Talk:Autism/Archive 10#Adding new content

I think multiple miscommunication from various side (including me) and quit the topic. I ask for forgiveness regarding my lack of response inhibition. I was triggered and went impulsive. I didn't mean to hurt anybody RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:RIT RAJARSHI, I came to take a look after seeing your Teahouse comment. I've only skimmed this Talk page, but I don't see any comments from you hurting anyone. That said, whether you choose to stay is up to you. If you choose to reengage, my suggestion is that you (and others who think that the article is unbalanced) start by gathering reliable sources from non-medical sources, both social science research (e.g., in fields like anthropology and sociology) and relevant non-research (e.g., personal commentary). For example, I just did a quick search, and this [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-024-2134-7_4] book might be a good source, as might this [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-z6cBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA111&dq=medicalization+autism&ots=svo_ifT2ld&sig=CJUgC6nk7BJBGsfsuIo8zFg99K0#v=onepage&q=medicalization%20autism&f=false book chapter] (though I haven't read either and can't be sure). Temple Grandin's writings also come to mind. Put differently, it's not sufficient to want your perspective better represented in the article; you need reliable sources that support a more balanced article. I don't have time to look for more sources right now, and I don't have any expertise in this field, but I'll look for some other possible sources later. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

::RIT RAJARSHI, I want to apologize, as I fear that my previous response came across as condescending, when my intent was to be helpful. I see that a number of RSs have already been introduced into the discussion that are consistent with your perspective, and I probably shouldn't have said anything without first reading more of the exchanges. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@FactOrOpinion NO ISSUES, MISTAKES AND OVERLOOKS HAPPEN.

:::I AM SORRY IN CASE YOU FELT STRESSED OR MISINTERPRATED

:::RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::RIT RAJARSHI, there is no need to apologize, though I appreciate your concern. Glad that we're both OK with the exchange. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:I also don’t believe you’ve written anything harmful at all. This seems to be more of a miscommunication. I found your initial reply to me thoughtful and informative, even though I disagree with certain aspects. After re-reading the dialogue I realise my response came across more accusatory than I intended, and for that, I apologise. My tone was shaped by the frustration of repeatedly having to address others misrepresenting or ignoring key points.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

::Hello @Димитрий Улянов Иванов , thanks for your response, and although I decided to quit this matter for now, I decided to clear up few miscommunication in response.

::* In "strict sense", the "scientific" community (Genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry etc. that works on externally observed and falsifiable data, often from a reductionist approach) usually do present the view you hold. But in the "academic community" which is not necessarily "scientific" per se... that work with Qualia, lived experience , and other subjective aspects of philosophy and humanities; that including social science or social studies, philosophy, ethics, medical ethics, some specializations within psychology, etc. some serious disagreements indeed exists. I wish I could share my reference list, but forgive, I am too exhausted and burnout.

::* Personally, it seems to me, that the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus", serves as a self fulfilling prophecy, and like the "growing cycle of inaccessibility". Since anything that doesn't go with the views of "Global, unanimous scientific consensus", may be perceived as fringe or too subjective, and therefore may face a negative bias in the peer review. I am aware that anecdotal evidence is not usually acceptable, but I know incidences where correspondence about criticisms of suggestion on ABA methods were not published, or rejected upon peer review process. It is difficult to prove since all private communications between all the journals and their authors are not accessible.

::* Regarding politicization of our bodies and minds (1) : Who gets to speak and who gets to decide. The ultimate goal is wellbeing and flourishment of Autistic population. If your viewpoint is more beneficial for Autistics then I am ready to get defeated. But there is problem regarding how we "define" what is a good life, and who gets to define that. Regarding Nothing about us without us, a person need to be Identified as Autistic first to have the voice. But the article says "Before the DSM-5 (2013) and ICD-11 (2022) diagnostic manuals were adopted, ASD was found under the diagnostic category pervasive developmental disorder. The previous system relied on a set of closely related and overlapping diagnoses such as Asperger syndrome and the syndrome formerly known as Kanner syndrome. This created unclear boundaries between the terms, so for the DSM-5 and ICD-11, a spectrum approach was taken. The new system is also more restrictive, meaning fewer people qualify for diagnosis." Now it needs to be clarified who would 'qualify' for being identified as Autistic. If possible, Provide specific examples. Would Dr. Temple Grandin retain her diagnosis? Would Jaquiline Den Houting retain her Autistic status? Would Greta Thunberg retain her Autistic status in new system? What would be the status for Black, South-Asian etc. population where there is too little awareness on so called 'Asperger' or so called 'high functioning Autism'? If they do not 'Qualify'; then how the people of their profile can be accommodated? It still looks like the "cut off point" is fluctuating, and probably the cut off point has no real existence. There will exist people with less typical symptoms but continue to mismatch/ suffer daily survival. What would be their diagnoses? Where would their voice go? There are people who are more severely impaired in medical model standards, but continued to tell about "disablement by society" than "being impaired by own bodies", Stella Young for example. Would you still think they do not deserve diagnosis/ support/ care/ voice/ representation (any) because they claim to be not impaired by their bodies?

::* Regarding politicization of our bodies and minds (2) : Although there are some little academic literature regarding harmful aspect of ABA therapy or its derivatives; there are plenty of lived experiences expressed in form of blogs, art, interviews, etc. Neuroclastic and ASAN has several articles on that. Chemical restraint , including misuse or overuse of antipsychotics has been another concern in concerned communities. The problem of disqualifying more "high functional" people is that, the more "low functional people" cannot often express their opinion in conventional neurotypical standard language. Hari Srinivasan, a mostly nonspeaking Autistic, with a lot of co-occurring impairment and dynamic disabilities, clinically diagnosed as severe or low functioning; who was a faculty at Barkeley and currently at a PhD programme in [https://www.vumc.org/lasr/person/hari-srinivasan Vanderbilt University], wrote in an opinion in [https://time.com/6299599/autism-research-limited-essay/ Times magazine] that "I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 3, and for the amount of “evidence-based therapy for autism” that has consumed my entire childhood, I should have been able to navigate it many times over by now. Why was I not benefiting from the vast amount of research that is being done in the name of understanding autism better? After all, autism has been an [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 official diagnosis] since 1980". He also expressed that "Of course, as a child you don’t have the power to challenge the “expert,” and you are left with a feeling of cognitive dissonance and mismatch that this is not quite right. ". and that "Yet, willy-nilly, existing autism research findings, and the resultant therapies and educational strategies, have been applied across the board to all autistics. Unfortunately, a lack of success in therapies not suited for you in the first place, leads to negative downstream impacts such as being placed in low expectations classrooms, the closure of opportunities, and less than positive lifetime outcomes. I find that despite all the careers, promotions, and profits being made by thousands of autism-experts, the state of autism interventions right now is one hot mess. In reality, there still are no real “experts” in autism because there is no one-size fits all model." Note that "wellbeing" in neurotypical standard, and actual wellbeing in Autistic population may look different. But if we keep enforcing the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus" to people who cannot speak, and we systematically exclude people who can speak about the harm, we keep the injustice unnoticed and continued.

