Talk:Autism

Former good article nomineeAutism was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed


Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2026

Change frequency to 1 in 127 people. So according to WHO, it's about 1 in 127 people in 2021. (Source: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/autism-spectrum-disorders ) If 1 in 100 people is approximate, please ignore this change. ~2026-20157-7 (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the paragraph I think 1/100 is the same as 1/127 because the uncertainty in the number is much larger than 27/100. The WHO source says This estimate represents an average figure, and reported prevalence varies substantially across studies. Moreover other parts of the article say that WHO changed the definition in the time frame of those studies. I think the most notable fact about prevalence based on the sources is its uncertainty. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to 127 because the WHO source was called out in the text. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARENT YOU MENTIONING THIS

I have autism, I am smart and know a lot of history, why not put on the article that sometimes it has a good impact? What the fricking heck! Theeeggplant (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources. I spent some time trying to find sources along this line and made some corresponding changes. The sources speak about characteristics largely unique to autism because these characteristics can be correlated to the those people with the diagnosis. Characteristics uncorrelated with autism, like red hair, height, or knowledge of history are not noted in the studies I read. If you have a reliable source that supports your claim that autism causes knowledge of history we could add content to that effect. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen research papers stating that some genetic variants associated with autism are also associated with high academic attainment. This sort of non-pathologising aspect of autism could be usefully mentioned. Urselius (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post the sources then. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
''Is genetic liability to ADHD and ASD causally linked to educational attainment?''Christina Dardani et al.
International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 50, Issue 6, December 2021, Pages 2011–2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab107
I quote:
"Specifically, higher parental educational attainment has been found to be associated with increased risk of ASD in the offspring, whereas lower parental educational attainment with increased risk of ADHD."
"There was evidence suggesting that genetic liability to higher educational attainment was associated with increased risk of ASD (IVWOR: 1.51 per SD increase; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.77; Pval = 4 x 10-7) "
" Steiger filtering suggested that 62 SNPs associated with educational attainment explained more variation in ASD and these were removed. The exclusion of these SNPs, despite attenuating the primary analysis effect estimate, was suggestive of an effect of genetic liability to higher educational attainment on ASD." Urselius (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thapar, A., Rutter, M. Genetic Advances in Autism. J Autism Dev Disord 51, 4321–4332 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04685-z
"One of the most striking findings about autism common genetic liability [i.e. autism caused by genetic variants that are commonly found in the general population] is that it shows a strong positive genetic correlation with IQ and educational attainment. This is puzzling given that autism itself is associated with lower IQ. The observation is not explained by the artefact of selection bias or population stratification effects because when parent offspring trios are examined, over-transmission of alleles associated with higher educational attainment is observed in affected vs. unaffected siblings (Weiner et al. 2017). " This is essentially saying parents with high academic attainment produce children with high academic attainment, whether they are autistic or not, but it also implied that the genetics of high academic attainment and autism have an overlap. It is also acknowledging, without stating, that uninherited, de novo genetic changes tend to produce autistic people at the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. In square brackets is my explanation. Urselius (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your synopsis of the quote is not what I would conclude. A claim like "parents with high academic attainment produce children with ..." followed by anything at all is contrary to science and not what any of these studies say. Given the long horrible history of extrapolating genetics we should be exceptionally cautious in any summary of these sources. We should specifically not assume conclusions which are not stated. The studies establish a correlation and establish that this correlation is genetic. But the implications are for populations not "parents".
How about:
  • Studies have found that correlation of higher rates of autism and of educational attainment in families has a genetic aspect.
That is a bit cryptic and perhaps we should expand it.
  • Studies find a correlation between higher rates of autism and of educational attainment in families. This correlation has been shown be related to genetics.
