Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 18

How should those with the condition be referred?
How should we refer to those with this condition? We have a style guide and a manual of style that recommend slightly different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

1) Person with autism

 * Support we generally use person first language for health conditions. Not everyone identifies as their condition. "individual with" is supported by WP:MEDMOS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDMOS says: "Many patient groups, particularly those that have been stigmatised, prefer person-first terminology... [but] some groups view their condition as part of their identity (for example, some deaf and some autistic people) and reject [person-first] terminology". We use person first language, but with some exceptions. We do not say "individual with deafness" or "individual with blindness", and we should treat "individuals with autism" similarly. If you want to use WP:MEDMOS to defend the term "individuals with autism", you may have to do that same for "individuals with blindness" and "individuals with deafness" for full consistency of stance. WP:MEDMOS implies that we should defer to the preferences of the group. A study on group preference finds that "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * support per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see how "autistic people" or "autistics" is an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That argument is good faith status quo stonewalling. No harm done. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but that type of argument is classified as stonewalling per the policy I cited in my initial comment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment that I don't see how "autistic people" or "autistics" is an improvement is not stonewalling in any sense of the word. Furthermore, Status quo stonewalling is not a policy or a guideline. It is a supplement page, essentially an essay. My comment is also not "status quo stonewalling." I don't see "autistic people" or "autistics" as improvements. Simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point that this explanatory page is trying to make is that such !Votes do not add to the discussion and should not be counted in determining consensous. But it's not my place to decide if a supplement document is enforced here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus is about the strength of the arguments, but RfCs, which this was, include votes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support this proposal per my comment here, which clearly shows that this source actually favours this option.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  22:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also read my rebuttal. The source states: "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’)." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support we don't use adjectival forms for other conditions ("schizophrenic people", "disabled people" etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

