Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Changing "with autism" to "autistic"

I noticed that there was an edit that changed "with autism" to "autistic". I personally believe that saying someone who is autistic is generally kinder (it's like saying someone is norwegian instead of "with norway"). Most of those who are autistic that I've seen say that saying that they're autistic is better, but I was just wondering if it's good for the article to have the identity-first language.

If anyone's wondering, I am autistic, so this is just a matter of if the article's tone is good with it. Washy (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Washing Machine of Lies: I am autistic and I tend to agree. MOS:DISABILITIES (an essay, not part of Wikipedia's official Manual of Style, but AFAIK this does not contradict any community consensus) also favours identity-first language for autism. I personally don't think we should go around changing every person-first to identity-first language in autism-related articles, as some editors seem to be doing (retaining existing styles is part of the MOS guidelines and overrules the disability essay); but equally, I don't think there are any issues with this article tone if we do switch to identity-first language. – Bangalamania (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I am also autistic, and I kind of dislike it when someone says that I am someone with autism rather than I am autistic. I agree with the change to "autistic" and not "with autism". CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Nail-Peeling to Self Harm

I was diagnosed with autism, which I love peeling my nails and occasionally results bleeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFurnaceofSucess (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheFurnaceofSucess: I have heard similar stories from autistic friends of mine. However, Wikipedia cannot rely on anecdotal evidence, so unless this has been mentioned in medically reliable sources, we cannot include it here. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Bleuler's original usage

I've been researching the origins of the term "Autism" all day now after seeing in multiple sources its close relation to Havelock Ellis's term "auto-erotism" (Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Vol 1, "Auto-Erotism") (see also, Freud, Standard Edition, vol. 18 pg. 69), and some even saying the former is a portmanteau of the latter (Bailey, "Lacan, a Beginner's Guide", pg. 8). At least in the psychoanalytic sense, they do seem to be closely related, however from what I can tell, Bleuler's usage of Autism refers to an extreme form of Schizophrenia where the patient is entirely consumed by their delusions and hallucinations, and that's where he differentiates with Freud's usage of the term. The "original" source from Bleuler, for reference:

"The most severe schizophrenics, who have no more contact with the outside world, live in a world of their own. They have encased themselves with their desires and wishes (which they consider fulfilled) or occupy themselves with the trials and tribulations of their persecutory ideas; they have cut themselves off as much as possible from any contact with the external world. This detachment from reality, together with the relative and absolute predominance of the inner life, we term autism.19 (Footnote 19) Autism nearly coincides with what Freud has termed auto-erotism. Since, however, for this author the concepts of libido and erotism are so much broader than for other schools of thought, his term cannot very well be used here without giving rise to many misunderstandings. In essence the term, autism, designates in a positive way the same concept that P. Janet (321) formulated negatively as "the loss of the sense of reality." However, we cannot accept Janet’s term without discussion because he understands this symptom in a far too general sense..." (Dementia Praecox or The Group of Schizophrenics, pg. 63. The footnotes are his own)

The notion of Autism being simply an arrested stage of development is much closer to Freud's auto-erotism, the stage at which the child is able to satisfy their own desire to suck after being weaned (Three essays on Sexuality, Standard Ed. 7 181-3), and therefore (presumably, in later research) referring socially to children who fail to "properly" socialize as they are primarily self-satisfied. (Although Freud nor Havelock Ellis would've never made prescriptions of "Proper" or "Normal" behavior, such influences in psychology seemed to come later. See post script below.) In any case, the page doesn't touch on this close family relationship of the terms "Autism" "Auto-erotism" and "Narcissism" (referenced later by Freud as a stage following auto-erotism (see Wikipedia article Narcissism)), and I feel regardless it's inappropriate to cite Bleuler here since it appears that actually "Autism" was perhaps originally Freud's term and way of masking the more controversial term "auto-erotism":

"Your chief and his wife called on us last Friday evening. He is definitely the more bearable of the two. He was as amiable as his stiffness permitted. He came out in defence of infantile sexuality, for which only two years ago he was “without comprehension.” Then both of them pounced on me, insisting that I should replace the word “sexuality” with another (on the model of autism); this, they claimed, would put an end to all resistance and misunderstanding. I said I had no faith in such a happy outcome; anyway, they were at a loss to provide this better term." (Letter addressed to Jung by Freud, The Freud/Jung Letters, 110f, pg. 173. Also see 114f, pg. 179)

