of the research. No definitive answers now, only that it does correlate to a high degree. So do seizures, though. It's becoming less obvious whether it's causally related or co-occurent.

Check AJIDD or "The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders" or something along those lines if you'd like to learn moreGuinness4life (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See PMID 9813776 and PMID 9033466 for details of the relationship between Autism and Tuberous sclerosis, a genetic disease that often causes mental retardation and epilepsy. There may be other such associations, some undiscovered. Colin°^Talk 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, although our IP address has changed: it's now 173.26.85.192; it was originally 12.227.185.235. Please contact us at our new number=173.26.85.192

Quote, from introduction: "...with some seeking a cure and others believing that autism is a condition rather than a disorder." I think this is unclear; the definition of "condition" is very close to "disorder", and there has to be more explanation here--maybe, "a neutral trait" instead of "a condition"? I'm still not happy with this, though, because it implies that autistic people either want a cure or believe autism cannot be described as "a disorder". The actual situation isn't divided into those two camps; people basically have their own diverse opinions about it. For example, it's common to not want a cure and still consider yourself disabled, or emphasize that autism is a neurological condition and not a disease, or agree with a cure for specific symptoms but not for the core autistic neurology, or even consider themselves superior, not just non-disabled--it's very complicated; I think that description gives a false impression. I would recommend just saying people have a lot of different opinions about it, ranging from "cure me now" to "I'm not even disabled", and link to pages on things like curing autism and the neurodiversity movement. --Chaoticidealism (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The cited source says "condition" and so we should be careful about substituting different terminology. The lead is supposed to use summary style (see WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY), so it's OK if it presents a simplified version of reality, as long as it's correct and not simplistic. Here's what the cited source says on the topic: perhaps you can think of a better way to summarize it concisely?

"The way in which we think of people with autism may also change. For example, autism may come to be thought of as a neurodevelopmental condition, rather than a neurodevelopmental disorder, as ‘pure’ autism becomes the norm (see Baron-Cohen, 2000 and Gernsbacher, Dawson, & Mottron, 2006 for debates). This is because the proportion of autistic individuals with an associated learning disability has changed considerably, so that the number of people at the non-learning disabled end of the spectrum now significantly outnumber those whose IQs are under 70." —Rajendran & Mitchell 2007, doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.02.001

Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Try this link if you want to talk about changing perceptions of autism, from the national review of medicine--

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/04_30/3_patients_practice05_8.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticidealism (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. In the meantime I had already changed the lead to use different wording and cite Silverman 2008 (doi:10.1017/S1745855208006236) instead. Silverman is more recent and is peer-reviewed, so it should be a better source for this sort of thing. Eubulides (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone with autism has a baby, what is the likelihood that the baby will have autism? 75.135.76.200 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked for research on that and been unable to find it. It's possible it may not exist yet, since the first generation of parents diagnosed autistic as children are only now beginning to have children of their own. Many people with children are diagnosed as adults, but apparently there's a selection-bias problem with studying these people.--Chaoticidealism (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit (now reverted) replaced this:

"The autism spectrum disorders (ASD) also include related conditions such as Asperger syndrome that have milder signs and symptoms"

with this:

"The autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) also include related conditions such as Asperger Syndrome, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, PDD-NOS, and Rett Syndrome, which have different but related signs and symptoms"

using the change comment "Instead of just mentioning Asperger's as another ASD, I listed all ASDs. Am unsure whether this belongs in the introduction or whether it should be in the "diangnosis" section". There were some problems with this change:

• Childhood Disintegrative Disorder and Rett Syndrome are not ASDs. (The cited source says this.)
  • The DSM-IV lists CDD and Rett's under pervasive developmental disorders. I think this is a more relevant source than the one listed in the footnotes.--Chaoticidealism (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) are distinct notions; the former is a subset of the latter. For Autism, it's far more important for the lead to mention ASD rather than PDD: ASD is generally regarded to be a spectrum of conditions of which autism is the primary example, whereas non-ASD PDDs are not that closely related to autism. Many of the points in Autism are also about ASDs in general (just look for "ASD" in the body of the article), whereas almost none of the points in Autism are about PDDs in general. The lead should focus on what the article is about, and the article is primarily about ASDs, not PDDs in general.