::* I hope these issues to be addressed in Wikipedia's subject matter academically. I did not mean to personally criticize anybody. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов These are all what I wanted to convey academically, with respect. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@FactOrOpinion @Oolong all other editors you may include or mention these arguments in the dispute resolution procedure. Is there a way to keep it anonymous? or just refer me as a random visitor? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::::You are not required to participate in dispute resolution procedures, if you don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I would imagine that any volunteer mediators will look at whatever has been posted here, not exclusively named parties. There is no call for you to be formally involved. Oolong (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Autism|answered=yes}}

AUTISUM makes people nervous in socal interactions 2601:18C:9201:A941:F2D:6C:8F5B:4A1 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:File: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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I work with adults with ASD as a clinical psychologist, I do not have ASD myself so I know that my understanding of the lived experience of adults with ASD (including their childhood and adolescent experiences) is naturally very limited.

:→ Question: Whether you have ASD or not, what films, TV series, podcasts, videos, books, journal articles or other sources would you recommend to better understand the lived experience of people with ASD?

• Note: I am looking for quality sources, whether or not they meet Wikipedia standard reliable source or medical reliable source requirements, although Wikipedia's RS requirements are often a good marker of quality.
• Feel free to mention sources that purport to portray autsim accurately, but (in your opinion) fail to do so.
• Please keep your recommendations succinct and without engaging in the important—but not relevant here—debate about how to define and describe autism.
• Along those lines, I understand there are objections to the importance of "lived experience" to policy development and other matters, but let's not debate that here either (please).

Thank you!

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:For example, does the Korean TV series Extraordinary Attorney Woo offer helpful insights into the lived experience of (some) adults with ASD? -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::Books and articles written by autistic people have overwhelmingly switched to a pro-neurodiversity viewpoint in recent years (at least in English; in German to a significant, but lower degree). Sources by non-autistic people that often take a medical model approach almost never address lived experience or speculate about it without asking autistic people. Therefore, most quality sources about lived experience that I listed below are pro-neurodiversity.

::General descriptions of autism:

::https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00099-z

::https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0099

::Book: "Is This Autism?: A Guide for Clinicians and Everyone Else" by Donna Henderson et al. (includes many statements by autistic people and there is a separate book of it for diagnosticians)

::Emphasizing with other people:

::https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

::https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241255811

::https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320908976

::Book: "Understanding Others in a Neurodiverse World: A Radical Perspective on Communication and Shared Meaning" by Gemma Williams

::Book: "Authoring Autism" by Melanie Remi Yergeau

::Stigma/Identity/Masking:

::https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1822782

::https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101864

::https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3105

::https://doi.org/10.15126/thesis.00854098

::Book: "Autistic Masking: Understanding Identity Management and the Role of Stigma" by Amy Pearson and Kieran Rose

::Interests/Monotropism/Sensory differences:

::https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305051398

::https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0032

::Stimming:

::https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319829628

::https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241311096

::https://doi.org/10.1159/000526213

::Quality of life:

::https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01441-9

::https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12456

::https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103595

::ABA:

::https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-04-2020-0025

::Experience of the diagnostic process and influence of the disability model chosen:

::https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211001012

::The autistic YouTube channel "Aucademy" (led by autistic researchers) has many videos about autistic lived experience.

::Apart from the lived experience topic:

::I think you already know much about the medical model, the following sources help understanding the neurodiversity viewpoint better. If you want to read one book specifically about the neurodiversity paradigm, it should probably be "Neuroqueer Heresies" by Nick Walker, which is written for a broad audience and therefore not academic but written by an academic and arguably the most prominent book in the more academic part of the neurodiversity movement. Many of her essays are freely available online. A particularly noticeable article by Monique Botha on knowledge production in autism is the following: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542 LogicalLens (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Excellent! Thank you so much LogicalLens. And, yes, I do want to improve my understanding of the neurodiversity viewpoint. Much appreciated -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Another article about masking: https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043

::::Autistic inertia (difficulty starting and stopping tasks): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631596

::::Autistic burnout: https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079

::::Meltdown and shutdown: https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2018.1460750

::::Burnout, inertia, meltdown, shutdown (BIMS): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741421

::::There are many more articles and I cannot list them all. Some can be found in the references of the ones I listed above, others are given in the Neurodiversity Wikipedia article. The journal "Autism in Adulthood" is also very helpful and has an impact factor of 9.9, which is, as far as I know, the highest value of all journals that are specifically for autism. A very popular theory among autistic people is Monotropism, which assumes that autistic people tend to focus their attention towards fewer things and that this explains nearly all autistic features. Much content on it can be found on https://www.monotropism.org. One of the core aims of the neurodiversity movement is to make participatory research the standard and change the power imbalance in autism research between autistic people and as of now mostly non-autistic researchers because this imbalance is the main reason why autistic voices are marginalized in all debates about autism: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_10

::::https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318786721

::::Newly published sources can be found by using a Google Scholar alert for "neurodiversity" and by following some neurodiversity researchers and advocates on social media, especially Bluesky. A few suggestions:

::::Monique Botha [https://bsky.app/profile/drmbothapsych.bsky.social]

::::Autism in Adulthood [https://bsky.app/profile/autisminadulthood.bsky.social]

::::Christina Nicolaidis [https://bsky.app/profile/cnicolaidis.bsky.social]

::::Steven Kapp [https://web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/drstevenkapp.bsky.social]

::::Sue Fletcher-Watson [https://bsky.app/profile/suereviews.bsky.social]

::::Catherine Crompton [https://web-cdn.bsky.app/profile/cjcrompton.bsky.social]

::::Ann Memmott [https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:zumwzkbxlqcmhl4ciwlxwldo]

::::Monotropism.org [https://bsky.app/profile/monotropism.bsky.social]

::::Thinking Person's Guide to Autism [https://bsky.app/profile/thinkingautism.bsky.social]

::::Robert Chapman [https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:6r4y4eu2fr6ewfegfh65ecbl]

::::Mary Doherty [https://bsky.app/profile/autisticdoctor.bsky.social]

::::Kristen Bottema-Beutel [https://bsky.app/profile/kbottemabeutel.bsky.social]

::::Michelle Dawson [https://bsky.app/profile/autismcrisis.bsky.social]

::::Damian Milton (is still on Twitter) [https://x.com/milton_damian]

::::Georgia Pavlopoulou [https://bsky.app/profile/jopavlopoulou.bsky.social]

::::Amy Pearson [https://bsky.app/profile/dramypearson.bsky.social]

::::Kathy Leadbitter [https://bsky.app/profile/kathyleadbitter.bsky.social]

::::Laura Crane [https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:usnoqrq5whx4p6g2v5ahj7fi]

::::Katie Munday [https://bsky.app/profile/kmunday.bsky.social]

::::Kieran Rose [https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:d7ocp7jk5kriebsseszkbkcq]

::::Stimpunks Foundation [https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:p3ibukbshrol6v454rwdlf3i]

::::Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) [https://bsky.app/profile/autisticadvocacy.bsky.social]

::::Autistic Realms [https://bsky.app/profile/autisticrealms.bsky.social]

::::Autball [https://bsky.app/profile/autball.bsky.social] LogicalLens (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Very agree on that Botha article; my perception of autism was fundamentally altered by reading bits from her thesis, and that article is a great summary+expansion.