The Chief here we might assume to be Bleuler himself, under whom Jung worked as a lab assistant and who oversaw his Doctoral Thesis, later maintaining a close working relationship with at the time of this letter's composition in 1908 (see Jung Wikipedia article for ref). It is ambiguous here, then, whether it was Freud who generated the term "Autism" and gave it to Bleuler, or Bleuler who did first and suggested it to Freud. They were close colleagues, it appears, and like the Chicken and the Egg, may be an impossible question to answer. Regardless, the close relationship (or even identicality) of "autism" with "auto-erotism" is something we can surmise that Bleuler's readers in the psychoanalytic community would've understood when he referenced the two as almost interchangeable in his work, based on the account of the suggestion in these letters (presumably) by Bleuler himself that the term "Infantile Sexuality", which the public finds repugnant, should be replaced by something "on the model of Autism", something more palatable--that is to say, the replacement of "auto-erotism" with Autism is exactly for the effect of masking its implications, an effect which, if I'm right, is still operating today seeing as how difficult it was to piece this together. One should also note that this letter was composed on October of 1908, and Bleuler's "Dementia Praecox", while it was composed according to the author in the summer of 1908, was still published in 1911(Dementia Praecox, pg. 2). So, even in that way the citing of Bleuler's text as the first usage of the term "Autism" is factually wrong, although the claim that it was Bleuler's invention is debatable. Although, if it truly is his invention, then it was probably in an effort to obscure the meaning for the general public as was suggested to Freud by Bleuler (if he is infact the "Chief") he do in the same way with the term "Infantile Sexuality", which to this day remains his most controversial.

Works Cited:

• Ellis, Havelock. “Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume 1” Project Gutenberg, October 8, 2004,

→https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13610/13610-h/13610-h.htm

• Freud, Sigmund. "The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud" Translated by, James Strachey, Anna Freud, Alix Strachey, Alan Tyson

• Bailly, Lionel. “Lacan: A Beginner’s Guide” Oneworld Publications, 2009

→https://oneworld-publications.com/media/preview_files/9781851686377.pdf

• Bleuler, Eugen. “Dementia Praecox or The Group of Schizophrenics” Translated by Joseph Zinken, International Universities Press, 1969

→https://philarchive.org/archive/BLEDPO-2 →https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b21296157 (German original)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#Etymology

• Freud, Sigmund. Jung, C.G. “The Freud/Jung Letters“ Ed. William McGuire, Translated by Ralph Manheim and R. F. C. Hull, Princeton University Press, 1974

→https://archive.org/details/FreudJungLetters/mode/2up?view=theater

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Early_years

P.s. I apologize the references aren’t formatted correctly, this research is all a work-in-progress and I’m new at this! And about the comment that “Freud nor Havelock Ellis would've never made prescriptions of 'Proper' or 'Normal' behavior” and that those developments occurred later, I’m currently reading an article about the development of the term Autism from Freud to it’s modern usage, but it’s late and I am tired, and I didn’t focus on it since it wasn’t directly related to finding the “source” of the term the way it’s used in Psychology. I will link below. I also understand that this is a very contentious topic, and I do not mean to offend but merely, as the old Enlightenment thinkers used to say, search “earnestly for the Truth”—however produced and constructed such a truth is—making the best effort to have a balanced, scholarly view. Any help, or criticism, is welcome!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196690/