2) Autistic person

 * Support: Autism is explicitly stated to be an exception to the rule of person-first language in the disability style guide and is implied to be an exception in WP:MEDMOS. Additionally, This study finds that the term "autistic" was endorsed by 61% of autistic adults, while the term "person with autism" was endorsed by only 28% of autistic adults. We should respect the preference of the autistic community. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In figure one of the source you linked, the only two results that really matter are the results for ‘person with autism’ versus ‘autistic person’ because the other results are not really relevant to how this article will be written and are not subject to the disputed terms. Unfortunately I have to say: the results show ‘person with autism’ is overall more favoured amongst those surveyed (parents, professionals, family/friends, ASD), except a slightly higher percent of individuals on the autistic spectrum preferring ‘autistic person’. I did spend a fair bit of time considering your opinion and the source. Therefore, I must oppose this option.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  22:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically the high acceptance of the term ‘autistic’ does not mean what you claim, it could easily mean a ‘person who is autistic’ rather than ‘autistic person’ — the opposite of your POV. In other words you are misrepresenting the source, in good faith. That result of 61% is therefore meaningless to how we edit this article and resolve this dispute.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  22:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. We should consider only the preference of autistics, as Wikipedia lets each group label itself. The other polls from the other groups should not be taken into account. The identity-first terminologies on which the study collects data include "autistic", "autistic person", and "is autistic". A quote from the study finds that autistics usually prefer identity-first language (here referred to as disability-first)
 * The use of person-first language was the principal point of contention among community members. Professionals reported a clear preference for the use of person-first language (e.g. ‘person with autism/Asperger’s’), while autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’). This pattern of results was not wholly unexpected. Person-first language was initially championed to challenge medical and moral beliefs that define people by their disabilities, instead referring to them first as individuals and then to their disability, if necessary. In so doing, it focuses on people’s abilities and distinguishes the person from the disability (Blaska, 1993; Feldman et al., 2002; Foreman, 2005). Researchers, educators, clinicians, other health professionals and the broader public have long been schooled in the philosophy and the desirability of person-first language and so it is not surprising that very similar explanations for the use of such language were given by the professionals in our study.
 * It is notable that the study itself uses identity-first language, likely in deference to its findings. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd offer a slightly different interpretation of the usage. The key part of PFL is that it makes clear that the person an condition are different; so Person WITH Autism.  Autistic people don't see being autistic as an accessory, but as an intrinsic part of the self.  Being autistic has mediated every moment of their lived experience, because it affects how the world is perceived and engaged with.  In that sense person who is autistic is perfectly reasonable, although pretty clumsy wording.
 * I can understand the misunderstanding if you're not heavily involved in working to improve quality of life, and opportunity, for autistic people.
 * Random Acts of Language (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Autistic people like myself are rather offended by being called "Person with autism" rather than "Autistic person". For us, autism is not a condition, but part of our identity. Look no further to how other people say it in the autistic community! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From time to time I see dating site profiles that mention autism and I have to say the large majority say something like and I have asperger’s or I have mild autism and similarly the people I have met in life would say similarly. I actually think it is fairly uncommon for someone to define their identity as being an autistic person. I do not believe you are speaking on behalf of autistic individuals/people with autism, rather you are giving your personal opinion.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  03:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Autistic people have a majority preference for being described as autistic people, with major representative charities and research organisations respecting that and evolving their language to support. As autism is neurological and a lifelong developmental condition it is not a disease or illness, it's an intrinsic part of the self.
 * https://www.autism.org.uk/describingautism
 * https://www.autistica.org.uk/about-us/media-communications-guide
 * https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/#autism
 * https://ollibean.com/the-gymnastics-of-person-first-language/
 * People without autism do have an overwhelming preference for Person First Language, and tend to talk over the preferences of autistic people. That does rather tend to skew the debate.
 * 157.203.254.3 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: I am an autistic person involved with the autistic community (not the "autism community" which consists mainly of parents and non-autistic professionals). The majority of people are know are in support of identity-first language. In fact, the majority of disabled people I know prefer "disabled people" as well. Person-first language is taught in academic settings, but this is contrary to the experience of anyone involved in advocacy.
 * https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
 * https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2017/07/03/person-centered-language/
 * https://www.thinkinclusive.us/why-person-first-language-doesnt-always-put-the-person-first/
 * The AutismSpeaks Twitter account also did a recent poll that reflects my experience: here. Not scientific, of course, but if you read the replies, you'll get a range of autistic (and non-autistic) people's responses. --anomalapropos (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Not much to add to the sources and discussion above, working in the autistic community it's a common complaint that professionals and non-autistic people have a preference for Person First Language, while autistic people prefer IFL. Seems reasonable to respect the community preferences.
 * Random Acts of Language (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * please wait for this discussion to be over--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:MEDMOS quite clearly encourages using the term ‘people with autism’ whilst acknowledging some autistic affected individuals reject this description style. WP:DISMOS clearly encourages the use of the term ‘autistic person’. So these two guidelines conflict with polar opposite instructions to editors. This RfC is meaningless unless the point of this RfC is to amend one of the guidelines, which it is not. I suggest this RfC is null and void and should be scrapped and this discussion should occur on the relevant guideline talk pages with perhaps a new properly framed RfC started there .-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well User:Literaturegeek we are sort of discussing which should be followed here. WP:MEDMOS is a manuel of style the other is simple a style guide. From what I understand the manual of style takes precedence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now think that this RfC could take place on this talk page so long as both manual of style talk pages are notified of this RfC. I do see that you did in fact mention the style guidelines in your original RfC question. I think I missed that in my first read of the RfC and focused on the options, my bad. I think you should repost the RfC to address the reason Redrose64 withdrew the RfC and then notify each of the manual of style’s talk pages that are subject of this RfC. I will then choose which option to support now that I realise I misread the RfC.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  21:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we compromise on some of this?
 * There's no single "correct" language here. Person-first language is offensive to some people; disability-first language is offensive to others.  I think that we need less rule-enforcing and more thoughtfulness here.  IMO we would be well-served to follow the real-world variations around this.  The general approach in the real world seems to be:
 * Parents of young children use and prefer person-first language. This is reasonable because, realistically, young children barely have any sense of identity at all.  Identity formation takes time and a certain amount of brain development, and even neurotypical three year olds are still working on the basics, like "I'm a boy (except that today, I'm a train)".  Young kids on the spectrum may not even recognize their own names.
 * Some teens and many older self-advocates prefer identity-first language. (Some don't care.)
 * However, undiagnosed people and newly diagnosed people, even if old enough to form identities, haven't had time to form a sense of identity around autism yet. You can't get a label on Monday morning and have your sense of identity reconstructed by Monday evening.
 * People with the most severe disabilities shouldn't be assumed to have any particular sense of identity (as an autistic person or otherwise).
 * I suggest, therefore, that we follow this general approach for the article: When the article talks about young children, adults with severe disabilities, and anyone in the pre-diagnosis and diagnostic stages, let's use person-first language.  When the article talks about advocacy, management, and adult life, let's use identity-first language.  This model simultaneously recognizes the personhood of the people who haven't (yet) constructed an identity around autism, and recognizes the identity of the people who have.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it generates editing disputes I feel we need an RfC to generate a consensus viewpoint that results in updates to the manual of style guidelines accordingly. We can’t get too distracted with pedantic political correctness stuff, it distracts from serious editing so an RfC needs to settle this once and for all and in an RfC you WAID could, perhaps, make a suggestion of how to resolve this and have it commented and voted on.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  03:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the severe form of the condition rather than about Aspergers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Classic autism is sometimes severe, sometimes not. But severity is irrelevant. What matters is the consensus opinions of how people in this group want to be addressed. We even use identity first language for blindness and deafness, as people in these groups typically prefer to be addressed this way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No single individual, however, get to speak for the group. And different people within the group have different opinions. It may also depend on the part of the world one is in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to speak for the group. I've presented a study on the group's beliefs. An unless you have evidence that beliefs are different in other parts of the world, this study is the best indicator of group beliefs that is available. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have charities that use "people with autism" Etc Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Autism speaks has been widely condemned by the autistic community, largely because they fail to represent the views of autistics. They have said some rather terrible things about autism, and they certainly do not speak for the autistic community. As for the other two charities you mentioned, I have never heard of them. On the other hand, the Autistic Self Advocacy network, which is run by and for autistic people, uses identity first language. This is typical of the larger trend: those who try to advocate on behalf of autistics prefer person first language, while autistics themselves prefer identity first. In cases like these, Wikipedia has always let the group decide how to label itself. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the concept of "severity" applies to diagnostic criteria, not diagnosis, I'm unclear on the relevance here. When the only difference between Autism and Aspergers was rate of childhood language acquisition, it strikes me that having two different articles confuses the issue rather than contributes.  I am conscious that there is a school of thought that continues to want to see Aspergers as different/ superior, but that doesn't reflect current understanding; either DSM5 or ICD11.
 * It's a little concerning that someone expressing such an outdated view of autism has such a desire to drive the narrative here.
 * 157.203.254.3 (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In all cases that I am aware of, Wikipedia lets each group decide by consensus the words used to identify them. Members outside the group don't get an opinion. This study finds that identity first language is preferred over person first language by the majority of autistics. The "person with" terminology fails to achieve consensus in any group. Even among medical professionals, less than half endorse this terminology. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your source does not support your position, at least the abstract (have you got the full text?). It says the preferred terms are autism and Austin spectrum disorder which I assume the respondents would use that to say ‘I am on the autism spectrum’ or ‘I have autism’ etc. I am not seeing that source saying the majority of respondents wanting identity first language such as I am an autistic man.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not have mechanisms to determine who is inside or outside a group nor do we really want those. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc, how about we archive all of this and restart the RfC properly formatted this time? Otherwise this dispute will keep reading its head...-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the full text. From the text, the term "autistic" was endorsed by 61% of autistic adults, while the term "person with autism" was endorsed by only 28% of autistic adults. The study also polls parents, friends, family, and practitioners, but we should defer to the preference of autistics, as Wikipedia lets each group label itself. It is true that people with Asperger's syndrome tend to prefer the person first (with Asperger's), but this is only because the identity first terminology for Asperger's syndrome is "he/she is Aspergic". This is not of much importance as Asperger's is now a historical term. This discussion should be about "autistic" vs. "with autism". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Side note: Asperger's is a historical diagnostic category; it's not a historical identity.  Identities don't go away just because someone changes the paperwork.  "Aspie" is still some people's self-identity.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only read the first page of that paper and can’t see those figures and other figures.?..-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  14:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that is. I can read the whole thing. Are you using the second reference, or the first? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Must be because I am on an iPad, will try to access a regular computer soon.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will help:
 * Identity-first language includes "He's an Autistic" [caps optional but not unusual] and "He's an autistic person".
 * Person-first language includes "He's a person with autism" and "He has autism".
 * Most people use all of these forms at different times/in different contexts. I think that the most important part of that paper is this recommendation:
 * "For these reasons, some disability researchers caution against an overly narrow, rigid and formal set of guidelines regarding the use of language, especially when such guidelines might restrict progressive dialogue relative to disability and to autism more specifically (Mackelprang, 2010). Instead, they advocate the use of terminology that is context specific, although informed by investigations such as this one. For example, disability- first language can be used to discuss autistic people and the autism community. Person-first language might be used in some contexts, especially in some healthcare contexts, or when speaking to parents.
 * "On the basis of this investigation, we believe this kind of flexibility is suitable given the wide variety of preferences among those in the autism community. The fundamental finding of this research, after all, is that there are reasonable and rational disagreements between members of the autism community as to which terms should be used to describe autism."
 * That's what I think we should be doing: using all the forms, in appropriate contexts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am not opposed to a degree of flexibility in language use, I am confused by the recommendation that person-first language by used when speaking to parents. The study clearly shows that parents prefer identity-first language over person-first. The only group that expressed a preference for identity-first language in this study was the practitioners (see polls for "autistic person" vs "person with autism" in figures 1, 2, and 3). --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you consider the method for the survey? First, the survey was passed around to friends-of-friends, in a sampling method that tends to reinforce biases and privileges the first respondents (a process that we'd condemn as a violation of WP:CANVAS if you tried to do that for an RFC here).  Then they excluded all responses from people under the age of 18, or who didn't want to disclose their age, and anyone who claimed to not be residing in the UK.  Fair enough for the UK thing, since they present it as only being about UK preferences, but why not listen to the teenagers, too?  It's not the world's most definitive survey.  And, more importantly for our purposes, it's just one survey.  Other sources report other preferences.  As for what parents actually prefer, I suspect that "parent who's got a teenager on track for university and independence, and who is active in advocacy organizations" will have a different view than "parent who is still reeling from last month's visit to the pediatrician".  It would not surprise me if parents of young children and parents of adults (and near-adults) have different views.  I should also point out that I label these as "person first" and "identity first", but some people see that latter item as "disability first".  A parent who is overextended by the needs of a severely disabled child might put disability front and center, rather than either "person" or "identity".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't expect unanimity, only consensus. Is there any reason to believe that these results don't generalize to other parts of the world, or that the study has found an incorrect result? Can you present any data which contradicts the result? If not, we should rely on the study, which is the best source of evidence we have. Its result is in line with what I have read elsewhere. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notification of this discussion on the talk page of autism spectrum. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notification of this discussion on the talk page of Asperger syndrome. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Doc James: You argued that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism on the basis that it only states that some autistic people (and only some deaf people, apparently) prefer identity first language. However, in all our discussion, we overlooked one very important fact. WP:MEDMOS itself is using identity first language for autism! There can be no argument that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism when it uses identity first language (and also makes it's preference clear in text). Since it is quite clear now which language guidelines support, I am going to go ahead and make the edit. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not have consensus here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a popular vote. It is determined by guidelines. Are you actually still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language? Because it clearly doesn't. That means the disability style guide, a scientific study, and the medical manual of style all support identity first language. Saying that I "don't have consensus" when all available guidelines fall on my side just because the vote is split fifty-fifty is stonewalling. I won't stand for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is determined by the admin who closes this RfC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The RFC was malformed, which means that this was not an RFC. So consensus is determined in the normal way-- by quality of arguments. Are you still trying to argue that WP:MEDMOS supports person first language for autism when uses identity first language? That would be a bit of a paradox. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not at all convincing: MEDMOS says some, not most and does not specify what term should be used — you are going way beyond what MEDMOS says to support your POV. Really, the more I think about this whole debate, I think there is no consensus and the best way to resolve the dispute is to use the terms interchangeably, per what the sources say, without trying to force one viewpoint over the other. Even surveys of people with or who have autism present only a narrow preference which is then countered by parents, families and professionals who narrowly favour the opposite. The fact is there can never be consensus so compromise is the only way forward, I feel.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Summary of my position: WP:MEDMOS supports the use of identity first language when is states "Some groups view their condition as part of their identity (for example, some deaf and some autistic people) and reject [person first] terminology." If we accepted Doc James' argument, then WP:MEDMOS would also support person first language for deafness, and we would have to start saying "people with deafness", which is just ridiculous. Additionally, WP:MEDMOS uses identity first language by saying "autistic people" rather than "people with autism". If we accept Doc James' argument, WP:MEDMOS fails to adhere to its own guidelines. Furthermore, the disability style guide endorses identity first language, and the only study we have on the issue states: "autistic adults and parents (albeit to a lesser extent) favored disability-first terms (e.g. ‘autistic’ or ‘autistic person’)". It is clear that guidelines endorse the use of identity first language. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * MEDMOS does not say any such thing, it does not instruct editors to edit articles in accordance to your POV. You are going way beyond what MEDMOS says. At best MEDMOS is ambiguous on the matter. Deaf people have no or almost no hearing ability but autism is on a spectrum of mild, moderate or severe symptoms so to compare with deafness is silly. The problem is autism is a spectrum, so describing someone with severe autism as ‘an autistic person’ is much less problematic, but what about those with milder to moderate autism? Some, not all, individuals with high functioning or moderate autism spectrum disorders obviously will take the attitude that their form of autism does not completely define them and might, for example, prefer the term a ‘person who has Asperger’s syndrome’ or ‘a person with autism’ etc.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The excerpt from MEDMOS was a quote. I apologize, but I probably won't be responding further because I'm trying not to get caught up in debates until get some other things finished. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should just request an impartial editor review this and do a closure. It is only you and I commenting now and if we keep typing then we will just end up repeating ourselves which might cause a reviewer to skim over content or get lost in the detail or over detail. What you think?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  19:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I already posted asking for one at the administrator's noticeboard. They should be on their way, but it may take two to three weeks. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Evidence-based support
Lancet Neurol 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30034-X JFW &#124; T@lk  10:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

refuse to do new things
Hello everyone. I know that some autistic people refuse to do things that they have never done before. Some children refuse to say thank you, even if their mother has already explained to them, when they will become teenager and adult, they will still refuse to say it anyway. "refuse to do new things" is not written in this article. 138.229.19.202 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a source that talks about "The extreme distress.. shown by many autistic people in reponse to changes in routine are rarely described in nonautistic individuals"
 * And we already comment on it here with "Restricted interests: Interests or fixations that are abnormal in theme or intensity of focus, such as preoccupation with a single television program, toy, or game." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Remove the mentions of autism speaks. AS is a highly controversial organization that has attacked autism and autistic people numerous times, and many autistic people consider the organization to be hateful. 3nk1namshub (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTCENSORED. If you have doubts about the reliability of the source, then explain your concerns, but simply stating that many people consider the organisation to be hateful is not a good enough reason to remove it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure bud. Let's talk about how they constantly run commercials claiming autistic people are horrible burdens (https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18684109/autism-vaccines-treatment-cure-bleach), the way they despise autism (https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/11/13/why-autism-speaks-doesnt-speak-for-me/#214083631527), the time they hired literal nazis (https://www.facebook.com/boycottautismspeaksnow/posts/literal-nazis-are-walking-for-autism-speaks-since-eugenics-is-a-big-part-of-the-/1274881159224981/), the time one of their executives said in a documentary that she wanted to kill her autistic daughter (I refuse to traumatize myself with that, search it yourself). That good enough for you, RandomCanadian?

