Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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)

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)

Somebody wrote the following in the treatment section: "A recent independent study showed that the use of Ketamine (100 mg every 2 hours) along with Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Yoga, Meditation and Dream Therapy are promising treatments for Autism..." This sounds like a prank, because according to Erowid, 100mg oral dose is a high recreational dose for an adult, let alone a child; and doses at two hours would keep the patient perpetually dissociated. Also, all the Google and PubMed articles I found regarding ketamine and autism related to anesthetic management of autistics (i.e. for surgery or combative situations), not treatment. On that criteria, I'm deleting that paragraph from the article.

I say good call. WLU 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment

No offense, folks, but the genetics section reads like it was written by someone with a 4th grade understanding of genetics. It needs to be scrapped or re-written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.129.38.131 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Deletions and Mutations" section and the paragraph that gives a (too) basic description of what a gene is and the consequences of mutations. I also added a paragraph about sporadic (spontaneous) deletions/duplications under "Genetic component." NighthawkJ 06:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Your rewrite was good stuff. I made what I hope are further minor improvements; please let us know if I didn't succeed. The rest of the Autism#Genetic component still needs work, but you've greatly improved what was the weakest part of it. Eubulides 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I love the pictures, too, and agree the topic could be spiced up with more pictures, but I don't see how they really add to the understanding of autism. The stacking of cans is something almost any child might do -- the unusual part is that it is done obsessively, which is difficult to show in a picture. In fact, this points to the difficultly in diagnosing the disease, as autistic children can appear like all kids (although some exhibit signs that are obvious to everybody). My child, for interest, at the age of 3, appears pretty normal, but it his inability to connect with other children or adults in a meaningful way that is the key to his illness (as well as speech issues). As for pictures, I think it best to get pictures of therapies or elsewhere, and then explain the therapy as a way to explain the illness. --Daniel-Raanana 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Links

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

I removed this link from Social Development because Camp Make Believe is a commercial site 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

• Barnard J et al. (2001). Ignored or Ineligible? : The reality for adults with ASD. London: The National Autistic Society

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

• http://www.centerforautism.com/whatisautism/ CenterForAutism - 'What Is Autism?' Center for Autism and Related Disorders

2. This is a commercial site run by Electric Word

• http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/understanding-autism-school-375 Understanding autism in school

3. This is a dead link

• http://www.autism.readarticles2 me.com Audio Articles About Autism Read Online or Download Free Audio eBook on Autism.

Malangthon 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. (April 2001). "Plague Time". Popular Science.) 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)

Dodgy Definitions

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)

It's fixed now. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

This item is now moot here, since I moved the TV stuff to Causes of autism. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 extensive 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)

In the History section, I feel the phrase "Autism was actually confused with schizophrenia" conveys a negative image on the part of the early researchers of autism. At the present time, one of the main characteristics distinguishing autism from schizophrenia is age of onset, since many of the presenting behaviors are similar. Perhaps the word "initially" would sound less pejorative.--Diggnity 15:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "actually" with "initially". Eubulides 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

Looks like a nice study but it's probably a bit much for us to refer to it directly. Do you have a nice review article that places it in greater context? In the meantime I have added a brief but undoubtedly dated discussion of neurotransmitter abnormalities in general. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed category renaming

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders -- Can "People on the autistic spectrum" be an acceptable name for this category? Currently only three people have commented; the discussion needs more voices. — coelacan — 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 problem with it. WLU 03:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That state often arises by a lumping of many cases into one diagnosis - thus numbers rise and specificity falls, and treatment appears inconsistent - and/or followed by recognition that there are different diseases involved. Coeliac disease and cystic fibrosis were an example. Midgley 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One day it may be differentiated into multiple diseases, but its etiology still too poorly understood for anyone to say what's going on. Though I believe the statement/section is true, I also know it is unreferenced/able right now, so feel free to re-word it or take it out if you feel strongly.

Also note that for spacing on talk pages, I prefer to use the second variation of the layout guidelines. --WLU 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make it more clear by changing the wording to "since the way autism manifests in autistic individuals is different for each of them". Robrecht 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've tried to clarify that clarification - I didn't realise it was being discussed on this page. I thought person was a better and more specific term than individual in this case so I changed one instance of person to individual. Graham87 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think they're both equally valid, so while I don't think it needed changing, I'm not gonna change it back and I'll atleast thank you for the effort. Robrecht 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question, since (after intervening rewrites) it wasn't needed any more. Its former role has been taken by the nearby sentence "Autism should perhaps not be seen as a single disorder, but rather as a triad of core aspects (social impairment, communication difficulties, and repetitive behaviors) that have distinct causes but often co-occur." Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ICD

