DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki
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


Feedback

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I support the changes for understandability.
  • The vaccine disinformation refutation could be removed from the lede, as the content should be decided by what reliable sources say, and claims by politicians hold no sway in that balance.
  • The question is what we mean by "participate fully". Many people have an image in their mind of a person doing certain things they consider normal. I think we should measure it by the autistic person's own desires. So if an autistic person with an intellectual disability leads a happy life and does not feel they are not fully participating, then they are fully participating.
  • "Autistic people may have differences in social communication and interaction, which can lead to challenges in environments structured around non-autistic norms." could be changed by adding "especially" between "challenges" and "in environments."
  • I am planning to rewrite the society and culture section entirely. We have been rewriting this article for the past months, but this section is still in its old and incomplete form.
LogicalLens (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a new section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Placing "Assessment" within "Diagnosis" is reasonable.
I do not, however, agree that the causes section necessarily fits better between characteristics and diagnosis. This order makes sense for things where diagnosis and management are based on knowledge about causes, which is not the case for autism. Therefore, I think it fits better before "Epidemiology". Ultimately, it depends on which information is more relevant to the largest groups of readers of this article, which we can, in large part, only guess about. LogicalLens (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, we can conclude that we have consensus so far on one part of the matter, as long as nobody opposes it. For the other issue, I have little to say apart from my statements so far, at least for the moment being. I hope that others will also bother to interact with this discussion so that we can gain other perspectives, as it is hard to settle a disagreement among two people. BlockArranger (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These long discussions are hard to follow late in the game. The original post asked for a "Diagnosis" section; one now exists. And yet the last post claims some additional consensus and an open issue.
As far as I can make out, the open issue is
  • Should "Causes" be moved to between "Prognosis" and "Epidemiology"?
In my opinion it should not be moved. The cause is unknown and consequently has no bearing on either diagnosis or epidemiology. It may as well stay in the place one would find it in other articles.
The real issue with "Causes" is that the section is far too long. The notable fact is that no cause is known. That is obscured by the long list of "nothing to see here". There is an entire article devoted to the many things unknown: we should move many of these sources most of the content to that article leaving a summary. HTH Johnjbarton (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right to bring that up; this is also something I have been planning to bring up as a next step in our agenda at some point. This article has been written without regard to the main articles, probably because they are in bad condition. We need to synchronize them with this article at least as far as overview goes, because really this article should be developed through changes in the sections of the other articles, which eventually might come all the way here. BlockArranger (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Diagnosis of autism article already exists. Why have two articles on the same topic? The parent article should just contain a summary per WP:SS MarsTrombone (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not explain anything else about diagnosis than how it is classified, as of the moment being. Due to this, I added a template at the top of the section. We should cover summary of other content in the target article in addition to what we have here now, which could actually be reduced in size. BlockArranger (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should include information on how the diagnosis is conducted, which is particularly relevant for potentially autistic people planning to undergo an evaluation, who often want and need to know what is coming to be emotionally prepared. LogicalLens (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that Wikipedia should be in the business of providing information with a goal such as that. While it isn't going so far as to offer medical advice, I'm concerned that it might be in the same neighborhood. DonIago (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should avoid 'advice'. However, describing the diagnostic process is standard for medical and psychological entries on Wikipedia, see ADHD or dyslexia, for example. While my reasoning for wanting it included mentioned the benefit to readers, the inclusion itself is justified by the need for a comprehensive overview. LogicalLens (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Opposition is strong and the topic has been discussed before. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Asperger syndrome into Autism. I think the content in Asperger syndrome can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. Docmoates (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you review the discussion linked at the top of this page; this has been proposed before, and if you wish to propose it again you should address the concerns that were raised previously. DonIago (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Doniago. I am happy to explain - the biggest difference between when that was originally proposed and now is that there's a dispute (your reverts) over whether the language should be past tense or present tense. At the time the last merge proposal was made. It stated "is a term formerly used to describe" in the lead paragraph. Now or before I updated it it stated it "is" a diagnosis. The merge would allow the history of the 'merged syndrome to be discussed in a historical header on this article which acquired said neurodevelopmental disorder. Docmoates (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that a dispute over tense between two editors is germane to the suitability of an article merger. As Asperger's is no longer recognised as a diagnosis in either of the main internationally recognised diagnostic manuals, its place as a former or historical diagnosis is best served by it remaining as a separate article within Wikipedia. Though there are people around with an Asperger syndrome diagnosis, that it is no longer used by mainstream diagnosticians makes the diagnosis definitely past tense, though the people with the diagnosis remain in the present tense. Urselius (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support keeping it as a separate article. LogicalLens (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic should we open a discussion to adopt "autism spectrum disorder" as the article name? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to immediately oppose this, but how does the logic you are referring to lead you to that suggestion? BlockArranger (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can make out from the article, the diagnosis is now "autism spectrum disorder", not "autism".
So "autism" becomes a "former or historical diagnosis" like Asperger's. Autism remains a notable topic but from a medical point of view is it still synonymous with "autism spectrum disorder"? (On this topic the article, my only source, is confusing mix of current status and history so I could be completely wrong). Not a big deal, just a suggestion. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be referring to classical autism. Well, that would explain it. The problem with your suggestion might however be that nowadays the word "autism" commonly refers to ASD, which is the topic of the article currently under "Autism". I personally think that ASD would perhaps make more sense as the title as other psychiatric disorders are also generally titled that way, but I think there may be some people here who would not agree because they would like to avoid the term "disorder" when talking about this condition. BlockArranger (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Autism is likely to be the correct title under WP:COMMONNAME. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. They are different things with, specifically, different history. Settle your minor textual disagreements through other means. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the reason for the merger or how it is substantially different from the last time it was proposed? Asperger's had (and frankly still has) its own history and cultural aspects that make it suitable to have a dedicated page, regardless of whether you use past or present tense to describe it. TheZoodles (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Asperger's is pretty different from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Even if it is no longer a diagnosis in the latest edition of the DSM, it still has historical value to be separated from Autism. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but I firmly believe it should be kept as a separate article. Classic Autism/Kanner's Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) are also separate articles. Knowing how these former diagnoses were later formed into one spectrum is important for understanding the history of autism. I've relied on the Asperger Syndrome page for years and found it perfectly fine that it has its own page because of its history within the development of the autism spectrum.
Thus, the term Asperger Syndrome, despite its 'problematic' name, was important to add to the DSM-IV because it helped realize that there were different presentations of autism. I agree with what TheClocksAlwaysTurn says above. The term and page still have historical value, despite the fact that the diagnosis is no longer in use. Ladyangelsongbird (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aspergers has high heritability which surely differentiates it slightly. As an outsider looking in to this chat the only way I was able to work out my wife, her family and subsequently my son was understanding the historical considerations such as heritability as ASD didn't descibe my wife or son but the heritabile nature of the old-school term 'Aspergers' did. Plus this categorisation is one man's work and it's important work that should held in history as understanding something that people prior would have regarded as a mental illness, which it is not.
Sensory issues are common across kanner autism and aspergers, but I'm not sure the 'database mindset' aspect of aspergers has been proven in kanner autism which is typically low-functioning. ~2025-40995-48 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlockArranger @Doniago @JzG @Ladyangelsongbird @LogicalLens The proposal here is calling for a stand. The proposal has been pitched before and failed. Thus I think it needs strong support. So far we have one oppose. Does anyone other than the proposer strongly support this merger? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as ASD and AS are clearly different concepts, even though they are related. It is worth mentioning AS in the History section of Autism, as is mentioning ASD in the AS article. BlockArranger (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't have anything to add, and I wasn't going to say anything since I didn't have anything to contribute, but since I've been pinged, I think it's pretty clear which way consensus is leaning, and I think the opposers make good points. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't happening per WP:SNOW. I have removed the templates, do not reintroduce. CFCF (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF and @Docmoates I urge you both to stop editing now. This topic has a single "oppose" and is not clearly covered by WP:SNOW. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has. This has been proposed ad nauseam and neither has it ever gotten traction before, nor are there any new arguments. If you want to play the useless bureaucracy:
Strong oppose - per all prior discussions in the Archives. CFCF (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it needs to run its process. Docmoates (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Docmoates (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is precisely what is referred to in WP:SNOW:
The snowball clause is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior. The snowball clause states:
If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.
CFCF (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improving top-importance medicine articles: Join the Vital Signs campaign 2026

