Talk:Autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics
Former featured article Autism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Marshall R. Childs. "Lessons from Asperger's syndrome", Daily Yomiuri, November 4, 2005.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

the info about public schools providing services could be more detailed including public law, no child left behind, and the idea. services are provided from 3-21. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.137.172 (talk • contribs) .

This is a former featured article. —Cswrye 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
People who come under the subject of this article (Autism) may be found at Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Don't mean to be rude but I am putting this at the top for everyone to help keep an eye on vandalism

Regarding edits from 63.199.33.66 This recent edit of what may have been a legitimate attempt at contributing but demonstrably without regard to the guidelines here was done by a person operating from an ISP that has been warned and blocked a number of times. Looks like it may be time to block it again. Malangthon 23:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


As per instructions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection I have requested a semi-protect to hopefully reduce the incidence of vandalism.Malangthon 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy Edits

The work culminating in Revision as of 20:44, 27 February 2007 WLU (Talk | contribs) (e-sized pictures, trimmed list of behaviours, minor other changes)

Presents problems of a very real substantive nature

  • A. It is no longer clear what is presented from the source
  • B. The subcategories, while a reasonable approach, are not actually presented in this way by the source which is a rather well received source cited and in effect extends or limits any number of the behaviours listed--that is a no-no
  • C. Key Behaviours are "Key Behavours" Unusual they may be but then many other syndromes and perfectly normal children may also display them so No, they are not Unusual. These behaviours are not the diagnostic apparatus, they are used in conjunction with a clinical history. Key Behaviours, is a Key Category

The list of behaviours was already trimmed--anyone who reads the literature would know that. Key behaviours that are actually listed in the DSM and the ICD were cut--NB this entire article derives from accepted criterion (a WIki premise by the way) and that basically means that editor WLU has deleted substantive criterion and substituted a personal perspective which is also a no no.

deleted sentence

On a positive note, the behaviours could do with expansion as is done by many of the authorities listed here. But on that list, it is misleading and not a constructive change. Malangthon 01:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See below for my post re: rationale on the photos (if you haven't already) - I was also responding there to what I thought was a sensible request. Although this is an encyclopedia, I think that humanizing the subject is vital and very relevant. I say this not as the owner of the pictures in question, but as a mom to a kid with autism. The photo of Dr Asperger is lovely ;-) but doesn't exactly improve anyone's understanding of the nature of the autistic mind. Andwhatsnext 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatsnext. Your goal is not in dispute. Your response to a reasonable request for photos is sensible. Humanising, to what extent I do not know, is essential in my view. I am just saying that the photos need to relate directly to the text--which the line of toys does (I did not see that at first but yes, it works) Asperger's photo is, by way of presenting history, a reasonable addition-and humanises the history of the topic. Malangthon 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't questioning the inclusion of the Asperger photo - merely noting its limited use in humanizing the topic as a whole. :-) In any case, I swapped out the "(cute) kid with a bus" pic and replaced it with one of him precisely stacking cans. I have had a lot of positive feedback on the can image (as well as the one of the line of toys) from parents and siblings of autistic kids. Apparently, they have seen the same thing happening in their homes. (As I was adding the photo, Quinn brought me a big tower of Ello pieces. He wanted help sticking on one broken bit. Some things never change, eh?) Anyhow, I'm sure I don't have to suggest letting me know if you don't want the picture on the page... Andwhatsnext 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Am i autistic?

'1. impaired social interaction, 2. impaired communication and 3. restricted and repetitive interests and activities' when i read this i was like, wow, am i autistic? after all, who among us DOESNT display these three symptoms? so i wen't up to a trusted adult, and i said, wow, i fit the description of autism! but according to my adult figure, autistic children often can't talk, and I probably never met one because they are in institutions! WTH? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.202.48 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

You have probably met plenty of autistic people in everyday life and not known it. Heck, several of the editors of this article are autistic to one degree or another -- including yours truly. You might like to use the links throughout and at the bottom of the article, and the books given in the references, to learn about different types of autism and the controversies about them. Good luck, --Bluejay Young 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I find this statement hard to believe

"The leading cause of Autism is infection through interspecies "relations" with elephants."