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

Done. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism in animals

i've had a friend who talked about an autistic dog. is it possible that autism exists in other creatures? (to be less objective, i have a dog in here which fits the definition and more - it got attacked, probably because it didnt respond well in a social situation (with another dog)) 80.178.119.112 05:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it have speech delays and difficulty developing abstract concepts? WLU 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Idiot Savant

This article says that 10% of autistic people are idiot savants. But there are only approximately 50 idiot savants in the world at a time, so I am sure that that is an inflated statistic. --NikolaiLobachevsky 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No longer an issue here, since the savant stuff got moved to Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism. You might want to take it up there. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I have changed the sentence, "although not universal ..." in the social development section to the way it was before this edit in January 2007. The word lability is a real word and seems to be used quite a lot to describe autism. However my problem with the word lability is that it is uncommon - Wikipedia's articles should be accessible to a wide audience. Therefore I have reverted to a much more simple version talking about "difficulty regulating behavior". It is a bit more clunky but I think it gets the point across. Graham87 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Blackman

Contributors to this page may be interested to know that Lucy Blackman is up for deletion. You may vote and share your thoughts on the matter at that article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Flapdragon 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RV blog

I reverted a blog that was posted today [1] - though it is a blog that could be included since the blogger is a researcher who's work touches on autism, there is no guarantee that any one day will have autism out of the multitude of topics he may discuss. Links could be established to existing entries that are not expected to change.

On a somewhat related note, what are people's thoughts on trimming down the external links or possibly re-organizing them? There's at least a couple that fit better into resources or further reading rather than EL. It also seems like there's a lot of duplication - fact sheets and booklets, research portals, then there's the miscellaneous websites like autism speaks, autism hub and autism.org. Thoughts?

WLU 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The external links have been trimmed down to three, so I think this point has been addressed now. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC News on neuroligin link to autism

Protein mutations link to autism . Best regards, CopperKettle 09:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another BBC link, posted yesterday: Autism symptoms reversed in lab . I felt the discussion of causes of autism was kind of thin; what do others think? Maybe my knowledge is dated. --Diggnity 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"DSM definition" should go

Now that the article has a proper link to DSM-IV-TR 299.0, there's little need to copy the contents of DSM-IV-TR 299.0 into the Autism#DSM definition section, so let's remove that section. Anyone who wants to see the DSM definition can simply follow the link. After all, no other Wikipedia article has a "DSM definition" section. Eubulides 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is pretty long, but it's also a critical definition and I wouldn't actually mind to see the DSM and ICD definitions in the article, in very trimmed down versions. Alternatively, perhaps the DSM could be used as a reference for some of the other sections, like perhaps the behaviors one. WLU 16:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The current lead's first two sentences already has a very trimmed down version, which cites both the DSM and ICD definitions. Does that suffice? If not, what sort of length are you looking for? Is there some example of about the right length, in some other Wikipedia article? Eubulides 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say that that's about the length I'd want it, though there is no harm in using the reference again in the behaviors section - the intro is designed to summarize what's contained below so duplication is actually a good thing.