You could take two seconds to listen to autistic people instead of forcing us to tell you that no, we aren't awful subhuman monsters. You call us subhuman. You say we lack empathy, and then you treat us like garbage. We're people too. Listen to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3nk1namshub (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thank you for taking the time to respond and provide sources - and I understand that this is frustrating and emotive for you. I think your concerns about the organisation are covered at the Autism_Speaks article. Given that I think it is uncontested that they are a prominent organisation, I am not keen to remove them from this article - if anything, their inclusion here provides people with an opportunity to explore their main article in depth.


 * It may be worthwhile looking through the Autism Speaks article and seeing whether any of the sources you have provided would add to that article.


 * Best,  Darren-M   talk  23:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the group shouldn't be mentioned, I'm taking issue with the fact that they're called an "autism awareness group" when they clearly aren't, Darren. This article mentions them ***completely uncritically*** while they are already seen by the public as a benign organization. Why is AS mentioned but not ASAN? Why are you talking sides, Darren? Should we edit pages about Judaism to mention the Nazis as Jewish awareness groups? How about we start calling the klan a "Black awareness group"? AS does nothing but hurt people and you're helping them do that by completely uncritically presenting them as an awareness group, while doing nothing to talk about ACTUAL FUCKING AWARENESS GROUPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3nk1namshub (talk • contribs) 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across this discussion while Huggling, but it caught my eye. I agree with 3nk1namshub here that it's worth a brief mention—the controversy over Autism Speaks is quite intense, and discussion of it takes up a full half of the lead at that page. Just to take a quick stab at the wording, perhaps:


 * Organizations dedicated to promoting awareness of autism include Autism Speaks, Autism National Committee, and Autism Society of America. Some autism awareness organizations, including Autism Speaks, have been condemned by disability rights organizations for failing to support autistic people.


 * Alternatively, it could perhaps be worked in to the "Autism rights movement" subsection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I marked the edit request as answered as per Edit_requests. If GW wanted to make the edit he could have done so, but clearly he hasn't because there's still some discussion/consensus-making to be had. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Despite what Random Canadian says, I think that @GorillaWarfare's line is fine, and I added it in, as it seems like a fine compromise line, rather than putting it in the "Organizations dedicated to promoting awareness of autism" line. I think putting it in the main line could be seen as endorsing what Autism Speaks does, violating WP:NPOV which states that Wikipedians should "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Putting Autism Speaks in that first line would constitute a "seriously contested assertion." It also violates the guidance that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Historyday01 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I mostly just posted it here first in case others had feedback on the wording, but if you're happy with it then I'm happy with it too. By the way, I use she/her pronouns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I had no objection to the proposal, I was, as you kindly pointed out to 3nk1namshub, simply doing a wee bit of housekeeping. Seeing that the edit has now been implemented, I hope this can now be marked as Yes check.svg Done without any further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh good! Yeah I hope there is no further drama either. Historyday01 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AS is *still* being designated as an "autism awareness group", despite the fact they are not.


 * What should we call them then? I'm open to suggestions. Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just changed it to "some organizations" for now.Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Autistic adults can’t live independently?!
“Not many autistic adults are able to live independently, though some are successful.” This is not at all true. With such a wide spectrum range a great many autistic adults live independently. I believe we need to strike this sentence or quantify it properly. “Not many” is much too vague. MereCat-K (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At best, without a reliable source such a sentence reads as original research. However, I see the sentence is sourced, and I'd be curious to know what the source itself says. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. It’s not “can’t”, it’s “refuse”, because they didn’t get used. 138.229.19.202 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to fix this but my change was continually reverted by James. The article cited clearly states: 50.8% of respondents had outcomes in the fair to good range. Which is a MAJORITY. The article is clearly misleading - it's own referenced text is contradicting itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangibas (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support outright removing the sentence - the citation disagrees with it and I genuinely don't think it contributes anything worthwhile. I would consider "some autistic adults are unable to live independently" to be fair and accurate, at a compromise. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason not to go for that wording so have implemented it. Others should feel free to change it further or to continue discussion, but I don't think the original wording is supported by that citation. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Depending on the new DSM-5 Criteria & ICD-11 criteria it is depending on the support required by the person diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Condition. There are adults with an Autism Condition who thrive well in independence < and others who require either permanent or temporary supported or residential care settings, some of these may have an additional intellectual disability or have global learning difficulties however not always. They are agencies in the United Kingdom for example who offer supported living for adults with Autism or earlier diagnosis as Aspergers Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejournals12 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Autism Speaks
Autism Speaks should absolutely be removed from this article. Not sure about y'all, but any "autism awareness charity" that treats autistic people like shit and talks about how we would be better off dead does not have the well-being of autistic people at heart.

Autism Speaks has advocated for giving children bleach enemas.

As a metaphor, the nazis were a "Jewish awareness group".


 * Yup, removed them. Not sure if it will stay, but I hope it does.--Historyday01 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * is a valid charity and can not be altered due to personal opinions. if other charities required they can be listed. Wikipedia is a fact-checker not a personal opinion Ramage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejournals12 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020
Concern surrounding the new definitions of Autism Spectrum Condition to DSM5 criteria involving sensory impairment as a characteristic and the redefinition of what is considered severe is now based on the amount of support needed and how severe those symptoms are, which relate to the support. Not having the update information could cause many people problems.

TheJournels12 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Doc James edit war in prevention section
Ah, the edit-warrior Doc James is in his element again!

Rubella vaccination does n o t prevent autism.

Rubella vaccination prevents congenital rubella syndrome, Doc James. And that congenital rubella syndrome can look like autism spectrum disorder and in some papers is called "atypical autism" is correct, yes. (It is pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, to be precise)

The sentence as it stands is gibberish.

If you would care to dig deeper and look at the literature, which I know is a very difficult thing for you to do, since you have been reverting careful edits in the field of my expertise (you deleted the page of antimicrobial resistance for example, remember) since 2013, you will see, that the statement in your reference (no 125) quotes a modelling paper (i.e. a math paper), which then quotes a paper from 1971 ! Chess S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1971 Jan-Mar;1(1):33-47. PMID: 5172438 DOI:10.1007/bf01537741.

I am, like you presumably, all for vaccination including MMR, and I think t h i s is where the wind of your stubborn persistence of this ONE sentence section (which is conflicting with WP:MOS btw) is blowing from, but this sentence is a poorly phrased overreach.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The sentence is not "gibberish" at all. As far as I can see, it's a perfectly well-formed and grammatically correct sentence. Whether or nor it is adequately supported by that 2015 Lambert et. al. source, of course, is another question. But, as an expert in the field, you are probably better placed than most to properly judge. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a complete layperson and I had no trouble parsing it. If that helps.  Millahnna (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies just seeing this now. References says "In fact, rubella is and should be considered a vaccine-preventable cause of autism." Reference is a Lancet review article on Rubella published in 2015. Qualifies per WP:MEDRS, relatively recent. Exactly what is the issue? We do not generally interrogate our sources and determine ourselves whether or not they got it "right" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Um- there's no cause for autism so rubella vaccines neither prevent nor don't prevent autism. what was the final decision on taking out the incorrect reference?

Kizemet (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)kizemet

prognosis: added source
I added a line and sourced an autistic mother's website about the reasoning why many adult autistics push back on "cure" language as its incredibly important since many disability organizations have addressed why that language is violent and ableist-- and its considered hateful. I am missing something for my reference in the bibliography for 163-- I can't quite figure out exactly what I'm missing/brain exhausted- will come back but if anyone is really good at the references- could they help fix it.

I can return with more sources if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizemet (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased sentence
"Controversies surround other proposed environmental causes; for example, the vaccine hypothesis, which has been disproven" Why is this included On the Earth page we dont see the equivalent sentence "Controversies surrounds the shape of the earth, weather it is a globe or flat"

The sentence should be changed to "It has been proven vaccines do not cause autism!

That reads better and makes much more sense.

--HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

New CDC statistic
It seems the latest CDC statistic is 1/54 in 2016. I would have changed that if I was an authorized editor. John NH (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

