Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 6

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: '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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Am i autistic? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I find this statement hard to believe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Genetics

message: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070218/health/health_autism_genes
Anybody wanna tackle this.  --James Duggan 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New genetic discovery 

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem with source and text for Shank3

message: 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).
: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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: relocating redundant sources

message: I am going through the list and pruning the Reference section and its links. I found an outdated link (*) 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)
thread_title: Relocating references in the text as citations

message: ===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)
replies: text: It's fixed now. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgy Definitions

message: 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)
replies: text: It's fixed now. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Functioning Autism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Probably the difference in numbering that happens when there are additions or deletions. Malangthon 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This item is now moot here, since I moved the TV stuff to Causes of autism. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgy research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Potential Link?

message: 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)
replies: text: I replaced "actually" with "initially". Eubulides 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style, Tone, Genre and Register - how does this article read?

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

message: 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:  (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Decreased [[GAD67]] in [[Purkinje cell]]s 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  proposed category renaming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images about Autism 

message: Might it be worth including the ICD diagnostic criteria in addition to the DSM criteria? Parableman 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ICD

message: 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)
replies: text: Does it have speech delays and difficulty developing abstract concepts?  WLU 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autism in animals

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Idiot Savant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lucy Blackman 

message: I reverted a blog that was posted today  - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RV blog 

message: Protein mutations link to autism . Best regards, CopperKettle 09:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC News on neuroligin link to autism 

message: I trimmed down the external links, what do people think?  WLU 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Trimming is good. Eubulides 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I added those two, and moved some of the others around. Eubulides 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and leave a paragraph or two highlighting the major issues?). WLU 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion: reorder and insert sections as per Manual of Style 

message: 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, .  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)
replies: text: Autism needs a navigational template similar to  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)
replies: text: Thanks for creating the navigational template. Eubulides 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also pruning

message: 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  — 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Which Washington ? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Again, I think you're right even though I haven't looked into it. Eubulides 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong journal ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, just wanted to make sure that you knew that they're generally needed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book sources need page nos