How did this get into the article? If true (and I find this *very* hard to believe), where is the cite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.21.238.140 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia (and hense this article) can be edited by anybody. A consequence of this is that some people add nonsense to Wikipedia articles, which frequently have to be reverted. The statement you refer to is a typical case of vandalism. Q0 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That particular bit of bandalism was reverted by the user who made it, about four minutes after doing so. You can see who edited an article by clicking on the "history" tab above it. V-Man737 00:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

This is getting too involved for this article. I am working on writing a synopsis of the Autism Heritability article and switch what we have here to there. Malangthon 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a synoptic overvierw of the genetic section to simplify (I earnestly hope) the entire section. So, if the following bits are too technical (which I hope to reduce with the rewrite and relocate) then the overview may give the reader what is needed. There of necessity no citations in the overview. I summarises what follows or it is at the very least high school level knowledge nowadays and bound to be widely known already. Malangthon 00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New genetic discovery

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070218/health/health_autism_genes

Anybody wanna tackle this. --James Duggan 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a quick summary of the news article, I may have access to the Nature Genetics article through my university's resources, I will see what I can do in the next couple days though, of course, if anyone can do so more quickly that would be wonderful! TomTwerk 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I added the name of the project involved. I also changed the link from the Canadian-centric one above. --James Duggan 05:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with source and text for Shank3

Shank3/ProSAP2 "Researchers from France showed that the gene called SHANK3, also known as ProSAP2, regulates the structural organization of dendritic spines and is a binding partner of neuroligins; genes encoding neuroligins are mutated in autism and Asperger syndrome."

This reads that gene (a) SHANK3, is involved in X & Y--then it goes to other unamed genes (b) that are involved in related aspects but they are not the SHANK3. Missing text? It jumps.

"A deletion of a single copy of the gene on chromosome 22q13 can result in language or social communication disorders[78] (see also 22q13 deletion syndrome). Though not present in all individuals with autism, the mutations hold potential to illustrate some of the genetic components of spectrum disorders.}

I changed this from, "A mutation of a single copy . . ." to "A deletion of a single copy . . . " since I could not find a reference to this as an actual mutation anywhere else. If you can find and quote the original source, please do so and we can change it back. Malangthon 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More pictures?

Looking at this page, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who thinks more pictures are necessary. This article is rather unappealing to the eye with its abundant amount of text and around 2-3 pictures (I may have miscounted, but there aren't many images). - Lulu288 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the page looks pretty dry. What kind of photos do you envision? Kids in school or snaps of autistic kids in other scenarios? I happen to have a cutie-pie with autism who hangs around my house (well, okay, he's my baby) and I love to show people his photo ( http://faceautism.org/wp-content/uploads/quinn-with-bus.jpg ) specifically because he *is* autistic -- and looks sweet and "normal" and happy. I think they're usually expecting to see a miniature version of Dustin Hoffman in "Rainman."
- Andwhatsnext 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Good! If you are willing to go through the trouble of uploading the picture here (and trust me, it can get pretty troublesome, at least for me), that would be very useful. V-Man737 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I posted two photos - one of just the cuteness element ;-) and one showing how he loves to line stuff up. Andwhatsnext 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, though the second one adds to the article showing the lining up aspect, the first one doesn't add much in my mind, it kinda just looks like a kid holding a bus! Are there pictures that could be added that are a bit more relevant? Also, I shrunk them both down 'cause they were pretty big. WLU 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the first photo on the page is valuable simply because it DOES look just like a kid holding a bus. The point being that autism doesn't [necessarily] make a kid look odd or freakish or clearly "disabled." (See above when I first posted the URL to the picture and my first statement about my POV.) I realize others may not care and/or agree, and that's cool. I'm certainly not going to insist. There are also other photos I can upload - one of him stacking cans comes to mind. And he's a fabulous speller, too, so maybe something showing that ability would work.
Breaking up the "behaviors" list is much better - thank you. :-) I have a couple thoughts for ideas/suggestions (the first one is that autistic kids may not point, either - it isn't only that they don't get someone else pointing), but I will work out a few things, see if I can find references, etc. before adding anything.
Andwhatsnext 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
He's totally adorable! ^_^ I do remember checking out one of the sources in this article that made a point about certain facial characteristics that Autism can cause, although subtle; e.g., the shape of the eyelids and ears, and sometimes the mouthline... I'll try to dig it up again and paste it here. The photo is somewhat relevant to the "appearance" aspect of Autism, fulfilling the point of "omigosh they are not totally hideous and deformed." They are both definitely useful, and I will uphold their inclusion. V-Man737 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was never under the impression that autistic people were ugly--they always pictured them with helmets on when I was taking child psych back during the Lincoln administration :). Malangthon 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up the behaviours list is a substantive change. Further elucidation can be made in the article below. It was ambiguously labeled and a number of the listed behaviours are actually part of numerous development areas so the subcategorisation represented the key behaviours inaccurately and certainly not in accordance with the cited source. Malangthon 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Originally I thought the The picture of the child asleep does nothing for the article. However, now that I think of it, it could be noted in the key behaviour "spends a lot of time stacking objects, lining things up or putting things in a certain order." Give the text more cohesion.