Here's some other articles where the DSM is used in the body text: Depression, PTSD, ODD. WLU 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section and put in a precis elsewhere; hope it's good. Eubulides 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DSM should never be included as a copy; it's a serious copyright issue, strictly enforced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I trimmed down the external links, what do people think? WLU 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Trimming is good. Eubulides 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this article for the first time while doing some Wikilink checking and, while I concur that too many repetitive EL's is a bad thing, shouldn't such major organizations as Autism Society of America and Nat'l Autism Assn. at least be listed, or is there some reason for their exclusion? JGHowes ^talk - 04:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added those two, and moved some of the others around. Eubulides 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using national versus international websites is 'scope creep', where first it's the US, then Canada, then Australia, then UK, Scotland, Ireland, Malaysia, Arkansas, Ontario, New South Wales, London, Suffolk - having anything except the most influential and world-wide websites gives individual users the temptation to add their own local organization's website, and that's unsustainable. I solved this on other pages by linking to a worldwide websites that had a list of links to individual countries' websites. Of course, it's a slippery slope argument, but one to be considered. I also don't know which organizations are major and which aren't. Third objection - the NAA appears to support the vaccine hypothesis, which is utter bunk in my mind, and on top of that, I can't even figure out what nation it belongs to and it's a bit spammy for my tastes. Final objection - the ASA site is US-specific and therefore US-centric. Though the US is generally one of if not the biggest player in much research or advocacy across the world, I'd prefer an international one. That being said, a quick google search doesn't present me with such a link. And if NAA and ASA are both US-based sites, there's 2 sites for that country and none for others. Just my thoughts - overall I'd prefer an international one. Did I take out this one? It's a self-advocacy site and a good foil to all of the 'cure' ones. WLU 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're right, one such site is enough. The ASA looks better so I removed the other. If you can find something even better (international, or a directory) let's go with that. Yes, I think you removed autistics.org (at least I didn't). Eubulides 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links could use deeper pruning, per WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:RS (Wikipedia is not a support group). Using DMOZ categories may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming them. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: reorder and insert sections as per Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Sections suggests quite a different section order from what Autism is currently using. Other neurological disorder articles, e.g., Tourette syndrome, are using this section order to good effect. Any objections if I move the sections around to reflect the suggested order? Basically, what would happen is that we'd move "History" to just after "Epidemiology". We'd move "Causes" to be just after "Characteristics". We'd then insert new sections "Mechanism" and "Diagnosis" (much of the material already exists). We'd then move "Treatment" to after the new "Diagnosis" section. We'd move "Sociology" to after "Treatment" and rename "Sociology" to be "Prognosis". Then would come a new "Screening" section. Then the existing "Epidemiology" (followed by "History" as already mentioned). It'd be a bit of work, and the resulting text would be nearly as wild and woolly as it is now, but it'd be a step in the right direction Eubulides 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd support the MOS 100% and much of the changes look good. However, I do think that sociology should remain a separate section - Autism is far more than just a diagnosis or disorder for many people, and a lot of people with autism very strongly feel (with good reason) that autism is not a disorder but an extreme of a continuum. I think this is one case where the MOS style should have an exception and sociology should be kept separate. I'd even venture that it should be re-named 'Autistic society' or something similar (Autistic culture? Put in a {{main}} and leave a paragraph or two highlighting the major issues?). WLU 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome fits the same description, but the MEDMOS format works in that article. Part of the reason MEDMOS has the sections names it has is because those worked for the non-disordered view of TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both of those sound reasonable. For now I'll leave "Sociology" alone. Eubulides 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the order without changing any of the wording. No doubt some wording changes will be needed later. I have not written any of the new sections needed, but I put in Wikicomments where the sections should go. I didn't move "Sociology". Eubulides 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If "Sociology" becomes something akin to "Cultural references", it will conform to MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just now finished the reorganization along the lines suggested above, except that I put "Screening" just before "Diagnosis" (I don't know why WP:MEDMOS listed it in the other order, as it's weird to do it that way; I just now reordered the suggested sections in WP:MEDMOS to help fix this). A lot more work needs to be done but at least the outline is improved now. Eubulides 07:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now followed a combination of WLU's and SandyGeorgia's suggestions by creating a new page Sociological and cultural aspects of autism with the old "Sociology" as its contents, leaving a short paragraph in the main page. Suggestions welcome. It still needs a lot of work. Eubulides 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better! I left several inline queries about other text that may be candidate for that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See also pruning

See also could be pruned, per WP:LAYOUT. Useful links should either already be incorporated into the text, or should be in the navigational template at the bottom of the page, {{Pervasive developmental disorders}}. Ideally, See also is minimized, and links shouldn't be repeated in the text, in See also, and in the navigational templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Autism needs a navigational template similar to {{Topics related to Tourette syndrome}} to handle all that See also stuff. I made one during the Asperger syndrome FAR but it was rejected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the navigational template. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

I'm not checking refs, only cleaning up the formatting. Many of the refs aren't the best possible sources (for example, press releases and news reports rather than the actual studies). Although I'm cleaning up the formatting, many of these refs I'm working on will need to be replaced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work! Wow. A few fairly-minor comments on what I've seen so far:

• For medical journal titles I've been using the Pubmed abbreviations fairly religiously, without periods, in the Pubmed style; any objections? I noticed you changed some of them to spell them out or to add periods.
  • Whenever you see me using cite journal (which I hate :-) I'm taking whatever Diberri's tool spits out. (Do you have Diberri's tool? It's the PMID finder in the user box on my user page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware of Diberri's. Interesting: Pubmed raw data spits out the journal name in two forms, one with periods and one without. Diberri takes the one with periods. No big deal either way I guess. Eubulides 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Likewise, I've been using medical style for authors (lastname initials, no periods, e.g., "Graf ER").
  • Yes, I prefer no periods, but sometimes I forget. Again, standardized to what Diberri spits out (the convention on Wiki is to list all names if there are five or less, use et al if there are more than five). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Likewise, I've been using medical style for et al., namely, list all authors if six or fewer, otherwise list the first 3 and say et al. Now that I think of it I've probably made mistakes in that area, but anyway that was my goal.
  • See above. And I could be wrong on this, but someone told me long ago that Wiki cut off at five. Whatever Diberri returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• When DOI is available I prefer that to PMID, since it's one less click to get to the actual article. If both are available should we give both, or just use DOI, or does it matter much? I notice you're adding PMID in this case.
  • I plead ignorance. I don't really know what DOI is/does, I'm much more comfortable with PMID, so when we have both, I like to list both (but I can be educated about DOI). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • At least for my browser it's a one-click versus two issue. Also I'm more used to DOI because it works outside the medical field too. But again, no big deal; if both work let's put in both. Eubulides 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• For "cite news" the magazine or newspaper's title should use work=, not publisher=; I noticed this for a change you made to a Wired article. It causes the title to be italicized, which is right.
  • Not sure on that. Doesn't matter to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I changed it back to work=. I admit Template:Cite news is unclear on this subject, but its examples all use companies for publisher=, not newspaper titles. Eubulides 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The first two references (to ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR) now look funny, since they start out with the year. That's why I said the WHO was the author rather than the publisher, and likewise for the APA. OK to change it back?
  • Anything you want to do is fine with me; I was just plowing through the initial mess. It's a shame I put effort into some of these sources, as many of them need to be replaced anyway (for example, we shouldn't be using the BBC reports, rather finding actual studies, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks, changed them back. Eubulides 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The M.I.N.D. institute report wasn't really a press release, was it? It was a report transmitted to the legislature.
  • I thought it said news release in the URL ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The URL says "…/newsroom/…" but if you look at the M.I.N.D. Newsroom you'll see it's a grab-bag for things other than press releases too. This particular one is called a "publication" that has "not yet undergone peer review" (and probably never will…). Anyway, it's not a press release so I changed it back to "cite paper". Eubulides 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mess