This addition would belong in the Genetics section which is already robust. These sources do not bear upon the questions raised in the opening posts of this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about avoiding this altogether? Of course, there is no rule against stating that a study has found something if that statement is true, but I think there is a high risk that we turn something out that will however make the reader draw the conclusion that having autism boosts one's educational attainment. Consider that readers may not be familiar with science and that some statements can be true and dishonest at the same time. I don't know how much you all have searched, but I would much prefer an actual review article about specifically the impact of autism on educational attainment with focus solely on people who themselves have autism. BlockArranger (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, I gave what you asked for. I am a molecular biologist, the second paper authors seem a little ignorant of the work of other scientists. There is an emerging body of evidence that inherited genetic variants, containing small DNA changes associated with autism, mostly SNPs, that are found in the general population (some of which have also been linked to high academic attainment), when in a high enough concentration in the individual are associated with autism that tends to be less debilitating. However, de novo (non inherited) large scale genetic changes (deletions, transpositions and duplications of stretches of DNA) tend to produce autism having greater debility. For populations, I have read of a town in the Netherlands (Eindhoven), which has a particular concentration of high tech industry, as a result there are many scientists and engineers in the population. The rates of autism in the local schoolchildren is significantly higher than the national average. See: Are Autism Spectrum Conditions More Prevalent in an Information-Technology Region? A School-Based Study of Three Regions in the Netherlands, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42:734-739 (2012), M. Roelfsema, R. Hoekstra, C. Allison, S. Wheelwright, C. Brayne, F. Matthews. S. Baron-Cohen Urselius (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources but they don't really match what I asked for. I imagine that the original post, having claimed both autism and knowledge of history, was hoping for content expressing positive signs for individuals with autism. A "non-pathologising aspect of autism" describing a genetic association between individuals with autism and families with academic success does not match that request, even if it is interesting.
I have made a proposal for additional content based on the sources posts, but one editor objects. I'm not enthusiastic because now we have two sources with question marks in their titles. This positions the topic as speculation even if the papers present evidence. Given the highly personal nature of the article topic I think extra caution is called for. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There you are, then. Urselius (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could start off by saying WP:WELCOME to WP:WIKIPEDIA! As has been stated, we use WP:RELIABLE sources for the content in articles, because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a WP:PRIMARY source of facts; rather, WP is supposed to incorporate WP:VERIFIABLE information from other sources into a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC format. If you live in a liberal society, as do I, you are free to advocate in other ways that do not involve Wikipedia. However, our community would surely be happy to have you on board in developing this and other articles so that they may be even better in the future. Ask here or try to learn the WP:ROPES on your own; you WP:CANTBREAKIT, WP:BEBOLD! BlockArranger (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be me guys, I do get really good grades, I just don’t know why people don’t mention this type of stuff. Theeeggplant (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What "type of stuff"? Are you suggesting we add "Somebody posted to our Talk page that they had autism but got good grades"? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The personal experiences of a Wikipedia user are not relevant content for an article. Nevertheless, this being brought up should not deter us from including more information on autistic strengths. This argument should just be ignored.
Currently, the article contains two mentions of strengths, if I did not miss one. In the characteristics section, it says: "Focused interests can also provide personal fulfillment and contribute to the development of specialized knowledge." and there is a subsection "Cognitive profile" that includes even the memorization of historical facts. There is certainly more that can be written on these topics, but it is not that the article is not mentioning it.
Regarding genetic correlations, it says: "Some hypotheses in evolutionary psychiatry suggest that autism-associated genes may persist because of proposed links to traits such as intelligence, systematizing abilities, or innovation." This could be expanded, and the source @Urselius cited[1] is useful here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the Society and Culture section, where this probably belongs to a large extent. There are already multiple mentions there. The section can always be improved - but I think we should be very careful about any large-scale expansions due to the length of the article. I also do not think it is merited to add more on this topic in the other sections - apart from maybe a single sentence in the lede, summarizing the Society and Culture section, that there are many successful people with autism - who even view it as a "superpower". CFCF (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF I also missed that there is another subsection "Evolutionary perspectives." While I do not believe this kind of information belongs specifically into the "Society and culture" section (as both strengths and weaknesses are part of the scientific picture of autism), I now also think these cognitive strengths are appropriately covered, at least to an extent at which it is not adequate to open a topic here in all caps with the question why we supposedly are not mentioning these aspects. LogicalLens (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if you’re gonna be mean to me, get bent. (I am really smart so they need to make something my about it making you smart in some cases) Theeeggplant (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have sources saying that autism causes people to be smart, or even sources that say people with autism are more likely to be smart than non-autistic people? Or is it unrelated (some autistic people are very smart, and others aren't, just like some non-autistic people are very smart, and others aren't)?