:::I'm definitely saving this list for later reading/cross referencing, thank you for compiling this list. Patrickpowns (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Autism and Masking - How and Why People Do It, and the Impact It Can Have (2022) by Sedgewick, F, Hull, L and Ellis, H, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, has many descriptions of the personal experiences of autistic people and how they mask. Urselius (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Heartbreak High (2022 TV series), Chloé Hayden was great, so was her book, you can also check the list of autistic fictional characters, if they are autistic in real life we can assume it isn't half bad. When non-autistic people play autistic charactes it just isn't as good, for example The Good Doctor (2017 TV series) was stereotypical but the doctor stuff looked interesting (maybe autism representation was better then the doctor stuff) but even if the representation is perfect I just wanna see more successful autistic people and autistic people may aswell play the role they were born to play. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously several of us have been arguing in circles for some time now, so I have opened up a Dispute Resolution request.

Parties I have named besides myself are @Димитрий Улянов Иванов, @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, @HarmonyA8, @TempusTacet, @WhatamIdoing, @FactOrOpinion and @GreenMeansGo. I understand that participation in this process is voluntary, and I don't believe it is restricted to those named (I could have include many more handles if I'd gone back a bit further - please chime in if there's anyone you think should be included).

Discussions should of course be "civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible."

Of necessity, the request is couched in pretty broad terms; underlying disputes have surfaced in so many different ways, over so many years, that obviously the recent tensions are just the tip of the iceberg. I am aware that in general, it would be better to keep requests shorter, but I wanted to make sure that anyone coming in could make some sense of what's happening here. Oolong (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:I think RIT RAJARSHI might wish to know as well, as they'd placed an "unbalanced" tag on the article, which was quickly reverted by Димитрий Улянов Иванов, leading RIT RAJARSHI to voice concern at the Teahouse about the imbalanced article content and contentious Talk page discussions (which is what drew me to this Talk page). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for telling me but I am highly sensitive person unable to handle mental stress and conflicts. I also have privacy concerns. And also I get scared if I get a lot of public attention. I am NOT just good with tension filled situation. I have specifically mentioned on several places that I wanted to quit this discussion (at least for now); as my mental health condition is not supporting. I get easily influenced by other peoples' negative emotions and criticisms. I still think the article is misleading and lacking a balanced view, but I expect the editors to be kind and empathetic enough to try to understand the harms of a scientistic-reductionist view of human beings, the harms of strictly medical model or a deficit centric tragedy model. Noted neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky also discussed the failures of "categorical thinking" and "behaviourism" to look at a living creature. Since communication involve more than 1 person, all debates regarding ANY communication "disorder" involve more than one group of people; how mild or severe the "disorder" [Sic] may appearently look like. There will be fundamental debates, relativity, and subjectivity regarding whom we consider as the "norm", the "healthy" one... which is the "disordered" one. To deny that using votes or consensus is to deny reality of the situation. Debates and arguments are not suitable things for me. I pray the editors to try to understand the situation with empathy (not sympathy)... I am spending time in spirituality, art, meditation, etc. in order to heal...

::I pray the editors esp. on medicalization side, to accept the other viewpoints, and acknowledge the duality of the issue. It is not that there are some "pathological symptoms" and some "non-pathological symptoms". It is the same set of symptoms that can be described in 2 different ways. And even after adopting to a "Strength based model" than deficit centric, you will still be able to provide supports, services, and accommodations.

::Regarding behaviourist "evidence based therapies", In a previous comment (I am too exhausted to locate it) ... I explicitly mentioned a few quotes from Hari Srinivasan, who is a mostly nonspeaking Autist. I also posed several questions regarding people who might be seen as severely biologically impaired from a majority viewpoint, but they adopted a social model approach. You may locate that comment for further understanding.

::I ask for forgiveness from all editors from all the sides. I am not well. And I regret stepping into this debate. I can't take this tension and negativity. My mental health is rapidly deteriorating. Please forgive and exempt me from the negativity of this subject matter.

::RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Hey, sorry to see you dragged in again (but I appreciate @FactOrOpinion's good wishes here!) - I know how stressful this kind of thing can be, and I got your message that you didn't want to be part of this if you can help it. Thank you for your efforts to date, anyway! Oolong (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::::just FYI... I am unable to be a part of it... brcause too much mental pressure, negativity, and public attentions/ privacy concerns. Its not like I have no willingness to say... but I am unable to bear the emotional cost of it. I ask for forgiveness from all the editors and scholars in concerned interestsRIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Participation is 100% optional. Do not worry about this. I hope that you feel better soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Honestly, as chaotic as it is and as a lurker who doesn't use wikipedia all that much, in defense of Димитрий Улянов Иванов and a few others, from my interpretation, I generally don't really see Димитрий Улянов Иванов (and other users more or less on his side) to be in the wrong here, and I certainly don't believe Димитрий Улянов Иванов in particular is intending to create much conflict, as opposed to just wanting the article to follow the scientific consensus, (though to be fair, that's certainly not to say I would like to see it as a bit less personally confrontational from certain users on all sides at times). I also know that many of the citations given to provide opposing perspectives really are questionable and their inclusion of which from my understanding feels only like it is done specifically to highlight neurodiversity and anti-psychiatry perspectives the editors identify with to contrast that of the mainstream medical model which is found by those, perhaps "partisan" users as "problematic" or "abelist", focusing mostly on that basis to bolster their own edits regardless of potential own conflicting POV, and less about the exact validity, or scientific credibility of their citations in relation to the rest of the articles data, including the rewritings and removals of cited material, even despite their ideological aims sometimes being directly in conflict with that of the current scientific consensus. So, in general, while I do agree there is a serious risk of the article becoming imbalanced and sharing undue weight because some people want to hold the article towards a certain slant, from my own point of view from some random lurker, I really only see it from one side mostly, although to give credit, I certainly don't think that in anyway means there hasn't been non-productive, non-constructive conflict from certain individuals of either side, so I do think seeking to rectify that is understandable, if perhaps obscuring that one sides objections to numerous, fairly recent and heavily conflicting additions/sources, is generally valid. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::I disagree with almost all of that, but let's leave that to one side.