2601:88:8102:2A30:E563:CE04:5E74:8B5C (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow that's quite an essay there. Well yes, the English "auto" is from the Ancient Greek αὐτο for "self". And I think the translated works of both Freud and Bleuler use it in this sense. But over and above that, I'm not sure any detailed analysis of the overlap, or epistemological development, between the two is justified in this article. Perhaps an Etymology section is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well, heh, I actually wrote it after my etymology edit on Wiktionary got rolled back for being (admittedly) too vague. But I believe you're absolutely right, the modern usage of Autism is very different from it's original conception. I'd be happy to see all this get put to good use, if the community believes it's worth it! 2601:88:8102:2A30:E563:CE04:5E74:8B5C (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The place for that information would be History of autism, which is now a redirect to here, but an article could be created there and History of Asperger syndrome could be merged to it. (Unless you are experienced with WP:CWW, please don’t attempt this yourself :) You are using a number of sources that aren’t acceptable though, and I know there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that cover this material because I read them last decade when Eubulides had made this a featured article (which it no longer is). Your text relies on other Wikipedia articles (not reliable sources), and overrelies on primary sources, and doesn’t include an examination of secondary reviews. My suggestion is to start a sandbox to see if you can come up with well-sourced text that could be used to start a History of autism article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! So far, I've updated the etymology in Wiktionary as new research tied the etymon of "Autism" directly with "Auto-erotism", and was dated earlier than the publication of Bleuler's book (besides the fact that the date listed for the publication of said book, 1912, was incorrect)[1] [2]. In any case, my original aim was to update that etymology after seeing multiple discrepancies when its origin was referenced in various psychoanalytic texts (the divide--between auto-erotism and autism--clearly stemming from a friendly disagreement between Freud and Breuler), so to that end my goals have been accomplished. But as you can see I've been doing more work on the topic generally and may continue it. If you could provide those sources you mentioned it would be a great help. 2601:88:8102:2A30:C01:9205:C05C:9E9E (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It would take me a very long time to dig through the ten-year-old drawers full of dozens of journal articles to find those sources. It would be faster for you to fire up your PubMed search engine, restrict the search to reviews or literature reviews (by checking the boxes on the left-hand side) and search on the relevant keywords. Or you could ask at WT:MED if someone can locate adequate sources for you … I was only saying that I know they exist, but cannot look for them for you as I am in the midst of a veterinary emergency with my pooch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Aspergers references

All references to aspergers should be removed, as aspergers is no longer recognized under DSM5 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28953765/) A Magical Badger (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

They're still closely related. Dunutubble (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not about whether they're related, it's about Asperger's being an obsolete category.

Oolong (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources that predate DSM5 use Aspergers terminology thus we should continue to use it for topics that predate the change. History doesn't just dissapear because someone wishes it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Mercury and autism

It appears that mercury can now be listed as a cause of autism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33061742/ Quote: "There is, nevertheless, a significant relationship between mercury concentration and autism. Thus, the concentration of mercury can be listed as a pathogenic cause (disease-causing) for autism." Jane Joe Public (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This journal charges up to a fee of $2,230 to publish a submission. (I had encountered fees of $800 in a predatory journal, and thought that was bad.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The journal isn't MEDLINE indexed. Being indexed in MEDLINE is not an absolute requirement, but it is an indication that we should be cautious about the journal's practices, since nearly all reputable medical journals are MEDLINE indexed. Are there other (hopefully more reputable) sources saying the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a review paper titled "The relationship between mercury and autism: A comprehensive review and discussion", by Kern et. al. (2016) in Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. Perhaps this is useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a stronger source, even though it's six years old. It seems to conclude that mercury either causes or contributes to the risk of autism.

I don't think we should treat this idea as content that requires an extraordinary level of evidence. A pair of good sources is plenty. Overall, if you assume that autism is more like 'a type of brain damage' rather than 'a natural and desirable variation in human existence', the surprising claim would be that neurotoxic elements like lead and mercury didn't increase the risk of autism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That (older) study looks fine from here, and its wording (“is a risk factor”) is better than “is a cause”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Kern et. al. (2016) is a review study, and six years is not a long time. I was surprised to see no mention of autism at Minamata disease and Niigata Minamata disease. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE says "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones". There is no ban on using six-year-old sources, even if theoretically we prefer slightly newer ones. I think this six-year-old source is stronger than the newer one linked above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Autism

Please see the discussion at WikiProject Autism. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

This sentence is missing an adverb.

In the developed countries, about 1.5% of children are diagnosed with ASD as of 2017,[26] from 0.7% in 2000 in the United States.[27]

Please add an "up" after citation #26. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This should not be a separate page from Autism Spectrum.