The little boy with the toy, while cute, is meaningless. It is a child with a toy. That is it. A very cute child to be sure but not the purpose of the article. Have you got one of a child walking on toes or spinning or sitting separately from other children?

So, while reverted some substantive changes in the text, I left the photos intact and my view on that is personal. Those photos by the way, have these been released and appear here by permission? I have no idea where they came from. (You Tube is just a drop, not a legal entity with authority to disperse this.) Malangthon 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you have made. I was actually going to tackle the text myself, but wasn't sure about consensus. As for the photos, if you'll read just a few paragraphs aove, you'll see that Andwhatsnext is the owner and contributor of the photos; as for their propriety, I support them (as stated above), until better ones come our way. V-Man737 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Stacking Cans Great photo! Malangthon 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And V-Man, I have read in a few places (and heard from several parents/teachers) about autistic kids having big eyes. If we can find a good source for that, we can maybe put a little pic illustrating that element back up. (The "kid with bus" is still uploaded, and I will just put it on my personal page for now.) Also, feel free to modify the text for the images as you see fit.
And yeah, he's my kid and I took the pictures. I will try to see what other photos I can take and/or dig up. He never did the toe walking thing, so I'm SOL there. ;-) Andwhatsnext 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Argh, I can't find the website I want! I've found this website reporting the findings of a study on the cranial circumference of Autistic children, but nothing more. (I've had Mistress Google display it in HTML instead of PDF because I don't have (or like) Adobe reader.) Also, I've posted a request for some sauce on the Science reference desk. V-Man737 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum - if you can't tell, I'm scrambling for sources to justify including the bus picture for a reason other than sheer cuteness (which, although it is reason enough for me, might not fly well with the rest of Wikipedia :-P). I'm tempted to use the cranial circumference source, but the caption that would go with the picture just kills me: "Autistic kids often have larger head circumferences than others, like this little tyke. Look at the size of his head! It's like an orange on a toothpick!" ...No, I cannit du tha'. V-Man737 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't think the cranial size aspect will be that obvious. The cute picture could be worked in if there was a good section on how people expect autistic children to look. If there is an article that purports to show that many people do think autistics look funny and how that has been debunked, then there is an avenue. However, if all the pictures are of a very cute ginger-haired boy, then it might look a bit slanted. There is such a thing as too much. One thing that may be persuasive and add to the point that autistic children do not standout visually, is a photo with a mix of autistic and non-austitic chidlren and the caption "Of the X number of children in this photo, Y of them are severely autistic." Permission to publish may be a problem though. Malangthon 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I will try to hit up some friends with autie kids to see if any are willing to share photos of their kids, particularly school/educational shots. If anyone has specific requests, please post them here. (If all else fails, I can put a wig on my kid. Blond curly hair maybe? Or maybe a Cleopatra cut.) Andwhatsnext
While twirling about on your toes? :) Are we gettting insensitive here? Malangthon 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Links

The following were either dead links or led to damaged files (and redundant) [1] [2] [3] [4] Malangthon 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


I removed this link from Social Development because Camp Make Believe is a commercial site [5] The information there is not at all bad and reflects what is in the field but they do not cite any primary references to back themselves up so there is really no way we can included this. Malangthon 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


I deleted this from references since it is a damaged link

I have emailed the NAS and alerted them. Hopefully we may re-incorporate this source later. Malangthon 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Deletions from General References

1. This is a commercial site
2. This is a commercial site run by Electric Word
3. This is a dead link

Malangthon 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relocating redundant sources

Many of the Community links from Autism are listed elsewhere already or fulfill the themes of other related articles like Autistic Community. The main article Autism has been subjected to a growing number of peripherally related links to the point that the primary theme of the main article has been diluted. I have relocated them since they are relevant to those articles. Malangthon 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


While the artticle grows by leaps and bounds, it is important to remember that there are other articles here where much of the information is more germane. A good example is advocacy. There is an Autism rights movement article where advocacy issues are pertinent. Malangthon 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relocating references in the text as citations

I am going through the list and pruning the Reference section and its links. I found an outdated link (*Ewald, Paul W.. "Plague Time", Popular Science, April 2001.) that is no longer available and its content is unknown. However, let me note here that the venue, Popular Science, had a lot of references when I keyed in "Autism" and may prove to be a useful source for this topic. Malangthon 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy Definitions

[edit] High Functioning Autism

HFA is not defined in the DSM or the ICD. It has no purpose here except as a disambiguation. The article on Wiki here is not well referenced and that at best should be a disambiguation page and not a separate article. It begins by saying it is an informal term and then proceeds as if it were an establish defintion, contradicts itself, conflats Asperger's and HFA and makes redundant comments that are in other articles which merely fills it out. There are numerous articles on this listed in PubMed but they do not refer to a common defintion nor do they accept a core diagostic set of criteria nor agree on what it is or if it even exists.