::I just wanted to flag up one thing, because I think it's important: I haven't seen a single person put up anything promoting anti-psychiatry perspectives. Have you? I might have missed something. But neurodiversity is a very separate movement from anti-psychiatry, much though they might share a few of the same concerns. In my experience anti-psychiatry folks are just as hostile to neurodiversity-based perspectives as anyone on the pro-psychiatry side! Oolong (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Hi there, regarding Anti-psychiatry, I had understood them to be ideologically adjacent similar to the "mad pride" movement. If I was incorrect in my assessment then feel free to ignore that as a misunderstanding on my part. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Hi, although there are similarities, there are also drastic differences between radical antipsychiatry, criticism of psychiatry/psychiatric survivor movements, mad pride, and neurodiversity movements. The philosophies or reasoning may sound apparently same, but there are differences both in the principle and history.

::::Antipsychiatry:

::::* It has been claimed at least a section of anti-psychiatry believers are also connected to "Church of scientology" and similar organizations. I don't know its truth.

::::* Anti-psychiatry groups often oppose any kind of label, including Autism.

::::* They are absolute abolitionists

::::* Some of the supporters also claimed to support various conspiracy theories.

::::Criticism of psychiatry + Psychiatric survivors moment

::::* It addresses issues like death of great literary Earnst Hemingway or similar negative outcomes.

::::* Critic of malpractice

::::* Critic of existing bad practices

::::* At least a section are reformists than absolute abolitionists.

::::Mad Pride

::::* Mostly based on opposition of normal-abnormal judgement.

::::* At least a subsection is against all therapy and medications.

::::* A subsection is seriously affected by psychiatric misunderstanding or existing bad practices.

::::Neurodiversity movements

::::* Very often framed from a personal and civil liberty aspect.

::::* Embraces diagnoses, self-identifications, and other non-derogatory labels instead of throwing them off

::::* Puts importance on various aspect of life, including education, learning, economics, etc.

::::* Embraces some form of therapy and medication, but more power goes to lived experience and insight of the patient party than imposed rapid-fire treatments.

::::The diffferent disabled communities also differ in their principles. Such as Autistic communities and Down Syndrome communities have many similarities as well as some differences in their principles.

::::It looks like many editors are confused about so many ideas those looks like they are closely related but has distinctive principles and histories. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for this.

:::::My sense is that there's very little awareness of anti-psychiatry in the neurodiversity movement; where they interface at all, it seems critical to the point of hostility. Damian Milton debated with Sami Timimi one time about eight years ago, which showed that the latter had failed to understand many rather basic things about neurodiversity; Robert Chapman spends a fair chunk of Empire of Normality criticising anti-psychiatrists, especially those coming from a capitalist-friendly angle; the Mad in America blog (which I take to be broadly aligned with anti-psychiatry, but that's based on a surface reading) recently ran a short, hostile series on neurodiversity which, again, seemed to be based largely on misunderstandings.

:::::Extremely unhelpful for anyone to assume that these movements are closely aligned. Oolong (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Firstly, thank you Rit Rajarshi for taking your time to clarify a more nuanced explanation of the various sides, while there certainly is overlap. If I were to give a little more reasoning behind my previous edit.

::::::

::::::I would however disagree with Oolong however from what I have researched of the movements, because the movements such as neurodiversity as well as other, older "anti-medicalist" model movements are for the most part, incredibly decentralized in nature with their own individual theorists and advocates who share their own unique perspectives and influences, and often may even conflict even with other adherents of their own movements on the specifics of the nature of disability (or a lack thereof).

::::::

::::::Instead I think it would be much more generalizable to say these groups were all vague and broad social movements, who as mental-activist groups all have found themselves loosely adjacent to each other in contrast to the more medically recognized and "orthodox" health authorities who adhere to the "pathological/biomedical model", and as such have shared much cross-pollination as well as mutual critique between each others and only sometimes forming alliances between certain individual groups or factions rather than representative of the movement as a whole.

::::::

::::::Perhaps me referring certain arguments as "anti-psych" or "something akin to anti-psych" could be seen as risking conflating the various different diverse movements and lumping them together which might risk misrepresenting the other movements, even when there is indeed some general overlap. Which is an argument I think is a perfectly reasonable argument and I do appreciate @RIT RAJARSHI for wanting to help take some of his time out to specify this. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Just wanted to mention one more thing I felt like I should also mention. I do think in practice it is kinda hard to separate these movements too much either since they often don't have any central belief system and thus certain advocates from one field may borrow aspects from another (see the neurodiversity advocates cross-pollination with mad-pride) but I do think it's more professional and less personal and confrontational to not conflate the movements together as mostly equivalent despite that. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{U|RIT RAJARSHI}}, please see WP:NOR, WP:NOT#ORIGINAL, and WP:NOT#FORUM. This talk page is for discussion of editorial improvement to the article content, not long-winded personal suppositions (some of which are wrong) about vague classes of people in an attempt to promote a particular viewpoint. If you are looking for Facebook, it's over there ↗ ...  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::If people are under misapprehensions about terms and positions relevant to this page, and they are affecting how they approach edits and Talk page discussions, I don't see how it would be inappropriate to correct these errors. Oolong (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::With all due good faith, I think at very worst I only made a minor blanket statement which I was quick to clarify. I don't think it's that big of an issue worth focusing on. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::It looks less like a forum diacussion and looks more like clarifying the audience on what they are talking about. 2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Oolong: That's still meta-discussion about editors and their viewpoints and understandings, not about how to improve the content in this article for readers, so it's a discussion for WT:AUTISM, which is where editors interested in this topic and its intersections can work out how to collaborate better to produce article coverage that is both consistent from article to article and consistent in a WP:DUE manner with WP:RS (and particularly WP:MEDRS). That's not going to be the sort of discussion and compromise/consensus process that is going to differ substantively on a page-by-page basis, and it is also incredibly long-winded and sometimes heated, so it is not helpful to fight about these matters, and re-re-re-fight about them repetitively, at the talk pages of articles that are within the topical scope. Even at WT:AUTISM, this sort of discussion needs to re-focus on editorial production of reader-facing content, not ideological positions about different approaches to or definitions of medicine, psychology, psychiatry, and mental health generally. We have WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies for good reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The suggestion that neurodiversity is aligned with antipsychiatry has come up more than once on this Talk page, from different editors; and navigating ideological position is absolutely central to the editorial production of reader-facing content on pages such as this one.

::::::::It seems to me that it is worth correcting misconceptions on this Talk page when they are directly relevant to people's views about what should be in the article. Oolong (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Personally I think a simple clarification or a link to the previous post would be much more constructive. The mention was clearly not done dishonestly nor in bad-faith, as it was clarified as a misconception, as having vague relations to each other both historically and today rather than being the generally the same.