CITEVAR breach
I have restored the original citation style used in this article, per CITEVAR, which is the long and well-established Diberri format using vancouver style authors with more than five authors truncated to three plus et al. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So many Questions
I am quite surprised by the very questionable quality of this extremely important wikipedia page. There are so many issues. (And of course also some cool infos). I am writing this as an autistic person. A few issues I want to tackle: . Most of the article has an ableist tone to it . Lots of outdated imagery that pushes stereotypes (no adults, only children) . It is extremely USA-centered . No reference to known autistic people . No reference to the importance of autistic person vs person with autism There are many more topics (gender, sex, autistic life, comorbidities, autism in adults, inclusion programs, the discussion on ABA, the discussion on high-low functioning, etc). Also, of course anybody can write about anything on wikipedia. But it does seem that a lot here is written by people who have no connection to autism, neither professional, or are autistic themselves. With so many ableist prejudice out in this world, this article is super important and we must improve. What do you think? Lizvlx (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone with autism, the autistinc person vs person with autism thing is only really debated by people without autism. Most autistic people are fine with either, including myself. Cvkoning (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * Please note summary style and see Societal and cultural aspects of autism.
 * Wikipedia's medical content is based on secondary reviews and scholarly literatures, as explained at WP:MEDRS. Those "writing" the article are scholarly sources, because Wikipedia only summarizes what the most recent, high quality sources say. If you have MEDRS sources that you think should be incorporated, please suggest them. At the societal and cultural aspects article, sourcing requirements may be less strict, depending on whether the text being cited is related to health or other.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn - Consensus against move. Interstellarity (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Autism → ? – The article title could be confused with the whole range of disorders that the spectrum includes. I would like to address whether classic autistic disorder is the primary topic for this article and if not, what the title should be. Maybe Autism can redirect to Autism spectrum or Autism can be a dab page. I would like thoughts on what the primary topic is for the topic. Both terms come up in a search. Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the topic of this article is classic autism. That is why the autism spectrum article exists. I don't understand this request. Did you read the hatnote on this featured article?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the hatnote. I am wondering whether it is sufficient for disambiguation or we should change something like redirect Autism to Autism spectrum and change Autism to a dab page or keep the status quo. What are your thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without MEDRS compliant sources backing your preference, this seems like a random query defacing a featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia. I'm fine with how it is now and there is no need to rename the article.Historyday01 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - given common usage of "autism", I think this is where readers will expect to land initially, with further guidance from hatnote and embedded links. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No clear proposal or rationale for change. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Complete agreement with soupvector and Alexbrn. The page name should not be changed.Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the article qualifies as a broad-concept article, if there was a DAB page it would be more difficult for readers and wikilinks to determine where to go.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I actually don't understand this request. "Autism" is a common term used by psychiatrists, psychologists, and others. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per extremely obvious WP:COMMONNAME.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article promoting eugenics and ableism?
The use of "no known cure" and "some have recovered" is ableist. End of. - from an autistic, LocalPunk (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Asperger's generally is no longer considered a "separate" condition. At all. Especially due to who coined it. LocalPunk (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I went through this article the more awful things I found. Please refer to my note on my contribution. LocalPunk (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% understand you, but I'm going to revert your edits because one must establish consensus before making such changes, especially on featured articles. Wretchskull (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wretchskull on that point since this article is featured. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How can an article filled with ableism even become featured? It quotes Grandin, who is ableist, as a reputable source too... Sources that are bigoted shouldn't qualify as good sources. Aren't there rules against incredibly flawed articles becoming featured? Wikipedia should not be lending any sort of validity to ableism. LocalPunk (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't bigoted and there is no ableism going on. Many people with different interests, picky article reviewers, and I reckon autistic people, have reviewed and edited this article thoroughly. One would have pointed out such a thing if it was true, and from what I see, the current text is accurate and neutral. To answer your question regarding ableism, it is not. There is no discrimination or prejudice going on. It is simply stated what could cause autism. The definition of "risk" does imply that a bad consequence may happen, but it is also used as an event that leads to something outside what is considered common or usual (such as mutations). Wretchskull (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wretchskull makes a good point here. You need consensus from all of here to make the changes. You can look back at the discussions in the past, including Featured article candidates/Autism where the article was promoted to a featured article, with almost unanimous support, along with peer reviews in 2007. Anyway, for Grandin, I know she is very well-known for her book, Thinking in Pictures which talks about her experience as an autistic woman. Even on this part of her page, there isn't anything "ableist" from what I can tell. Anyway, I would not say that the edits you are suggesting means that the page is "incredibly flawed" as that is an overstatement for sure. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Grandin is incredibly ableist. I tried to edit out the ableism but it was reverted. Having been through a lot of the article, it is very ableist. It promotes eugenics and ableism. This is indisputable and completely unacceptable. LocalPunk (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LocalPunk, if you are going to make that assertion, then please provide reliable sources showing she is ableist. If the sources are out there, then they certainly should be incorporated into Grandin's page. Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above poster. This language is unacceptable. Some idea that Autism Speaks endorses shouldn't be used in this encyclopedia at all. The idea that someone could have recovered from autism is laughable and not supported by medical literature at all. Remove this. Swordman97  talk to me  22:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Autism Speaks itself is only mentioned critically on the pain page: "At the same time, some organizations, including Autism Speaks, have been condemned by disability rights organizations for exploitative practices, and for failing to support autistic people." Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the section Swordman97 and LocalPunk are referring to is this section in the article's lead:


 * "Early behavioral interventions or speech therapy can help autistic children gain self-care, social, and communication skills. Although there is no known cure, there have been cases of children who recovered. Some autistic adults are unable to live independently. An autistic culture has developed, with some individuals seeking a cure and others believing autism should be accepted as a difference to be accommodated instead of cured."


 * I believe they are are specifically taking issue with assertions in sentences 2 and 4. @ Swordman97 and @LocalPunk if you wish to continue this discussion, then please quote specific parts of the article you are referring to. I have guessed based on your discussion which parts I believe you are talking about, but feel free to add to this if you wish to discuss this in good faith. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This source uses Lovaas and ABA to define recovery. Based on that alone I wouldn't really consider this worthy as a single source considering the amount of controversy that those two have gone through. Swordman97  talk to me  05:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, Swordman97, then do you have a suggestion for rewording it then? I mean, I would rather talk in specifics rather than vague generalities. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well recovery isn't really accurate. Maybe have rehabilitated instead? Also there should probably be a sentence or two about ABA. Overuse can hurt autistic people, see this study, and there is mixed results in metastudies about how effective it is. Swordman97  talk to me  01:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:MEDRS and WP:WIAFA for information about high quality sources required for Featured articles. There is not a single source mentioned in this discussion, much less a high quality one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia, I can agree with that. That's why I'm asking LocalPunk for sources. Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HD01. But ... Not just sources ... high quality secondary reviews, per WP:MEDRS and WP:WIAFA. Over the years, some advocacy websites have crept into the article, which I will start removing when I next have time. For anyone who does not understand Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements,  see the “Ideal sources” template at the top of this talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, SandyGeorgia. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with all of the edits made by LocalPunk. However, I do object to the use of the word recovered in the sentence, "Although there is no known cure, there have been cases of children who recovered." In the source referenced, the words recovery and recovery are repeatedly used within quotes. Furthermore, "recovery" and "recovered" are given explicit special definitions by the article's authors. Thus, those words are not being used with their ordinary meaning. I have replaced "recovered" with "have achieved good outcomes." Kdbeall (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that as well and support a rewording of the article, but I'm not on board with LocalPunk condemning the article wholesale. That doesn't seem right. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Trigger warning ahead. Since some seem to be misunderstanding me: this article requires serious review. Citing ableist sources isn't "neutral", it's giving validity to such beliefs. There are plenty of resources that aren't ableist. I take issue with a large amount of the mess that is this article - how it became a featured article is beyond me - but there are some examples, such as encouraging a quote-unquote cure or recovery (end quote).

Deleting all sources that come from advocacy groups is a mistake. Self-advocacy groups such as ASAN are infinitely better sources on what autism is, for example. It is irresponsible to cite ableism and also include ableism for the sake of some false neutrality - including ableism isn't neutral. Wikipedia is a highly respected and well-used source for many types of information, and lending this validity to ableist beliefs is dangerous and spreads ableist misinformation. This is the sort of misinformation that has gotten Autistic people murdered, for a start - horrific groups such as Autism Speaks have actually supported the filicide of Autistic children, for example.

I am utterly appalled that this article's severe ableism has gone unsolved for so long, and I am disgusted by just how filled with ableism this article is. I am unfortunate enough to have to deal with ableism on a daily basis, and the fact that this article is blatantly supporting various forms of ableism, including eugenics, is setting a precedent of ableism being acceptable.

This is absolutely disgraceful. LocalPunk (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is for discussing improvements to the article based on WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. You have not supplied one in the entire discussion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am discussing improvements. This article is crammed with ableism. I've already suggested improvements that can be made, such as removing ableist sources and removing the sheer amount of ableism in this article. This article is deeply flawed and ableist - it cannot be fixed by swapping out a couple of citations. It needs a proper overhaul with much more consideration to Autistics in mind rather than ableist organisations and pathologising neurodiversity.


 * My comments do not have to positive to be discussing improvements. This article is horrendous and ableist and needs large amounts of revision as soon as possible. LocalPunk (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But revision where? What specific improvements have you proposed? What sources are ableist? Talking in generalities does no one on here any good. If you want the article to be changed, then please note which parts you believe should be changed and what sources are ableist (as asserted by reliable sources). Otherwise, this conversation will go nowhere if we keep talking in generalities. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LocalPunk has removed these:
 * Some autistic adults are unable to live independently.
 * An autistic culture has developed, with some individuals seeking a cure and others believing autism should be accepted as a difference to be accommodated instead of cured.
 * Autism is a highly variable, neurodevelopmental disorder whose symptoms first appear during infancy or childhood, and generally follows a steady course without remission. (specifically, removed the "without remission" phrase and the source)
 * Noted autistic Temple Grandin described her inability to understand the social communication of neurotypicals, or people with typical neural development, as leaving her feeling "like an anthropologist on Mars".
 * In a pair of studies, high-functioning some autistic children aged 8–15 (removed "high-functioning" and substituted the vaguer description "some").
 * I think we can safely assume that this content is disputed.
 * Carefully noting that my comments are not intended to reflect LocalPunk's own views, I can say the following about these changes:
 * It is undeniable that some autistic adults are not able to live independently, but some autistic people and their families believe that this is due to non-autistic factors. For example, if an adult who is incapable of living independently has autism and has low intelligence, then some of them believe that autism isn't a relevant factor in that situation.
 * If you believe that "cure" is the wrong approach, then you might object to those "wrong-headed" cure-seeking people being mentioned. Also, I have the impression that it's often the parents of young children who seek a cure, and autistic adults who are living independently who object to the cure concept.
 * The removed phrase is probably redundant, but the concept of a steady course rather than a remitting/relapsing situation is important. I'm not sure how to balance the "steady state" concept with the occasional claim that about 10% of kids who qualify for an ASD diagnosis while young do not qualify for that diagnosis at age 18.
 * LocalPunk has objected to mentioning Grandin (in other-than-unfavorable terms) above. Grandin is a controversial figure, sometimes in a "How come you aren't like her?!" way, but I think the article would be incomplete without mentioning her existence.
 * This change introduces imprecision. The studies did not use a random selection of autistic kids.  The studies used a selection of kids who met certain criteria.  The results of these studies would have been very different if they had included non-verbal autistic kids (=about a third of autistic kids?) or autistic kids with intellectual disabilities (=about half of autistic kids?).  I therefore think this is a critical detail to mention.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, thanks for that. I agree with you that it is "undeniable that some autistic adults are not able to live independently" while some autistic people and their families think this is due to other factors. Perhaps that section could be improved with that information. As for the "cure" language, I can say that needs to be re-worded without removing the sources. I can also agree that the concept of a steady course is important. When it comes to Grandin, LocalPunk has definitely objected to her being mentioned (I have asked for sources showing she is ableist, but they have not provided any as of yet), but I agree that the "article would be incomplete without mentioning her existence." Finally, it makes sense to mention that the studies used a specific "selection of kids who met certain criteria" rather than being vague. But, yes, I can agree that all the content you mentioned is disputed by LocalPunk, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you WhatamIdoing. I don't think there's been an adequate explanation for claiming ableism within the article's content by LocalPunk. However, I do contend there is objectionable content such as "Luther reportedly thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated, although a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report." I contend that the content is WP:UNDUE and offtopic. The paragraph containing that content starts with the sentence, "A few examples of autistic symptoms and treatments were described long before autism was named." The sentence I find objectionable does not give an example of autistic symptoms or treatments. I feel it is a sad example of violence and animosity towards people with disabilities. The content may be relevant in some other context, e.g., ableism in history. I'm open to suggestions. However, I think it is best to remove it. Kdbeall (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed all of those things for specific reasons. As I noted in my update, I was unfinished because I did not have the energy to continue fixing the article. You didn't ask for any sources about Grandin at all, you just objected to me pointing out the fact that she is ableist. If you want sources, google "Temple Grandin ableism". While I'm sure there will be some articles there defending her - she isn't just ableist, by the way - there will also be many discussing her ableism. I

I am well aware that some autistic adults cannot live independently - while I am still a minor, I am unlikely to be living alone and independently as an adult and will likely live with a close friend or two to help me. Edit: I removed it because it was implying negativity to it. As I mentioned, I was unfinished.

There is a more than adequate claim since the very first opening paragraphs legitimise ableism and eugenics. LocalPunk (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LocalPunk, you may have removed them for specific reasons, but there was no consensus to remove that information. I couched my assessment that Grandin was not ableist from the article I read, to be clear. Just saying that someone should google something is nice, but doesn't really provide reliable sources that can be used in the article, which doesn't help anyone. As I will say again, I am fully in support of rewording the page, but you can have not posed any possible rewording of the sections you are objecting to. You say that "there is a more than adequate claim since the very first opening paragraphs legitimise ableism and eugenics" but I would ask, once again, that you provide specific examples. As such, I can agree with Kdbeall on that point. I support their proposition of removing the sentence "Luther reportedly thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated, although a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report." Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that such a flawed article was featured because I am familiar with Wikipedia's featured criteria, so I completely accept that yes, I did not reach a consensus before updating - mainly because I was not aware that I had to. However, as I stated, I was unfinished when I uploaded my edit. I only provided a Google search because I do not have the energy to find specific sources right now - however, that doesn't change the fact that Grandin is bigoted - not just ableist, by the way, although I was only aware of her ableism when I originally commented. She has made plenty of bigoted comments. She is not a good source. There are plenty other autistics out there who aren't tremendous bigots who can be cited for their experiences about being Autistic. It was literally in the first opening paragraphs - claiming recovery and cures, and while I am aware it has been changed to good outcomes that is still ableist!LocalPunk (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On a featured article like this one, you usually need consensus. When it comes to articles where there are fewer editors (usually the ones I edit, to be honest), there aren't discussions like this one and there is just implied consensus before making changes. I disagree with you that Grandin should be removed, as I'd say that her mention is relatively minor in the article as a whole, as she only appears in one sentence "Noted autistic Temple Grandin described her inability to understand the social communication of neurotypicals, or people with typical neural development, as leaving her feeling "like an anthropologist on Mars"." However, in terms of criticism of her views, I'd say those could be better served when added to a section on her page, relying on reliable sources, of course. Additionally in terms of the "claiming recovery and cures," I again support the re-wording of that section. Historyday01 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An ableist still should not be cited as a reliable source. LocalPunk (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I spent 15 minutes looking for sources that call Temple Grandin ableist. I found many blog posts and reader comments that say this.  I found no scholarly sources saying this.  A typical un-reliable source would say something like "I am sooooo sick of everyone comparing me to Temple Grandin.  Also, the first thing she asked that Autistic young man was whether he had a job.  That's so ableist!"  I did not find any sources that I would be willing to cite in Temple Grandin or in this article that say anything about her being ableist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trigger warning ahead - Do you have the same search engine as me? Because that is not remotely the sort of stuff I found. She is bigoted in many ways, including supporting ableist and abusive things like ABA therapy. LocalPunk (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LocalPunk, please stop misusing this talk page; the purpose of a talk page, and where to find ideal sources, has been explained to you above. Please base your suggestions on high quality reliable sources, and refrain from using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. As this discussion has been based on no reliable sources, I suggest archiving it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's neutrality you're after, then this article is a perfect example of something that is not neutral. It is jam-packed with discrimination and bigotry. If you want accuracy, you can't cite ableism. That is lending credibility to ableism. Many people use Wikipedia as a resource. This article is a mess of ableism. LocalPunk (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting the title was "subtly" because I forgot the definition of subtle. I also had only seen the eugenicist part when I wrote the title I have updated it. LocalPunk (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Autistic burnout section needs some eyes
The recently added section on autistic burnout had some very questionable sources that I removed; it certainly doesn't' meet FA criteria. The ones that remained are still far from ideal and they include some blog posts and ... a website describing the preparation of a future project focused on autism? If anyone knowledgeable on this topic could add some proper medical sources, that would help a lot.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's reasonable to put a sentence or two about autistic burnout as an informal term. Autistics are more likely to experience bullying, anxiety, and depression. Kdbeall (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have seen no high quality review cover this concept, WP:UNDUE until/unless one is produced. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's an article in The Lancet that discusses behavioral masking and burnout in autistic adults. Kdbeall (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but not a secondary review. See WP:MEDRS and WP:WIAFA.  is a comparative study, which does not comply with Wikipedia sourcing guidelines for medical content. Further, a social media survey is the weakest kind of source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This isn't burnout in itself — in The Female Autism Phenotype and Camouflaging: a Narrative Review it states that "Consequences of camouflaging included physical and emotional exhaustion, often requiring time alone to recover" and that "The findings summarised in this review suggest that, overall, camouflaging is a relatively common part of the everyday experiences of autistic individuals without intellectual disability. This has implications for clinical and research settings, particularly regarding the accurate diagnosis of autism and identification of required support. Autistic individuals may camouflage their autistic characteristics during clinical assessments, consciously or not, which may lead to missed diagnosis or lack of appropriate support." Kdbeall (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Autism is a Featured article of a broad topic, that has to conform with the highest quality of sourcing standards. It also uses summary style, because we can't say everything about the condition in an overview that reflects broad consensus of the highest quality sources.  We can go out and find a review to say just about anything.  Do any of the latest, highest quality overviews of the entire topic discuss this issue? Or will we find it only in narrow reviews about the phenotype of one gender or papers focusing only on one narrow aspect, rather than a broad overview of consensus about the condition? (That article is not indexed at Pubmed, which is a good indication of whether we would use it in a Featured article.) It would be WP:UNDUE to mention this narrow aspect here unless it is mentioned in high-quality overviews and books about autism overall. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I concede there aren't enough sources (yet) about the link between burnout and masking. It can be revisited. Regardless, camouflaging is relevant. Here is a report authored by Stanford researchers replicating the finding of a study with over 100 citations about camouflaging. So, I think it is reasonable, given the totality of these sources, to include camouflaging, and its implications for diagnosis, within the article. After being paraphrased, I propose the following, which is from the report, be added to the diagnosis section — "females with ASD have been shown to engage in 'camouflaging' (i.e. masking their autistic symptoms) (Hull et al. 2017b) more than males. This strongly suggests that ASD symptoms might be more difficult to detect in females and, consequently, a significant portion of females may be misdiagnosed, diagnosed after a significant delay, or not diagnosed altogether, resulting in lack of treatment and support." Kdbeall (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Autism in older people
Why isn’t this talking about autism in adults or teens.

There is articles on autism in older people with tons of information. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326841#diagnosis

For example the article I linked above says there is

There is currently no established method of diagnosing ASD in adults. CycoMa (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Autism is a developmental disorder, and medicalnewstoday is not a high-quality secondary source. If you have one that discusses diagnosis in adults, it could be incorporated.  See the template at the top of this page where you can research ideal sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There are newer secondary reviews covering females and adults that have not been used. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021
change person-first language to identity-first language as the autistic community prefers 96.237.119.94 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Only clearly uncontroversial improvements can be completed without consensus; see WP:EDITXY. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 21:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this person. We do prefer identity first language as opposed to person first language Mrmeme05 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed numerous times in the past, most recently here: . There is no clear consensus for using either style. CatPath   meow at me  19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that's not a particularly recent discussion, I think it's worthwile re-examining current sources on this topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2019 is really recent... Has something major happened that would've overridden it in the last 1.5 years? Otherwise I would say it doesn't need to be rehashed just yet. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

identity first language is the style of language that most self advocates use. Mrmeme05 (talk)

A survey done by autism speaks found that 69% of autistic people prefer identity first Mrmeme05 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you give a citation or link for that? And isn't autism speaks the US group that keeps being super dodgy (weird finances, saying that autism should be cured, etc)? --Xurizuri (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Autism Speaks did a survey. The 69% figure was mentioned in one of their podcasts. See page 5 of the podcast's transcript: . CatPath   meow at me  08:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A survey does not meet the sourcing standards for wikipedia content, much less the high quality requirement for a Featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * If such a survey were included (e.g., as one POV), it would have to be accurately described: One survey on Facebook, at one point in time, involving an inherently biased subset of autistic people, had this result.  (Why is this survey method inherently biased?  Because so many autistic people can't complete a survey on Facebook, or even use Facebook at all.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review needed
Promoted in 2007 as a Featured article, this article was once one of Wikipedia's finest, due to the exemplary work of User:Eubulides. Unfortunately, Eubulides has not edited since 2010. The article has fallen out of date, while receiving still almost 5,000 pageviews daily. When DSM-5 was issued in 2013, the article was marginally updated, but even then, the changes needed to reflect the latest version of DSM were never completed. And the content in the body of the article was not maintained current: most of the article is still cited to that which Eubulides provided in 2007. Additional deterioration has resulted because of considerable and unchecked advocacy editing over the years, resulting in UNDUE or poorly sourced content. But with the 2018 release of ICD-11, this article has been rendered entirely outdated. A complete rewrite would now be needed to bring this article into agreement with newer sources, reflecting both DSM-5 and ICD-11. Here are some recent reviews that need to be accounted for, along with what to do about the separate article at autism spectrum now that ICD and DSM are in closer agreement, and "classic" autism is now diagnosed as autism spectrum in both schemes. None of these changes have been incorporated into either this article or autism spectrum. It is difficult to see how this article can retain featured status without a top-to-bottom rewrite to account fully for DSM-5 and ICD-11, updating to reflect high-quality secondary sources since 2016, and removal of a lot of UNDUE advocacy content that has found its way into the article, along with some reconciliation of how to deal with autism vs. autism spectrum now that DSM and ICD are closer in sync. Nowhere is ICD-11 explained, along with the differences between ICD-11 and DSM-5. Unless someone is willing and able to undertake a complete update and rewrite, this article should be submitted to Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An overview of changes:
 * Autism screening: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I could definitely take some time to improve this article. It would be appreciated to have a few more who could work on other sections. You seem very knowledgeable about medical disorders, you would also be very helpful if you had time. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest first sorting out the dated information, and identifying the most recent high quality secondary sources (on those, some updating is possible), but how to proceed relative to ICD11 will require broader input, and I am not sure we have the expertise on Wikipedia any more (without Eubulides) to sort that out. It is as yet unclear to me how to reconcile this article with the autism spectrum article, per ICD11. Outside of history and cultural sections, anything sourced to a pre-2015 date should be checked first. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont really understand the recent mass deletions, what evidence is there that low-functioning vs high-functioning etc are "obsolete"?PailSimon (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed DSM5 and ICD10 and ICD11? The way autism spectrum disorders are classified has changed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok but shouldn't the change in classification be outlined within the article then? I have heard the term low/high-functioning quite a lot so it would make sense to mention it I think.PailSimon (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. The best starting place I have located so far is this one: . But again, we must first get some expert opinions on how to deal with ICd11 relative to the other article, autism spectrum.  This will not be easy. There are some pieces that can be easily updated, but how to reconcile the two articles is trickier. For example, ICD11 has moved towards definitions involving presence or not of intellectual disability. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is badly dated, not having been adequately tended since Eubulides stopped editing in 2010, but it is unclear how to reconcile this article with autism spectrum relative to ICd10 and ICD11 ... Complicated by some advocacy editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are to do a comprehensive update here, with an eye towards preserving featured status, it would also be helpful to have and  on board, along with  keeping an eye on issues requiring admin intervention.  This article is viewed on average 5,000 times daily. Almost none of the sourcing complies with WP:MEDDATE, and most of it dates to Eubulides’ work in 2007 and 2008.  Some portions of the article are still accurate, but others need verification.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with starting from finding the best up to date sources. I usually start with Trip to get a quick shortlist of the recent secondary sources it identifies, and then cross-checking with what PubMed turns up.
 * I'm more than happy to keep an eye on any administrative issues – let's hope there aren't any more –  but it does mean I can't involve myself with content at this stage. Naturally, I'll be happy to do an accessibility review when the redrafting is complete. Please ping me if I'm needed. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to help. Before I begin though, and I'm not sure how to ask this delicately, so I'll just forge ahead: When we discuss ICD-11, I have been told more than once that we must include an explanatory clause such as "The ICD-11, which will come into effect on 1 January 2022, ...." Is this rule accurate? (I have disagreed in the past, but I have been told that I lost that argument.) Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is officially no such rule. It is possible that the people who claim that this is important are hoping that the ICD-11 will get a last-minute revision (i.e., in the direction of whatever their POV is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Classification and diagnosis should cover DSM5, ICD10 and ICD11, and briefly summarize the similarities and differences. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, been busy IRL. Will try to take a look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the free time IRL to immerse myself in this subject enough to substantially help with a rewrite. Some books may be useful. Here's just a few I found after a quick search. There are dozens more. The first is recommended by Uta Frith: "If you read one book on autism, this should be the one!"
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: History Section

 * Posting a comment again since it was archived and the edit was reverted. I do contend there is objectionable content such as "Luther reportedly thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated, although a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report." I contend that the content is WP:UNDUE and offtopic. The paragraph containing that content starts with the sentence, "A few examples of autistic symptoms and treatments were described long before autism was named." The sentence I find objectionable does not give an example of autistic symptoms or treatments. Instead, I feel it is a sad example of violence and animosity towards people with disabilities. The content may be relevant in some other context, e.g., ableism in history. I'm open to suggestions. However, I think it is best to remove it. Kdbeall (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this deletion, we don't remove content because we find it disagreeable.  We may remove poorly sourced content that can't be sourced to a high quality source, or UNDUE content, if we can't find a high quality source that supports the text. This content was not poorly sourced, it was reproduced with permission from a journal, and Google scholar coughs up multiple other sources for verifying this text.  The text explains how autism was viewed in ancient times, which could be helpful.  A deletion like this should be subject to consensus.  IMO, it should stay because of the valuable context it provides for how people with autism were viewed historically.  And, because there is no other general History of autism article, there is no other place to put that content, and its historical perspective. Also, considering the removal was already contested once, it really should not have been removed a second time without gaining consensus; it is not poorly sourced or inaccurate or outdated text-- it is policy compliant content.  That text was in the version that passed FAC, written by Eubulides, and Eubulides was an autism expert; he thought it worthy of this article, and I can't see a reason that it's not.  It is valid history. That said, others may have other opinions, but consensus should be the basis for deleting text that is well sourced and not inaccurate or otherwise outdated.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe just put it into the History of Asperger syndrome and have it renamed so it covers autism too? Swordman97  talk to me  21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to work out several issues like that ... but for now, we don't want to lose worthy text (which is why I put a link here). I think preserving the Asperger history, with a separate History of autism article makes more sense, with History of Asperger syndrome summarized to that article via WP:SS. Considering the changes in DSM5 and ICD11, a history of autism article makes sense.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk), thank you for preserving a link to it. I do feel inclusion within a History of autism article is warranted when given an appropriate context therein. I'd first like to point out that the content's worthiness should not take another editor's uncorroborated opinion as a factor, especially regarding an editor who has not edited in over a decade and made their edits circa 2007. It is not reasonable to presume their opinion given the age of their edits and lack of activity. I feel the content itself did not establish a valuable context that describes "how autism was viewed historically" for several reasons. It was contained within a paragraph that describes "A few examples of autistic symptoms and treatments," of which it is neither. Furthermore, regarding veracity, note that the text itself asserts that "a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report." Finally, a consideration to make is to think about when, if at all, an opinion advocating violence against a single member of a protected class should be included in a page about the protected class as a whole. I'm not at all convinced that it would be encyclopedic to include, especially without a relevant context. Given those factors, I contend it is WP:UNDUE and was reasonably removed. Thus, to improve the article, I think either an appropriate context should be introduced, or the content should be kept removed. However, I do also believe that expanding the section with further context and content could also be WP:UNDUE as this article is primarily about autism in a medical context, which also means that the history section should pay close heed to WP:SummaryStyle.Kdbeall (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure that this is WP:DUE. It's a 24-year-old paper by someone repeating a story from the 16th century, which (a) might not have involved a child with autism at all, and (b) others have disagreed over whether the rumored conversation even happened.  A quick search at Google Books for   finds just as many sources as , and since changeling is a less common word, I think that suggests that more sources writing about that conversation don't regard it as being autism specifically.  In the absence of some reason to believe that a child who is described as being unable to do anything other than eat and excrete is one with autism specifically, rather than any number of developmental disabilities, then I think this should either be removed (all mention of the story, entirely, from all articles about autism) or hedged considerably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence. I've started a draft of a History of Autism article. Progress has been slow. Kdbeall (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I support this revert; most of the text was written by the same author, the sources were not high quality, and one of the sources was a predatory journal. That an author publishes in a predatory journal is not a good sign.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Medical opinion"
In a section towards the bottom of the page, there is a claim that the "medical opinion" is that autism is a "genetic defect" and must be treated by "targeting the autism gene." This implies that there is a unanimous consensus among scientists on a thing. I suggest clarification or removal. I'd do it myself, but some helpful soul has locked down editing. TarrantsEmBs (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia has kindly made the change for you. When you've made another six edits anywhere, you'll be able to edit the article yourself, but we have a template edit-protected that you can add to any talk page followed by a description of the edit you are requesting. That actually alerts users through a category page that a request has been made. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia has kindly made the change for you. When you've made another six edits anywhere, you'll be able to edit the article yourself, but we have a template edit-protected that you can add to any talk page followed by a description of the edit you are requesting. That actually alerts users through a category page that a request has been made. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It does! Thanks so much! TarrantsEmBs (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * my apologies for not closing the loop here after I made the correction. My computer is in repair and I am typing from an iPad, and wanted to figure out how long that faulty text had stood; I found it inserted here by Wikiman2718 in June2019.  Thank you for the careful reading to call our attention to that gaffe!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And tracing it back further, when it was originally inserted over in that article in 2008, it looked like this but was changed in 2019 to the faulty medical perspective wording, which is not supported by the source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! TarrantsEmBs (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Prevention section

 * Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia

Hello, it is the good place to talk about a source ? you've just reviewed my contribution about Autism Do you know the subject ? I erased a sentence within the section Prevention which says "Prevention While infection with rubella during pregnancy causes fewer than 1% of cases of autism,[118] vaccination against rubella can prevent many of those cases.[119] Here is my comment to the contribution => This is inappropriate to put that kind of information within an encyclopedia => this sentence relies on an article made in 2015 which says "In fact, rubella is and should be considered a vaccine-preventable cause of autism" solely relying to another article from 2010 saying vaccination prevent autism just because autism is linked to rubella syndrome... outdated info nowadays ? link between rubella / autism are from 1971 DOI: 10.1007/BF01537741) => what's you comment about it ? Allan.richard5093 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * article content is discussed on article talk pages, so I have moved this from my talk page. I suspect you are mixing up what this section is saying with the MMR vaccine controversy, which is a different thing entirely.  Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:OWN.  Do you have a MEDRS source that differs from or disagrees with the cited content?  Getting rubella during pregnancy can lead to autism in the developing fetus, and that is preventable by the mother having been protected via vaccination.  The other controversy is whether childhood vaccinations cause autism— an entirely different subject.  Before blanking cited text from a Featured article, you should discuss on talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment if it's fewer than 1% of cases, is it really DUE? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it is UNDUE can be questioned, but it seems worthy of inclusion because it is the ONLY known preventative measure, and even if it doesn’t prevent a lot of cases, that is a worthy thing. Also, how much higher would that 1% be if not for how many women are vaccinated against rubella?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence should be kept but the section can be deleted. Having a single sentence section is not good style. Kdbeall (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps find a way to work it in to Causes ? It ended up in Prevention because of the suggested headings at WP:MEDMOS, which are only suggestions.   for ideas.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The epidemiology source is concerned with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and says "The association between congenital rubella infection and autism was initially reported as early as 1971; however, more recent data reveal that congenital rubella infection is present in only 0.75% of autistic populations, although this percentage has likely diminished with widespread usage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in Western countries." So ironically, the success of vaccination in rich countries has likely reduced that figure considerably, but perhaps less so in less well developed countries, where we don't have stats. The vaccination claim in this source about Rubella says "[babies that survive congenital rubella syndrome] have an increased risk for developmental delay, including autism. In fact, rubella is and should be considered a vaccine-preventable cause of autism". However, its source is talking about autism spectrum disorders, not just classic autism. I think we have a problem where many sources use "autism" and "autistic" as an umbrella term, and some use it to mean just classic autism. Looking at the Autism spectrum we have far far more causes, some of which are "preventable" in the sense that one could test a foetus for those disorders and abort, and in families carrying them, perform pre-implantation genetic testing. One of the most common genetic causes of ASDs is tuberous sclerosis, for which the above applies. Perhaps the whole prevention section belongs on the other article, as we don't seem to have good sources specifically about autism, or being careful with how they use that term. -- Colin°Talk 09:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That opens a bigger can of worms; with ICD-11, should we even have two different articles? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * et al - Iirc one of the arguments to keep seperate articles is so that there is something to link in articles about people diagnosed before ICD-11. Updating ICD does not mean previous diagnoses/definitions magically cease to exist. I wasn't involved in the discussion, I just happened to run into it somewhere. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has long been the argument for both this page and Asperger ... but with ICD-11 we may be approaching a spot where neither article is correct. I say “may” because we are at a loss without Eubulides, who was the expert who wrote almost all of the content a decade ago. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that including this is DUE, because even though it's not a high percentage now, it was in the past, and 1% of a large number is still a fairly large number. Also, I believe that there is routine testing for evidence of rubella immunity (i.e., the vaccine worked, not merely whether your medical record says you were vaccinated) for pregnant women in many developed countries, so this is still a current medical concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

How could you prevent a disease not associated with certain causes ? What I mean is if we could associate some mutation with a higher probability of autism, avoiding to give birth to children with that mutation will be based on uncertainties because of the epigenetic factors we are far from mastering. I agree with being careful with how the term "Prevention" is used, especially within an encyclopedia which will be read by unaware people. What I was pointing out was the so unrelevant source and legitimity of the article about that subject. There is nothing scientific about that. There is a confusion between correlation and causality. Rubella is associated with autism 1971 (a time when autism diagnosis may be a different?) to conclude, to prevent rubella is to prevent Autism (based on a 1971 article) rubella vaccine SHOULD be considered as a way to prevent autism ==> it's not worth very much scientifically speaking? (PS : I was not talking about the MMR vaccine controversy) (PSbis : thanks for moving my question :) Allan.richard5093 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are over-concentrating on the 1971 date. Read what I quoted. That was the earliest date for when an association was reported. There's no claim that it was the only ever report. One of the reason for citing modern reviews is that we give the authors of those reviews authority to decide which (old, new) research is relevant today. After all, plenty things discovered in the 1970s are still true. -- Colin°Talk 09:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK first you cite this source https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2011.10.003 ==> its numbers relies on the 1971 article AND on another article https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291799008508 in which we found "Nevertheless, the results consolidate scientific knowledge on the association between autism and known medical conditions. Thus, conditions such as congenital rubella, and PKU account for almost no cases of autism. Prior studies suggesting an association of congenital rubella (Chess, 1971) and PKU (Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1975; Lowe et al. 1980) with autism were conducted before implementation of systematic prevention measures. Even then, the proportion of cases of autism attributable to these disorders remained low. Furthermore, follow-up studies of children with rubella suggested that unexpected improvements could occur (Chess, 1977), pointing towards strong differences of these presentations from typical autism."
 * THEN
 * No evidence was found, in epidemiologically derived samples, for an association of autism with other disorders such as neurofibromatosis, Down’s syndrome, or cerebral palsy.Congenital rubella and phenylketonuria, which were associated with a raised frequency of autistic syndromes 30 years ago, no longer account for more than a handful of cases, since prevention and screening programmes for these disorders have become systematic
 * Recent reviews tend to gently discredit the results from 1971 and the paragraph I'm trying to modify from Wikipedia relies solely on that numbers.
 * and you said it yourself " I think we have a problem where many sources use "autism" and "autistic" as an umbrella term". I think that an encyclopedia should not rely on that kind of obsolete ressources. The solution could be to clearly add that this relies on a study made in 1971 at a very different time in terms of diagnosis, psychological test and studying... here we talking about a sentence saying that rubella vaccine prevents the autisme because some form of autism (in 1971) can be diagnosed in few rubella childrenAllan.richard5093 (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Autism rights movement (should this be a new section ?)
There is an image shown that is actually inappropriate for this subject since it includes puzzle piece imagery and the words "Autism Awareness Month". An appropriate image would be an image of a rainbow infinity sign with the words "Autism Acceptance."

Fecal transplant research / trial
Human fecal transplant reduces autism symptoms by almost 50%, study finds reports interesting results in trials of fecal transplants (to address related gastrointestinal problems). Could mention ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS, WP:NOTNEWS; that is a primary source, not useful unless covered in a secondary review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

photos of children
strange photos, kids just look like kids. And did they give consent? And don't add anything to the article. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"the vaccine hypothesis"
there were two, no? One having to do with measles, the other with mercury. Should be "the vaccine hypotheses" --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

autism outside of anglosphere
a very brief mention of cultures in the article. The history of autism in France is very different. how is it handled in China? India? Congo? etc. I think this would help the article. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Prognosis in infobox
I noticed the "Prognosis" box in the infobox on this article says "frequently poor". This doesn't make sense to have on such an article, and the sourcing doesn't seem to fully fit with this statement: "An estimated 19.7% (95%CI: 14.2–26.6) had a good outcome, 31.1% (95%CI: 23.2–40.4%) a fair outcome, and 47.7% (95%CI: 36.6–59.0) a poor outcome." This seems to be a roughly half and half split between good-fair and poor outcomes. As well, I don't see such prognosis sections on the Bipolar disorder page, or the ADHD one either. In my opinion, the word "poor" is a unnecessarily and harmful way of looking the complexity of life under autism. Basically, I don't see the use of a prognosis section in the infobox. bepvte (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't received any replies to this, I am going to go ahead and remove the section in the infobox. bepvte (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Article is too long
At more than 135,000 bytes this article substantially exceeds the recommended maximum length. There is far too much fine detail in this article, it should be a "broad strokes" overview of the subject. Splitting off some of the more detailed sections to seperate articles is probably the best way to get this article into proper shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is 6,000 words of readable prose, which is QUITE manageable, and even on the small size for a Featured article. The summary style used here seems fine, and the sub-articles that are needed are mostly already set up. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I was looking at total page size instead of readable text size. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate images
The images currently used in this article are inadequate — all three photographs of autistic people are low-quality, grainy photographs of young male children. This gives the misleading impression that autism primarily affects children (a particular issue given that the infantilisation of autistic people is a common manifestation of ableism); it is also unhelpful that only male autistics are depicted, and the choice only to use grainy photographs seems bizarre.

Autistic art, for example, could be used — the article on schizophrenia uses a cloth embroidered by a schizophrenic. Images depicting consenting adults exhibiting 'symptoms' of autism would be ideal if such photos are available on Commons.

—Kilopylae (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Before changing images in a Featured article, please be sure to check that new images are properly licensed (above my pay grade).  I understand the concerns, but we may not have anything better … perhaps  will look at File:Stephen Wiltshire IMG 3031 (30520415881).jpg, but I disagree that it should be the lead image (autism is a condition that begins in childhood). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Licensing is fine; no opinion on placement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting photos of non-famous people is hard. The lead photo is a child and could be of any gender really. The ducks-in-a-row picture is only a "boy" because the caption says so. Wrt the third images: as autism is often identified in childhood, and affects development of various language/social skills, it is only reasonable to expect an image of education intervention to feature a child. Two of the children are the same child. The fact that photos of two children are both male isn't surprising per the laws of statistics. That we've had no better photos since 2007 suggests we don't have a large pool of images to draw on.
 * Autistic art does not appear to be a "thing", and our article on that seems to be little more than a page collecting artists who happen to be autistic. So let's not lead with an entirely invented and purposless label. The problem with Stephen Wildshire is that it feeds into the myth that people with autism have some odd but amazing talent (highly detailed sketches from memory, or calendar arithmetic, etc). So let's not lead with that either.
 * Most developmental disorders are topics where the vast majority of literature and research focuses on diagnosis and treatment/management/interventions/etc that are best done early and throughout childhood. While you are right that people of all ages are autistic, if the focus of the literature is on childhood then WP:WEIGHT demands the same of us.
 * Be aware that campaiging blogs by autistic people don't represent the population any more than the head boy/girl in a school or social media influencers or famous pop stars represent pupils, people on the internet or singers respectively. -- Colin°Talk 10:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate
I don’t have a lot of time to write so this will be pretty simple. Autism has NOT grown, the diagnostic criteria has. Autism does NOT affect males more than females, females are just better at masking, of hiding their symptoms. Also I think it is worth mentioning that curing autism (or other disorders like it) is eugenics. I recommend including autistic voices in this page, Wikipedia is a highly used page and so we need to be as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutismGeek (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Duffley (10) singst on stage
A video of the blind autistic boy Christopher Duffley singing on stage "I wann to see you ..." on youtube.com, from April 2014 counts >50 mio. views. Helium4 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmarrs94. Peer reviewers: Jwang19, Vnguyen518, Efoxman42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arnoldt.27. Peer reviewers: ColinAndersonUofO, YALUWANG330.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review needed
Promoted in 2007 as a Featured article, this article was once one of Wikipedia's finest, due to the exemplary work of User:Eubulides. Unfortunately, Eubulides has not edited since 2010. The article has fallen out of date, while receiving still almost 5,000 pageviews daily. When DSM-5 was issued in 2013, the article was marginally updated, but even then, the changes needed to reflect the latest version of DSM were never completed. And the content in the body of the article was not maintained current: most of the article is still cited to that which Eubulides provided in 2007. Additional deterioration has resulted because of considerable and unchecked advocacy editing over the years, resulting in UNDUE or poorly sourced content. But with the 2018 release of ICD-11, this article has been rendered entirely outdated. A complete rewrite would now be needed to bring this article into agreement with newer sources, reflecting both DSM-5 and ICD-11. Here are some recent reviews that need to be accounted for, along with what to do about the separate article at autism spectrum now that ICD and DSM are in closer agreement, and "classic" autism is now diagnosed as autism spectrum in both schemes. None of these changes have been incorporated into either this article or autism spectrum. It is difficult to see how this article can retain featured status without a top-to-bottom rewrite to account fully for DSM-5 and ICD-11, updating to reflect high-quality secondary sources since 2016, and removal of a lot of UNDUE advocacy content that has found its way into the article, along with some reconciliation of how to deal with autism vs. autism spectrum now that DSM and ICD are closer in sync. Nowhere is ICD-11 explained, along with the differences between ICD-11 and DSM-5. Unless someone is willing and able to undertake a complete update and rewrite, this article should be submitted to Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An overview of changes:
 * Autism screening: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I could definitely take some time to improve this article. It would be appreciated to have a few more who could work on other sections. You seem very knowledgeable about medical disorders, you would also be very helpful if you had time. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest first sorting out the dated information, and identifying the most recent high quality secondary sources (on those, some updating is possible), but how to proceed relative to ICD11 will require broader input, and I am not sure we have the expertise on Wikipedia any more (without Eubulides) to sort that out. It is as yet unclear to me how to reconcile this article with the autism spectrum article, per ICD11. Outside of history and cultural sections, anything sourced to a pre-2015 date should be checked first. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont really understand the recent mass deletions, what evidence is there that low-functioning vs high-functioning etc are "obsolete"?PailSimon (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed DSM5 and ICD10 and ICD11? The way autism spectrum disorders are classified has changed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok but shouldn't the change in classification be outlined within the article then? I have heard the term low/high-functioning quite a lot so it would make sense to mention it I think.PailSimon (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. The best starting place I have located so far is this one: . But again, we must first get some expert opinions on how to deal with ICd11 relative to the other article, autism spectrum.  This will not be easy. There are some pieces that can be easily updated, but how to reconcile the two articles is trickier. For example, ICD11 has moved towards definitions involving presence or not of intellectual disability. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is badly dated, not having been adequately tended since Eubulides stopped editing in 2010, but it is unclear how to reconcile this article with autism spectrum relative to ICd10 and ICD11 ... Complicated by some advocacy editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are to do a comprehensive update here, with an eye towards preserving featured status, it would also be helpful to have and  on board, along with  keeping an eye on issues requiring admin intervention.  This article is viewed on average 5,000 times daily. Almost none of the sourcing complies with WP:MEDDATE, and most of it dates to Eubulides’ work in 2007 and 2008.  Some portions of the article are still accurate, but others need verification.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with starting from finding the best up to date sources. I usually start with Trip to get a quick shortlist of the recent secondary sources it identifies, and then cross-checking with what PubMed turns up.
 * I'm more than happy to keep an eye on any administrative issues – let's hope there aren't any more –  but it does mean I can't involve myself with content at this stage. Naturally, I'll be happy to do an accessibility review when the redrafting is complete. Please ping me if I'm needed. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certainly willing to help. Before I begin though, and I'm not sure how to ask this delicately, so I'll just forge ahead: When we discuss ICD-11, I have been told more than once that we must include an explanatory clause such as "The ICD-11, which will come into effect on 1 January 2022, ...." Is this rule accurate? (I have disagreed in the past, but I have been told that I lost that argument.) Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is officially no such rule. It is possible that the people who claim that this is important are hoping that the ICD-11 will get a last-minute revision (i.e., in the direction of whatever their POV is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Classification and diagnosis should cover DSM5, ICD10 and ICD11, and briefly summarize the similarities and differences. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, been busy IRL. Will try to take a look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the free time IRL to immerse myself in this subject enough to substantially help with a rewrite. Some books may be useful. Here's just a few I found after a quick search. There are dozens more. The first is recommended by Uta Frith: "If you read one book on autism, this should be the one!"
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants access to them, drop me an email. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, all! I am eager to help. Two unusual ways I can help are (a) I can get copies of articles for whomever that would help, and (b) I could enlist content experts to help. They will not know how to edit source, so we will need to figure out an acceptable way of getting their input. I have ideas, and have piloted them. I Want to be careful about not having people think we are trying to sneak in edits that were made off-Wiki. ;-) I also don’t want to looks like I am a sock puppet if I help make the other people’s edits. Looking forward to working together! Let me know how best to proceed! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You may have heard this before, but on Wikipedia, we define an expert as "someone who knows what the best sources are". It would be marvellous if we could coax some of your colleagues to contribute to Wikipedia, but the simplest way that subject experts can help is to point experienced editors to what they consider the best sources (which is the hardest part of editing for many of us non-specialists). It's heartening to know that academics are increasing their investment in Wikipedia, and I'm more than happy to help that process whenever I can. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert
ALthough an update is long overdue here, this is a Featured article and discussion about how to incorporate updates would be helpful, to get the update off on the right foot, conforming to WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE and WP:WIAFA (as well as WP:OWN). This edit put a lot of history in the wrong place, and the suite of articles should accurately reflect ICD-11 and DSM-5. Please discuss, and be sure to base edits on the latest and highest quality secondary reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Review
I have nominated this article for Featured Article Review due to the issues here and tags still on the page. –Bangalamania (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view and other issues
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. In the introduction section it says "Controversies surround other proposed environmental causes; for example, the vaccine hypothesis, which has been disproven." Now I do not believe in that vaccines cause Autism, but some people do. Saying it certainly has been disproven is not neutral. I guess it is verifiable (No offence. Maybe it is disputed that it is verifiable? I don't know. Lets treat it as though it is verifiable.), but I am not sure if that balances it out. Could that be deleted? It might be able to be replaced with "Controversies surround other proposed environmental causes; for example, the vaccine hypothesis, which is disputed."

There are other problems too, such as it says "This article is about the classic autistic disorder. For other conditions sometimes called "autism", see Autism spectrum." Autism spectrum is just another term for autism. On it's talk page, there is talk of merging these two pages. Another problem is the featured article status. With these problems and many more described elsewhere in the talk page, this page does not deserve this status. This should be reviewed.

161.8.195.186 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first paragraph: One of the core policies of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view refers to WP:NPOV, which explicitly says, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. See also WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB.
 * So, no, we will not change a true sentence just because a bunch of know-nothings and a few grifters leeching off them happen to disagree with it. (A disagreement, BTW, that has led to children dying of measles because their parents were too scared of a phantom to protect them from a real danger.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it has been disproven. It's just some people still believe it. Thanks for your help. 161.8.243.222 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * some people still believe it I heard you the first time you said that. That reasoning was rendered irrelevant by the sentence from WP:NPOV I quoted above, and repeating it serves no purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)