[edit]

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

  1. Add yourself as a participant
  2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
  3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
  4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification for "genius"

[edit]

A source and summary was recently added to the intro. The content has been changed several times. Here is the latest version: On the other hand, savant (i.e. genius) abilities "are more common in autism than in other groups". with the source:

The key idea of that short editorial is to suggest possible genetic selection based on special skills. The full sentence from the source is:

  • Special abilities are more common in autism than in other groups, with one study1 finding that a third of autistic adults showed superior skills in one or more areas by parental report and on psychometric tests.

The source goes on to say

  • Special skills typically fall into a narrow range of areas. A recent study2 suggested that more than 70% of autistic children and adults had a special isolated skill in memory (52% of the sample), visuo‐spatial abilities (32%), calculation, drawing or music (about 17% for each area).

Thus it is clear that this source does not support a claim that these are "genius" abilities. These are "special isolated skill in memory".

The next sentence in the intro, also recently added, also the misrepresents a source:

  • Further, a study of eight child prodigies showed that they commonly reached high scores on several traits associated with autism, and some were confirmed to have a full autistic diagnosis, conveying that genius traits may go hand-in-hand with a partial or full autistic status.

citing

This is not a paper about autism. The key idea of the paper is to suggest that child prodigies may have one trait of autism, strong attention to detail. Again the paper makes no statements to support "genius".

  • the child prodigies received elevated AQ scores with respect to attention to detail, a trait associated with autism. The prodigies did not, however, display many of the other traits typically associated with autism.

I deleted these sentences and I ask for consensus before re-adding them. I am not against including some content based on these sources if it is verifiable and represents the source material. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Archosaur96 I am drawing your attention to this discussion. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is proposed text based on the sources to address the same issue as the disputed content:
  • On the other hand, savant abilities "are more common in autism than in other groups."
This concisely summarizes the article content on special ability.
Content based on the second source belongs in the article body, in the section "Unusual abilities" I would add:
  • A study of eight child prodigies showed high scores on attention to detail, a trait associated with autism, even though these children did not show many other traits associated with autism.
We could rename "Unusual abilities" to "Savant abilities" based on the Happé source above. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I agree with your fomulation of "On the other hand, savant abilities "are more common in autism than in other groups."".
For the other article, it does mention that several of the genius children were revealed to have been fully autistic all along, though. So, this, coupled with the rest of the children showcasing autistic characteristics, would seem to convey the point I meant to make. Maybe another article would be better to use though. My computer is insanely slow and I have trouble navigating the internet at the moment so I just pulled this one up since I had it downloaded.
Otherwise, would it be possible to dilute more the point about autistic people and intellectal disability, and more emphasise the wide range of "autisms" including the geniuses? Because basically the greatest geniuses of history seem to have all been autistic. Also, the controversial removal of the DSM-5 of the qualification of "Asperger's" and the lack of the article's mention of it makes people even more forget about other very large subsets of independent and intelligent autistic people, which is problematic.
Because over the past couple years, I have already had two separate people in real life who fully believed my sister was intellectually disabled since they learned she was autistic, although she is brilliant with an IQ of 209 but just very socially awkward. And they both said they got that from Wikipedia... I fear of how many other people assume this since due to not only the disappearance of the term Asperger's, but also the fact that most content about autism, including Wikipedia, seems to be merged from the information stemming about the rest of autism subtypes, and to unintentionally convey that autistic means intellectually disabled.
People also seem to be confused becase they don't know the fact that there are 2 main "types" of autistic people:
- those who are genius, which makes them be autistic
- those who are disabled, which makes them autistic
I know that's a pretty big simplification and some people may say it's controversial, but this is how those in my academic circle tend to simplify it and I think it does well to explain some crucial aspects of the spectrum.
I hope I make sense. Sorry, English isn't my first language.
Best regards Archosaur96 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for an unclarity; I know that the Asperger article isn't merged with the autism one on Wikipedia; I meant to say that about articles about Autism in general seem to have mainly merged in the sense of removed content about "Asperger" types and are phrased in a way that seems to make people believe that autism=intellectual disability. Again sorry for my bad English.
Archosaur96 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Archosaur96 Claims like "many famous genius personalities" are extraordinary and require extraordinary sources. A letter to the editor diagnosing Einstein based on his biography is very far from the mark in my opinion. In addition we cannot create trends or correlations by citing multiple sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, sorry. But since the article also has some forms of evidence related to the dissection of his brain and the structure of the latter, would this count in another way? Archosaur96 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by "the article" you mean the source
This is a very low quality source in my opinion. Letters to the editor from people in the field of the journal are commonly published with no review. I think it is pseudoscience. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and thanks for moving this article in a good direction. I added back the first sentence and renamed the "Unusual abilities" to "Savant abilities".
Since I know you have just started here, I'll throw in some pedantic comments. As an encyclopedia written by anonymous contributors, Wikipedia relies on verification and the ability to settle disagreements through WP:reliable sources. If you have sources we can make changes, if not, then not. The cause-and-effect arrow for Wikipedia flows from sources to content: this isn't the place to correct the world's view. This is true no matter how sincere you are or how strongly you feel or how clearly you express yourself. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful to point out that neither of the most prominent diagnostic manuals have any intellectual measuring dimension in their criteria for assessing and diagnosing autism (ASD). An autism diagnosis can be made of people throughout the span of human intelligence. If it exists in any autistic individual, intellectual disability is co-occurring, not an integral part of their autism. The sources for this are the diagnostic manuals. Urselius (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent expansion of the lead