• Are we aware, then, that the Wikipedia page on Autism Spectrum disorder lists PDDNOS, Rett's, and CDD as autism spectrum disorders? In general, that's how they're listed--check that source again; it may be a minority opinion that CDD and Rett's are not part of the spectrum, and if it's minority, then you can't list it as accepted fact. For example, Autism Speaks lists both CDD and Rett's as autism spectrum disorders: http://www.autismspeaks.org/whatisit/faq.php --Chaoticidealism (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• That was an error in Autism spectrum, in that the text disagreed with the cited source. I fixed the text so that it referred to PDD and not ASD. (Did I say that the naming conventions in this area are confusing? :-) Some sources (including Autism Speaks) list CDD and Rett's as being ASDs, but my impression is that they're in the minority among recent high-quality sources (the Autism Speaks website is lower-quality than the sources cited here). Eubulides (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the wrong source was used in the footnotes; they mistakenly referred to Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921), where what was intended was a different paper published by the same group (the Council on Children with Disabilities), namely Johnson et al. 2007 (PMID 17967920). (I just now fixed that.)
• DSM-IV is not more relevant to this issue than Johnson et al. 2007 (PMID 17967920) is. Johnson et al. is devoted specifically to ASD, whereas the DSM-IV is a more-general source that talks about many disorders and spends only a relatively small amount of space on ASD. Furthermore, DSM-IV is dated now (and is being revised), whereas Johnson et al. 2007 is more up-to-date and is a more-reliable source on the current understanding of how to classify these conditions.

Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• The change loses the point that autism proper has more-severe symptoms than Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS do.
  • PDD-NOS need not have less severe symptoms. The way it's defined (DSM), it simply means a PDD that doesn't fit into any of the other diagnostic categories. Technically, it can be more severe than most cases of autism, but not meet enough criteria in one sub-part (for example, profound deficits in communication and social interaction, but mild difficulty with repetitive behavior). Additionally, Asperger's and regular Autism can overlap, to the point that some Asperger's cases are more severe than some Autism cases. Autism is simply defined in terms of more numerous diagnostic features, not necessarily more intense.

• By the same token, technically mumps is not milder than Ebola hemorrhagic fever, since a (very) few people with mumps die from it, whereas some patients with Ebola beat the odds and survive. By any normal standard Ebola is more of a cause of concern to a patient than mumps, so what adjective should be used to tell a non-expert reader this? If "milder" isn't the right adjective, which adjective would be better? Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Asperger's is generally milder than Autism, of course; it's just that AS isn't defined by being milder, but by having fewer diagnostic features. If we leave it that way, we make it seem like we're saying "Asperger's is a milder version of Autism", which is technically false because it's not severity that defines it but a difference in exactly which traits there are. Maybe I'm just being picky.--Chaoticidealism (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's fine to be picky, if that results in improving the encyclopedia. The text doesn't say that AS is defined by being milder; it says only that AS has milder symptoms. Perhaps someone can think of better wording? We don't want to lose the comparison between the two conditions, but if "milder" can be improved on, let's improve on it. Perhaps we should replace "milder" with "fewer"? Eubulides (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This material in the lead is covered at some greater length in Autism #Classification, and is intended to summarize that section. It's not clear to me that the lead needs to mention PDD-NOS specifically, particularly since PDD-NOS is an acronym, and spelling it out would take up a lot of room, and the lead is supposed to be short. Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Brevity suggestion--Don't list any Autism Spectrum conditions; just leave the link to the ASDs, and remove mentions of severity. "Autism is one of a wider group of pervasive developmental disorders." Autism spectrum is a term that's not too well defined and seems to change depending on the researcher's opinion of what autism is; but "pervasive developmental disorder" is defined in both the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV as the larger grouping to which autism belongs.

• This is too brief, as it omit the important point that autism is at the more-of-concern end of the autism spectrum. Also, it would make the introduction more confusing, as the distinction between ASDs and PDDs is a confusing area and is not really important enough to be raising to the level of the lead. (Also, I think it's helpful to mention one other example of ASD in the lead, though that's not as crucial as the other two points.) Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)