Even then, we would have to account for cultural differences in what it means to be smart. In Japan, for example, teachers say that if a student is quick at their work and knows a lot of things, but does not behave well in class, then that student cannot be smart. After all, if a student really was smart, then they would show their intelligence through excellent social skills and by getting along in the group without being disruptive.[2] In other words, "autistic" and "smart" are nearly opposites in Japanese culture, because their concept of "smart" is more closely related to having social intelligence than to the kind of book learning that you seem to be talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So we are being Wikipedia:UNCIVIL to you? Why did you have to start an entire new section with the exact same incivility? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well add in the following claim: "Boys are diagnosed several times more often than girls, with girls being better at hiding autistic traits." is far from being supported in empirical work. If the diagnostic criteria themselves clearly result in disparity in gender prevalence, claiming that this is down to compensatory strategies without independent studies verifing that the girls would actually meet diagnostic criteria for autism otherwise is pseudo-scientific, at best. Also; Only one paper has been mentioned. ~2026-81957-3 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, nearly half the sources in the article aren't scientific papers but refer to websites of institutions, sometimes even private ones with limited or no scientific reputation. ~2026-81957-3 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have made progress with improving the sources and still need to do more. Remember that not everything on this page is "scientific" or "medical", so scientific and medical sources are not necessarily the only ones that should be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very well so, and for that matter, it's not my goal to push for an restriction of sources to scientific articles/journals only.
But, c.f. the example I've cited above, certain claims are introduced with minimal or no explanation in regards to their truthfulness. Regarding the specific subject here, it would be fairly easy to come across both pro and contra articles, so it might be deserving of its own subsection or otherwise integrated into the article about masking which I don't believe? is specifically linked anywhere. Given the significant arguments in favor of a con argument here, e.g. 70 years of autism study have repeatedly shown a significant gender disparity, it's simply not good journalistic practice to posit it like that.
Another sentence in the first segment reads something along the lines of; "With support, autistic individuals can live meaningful and productive lives." I really don't think such a statement belongs on Wikipedia. It suggests the necessity of treatment and hence could be seen as an advertisement for either intervention or support services. Incidentally, private services use that phrase often and the cited source is an organization linked to the private market. Needless to say, it contradicts the previous sentence where it is argued that some people diagnosed with autism require minimal or no support. Given autism's legal status as a disability category, it's also frankly redundant.~2026-81957-3 (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that autism diagnostic assessment criteria state that, in order to be diagnosable, a person's autistic traits have to produce a level of difficulty/impairment that adversely affects their day-to-day life. The requirement for support or accommodations is implied but not stated. Therefore, the provision, or need for, support is not integral to being autistic. Very many diagnosed autistic people get no support and no accommodations, but still live meaningful and productive lives. As a case in point, I was diagnosed about six months after taking early retirement, after BSc, MSc and PhD degrees and 34 years in biomedical research, with my published work being cited over 1,300 times. I therefore have received no support and no accommodation, ever. I am still autistic and my day-to-day life is still adversely impacted by it. Urselius (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems illogical to me:
  • Autism is legally considered a disability.
  • Disabled people routinely experience discrimination.
  • So it's redundant to say that disabled people can still live meaningful and productive lives.
If you live in a culture where disabled people's lives aren't considered worth less than non-disabled people's, then congratulations. In most of Europe and North America, we've got pretty good evidence from the experience of Down syndrome, Cystic fibrosis,[3] Sickle cell disease,[4] and more, including hypothetical surveys about autism[5] that a lot of parents would choose abortion over having a child with autism, if they found out about the diagnosis before birth. The Risk of eugenics in Prenatal screening for autism is a thing, and that indicates to me that people need to be educated on the fact that autistic people can still live meaningful and productive lives.
(Urselius, I sometimes wonder what we would learn, if we screened all PhD candidates for autism.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of hindsight, now I know what autism looks like, I can make the personal observation that autistic traits are far more in evidence among academics/researchers (particularly in STEM subjects) than in the general population. Academic research rewards some autistic traits, monotropism, and hyper-focus are exceptionally useful, as is an eye for detail - my PhD thesis was passed without any correction or revision, a relatively rare occurrence. On the disability front, in the UK autism is classed as a disability for legal purposes - e.g. an autistic person should not lose their job for displaying autistic traits. However, in order to get government disability benefits (PIP etc. or even a disability bus pass, or parking permit), anyone who has an autism diagnosis still has to show that they cannot manage everyday tasks etc. Having managed everyday tasks for 59 years plus, I did not consider that applying for anything - not even a parking permit - was going to be worthwhile. Urselius (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted content in three places that was not verified by the sources cited. The sources are reliable and valid:
These sources should be added with correct summaries. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add a "Differential diagnosis" subsection