[edit]

"Conditions such as anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, as well as intellectual disability, can be associated with some autistic people.[23][24][25] On the other hand, certain savant abilities "are more common in autism than in other groups".[26]"

The above has been added to the lead, and should be discussed. This is because it seems to just have been tacked onto the preceding content, without clear reason why the content belongs together. Furthermore, claiming that conditions "can be associated with some autistic people" is rather uninformative. First of all, what does it mean for a condition to be associated with a person? Secondly, it does not directly state that there is substantial comorbidity, although this is probably what the author has intended. Furthermore, it seems like the last sentence is WP:SYNTH, as the same source is not used to specifically balance the stated facts and with them against each other.

Could this perhaps be dealt with in another manner, and should the lead even give room to things like these, especially the savant claim, considering that it is rare and that we anyhow need to keep the lead from becoming too long BlockArranger (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first sentence I agree that a version from back in December was clearer:
  • Conditions such as anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, and intellectual disability are more common among autistic people.
The second sentence is not synthesis, it is simply another independent claim which is sourced. The second claim does not alter the first one and no additional conclusion is implied. This sentence summarizes the section "Skill profile" as part of the overall summary expected by WP:LEAD. We could agree on a different summary.
I edited the Skill profile section to note the prevalence by the review at 1/10. Other sources like
  • Meilleur, A. A. S., Jelenic, P., & Mottron, L. (2015). Prevalence of clinically and empirically defined talents and strengths in autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45(5), 1354-1367.
suggest more prevalence. There are lots of sources on this topic which are not included in the article and it is clearly a notable subtopic for autism. Here are some more sources:
  • Bennett, E., & Heaton, P. (2012). Is talent in autism spectrum disorders associated with a specific cognitive and behavioural phenotype? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(12), 2739–2753.
  • Bennett, E., & Heaton, P. (2017). Defining the clinical and cognitive phenotype of child savants with autism spectrum disorder. Current Pediatric Research, 21(1), 140–147.
  • Bölte, S., & Poustka, F. (2004). Comparing the intelligence profiles of savant and non-savant individuals with autistic disorder. Intelligence, 32, 121–131.
  • Heaton, P., & Wallace, G. L. (2004). Annotation: The savant syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(5), 899–911.
  • Howlin, P., Goode, S., Hutton, J., & Rutter, M. (2009). Savant skills in autism: Psychometric approaches and parental reports. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1359–1367.
  • Miller, L. K. (1998). Defining the savant syndrome.Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 10, 73–85.
  • Mottron, L., Dawson, M., & Soulieres, I. (2009). Enhanced Perception in savant syndrome: Patterns, structure and creativity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1385–1391.
  • Treffert, D. A. (1989). Extraordinary people: Understanding “idiot-savants”. New York: Harper & Row.
Johnjbarton (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write such an elaborate response. Well, I certainly agree with you that we have reason to expand the section with such content, to the extent that is due and can be kept verifiable. BlockArranger (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the Treffert review