:::::::::

:::::::::To keep re-opening the discussion from that when it was already clarified beforehand might come off as a little bit petty or confrontational. Especially since it hyper focuses on tiny part of my overall argument which was a minor mistake said in passing, filling up the talk page with THAT as opposed to focusing on what I really was trying to say, and my argument that some claims of a slanted article are made by users who I saw as having a degree of confirmation bias from their own contributions, edits and removals in the article which itself slants the article to a clear narrative. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Димитрий Улянов Иванов, Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, I have no experience with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (though I've occasionally browsed discussions there), and perhaps you don't either. My understanding is that the moderator is waiting for each editor to explicitly say "whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes," where that includes agreeing to the rules the moderator establishes (some already on the page, some perhaps added later). You might find it useful to read the usual DRN rules, one of which is to check back on the DRN page at least every 48 hours. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I suggest that you ask the moderator about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Just posting a heads up that Robert McClenon has posted a new comment to the Dispute Resolution Request for this article. He needs people to address his comment, so that he can assess whether DRN is a good venue for discussion of the conflict / whether discussion there is likely to be helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been off here and not editing for a very long time but I have been watching and this is not an easy situation to solve. It all boils down to the rules of Wikipedia and what constitutes a reliable source first and foremost. Now what we have here is a situation where reliable sources are supporting both sides of the argument. So in essence both should be included in the article and in a neutral manner. Now the minute we start talking about deleting stuff in what has been proposed, we are crossing the line into personal opinion or a political slant - and that has to be shut off pronto as NPOV has gone once that line is crossed. ND is a fluid subject and off wiki politics is causing this leading to an abundance of sources - some of which are not reliable (blogs are a great example). A lot has changed since the DSM-IV and balance is being lost in the shuffle as people (not necessarily those involved here) push certain interpretations that might be right but need sources. It's a very touchy subject that needs outside help and the DR should help if everyone decides to get involved. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Never forget that. Let's get this balanced on the sources. Not everyone will be happy with the result but if the sources say this AND that, it is what we go with. That is what an encyclopedia should be. Aspie Lover (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Right! The extremely tricky thing is getting the balance right, and I haven't found anything in Wikipedia's guidelines which comes close to resolving the question of how to do that in a dispute of this specific nature. Hence the many open questions in my essay about all this...

:The only bit I'm not sure about in what you've posted is about deleting stuff - I'm not sure how to interpret this, and my perspective is that the main autism entry is at least 2-3000 words longer than it should be, while also missing many important subtopics that should clearly be in; we really need to make some collective calls about what needs to go. It does help that there is currently a lot of content which ought to be brought down to summary length because there are already separate articles covering those topics extensively, though. Oolong (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Both the 'medical' and 'neurodiversity' viewpoints on autism admit that there is a difference in brain architecture and function between autistic and allistic people and that these affect behaviour and sensory reactions to stimuli. Both recognise that genetic and environmental influences are important facets of the etiology of autism. It is the interpretation of these facts where difference lies. The medical paradigm views autism as a pathology, with symptoms and deficits - the description of which can, quite easily, stray into being offensive to many autistic people. The neurodivergence paradigm sees autism as part of he natural variation in humanity, with, what are otherwise described as symptoms and deficits being described as merely differential traits. Additionally, the neurodivergence view recognises that autism can confer advantages, such as heightened abilities to concentrate on a task (pathologised as 'hyperfixation'), an enhanced eye for detail and unusual abilities in problem solving.

In my view, any topic that has two major interpretations or theories being used to describe its core features, in simultaneous existence, requires that each interpretation is given as close to equal weight and coverage as possible. That is, if any respectable encyclopaedic treatment of the topic is envisaged. Both the medical and neurodivergence viewpoints have numerous reputable scholarly publications behind them, the only difference being that neurodivergence is a newer concept and therefore has fewer publications. Urselius (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Wikipedia's official view is that neutral point of view (NPOV) means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

:As far as I understand it, the central question here is around what counts as reliable sources, and how do we decide? Whose voices count towards this assessment?

:I think it is worth saying that my perception is that some of the combativity has been motivated by anxiety about people doing things which nobody has expressed any intention to do. Perhaps it could be worth being quite explicit about what is actually being argued for, but it would be helpful to also have a clearer picture of what exactly people are afraid of happening here. I don't believe that anybody here is coming from an anti-science perspective, for example. I haven't seen any suggestion anywhere of people wanting to include things that are contradicted by empirical findings. I hope this can be borne in mind in future discussions.

:While you suggest that when two major interpretations exist, each should be given "as close to equal weight and coverage as possible", this isn't quite how Wikipedia interprets neutrality: rather, "avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

:However, it is not clear, as above, whose voices count towards this assessment. "Widely supported" among whom? One extreme position would be that only clinicians' voices should matter in this assessment. A slightly less extreme position would be that all relevant scientists (or other researchers?) should also count. I am sure that many other people would say that the view of the 'autism community' are the most important ones here: clinicians and researchers with relevant experience, yes, but also autistic people, their families, and people who work with them in non-clinical contexts. Another extreme position might be that only autistic people should really be important in deciding which sources are reliable.

:Perhaps we can find a compromise that most of us can live with.

:I suppose another approach would be to ask "what do scientists working in the field think about how much autistic people, for example, should be listened to about autism?" - I don't expect that we'll find definitive answers to that, though; I don't know that anybody has done a survey study asking researchers about this, but it is certainly true that many prominent autism researchers by now have spoken up about the importance of listening to autistic people, and how much they have learned about doing so. For example, "[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6512245/ Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation]" (Fletcher-Watson et al 2018) calls for "the development of participatory research skills among the autism research community and the facilitation of greater autistic leadership of, and partnership in, research. Such work, if delivered to a high standard, is likely to lead to better translation into practice and improved outcomes for autistic people and those who support them."

:§

:It is interesting to note that apparently a neutral point of view "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity."

:So, we should be avoiding language that disparages autistic people. That seems worth bearing in mind.

:It is also good to notice that according to the Manual of Style - which mentions the preferences of patient groups as a motivation for these sorts of choices - "Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate."

:There are questions here that Wikipedia's explicit policies and guidelines don't provide unambiguous answers for, but it seems clear to me that there is a strong case for toning down the pathologisation considerably, while ensuring that the scientific evidence that exists is fairly and accurately represented, and different viewpoints are represented in as balanced a way as possible. Oolong (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether everyone participating at the DRN has seen Robert McClenon's request that we "read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation." Just a heads up. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Divider line}}

Note: I have re-instituted the {{unbalanced}} tag on the article, pending resolution of its imbalances, as we seem to have a general agreement that it is in fact unbalanced. Anyone who thinks it's okay as it is might like to refer to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16FKwyNSzrpMOtuvq4EHk2n364y1T_dUwCIaVNzK_fpw/edit?usp=sharing the results of the survey I ran], in which the 31 respondents who'd seen the page gave it an average of only 3.25 out of 10 for how well it reflects their own experiences and understanding of autism.