These terms are generally used interchangeably. For example, see

1. The NHS's 'What is autism?' page
2. The NAS
3. Autism Speaks (sorry)
4. Autism Society
5. Autism Science Foundation

It's incredibly weird for Wikipedia to have a page titled 'autism' that is almost all about a category that was removed from the DSM in 2013. I don't know of anyone else that does this. The content on so-called 'classic autism' or 'Kanner autism' that this page focuses on should all be subsumed into the autism spectrum page, or this page should be renamed to one of those.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I keep coming back to Wikipedia's autism pages and cringing at how badly out of date they are. This division was barely defensible five to eight years ago; by now it's straightforwardly anachronistic.

Since the wider world doesn't use autism to mean something different from autistic spectrum conditions, this eccentric categorisation is inevitably leading to inconsistencies in the text, where it is not clear whether it is indeed about 'classic' autism, or about the wider spectrum.

--Oolong (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No. This is not covered by the vast majority of WP:MEDRS sources; they clearly differentiate the two. Just because a few websites state their opinion doesn't mean that it's fact. Please don't revert back to your additions as they are unfounded. Wretchskull (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? I've given five citations to official sources above, including at least two of the biggest autism charities in the world. Where are your citations to the contrary? Oolong (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonus citations

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

And more! Focusing on peer-reviewed papers here, even though that's not a sensible thing to demand when it comes to questions about how words are used:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Enjoy! Oolong (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

None of these sources are WP:MEDRS except the nature source, which itself states that it used the word autism for ASD only to respect self-advocates and for brevity; see my talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What is your basis for asserting that these sources do not meet MEDRS criteria for reliability? And what is your basis for insisting that they should anyway? This is not biomedical information. It is a question of language and usage, both within and outside of the biomedical field. Oolong (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks as if you may have misunderstood the application of MEDRS, Wretchskull. "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." This is simply not biomedical information, and the standards you keep referring to are simply irrelevant. It is a question of terminology, for which I have supplied more than ample references. Nevertheless by way of 100% MEDRS compliance, I refer you to the textbook 'Autism'. Fletcher-Watson, Sue; Happé, Francesca (2019). Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate. Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 9781138106123. Oolong (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My only comment is that there would have to be an overwhelming number of sources which showed that both terms are synonymous. The sources provided above by Oolong are not enough to make the case for a merger. A merger would be a big deal, since the Autism spectrum page is over 148,000 bytes and this page is over 137,000 bytes. I do not support a merger unless there is a consensus among users for such a merger and a majority of sources show that the terms "autism" and "autism spectrum" are synonymous. Unless those tenets can be met, which is doubtful considering the sizable nature of this page and the autism spectrum page, I cannot and do not support such a merger. I doubt that many users on here would support such a merger either. As such, I wholeheartedly agree with Wretchskull and say that Oolong is completely wrongheaded, even though well-intentioned. Historyday01 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have formally proposed a merger, with main discussion at Talk:Autism spectrum#Merger proposal; Outdated terminology/taxonomy.

The fact that all of the major autism charities and many health authorities use 'autism' synonymously with 'autism spectrum' should be strong enough evidence. Careful examination of the 'autism' entry here will also show that it has evidently been written partly by people using 'autism' as a synonym for 'autism spectrum', which many of the sources it cites also do; as such it is a hodgepodge of content about the obsolete diagnostic category sometimes referred to as 'autistic disorder', and the broader concept of 'autism' which was used as far back as the 1940s to include what later became known as Asperger's syndrome, and is now used far more often in this broader sense.

Anyway, as I say, main discussion over at the other page. Oolong (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Carletteyt (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that this article doesn´t talks about the link between digestive problems and the same.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/expert-answers/autism-and-digestive-symptoms/faq-20322778#:~:text=Yes%2C%20children%20with%20autism%20spectrum,diarrhea%2C%20compared%20with%20their%20peers. Carletteyt (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, might want to take this to the autism spectrum talk page. This one is due to be merged, and this doesn't sound like a request specific to the historical category of Kanner autism. Oolong (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Difference, not disorder.