[edit]

I summarized the Treffert review: Treffert DA (May 2009). "The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 364 (1522): 1351–1357. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0326. PMC 2677584. PMID 19528017. this way:

  • As many as one in ten autistic people display an extraordinary condition, savant syndrome, characterized by an isolated skill in a narrow area always related to extraordinary memory. Most common are splinter skills such as memorization of sports trivia or historical facts.

In my opinion this is fair summary. @Cringechancellor converted it to

  • In rare cases, autistic people may display highly developed abilities in specific domains, sometimes described as savant skills.

My summary avoided the vague "rare" in favor of the specific value. Treffert used "extraordinary condition" in the source title, but I am fine with a different wording. The point about memory is crucial as it is central to the review source. Adding the example makes it much clearer what a "savant skill" means.

Cringechancellor also delete the following well sourced content.

  • Some recent analysis suggests the prevalence of the savant skills among individuals with ASD could be as high as one third, but quantifying skill levels and defining comparison groups makes this research very challenging.
  • Heaton, Pamela (2021), Volkmar, Fred R. (ed.), "Autistic Savants", Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 554–555, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91280-6_1372, ISBN 978-3-319-91279-0, retrieved 2026-01-02

This is a reviewed tertiary source and my summary is neutral. The sources cited by the Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders make it clear the our content claiming the condition is "rare" is a mischaracterization of the evidence. I would be ok with removing this sentence but it clearly makes "rare" unacceptable. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that summary is that it selects the most striking phrasing and presents it as a standalone statement, whereas in Treffert’s review it is treated in a more measured and nuanced way. For example, Treffert describes savant syndrome as "a rare, but extraordinary, condition" and "531 were reported by parents to have special abilities". The commonly cited 10 percent figure is immediately qualified with contrasting estimates, including Hermelin's own suggestion that prevalence may be as low as ‘one or two in 200".
I'm fine with clarifying that memory is a common attribute when discussing savant skills. However, the encyclopedia entry represents a single, high level overview and does not outweigh the primary and secondary sources which consistently characterizes savant syndrome as rare and emphasizes uncertainty in prevalence estimates. Even when mentioning the "up to third" figure, it's followed up by a number of hedges:
  • difficulties in operationalizing definitions of savant categories
  • challenges in identifying appropriate comparison groups (with some savant skills themselves noted to be rare in typical populations)
  • lack of consensus on whether intellectually able, talented individuals with autism should be accorded savant status
The studies described as "recent" are largely from the late 2000s and early 2010s. Taken as a whole, the sources that characterize savant syndrome as rare and acknowledge wide variability and uncertainty in reported prevalence carry greater weight than a single tertiary overview that itself contains a number of hedges. Cringechancellor (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Treffert says:
  • In Rimland's (1978) survey of 5400 children with autism, 531 were reported by parents to have special abilities and a 10 per cent incidence of savant syndrome has become the generally accepted figure in autistic disorder.
His section headline "The condition is rare but one in 10 autistic persons show some savant skills" emphasizes that the savant syndrome is rare in the general population but points explicitly to the 1/10 in autism. This "generally accepted figure" should be our starting point. The fact that the condition is 'rare' outside of autism should not be used to characterize its prevalence the autistic population.
Treffert's hedges and the Heaton hedges about variability are similar. Treffert cites examples that are lower and Heaton cites some that are higher. Per WP:NPOV we need to present a balance of these sources, but I agree that a summary of both sources should focus on the variability and uncertainty of prevalence rather than the numbers.
How about:
  • The otherwise rare savant syndrome, characterized by an isolated skill in a narrow area, is generally accepted to occur in as many as one in ten autistic people (reports on the prevalence are highly variable). Most common are splinter skills such as memorization of sports trivia or historical facts. The special skills are always related to extraordinary memory.
Johnjbarton (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]