Anyone wishing to follow the ongoing dispute resolution process should know that it now has its own subpage where a redrafted version of the lead has been proposed, as well as a separate page for relevant back-and-forth discussions.

--Oolong (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:General agreement? I think there's certainly a fair bit of disagreement with how the current autism article is right now, but I really am not sure if it's really enough to qualify as "unbalanced", at best (while still trying to remain non-partisan), I could perhaps say the subject is still fairly contentious or perhaps controversial as there seems to be major clashes between bio-medicalist and neurodiverse advocates in the discussion page, and which sometimes have become very heated.

:

:However, to specifically add the "unbalanced" tag, especially without any way to confirm a true general consensus or a way to tally the various users and contributors here who would agree with such an edit (many of which, including myself are also on the spectrum) seems to make me somewhat skeptical of any genuine signaling of any true consensus for the current state of the article, such skepticism is further bolstered for me from the potential significant personal or ideological biases that may occur in a small, self-organized survey ran without proper clarification for wikipedia users outside of their circle, by someone who holds a clear (self-admitted) personal bias as a vocal internet activist for neurodiversity, and who may wish to use such to push certain partisan worldviews onto the wiki through implying there article is unfairly slanted against ideology.

:

:As an autistic, and as someone who has to live and has a certain grasp of the complexity and nuances of those who have and struggle with the condition of autism; While I do think it's incredibly important, even noble to collect information and opinions from general users across the globe, especially those on the spectrum so as to get a wider array of perspectives in relation the overall quality of the article. I really can't help but question the validity of your Survey, and if it's actually truly doing that and reflecting the wide array of perspectives including those on the spectrum who otherwise wouldn't have been able to speak at all, or only propping up ones current confirmation bias with like-minded individuals who share said partisan agenda, and considering my overall feeling of sketchiness with the overall survey, I am slightly leaning towards the latter. this may seem in poor-faith, though remembering that the survey was presented and used as here as if it were solid proof when it was a small survey of a couple dozen people self-organized by a social media activist without any notification from outside your current circle, I find it somewhat hard to find the justifications for such a tag with strong implications as perfectly genuine. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think that the important thing is that the dispute resolution process, especially the opinion of the uninvolved editor in charge, has come to the conclusion that the article requires extensive redrafting in order that it more faithfully reflects contemporary views on autism (scientific, sociological and cultural). This essentially is the same as saying that the current version is 'unbalanced'. That the current version gives medical usage unique authority, and sets it above some scientific and most sociological views, is both obvious and unquestionable. The 'unbalanced' tag is a temporary measure, until rebalancing of the text can occur. It is there to inform readers that what they are reading might not be an appropriately balanced treatment. Urselius (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Urselius precisely this. Thank you. Oolong (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::@GigaMigaDigaChad the survey was shared surprisingly widely, not only in my circles, but obviously it is just a small, informal survey.

::Without the evidence of a long stream of people coming to this Talk page and giving evidence on how unbalanced the entry is, I wouldn't think the survey on its own would be enough - even though it is so overwhelmingly negative, and the people who filled it in are mainly people with substantial personal experience and subject knowledge.

::But as it is, it would be quite clear without the survey that the article is unbalanced.

::--Oolong (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Article content is decided based on the weight of reliable sources, especially WP:MEDRS on medical topics, not by the personal opinions of survey respondents. Unless there is clear evidence from sources and widespread agreement by editors that the article is flawed, it should not be tagged. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You seem not to have followed the dispute resolution process at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Autism]. The unbalanced tag has not been inserted on the grounds of this survey but because there are many reliable sources supporting the neurodiversity viewpoint that have emerged in recent years which are not represented appropriately in the article. In the dispute resolution process, there is a widespread agreement that the article is unbalanced, lengthy discussions persist as to how much it is unbalanced. Therefore I reinstated the tag. LogicalLens (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::If that is the case, then why would Oolong feel the need to think a survey would be valid at all? Seems at that point to just be a moot point rather than a legitimate source to justify his edits. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::A 'belt and braces' approach? Urselius (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I mean maybe, but then that might come off to a levelheaded reader who is better educated on the topic more as an intentional appeal to emotion rather than anything substantive to bolster their point.

:::::::

:::::::Of course, assuming good-faith I don't believe that was at all their intent, only that it might come off as poor form. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's evidence that people with relevant background and knowledge think that a (serious) problem exists - not a source on what to do about it.

::::::I ran a survey because I know that it's difficult for people without substantial knowledge of the subject to weigh up what reliable sources say, and evaluate how well the existing article reflects that. Obviously an informal survey of this sort doesn't provide very reliable information, but I believe it can still provide helpful background for anyone coming in cold. Oolong (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A survey from a biased sample doesn't really tell you much. We could ask people who just had their first baby how well Parenting reflects their own experiences, but the effect of the flawed sample size would be obvious there, too.

:::::::To be clear: I don't object in the least that you ran such a survey. Run one every week, if you'd like! But it doesn't and shouldn't affect our decisions about how to improve this article. The article is IMO a mess and needs major work. But it needs major work to align with mainstream sources, not to align with the POV of autistic people who took one survey. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In very much the same way, an agreement among Wikipedia editors doesn't really tell you much!

::::::::The survey is merely one clue, for anyone who is not otherwise able to recognise it, that the article is indeed a mess and needs major work. Nothing more. Oolong (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This is just plain obfuscation of the substantial differences and potential for exclusive bias between the two groups which samples are not all that comparable to eachother. 199.7.157.104 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Even though there's a lot of self-selection and bias in the survey, sometimes it's useful to know that everybody agrees that the article is a mess and needs major work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think that the mainstream sources have to include research science (especially genetics and neurology) and psychology, academic sociology and written sources from the lived experience of autistic people, not merely medical sources. Many psychological and sociological books and papers include evidence gleaned directly from the experiences of autistic people, in covering this aspect the article would not deviate from using 'mainstream sources'. However, it would help to make the article more balanced and representative of the breadth of information available. Urselius (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just to clarify; Are you implying mainstream medical science and biomedical study of autism does NOT (at least for the most part) include factoring lived autistic experience into their research? 199.7.157.104 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::One of my personal pet peeves is when someone says "You didn't listen to me!" when they mean "You didn't agree with me!" There is a difference between listening and obeying, but for some people, there is no level of "listening to" that is sufficient to overcome disagreement.