Use of the term here needs to be curtailed unless someone can show this is an accepted designation and not merely a flag run up the proverbial research flag pole. Malangthon 07:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy research

Anyone know what is wrong with this? a more recent theory relating autism to high levels of television viewing while young.[50]?

Premise asserts that in countries with cable TV there is more autism. Onset of symptoms averaging about 3 years of age.

Problem is, those countries with high end technology--like cable TV--are also a strong correlate for countries with health technology and education that would even consider autism. In other words, there will be a strong correlation between countries with health professionals looking for autism and those with cable TV. Go over to the section from NIH on neuropathology. There are numerous studies that show the various areas of the brain have actually slowed or stopped developing as late as 6 weeks before birth and much earlier. So, the mother's TV viewing habits are now implicated?

My point, we can employ studies that come out of reputable institutions like Cornell, but that does not mean these authors are worth citing. Malangthon 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding good research is a problem. It's really easy to do a sloppy study and misinterpret the statistics involved. If you can find any that are questionable, let's contest it. TV is probably only a problem because parents use it as a babysitter and sitting an autistic child in front of a TV is probably the worst thing you can do to them. But that doesn't mean the TV is to blame; I think that's absurd. I agree we need quality refs and there's a lot of junk out there being cited. --DanielCD 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ref 50 is the Wired article, and a word search turns up nothing for TV or television. Did I miss something? --DanielCD 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably the difference in numbering that happens when there are additions or deletions. Malangthon 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Link?

I'd like to add our site as a link on this page but wanted to submit it for review first. We host the official forum for the UK's National Autistic Society, where parents of children with autism can come to discuss their problems and issues. The url I'd like to add is http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/forum/display_forum_topics.asp?ForumID=11.Rkeditor 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forums are usually a bad addition for external links. Also, since it is UK, the info there will mostly be useful to those living in the UK, less so to those in the other parts of the world. Thought links like this are useful for activism and support, they do not add a lot to an encyclopedic article. WLU 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And too they are more related to other articles in the Autism collection. Although a forum of professionals in the field on the technical aspects, etiology etc. would be relevant. This article is about the syndrome itself. The forum in questions is about the socio-political issues that come to bear. So the issue here is about relevance to this particular article. Malangthon 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend not adding this link, as it goes to a web forum. Our external linking policy has this under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, item #10, where it recommends against linking to discussion forums. Looking at the Autism article, its external links section does seem to be overgrown; I'd recommend shortening this list. It has at present 22 external links. Featured articles are expected to have 10 or fewer. EdJohnston 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Did not know there was a preferred maximum. I am switching some externals to the footnotes section though where their place in the text will be illuminated. Malangthon 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style, Tone, Genre and Register - how does this article read?

Let's talk about who reads this and how it needs to be composed. People here talk about 'encyclopedic' as if it were a universally understood word. It varies enough to make that a bit simplistic if not downright naive.

This line I wrote in Genetic section "Genetic influence comprises a significant aspect of research in the causes of autism" is relatively formal. It could be stated thus, "Research into the causes of autism includes genetic influence," or "Genetics is a common topic of the causes of autism," or "It is believed that a persons genes may be a cause of autism," or . . . .

"comprises" is not a common word for a lot of people who read Wikipedia (On a limb? Don't think so. Lots of high school students and parents with no extenive background in formal English read us here.) And how significant is significant? But this is a common way of wording an opening sentence like this. And "genetics", how many people who read this are conversant in the topic?

On the one hand, if the writing is too pedestrian, the reader may downgrade the knowledge of the writer and pass it off as amateurish when in fact there are plenty of people here with advanced degrees in various fields who edit Wikipedia. I have a post graduate degree with about 400 hours in neurology and neuroanatomy--and not just studying pictures and models. I logged hundreds of hours on cadavers. I also have a graduate degree in applied linguistics. So, while I am relatively familiar with the genre of formal scientific papers in more than one field and the basic biological issues in this section, I am also aware that it can go overboard by being too technological and formal.