Now that a lot of the previous major tasks are over, I suggest that we should attempt to create a good subsection on differential diagnosis. Per WP:MEDSECTIONS, this would belong under Diagnosis. I think we should not have an all too hard time finding good source material for writing it, and I think that differential diagnosis is an important matter, as that gives a characterization of autism in contrast to other conditions.

Of course, an issue here (and in many other sections, too) is that in building this article, we have not by a long shot lived up to WP:SUMMARY in regards to main articles, but perhaps that might be left aside for this specific purpose for now; we can move stuff around and fix it later. However, if anyone else thinks this would be an appropriate thing to do in the foreeable future, now you know that you have support. BlockArranger (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. LogicalLens (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of lead

I have recently noticed that the lead has undergone edits which have made it stand in conflict with a cited source, namely, the DSM-5. An edit I especially note here is this [6] one. The problem is that the DSM-5 does not support that autism is mainly defined by criterion A, with criterion B being ostensibly optional. While perhaps a misguided copy edit (the user did not specify any edit summary; in fact, they marked the edit as minor), I believe that we should keep it clear that criterion B is necessary. BlockArranger (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just fix it. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done. I posted this here as a rationale I would refer to when making the edit. However, it is somewhat worrisome that this wasn't caught earlier on. BlockArranger (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"2E" or "Twice Exceptional"?

"2E" or "Twice Exceptional" is a phrase I've picked up on in relation to Autism. The suggestion is a person can be Autistic and gifted in one or more given areas. This may relate to spikey profiles. Worth inclusion even if only given a brief mention? Beefy SAFC (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Twice exceptional to the "See also" section. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elopement