::::::::::It is entirely possible for mainstream medical science and the biomedical study of autism to "factor in" the lived experience of autism, and for The Autism Community™ to feel like their views were not factored in enough. For some people, there is no level of "listening to" or "factoring in" that will ever be enough, unless you agree and obey.

::::::::::In other cases, of course, the opposite is true. Some people do not assume that their experience is reasonably typical, much less universal. We also see occasional examples of parents saying that the views of non-autistic family members and other affected people should be utterly disregarded, and that only the views of autistic people should be considered.

::::::::::None of these "only consider this group" or "only viewpoints that match the One True™ Viewpoint are acceptable" ideas are compliant with Wikipedia's WP:YESPOV policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::This is something I 100% agree with, which is also why I find the 'unbalanced' tag problematic as at least to some editors the bio-medical model having precedent itself is the issue since it has the potential to not be entirely aligned with their personal beliefs rather than it going against what Wikipedia's guidelines would consider 'unbalanced'.

:::::::::::

:::::::::::Of course as I have already stated prior, autistic people being involved in this editing process, influenced from their own lived experience certainly can help to give a more widely applicable perspective of the condition, but how it sounds I worry it may be grounds for activists trying to justify invalidating certain parts of research purely because they consider it "politically incorrect" or may portray autism in a way that they may not like. (Ex. feuds between activists and those with the mainstream medical view over whether autism is categorized as a 'disorder' for instance, despite there being a consensus by medical authorities that it is indeed one). GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::(Note: Just to make sure I do not unintentionally slant the talk page and to ensure complete transparency, this IP user is me and I wrote these where I was unable to login) GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Our proposed changes in the article are not based on the personal opinions of advocates but because reliable sources supporting the neurodiversity view have emerged in recent years that are not yet appropriately represented in the article. See, for example, the Australian guidelines for autism assessments which recommends adopting the neurodiversity viewpoint and says it uses the term "autism spectrum disorder" only when directly citing the DSM or ICD.[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/second-edition/micro-learning-transcript] The official website of the UK's health authority NHS recommends talking positive about autism and to avoid the term "disorder".[https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/] See also these papers [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030][https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13534][https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31994188/][https://www.science.org/content/article/disorder-or-difference-autism-researchers-face-over-field-s-terminology] that describe the shift to the neurodiversity paradigm in science, not in advocacy, social media etc.

:::::::::::I would be glad if we could stop talking about that informal survey. It is not the reason why we are talking here and only distracts from the relevant reasons. LogicalLens (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::But it absolutely IS relevant though, like my statement prior, it absolutely DOES have to do with a conflict between mainstream medical authorities and activists personal beliefs, this isn't to say there is NO scientific backing or potential merit to the neurodiversity paradigm, only that the claim of a lack of balance and feuds between users as with for instance, the categorization of 'disorder', absolutely and directly relates to my point of this being an edit conflict between what certain activists personally believe vs the current consensus of mainstream medical authorities and wikipedia guidelines.

::::::::::::

::::::::::::IMO, while it very well might come off as beating a dead horse or incredibly nitpicky to Oolong especially, (and I really hope I don't come off as such), to me, the utilization of the survey only highlights the bigger conflict found within the general discussion as a whole, that being that certain pro-ND users believe that 'lived experience' itself must be the nucleus of what guides the article in order for it to come off as truly 'balanced' and feel that it's instead biased to do otherwise, as opposed to writing the article based on what is currently agreed on by mainstream medical authorities on the matter. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No one here argues that the entire article should be centered around „lived experience“ or that autism should be described here solely or mainly as an expression of neurodiversity. In the same way that there are neurodiversity activists who resist the pathologization, there are people who have either missed the recent surge in neurodiversity-backing sources or are resisting the change on emotional grounds and try to diminish the reliable sources that support the neurodiversity paradigm. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to be as unbiased as possible. This autism article was probably balanced when measured by reliable sources a few years ago but it is not anymore. For that reason, the unbalanced tag is appropriate until the article has been updated. See, for example this official NHS (UK’s health authority) page on autism [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/] and compare it to the current Wikipedia article. You will see how unbalanced the Wikipedia article is towards the medical model. LogicalLens (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Regarding structuring the article based on autistic 'lived experience', if I am not mistaken that was exactly what was being argued by the previous user, while The term 'nucleus' may come off as somewhat hyperbolic to punctuate my point, I was under the impression that I was (At least as I understood their argument) correct in my assumption. Which both me and @WhatamIdoing had responded to, arguing that such could risk being used as a justification to get the article to agree with the beliefs of certain editors.

::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::As for the NHS article given to give an instance of how different this article is from how certain medical authorities write about it, I think it really is comparing apples to oranges here, for one; the NHS article you cite is incredibly simplistic and clearly not intended to be in anyway equivalent to an encyclopedic database in the same vein wikipedia is, to where I really find it misguided to justify comparing the two in the same way as we would a random trivia section and an academic database, I also see that what the NHS says here seems to be in direct conflict with the current consensus as already established elsewhere (making a section trying to disqualify autism as a 'mental illness') unlike what is agreed upon by most other mainstream medical authorities which might make more sense when you factor such article appears to be strictly affiliated with the definition of autism set by the neurodiversity advocacy group National Autistic Society (NAS) rather than the current medical consensus or a neutral ground between both groups. To me this only highlights how the understanding of autism is a political conflict between activists and the traditional medical authorities rather than debunking such a claim unbiasedly with 'modern science'. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The paragraph that autism is not an illness in the NHS article is probably because the shift towards the neurodiversity paradigm in science is more advanced in the UK. The NHS is a reputable health organization and a very reliable source. Also, the fact that the article is quite superficial is not important here as what matters is the framing of autism. That would not change if the NHS expanded the article. I admit that not pathologizing autism is not representative of all health authorities and therefore, the NHS page is not the best illustration of how to write a balanced article for Wikipedia. We should instead include a section in the article that explains both the medical and the neurodiversity model. We have proposed a draft for the lede section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/Draft_RFC_on_Lede] I can reassure you that the article will be balanced between the models, even though you seem to have got the impression that the aim is to make the article entirely pro-neurodiversity. LogicalLens (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::None of us can promise any outcome for an article, since none of us have final control, but I think you really meant only to reassure everyone about your own intentions.