Suggestion: While we write and edit, feedback on how this reads is important. I occassionally send a friend here to read what we have and get their reactions. Teachers in special education, parents with children who are disabled, anyone who might have an interest in the topic and some level of expertise who might want to get a survey level knowledge of the article. We debate a lot of issues but it is still important to make it comprehensible. Malangthon 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Places notes on sources here for cohesion if you would please. Malangthon 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla has attached a sources needd template to section on Key behaviors. This is in error. To wit: "The list below is not all-inclusive, and generally applies to children and not adults. Furthermore, while some of these behaviors might be seen in a person with autism, others may be absent.[27] Reference 27 in footnotes is the source for the listed noted behaviors. Malangthon 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decreased GAD67 in Purkinje cells

Glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) is an enzyme used in GABA production (Glutamate -> GABA + CO2 by decarboxylation). There is deregulation of GAD67 levels in schizophrenia. Recently I have stumbled upon an article showing a 40% decrease of it in Purkinje cells in autism: PMID 17235515 (Yip et.al., 2007; free fulltext PDF).

If you deem it appropriate, you might mention it in the "Physiology and neurology" section - there is a mention of Purkinje cells being affected. Best regards, CopperKettle 10:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] proposed category renaming

I think it would be fine, perhaps though, People on the autistic spectrum might also work. The article has a section on terminology, the references for that section might have something more informative to say than me. WLU 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is acceptable; however, if we are going to go through the trouble of shifting all that around, is there anything particularly wrong with what it is called now? V-Man - T/C 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand wholeheartedly behind the removal of "disorder". I have never been satisfied with the use of the word "spectrum" to describe possible types and ranges of autisms, but that can be discussed later & probably elsewhere. Go for it. --Bluejay Young 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with removing "disorder," but I do really like the term "spectrum," and use it often when trying to explain to the clueless why my son isn't like X autistic person they know or Y autistic person on TV. Since there are countless variants and degrees of autism -- all different colors, if you will -- I think "spectrum" covers that nicely. IMHO ;-). Andwhatsnext 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, surely. I just think that the spectrum idea promotes the misconception that one person is "more autistic" or "less autistic" than another, depending on how close to non-autistic they act. Someone can appear to be what is called "profoundly autistic," but at the same time given the proper tools to express themselves they are just as creative and articulate as someone who looks "less autistic". viz. Silentmiaow and others. I always think of one of those color-selectors they have in art programs like Paint Shop Pro, where you see a circle which includes all the colors and you can click any point in the circle and get a slightly different shade or an entirely different color or somewhere in between. That is my personal model for autism although I find the Moebius ribbon sufficient for everyday. --Bluejay Young 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images about Autism

I found the Imagage you uploadet about the autistik boy in this artikle and want to ask, if someone can upload them in Commons too, so that othr Wikipadians from othr countries can use them too. I can't do that, because I can't upload the image on my PC. It just doesn't work. I don't know why. Thank's a lot. --Sylvester84 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

Soft writing there:- "Since autistic individuals are all different from one another, there are likely multiple "causes" that interact with each other in subtle and complex ways, and thus give slightly differing outcomes in each individual"

  • "individuals are all different from one another" is redundant;
  • "since" - one thing there does not follow from another
  • it would be at least as resonable to say that since individuals differ, a single cause for a disease will give subtly differing (presentations, courses and) outcomes.

Midgley 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I did the most recent re-write of that section, and I wasn't pleased with it but couldn't think of a better way. I do think that emphasis needs to be given to the large amount of diversity that autism has in presentation. All the kids I worked with were radically different from each other in potential, performance, ability, symptoms, far more than one would expect given they were all given the same diagnosis. All this to say, a single cause does not give a subtly different presentation in this case, it has radically different presentations (in my opinion). WLU 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If you say so. Would you say children with autism differ from each other in potential, performance, ability (lets leave symptoms as being different from those) more than children without autism - IE the range of variation is increased by autism? Midgley 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that they differ about as much as one kid differ from each other, in all those measures/areas. The point I guess I'm inarticulately trying to make is that considering the use of a single diagnosis, the presentation is incredibly idiosyncratic. It's one of those things I don't think I could ever find a reference for, and only stands if the editors of the page are willing to leave it there. It's based on my time working with autistic kids, and talking with others who also worked with them. In my experience (which is not sourceable), "...a disease will give subtly differing" is incorrect in the use of the word 'subtly', it's more 'wildly'. Again, my own experience, can't think of and probably couldn't find a reference. If you wanted to go ahead and change it or even remove it, I don't have a porblem with it. WLU 03:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICD

Might it be worth including the ICD diagnostic criteria in addition to the DSM criteria? Parableman 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutism_49be.html"