Could someone please write a basic article on Elopement (autism) (or some other name that isn't elopement (dementia)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that demonstrate that "Elopement (autism)" is a notable topic? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate entry in:
  • Andersen, Allan M.; Lipkin, Paul H.; Law, J. Kiely (2021). "Elopement". In Volkmar, Fred R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders (2nd ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. ISBN 978-3-319-91280-6.
Pretty much whenever another encyclopedia has an entry for a subject, then that subject meets the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That (autism-specific!) encyclopedia has 3475 entries. Do you think it would be appropriate to write 3475 articles on these topics? In my view, only an article in a general encyclopedia is a good sign that a topic meets the notability criteria here. LogicalLens (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. There is some guideline or essay somewhere on Wikipedia where I think Pokemon characters are used as an example of notability; i.e., that Pikachu is notable while some lesser known ones would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE to cover. In that case, I am rather sure that some Pokemon encyclopedia would not be a good measure of WP:NOTABILITY, regardless of how "notable" any character may be among the core fan base. Furthermore, I do of course think the autism encyclopedia is more serious, but still, it's an encyclopedia for things related to a very specific topic. I don't want to be dismissive or discouraging, as I think WhatamIdoing has just the right spirit here, which I often share (see all the initiatives I take just on this Talk page alone); but, of course, realism has its place. Nevertheless, I won't be judgemental; thus, if she – or anyone else – has good sources to present, then go for it! There is of course nothing wrong in making an attempt to create consensus in support of one's opinion or goal. BlockArranger (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, mentioning elopement somewhere in an article that already exists is more appropriate, but I will not necessarily complain if a new article is created that cites numerous high-quality sources. LogicalLens (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got 10,000 articles that mention autism, including about 200 with autism in the title, so a mere 3,475 doesn't sound like it's the wrong order of magnitude.
Looking at the first 10 entries in the encyclopedia, I find:
  1. µ, which is a redirect to their article on Mu rhythm
  2. µ Rhythm, ditto
  3. 1-[1-[4,4-Bis(p-fluorophenyl)butyl]-4-piperidyl]-2-benzimidazolinone,which is a redirect to their article on Pimozide
  4. 15q13.3 microdeletion syndrome, which I think is a type of Chromosome 15q partial deletion
  5. 16p11.2, which we have split into 16p11.2 deletion syndrome and 16p11.2 duplication syndrome
  6. 3-(2-Chloro-10 H-phenothiazin-10-yl)-N,N-dimethylpropan-1-amine, which is a redirect to their article on Chlorpromazine
  7. 3-Chloro-5-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]-10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenz[b,f]azepine Monohydrochloride, ditto
  8. 3-Day Measles, which is a redirect to their article on Rubella
  9. 504 Plan
  10. 5-HT, which is a redirect to their article on Serotonin
If this is representative of their encyclopedia, then there may be a lot less than 3,475 non-redirect entries. Of the non-redirect articles, I think we already have articles on about half of them. Skipping ahead slightly to the A's, the first ten non-redirect entries are:
  1. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
  2. Aarskog–Scott syndrome
  3. Aberrant Behavior Checklist – redlink, and probably shouldn't be
  4. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale – redlink, but see also Abnormal involuntary movements
  5. Abolishing operation – redlink, but see also Content theory#Behaviorist theories
  6. Absence seizure
  7. Academic skills
  8. Academic support – redlink, and shouldn't be; in the US context, they compare it to Individualized Education Program#Specially designed instruction
  9. Accuracy of the ADOS-2 in Identifying Autism Among Adults with Complex Psychiatric Conditions – we merge up to Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule#Diagnostic accuracy
So we've got about half, and we have some relevant content on at least half of the missing ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would not promise that I will ever contribute significantly to it, let alone create it myself. However, if it is notable enough and people would find it important, I would see its creation as good and useful, and I might perhaps try to help out whenever I don't have a big PD backlog going on. BlockArranger (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one thing we should consider: Should we make a separate Elopement (autism) or should we expand the scope of Elopement (dementia) and rename it to something more generic, such as Elopement (behavior)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support including it in the Elopement (dementia) article, but if you have enough high-quality sources, you can give it its own article. LogicalLens (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources would need to establish a connection between the behavior under dementia and under autism. These may exist but the primary sources on autism elopement belong in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDPRI says there ideally wouldn't be any primary sources in the resulting article at all.
There are sources that make a connection. What do we think would be more interesting or sensible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes any sense to discuss autism in Elopement (dementia) beyond a See Also. I don't think elopement in autism has "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG for an article. I added a section to this article based on the sources I could find. Please review that section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDPRI does not say "there ideally wouldn't be any primary sources in the resulting article at all". The section has three paragraphs. The first cautions against using primary sources against secondary sources. The second cautions against recent and thus uncited primary sources. The third makes essentially the same caution specifically for biomedical papers. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. Review articles are secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The context of that sentence is not primary sources but rather recentism. In my opinion, that section is inconsistent with wikipedia's requirement for WP:reliable sources. Recent primary sources on any topic are not generally reliable. Thus we should not put them in articles then remove them later when a review is published. They should not be included in the first place. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose primary sources. Some seem to think they are fine for good faith addition of content, but considering what articles end up looking like with that mindset, I would reconsider. BlockArranger (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I see it as fine when the topic is less known, yet still wildly notable. - Flower (she/her) 20:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The key question with all sources is "are they WP:reliable for the content they verify?" Some primary sources are excellent. Publications in top journals by large teams are reliable. Publications by established researchers on the topic of their field are generally reliable. Highly cited primary publications are reliable on noncontroversial issues they speak to directly. Primary sources should not be excluded without cause nor included without evidence that they are sound.
A much bigger issue for many articles is the use of low quality "secondary sources" written for newsy websites. These sources often puff up the conclusions of a primary source for their own purpose$$. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most news sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press discourages citing news sources for biomedical content even if it is technically a secondary source. (Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, of course. Most news articles are primary and independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need better sources for the elopement section. For example, the encyclopedia entry mentions several different numbers for the prevalence, and the other claims need to be checked as well. LogicalLens (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced most of the sources with the encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism