Talk:Autism

Assessment, backlog, and next steps

I have noticed that there seems to be much less going on around here than half a year ago, or even during the summer. As many have surely noted, I want development of this article to continue progressing towards better article quality. I think we should perhaps do something like Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder#Bringing_BPD_to_GA, where we have a review progress box. I believe that this could help us clearly identify the issues, so that we can work on tackling them systematically. Would anyone else be interested in this? BlockArranger (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this is unrealistic, at least it would take several years at our current pace. My goal is to make this a B-class article, which it already was before it deteriorated over the years. LogicalLens (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we are quite some time away from obtaining GA, let alone FA, status; however, I think we should still perhaps in one way or another attempt to establish a course, because current efforts are so heterogeneous that they might as well be random if one didn't know better. For example, I believe that if we were to one day decide to sit down and seriously discuss and work on making Causes a WP:SUMMARY of the main article by transferring stuff back and forth as needed, and deciding what information we should collect somewhere else, we might make better progress. I also get that not everyone would be on the same page with everything, but it just seems to me that we seem to have quite little aim. For example, when we were actively working on the lead and MEDRS, it seems to me we were making steady collaborative progress, likely specifically because everyone knew what we were aiming for. Coming to think of it, if we were to do something similar, perhaps we should try to take initiative to update our sources, as it was recently noted that they are far too old. BlockArranger (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Content_assessment, I derive that we need to make sure that nothing important is missing, the article's structure is clear, and the article has no other obvious problems. LogicalLens (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

As you may have noted, I have worked on layout in accordance with WP:MEDSECTIONS. I find this to be a much more logical order for reading from top to bottom, although I suspect that especially mobile users might just open the section they want a fact about at the moment, considering the shrinking attention spans among humans. However, style shall prevail... BlockArranger (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

While the goal is very ambitious, I'm optimistic significant improvements can be made to this article's organization and content in a few months. The reason is that the autism field has stabilized in terms of knowledge and is much better understood today, than even five years ago. Also this article is just very poorly written. It might take effort but there is room for a great deal of cleanup and improvements.

I'm available, have knowledge expertise and willing to collaborate on a plan and an improved article. MarsTrombone (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Really cool to see this work here, BlockArranger, LogicalLens and MarsTrombone. If you ever need help figuring out how to tackle this and bring the article to B-class or GA, do drop a note at WikiProject Medicine and join as a participant. Also wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign, where we're looking for participants to bring all top-importance medicine articles up to B-class or above by the end of next year. I hope I'll see you there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation! On my part, I mostly deal with psychiatry to the extent that my contributions are related to medicine; more specifically, I mostly work on personality disorders. I believe that I speak for more people than myself of all those who work on autism in saying that we would be very thankful for any input from other people not as involved specifically with autism for any suggestions regarding possible improvement. I'll make sure to check out the page you linked when I have sufficient time. BlockArranger (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Person or identity first is still an important matter

As some here may have noted, this recently caused some discussion between me and another contributor, when they moved Suicide among autistic individuals to Suicide among people with autism. At first, I thought it was perhaps a bit too bold, but then again, our long discussion was inconclusive. I think the matter must however be resolved because (1) we might not want an article to use both versions interchangeably and (2) we might not want articles to differ from each other in regards to this matter; however, (3) perhaps we are fine with the issues suggested by the previous points. Regardless, we have to find a common ground in regards to this matter, in order to establish what we think of the previous points. Then, if we do not opt for (3), it will be necessary to establish a real consensus regarding which language to use. In fact, I would be wiling to bring forth the spooky term WP:RFC for the purpose of making a decision. BlockArranger (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I took the result of the last discussion to be in favor of mixing, as is also recommended by CDC, NHS, etc. CFCF (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I can attempt to see for myself when I have time to read, but I note your interpretation. Anyway, it does not lead us to any conclusions regarding what we should do across articles. For example, should we accept that article titles differ in this regard, and how do we deal with this article in that case going against the supposed consensus by favouring "autistic"? BlockArranger (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how to answer that question but FWIW we can also say "people on the autism spectrum". --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 20:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

People with autism, at large, are very indecisive on the person first vs identity first matter. Most of us either don't care or use both autistic person and person with autism interchangeably. Trying to make a decision between the two is not a productive use of time and we would be better off just using both instead of trying to hash out discussions that others offsite have debated for years now with no real progress. HavenSumser (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it is very difficult and perhaps futile to discuss. However, I am not sure how happy I would be about article titles, for example, differing on this. Within articles, I guess I would even be fine with mixing. Furthermore, I feel like this is perhaps not the most open or honest discussion, as in fact this article is written in a way which is clearly based on taking a stance for one option over the other; but in discussions people act as if we didn't have any consensus. If mixing were truly fine, surely there would be a bit more of that, wouldn't it? I understand that this is a complicated matter and that it is perhaps preferable just not to bother too much with this at the moment, and perhaps we should proceed with that heuristic; but this bothers me not because I favor one or the other, but because it isn't "neat". Anyway, if you look at the archives, you will see that in fact I personally really don't like futile discussions going on for months, such as the one about images. BlockArranger (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

As requested, some feedback on the article. Overall, it already has good bones. It's using current sourcing in many places, and I do think it can be brought up to GA level, and isn't far away from B-class. For B-class, a the biggest hurdle might be the understandability. In places, the article cites the Frontiers in Psychiatry journal, which is of borderline reliability.

Feedback lead:

• Autism is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder,[7] and a formal diagnosis requires professional assessment that these characteristics cause significant challenges in daily life beyond what would be expected given a person's age and social environment. --> Quite a tough read. I'd change to something like Autism is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder, and it is diagnosed when a clinician determines that the associated characteristics cause significant difficulties in daily life beyond what would be expected for a person's age and social environment.
• How important is the vaccine claim? Note that disinformation research shows that exposing someone to refuting disinformation can make it more likely they believe in it. Strategies to fight misinformation are usually about noting what's true and how we know that, rather than refuting what's false (https://www.news-medical.net/news/20251124/Mental-model-approach-shown-to-reduce-effects-of-misinformation-about-mRNA-vaccines.aspx).
• Autistic people are found in every demographic group and, with appropriate supports that promote independence and self-determination, can participate fully in their communities and lead meaningful, productive lives --> 'can participate fully' is not always true, right? Someone with intellectual disabilities and severe autism probably does not participate fully in their community even with appropriate support.

Assessment for intellectual impairment is not part of any diagnostic manual's criteria for autism. Intellectual or learning disability is a co-occurring condition, just like epilepsy or ADHD. As such, someone who is only diagnosed with ASD, and not with a diagnosis of co-occurring intellectual problems, will have an intellect that is in the average or above range. It is debatable whether such a thing as 'profound autism' exists. Outgoing, overtly friendly intellectually disabled people, who interact with others easily, are not termed 'profoundly neurotypical'. Urselius (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Feedback body

• The introductory sentences of classification can be rephrased in easier terms: The DSM-5 and ICD-11 are the two main classification systems for mental disorders in use today. Both categorize autism spectrum disorder as a neurodevelopmental condition and define it as a spectrum that encompasses a wide range of presentations.
• There are some instances of overcitation throughout the article. For instance: the sentence "Since 1980, the committees behind both manuals have aimed for greater convergence, incorporating biological research while keeping behavior-based criteria" has four citations. Do we need that many? None of the citations are from the last five years, which is the ideal mentioned in WP:MEDDATE
• Some researchers have questioned ... --> that sentence is tough to read. I'm not sure what transdiagnostic biological markers are
• This is still the case in the DSM-5-TR --> I don't think this sentence is needed (nor the similar one a few paragraphs later). The expectation is that changes remain in place.
• The prognosis section doesn't need to be longer per so. They are usually quite short sections in medical condition articles (and sometimes even omitted).
• The ICD section has an external link, which should be removed
• Autistic people may have differences in social communication and interaction, which can lead to challenges in environments structured around non-autistic norms. -> While this is true, it does not feel quite complete. Some autistic people have difficulties in any environment.
• Critics have bemoaned the entrenchment of some of these groups' opinions, and that they speak to a select group of autistic people with limited difficulties --> bemoaned is not a neutral word choice. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Disability, Justice and Advocacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 19 November 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Btambeeb.

— Assignment last updated by Amora193 (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section

Reading this article, I came to think that indeed it lacks a "Diagnosis" section, which would seem to be a rather relevant subtopic. We already have a section for classification, placed in accordance with WP:MEDSECTIONS, but I do not think it is sufficient. Furthermore, considering that ASD is not split into many different forms, but is classified as described, that section is not really the most relevant introduction point to the article and it is also not the main topic of diagnosis of autism. I would like to hear opinions on how we should proceed and what content would make the most sense to include. However, I feel confident enough to go ahead with reorganizing in accordance with the above. See you there! BlockArranger (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that information on diagnosis is relevant. @CFCF once suggested calling it "Assessment," as that term is more all-encompassing.

In my view, the section on causes fits better between "Prognosis" and "Epidemiology". The exact causes of autism are not known; this section is therefore mainly there for curiosity. I think many people reading this article have a personal or professional relationship with autism and are more interested in diagnosis and therapies than in the causes. LogicalLens (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The order is not arbitrary; it is called WP:MEDSECTIONS and is designed to bring up subtopics in a logical manner. Furthermore, while assessment is relevant, I think it belongs within Diagnosis, alongside classification. Despite our lack of knowledge when it comes to the causes of autism, I do not think we should move it, as even the proposed causes are worth mentioning alongside the most obvious fact, that being that it is still quite unknown. I would also like to point out that assessment does not include classification well, whereas diagnosis accommodates both quite well. BlockArranger (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)