I'm "autistic" and calling autism a disorder is honestly hurtful to me. I'm very, very offended and I'm not happy about it. Call it a difference, not a disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:708D:A901:A51F:FA29:5CAE:D6B1 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you may be confused between "disorder" and "disease" or "disability" autism used to be considered a disease or disability, but in order to be less offensive to autistic people, and less dehumanizing, it is now considered a disorder. calling it a difference is basically the same as calling it a disorder. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the term disorder very explicitly indicates that something is wrong with a person. American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. A breach of civic order or peace; a public disturbance.
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body.

Autism is not an ailment, and it certainly doesn't fit either of the other two definitions! There are good reasons why the label of 'disorder' is widely rejected.

It is a disability, though. Like all disabilities, it should be understood primarily through the lens of the social model of disability. It's kind of important that autism can qualify as a disability; many of the human rights that disabled people have were won through hard struggle, and a high proportion of autistic people will at some point need to invoke their rights to, for example, reasonable adjustments in the workplace, education and public services. Oolong (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary? Oxford Dictionaries has this:

"[countable, uncountable] (medical) a condition or illness that causes problems with the way part of the body or brain works" I think in the UK the word "condition" is seen as quite neutral in this context. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I am also autistic, but "disorder" is the term for that. Because it is a "disorder" for the neurotypical norm. Especially, since some functions regarded as "normal among people" are clearly impaired or disfunctioning (although some functions are better wired than among NTs). Using "sensible langauge" usually just leads to unscientific misinterpretations, and is in the end even more hurtful for autistics.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with this point; this is more of an anecdote, but general disability rights/justice conversations I've been party to recently tend to hold that avoidance of directly calling it what it is by surrounding it in a euphemism is not only muddying but also generally stigmatizes disability more than normalizes it. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's odd because disorder is always how I've explained my autistic brain to neurotypicals. The mind being like a bookshelf, with different books symbolizing thoughts and ideas, the autistic brain I think is a bit disorganized, so all of the same books are there, but they can be harder to find, and you might end up with the wrong one. I've learned more recently though just how variable autism is, and I wouldn't be surprised if this analogy only works for MY brain. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think for a lot of autistic people it's quite the opposite - they feel like they're very determined to ensure that everything in their head is well-organised and sensibly filed. Things which don't fit in with the rules and categorisation systems they're trying to use are a source of great frustration (often leading to those rules being discarded). There's an analogy here with the well-known tendency for autistic kids to play by lining things up, often in order. One example. Oolong (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Hi you use the puzzle piece logo , amd though histroically used , i think its very important you write about how a large portion of autistic adult reject the puzzle piece and auitsm speaks, as it hints we have a piece missing , we are not whole , there are many articles about autistic peoples opinions and how allistic support carers for autistic children are being used as the majority voice here 78.149.31.110 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Question: I'm not seeing such a logo in use anywhere in the article. Can you please provide more information regarding your concerns? You may also want to provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. DonIago (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, they're right, there's an 'autism awareness ribbon' covered in puzzle pieces at the start of the Society & Culture section. Sources on why that's a problem: [13][14][15] Oolong (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't look closely enough at that to realize it was made of puzzle pieces. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I have procedurally closed this edit request. If the IP wishes to have the logo simply removed that would require consensus amongst editors and wouldn't be performed via an edit request. If they would like prose written to describe how a majority of autistic adults reject the logo then that would either need to be provided by the IP themselves or the IP would create an account and edit the page once autoconfirmed. In either scenario, while both potentially valid options, neither would be performed through an edit request. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That's probably fair enough on a procedural level, but I think the OP was basically right; removing a symbol that has negative connotations and is widely disliked within the community it relates to shouldn't be too controversial, right?

I've gone ahead and just removed the puzzle piece logo. I'm not sure this entry warrants a discussion of why that's the right thing to do; probably best to reserve that for the main societal and cultural aspects of autism entry (which only touches on it briefly). Oolong (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't include both symbols and their controversies, it seems to me like the best way to keep a neutral POV as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We could, if you have the time and energy to write it up!

I really don't think Wikipedian neutrality requires it, though, and I worry a bit about adding more material to this entry when it's theoretically on its way to getting merged with Autism spectrum and/or a renamed low-functioning autism. If you're moved to cover the controversies, societal and cultural aspects of autism might be a better place? Oolong (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)