This fellow named Frombonne or Fombonne or Fombone is all over the place with different spellings in the article and in PubMed; does anyone know what his name is, and do we just stick with what PubMed uses even when/if PubMed is wrong  ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

His e-mail is listed in PubMed as Fombonne, so the PMID entry that his name as Fombone must be wrong, and our entry of Frombonne was probably wrong as well. I left them all at Fombonne, even though that disagrees with PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Eric Fombonne) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombudsman (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 June 2007

Which Washington ?

Regarding this text:

---

A possible explanation for the characteristics of the syndrome is a variation in the way the brain itself reacts to sensory input and how parts of the brain then handle the information. An electroencephalographic (EEG) study of 36 adults (half of whom had autism) at Washington University in St. Louis found that adults with autism show differences in the manner in which neural activity is coordinated. The implication seems to be that there is poor internal communication between different areas of the brain. (Electroencephalographs, or EEGs, measure the activity of brain cells.)

The study indicated that there were abnormal patterns in the way the brain cells were connected in the temporal lobe of the brain. (The temporal lobe deals with language.) These abnormal patterns would seem to indicate inefficient and inconsistent communication inside the brain of autistic people.("Clue to flaws in autistic brain". BBC News (October 14 2006). Retrieved on 2007-06-28.)

---

The BBC report mentions a Dr. Murias, which seems to lead to PMID 17336944 — but that refers to University of Washington in Seattle, while the Wiki text refers to Washington University in St. Louis. I think the Wiki text is wrong, because the BBC also says University of Washington (not Washington University). Anyway, I think that PMID is the correct ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at the details, I'm sure you're right. The older text in this article contains sveral incorrect conclusion-jumps like this. Eubulides 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong journal ?

Regarding this text:

---

Autism appears to involve a greater amount of the brain than previously thought. A study of 112 children (56 with autism and 56 without), published in the Journal of Child Neuropsychology, found those with autism to have more problems with complex tasks, such as tying their shoelaces or writing, which suggests that many areas of the brain are involved. (“Autism 'affects all of the brain'” BBC News (August 16 2006). Retrieved on 2007-06-28.)

Children with autism performed simple tasks as well as or better than those without. In tests of visual and spatial skills, autistic children did well at finding small objects in complex pictures (e.g., finding the character Waldo in "Where's Waldo" pictures). However, they found it difficult to tell the difference between similar-looking people. Children with autism tended to do well in spelling and grammar, but found it much more difficult to understand complex speech, such as idioms or similes when the meaning of the phrase is figurative. They would, for example, not understand that "He kicked the bucket" meant someone had died, or were likely to actually hop if told to "hop to it".

The inference from this research, according to researchers at the Pittsburgh School of Medicine, is that "These findings show that you cannot compartmentalize autism. It's much more complex.”

---

I think PMID 16911973 is the correct study, but it's not the Journal of Child Neuropsychology; it's Child Neuropsychology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you're right even though I haven't looked into it. Eubulides 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Book sources need page nos

Remember to include page nos. when citing books; easier to add now than look for them later. Also, I reworked the navigational template at the bottom of the page; have a look ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I try to do that in general, but in this particular case the entire contents of the cited book Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism? consist of material about the footnoted phrase "it is unclear to what extent Asperger's and HFA represent separate or overlapping conditions" so I thought page numbers would be out of place. (To some extent it suffices just to cite the book's title; but it'd be a bit tacky to say "page 0". :-) Eubulides 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure that you knew that they're generally needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)