::::::::::::::::Usually, when we're dealing with a controversial medical condition, I suggest looking for medical school textbooks. People are often surprised at their contents, as they often go in expecting judgmental content and/or incomprehensible jargon, and that's not what they find. Here are a few textbooks that might be useful to discover what the mainstream medical viewpoint is looking like these days:

::::::::::::::::* Hollander's Textbook of Autism Spectrum Disorders (2022) [https://www.perlego.com/book/4276192/textbook-of-autism-spectrum-disorders-pdf in The Wikipedia Library] via Perlego

::::::::::::::::* "Autism Spectrum Disorder" chapter in Bertelli's Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder (2022) [https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 in The Wikipedia Library] via SpringerLink

::::::::::::::::* Autism Spectrum Disorders from Theory to Practice (2022) [https://www.perlego.com/book/3791150/autism-spectrum-disorders-from-theory-to-practice-assessment-and-intervention-tools-across-the-lifespan in The Wikipedia Library] via Perlego

::::::::::::::::* Eisenstat's Neurodevelopmental Pediatrics' multi-chapter section on ASD, especially the section "Differentiating Between Autism as an Intrinsic Condition Vs. Autism as Experientially Derived" in "The History of Autism Spectrum Disorder" (2023) [https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20792-1 in The Wikipedia Library] via SpringerLink

::::::::::::::::I've read none of these.

::::::::::::::::Sources such as these:

::::::::::::::::* Waltz's Autism: A Social and Medical History (2023) [https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-031-31015-7 in The Wikipedia Library] via SpringerLink

::::::::::::::::* The Oxford Handbook of Autism and Co-Occurring Psychiatric Conditions (2020) [https://academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/edited-volume/28150?searchresult=1 in The Wikipedia Library] via Oxford Academic

::::::::::::::::* "Autism Spectrum Disorder" in Oxford's Encyclopedia of Social Work (2022) [https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.856 in The Wikipedia Library] via Oxford Research Encyclopedias. It has sections like "Is Autism Spectrum Disorder a Problem?" and that it could be used to fix the outdated sentence/source at Broader autism phenotype.

::::::::::::::::may be useful for figuring out what the mainstream scholarly (but not strictly medical) view of autism is.

::::::::::::::::As a point of mere practical politics, if you want to nudge the article towards a neurodiversity POV and you are concerned that you will get resistance from people who favor the medical model, then I suggest this: If, for any sentence, you have a choice between citing a medical textbook and any other source, then cite the medical textbook. It is very difficult for people to sustain a complaint that you're adding "activist" content when the citation points at a medical textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I think this is a much more constructive suggestion personally and applaud the above user for the accommodating yet nuanced recommendation, as it both gives users who feel like the article can be updated an input to contribute and might better incorporate different oppositional perspectives while not appearing to be unwarranted POV pushing too hard to any particular side through preferring more scholarly citations rather than ones that could be seen as less academic or legitimate and potentially sensational. I still think there would be a lot of work needed to ensure the page would remain nuanced and less strictly partisan in nature while remaining more or less flexible to different or developing attitudes without continuing hostilities between different camps, and I myself doubt such conflicts will suddenly get less heated between users anytime soon as is typical for most articles whose exact specifics are highly contested and controversial shared between different editors with high personal investment. With that being said I certainly think that such could be a better step in the right direction for users on how we might prefer to conduct such edits to the page in the future. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::The section in the NHS article on autism not being an illness refers only to the terms illness and disease, it does not mention the term disorder. While it may seem synonymous to the layperson, there is an academic distinction between these terms. As they say „It means your brain works in a different way“ they also do not view it as a disorder, but they would not write a sentence like „Autism is not a disorder.“ because there is a dispute over the term disorder for autism and writing that it is none would be unrepresentative of the sources. For this reason, we also should not write that „autism is not a disorder“ but explain the debate. Also, the magazine Science is one of the top academic journals and definitely not sensational. So, if it writes that there is a dispute about the term disorder for autism, then there is one. Public health authorities and peer-reviewed articles in journals are reliable sources just as textbooks are. Articles are more up-to-date than textbooks as textbooks need more time for updating. Still, textbooks like the ones mentioned by @WhatamIdoing are also useful here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Autism|answered=yes}}

It doesn't neccesarily "frequently occur with epilepsy or the others", rather a lot of the BRAIN SCANS for it do. But a majority of diagnoses gets brain scans. It should also be referred to clearly as a developmental delay and that there isn't strong genetic proof, so it is likely more so a sociocultural condition than anything else. Spawnknight (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hey! You made 2 requests... I am going to make this one answered! Valorrr (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Made 2 requests, closed this one. Valorrr (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Autism|answered=yes}}

It doesn't neccesarily "frequently occur with epilepsy or the others", rather a lot of the BRAIN SCANS for it do. But a majority of diagnoses don't get brain scans. It should also be referred to clearly as a developmental delay and that there isn't strong genetic proof, so it is likely more so a sociocultural condition than anything else. Spawnknight (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Mind listing some sources for this? :) Valorrr (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Valorrr (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Johnbod}} The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1284421935 image] is a 300 year old etching of an anonymous woman with a book. Feel free to peruse :c:Category:People with books. There's a few hundred images that are of equal relevance to the subject of the article.

The image is just a place holder for a caption. Neither the artist or the subject have any connection with autism. The content of the caption doesn't seem to be directly reflecting content in the body. The citations aren't used elsewhere in the body. GMG^talk 14:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:A 250 yo engraving I think. Her approach to the book, which she is "reading", not in the normal way, but with a variety of instruments for geometry, seems unusual, and broadly appropriate to the accompanying text. No, "The citations aren't used elsewhere in the body" - why is this an argument for just removing them, as you did? They seem very relevant to the section. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::The dude made maps. It's not that unusual. GMG^talk 18:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Huh? I see no maps. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::c:Category:Anthonie de Winter GMG^talk 16:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm in agreement with GMG on the matter of the image, it really is a poor relation to the text accompanying it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Autism|answered=yes}}

I am an autistic individual and psychology major and I am making this request in order to add some relevant information with reliable sources cited. Alyadar (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Autism|answered=yes}}

The condition was first characterized by Leo Kanner in 1943 as "early infantile autism." 8.25.28.162 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:File: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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 16:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Despite the gridlock that has made progress so difficult on this entry, I am hopeful that progress can occur with a bit of clarity about what a neurodiversity approach actually means, and where it sits with respect to contemporary autism research, practice and communities.

In the hopes of getting past certain sticking points, I am going to lay out some basic facts which I believe we can establish beyond reasonable doubt, based on reliable sources. I will follow this with my thoughts on where we could go next with this entry. I'm afraid this is pretty long, largely because there are a number of objectively difficult questions at stake.

1. The neurodiversity perspective does not contradict any scientific consensus. I wrote about the relationship between [https://oolong.medium.com/neurodiversity-and-science-41fc303a1782 neurodiversity and science here] following earlier Wikipedia discussions, but in short, there are two main reasons for this:
2. Whether autism (or similar) is best viewed as a disorder or a healthy aspect of human diversity is not primarily a scientific question. It is a question with political, philosophical, scientific and practical dimensions & implications. Nearly all scientists would agree that unprovoked killing is wrong, but that doesn't constitute a scientific consensus, because the ethical status of murder is not a scientific question.
3. There is no consensus among researchers (including among relevant scientists) regarding the key positions associated with the neurodiversity approach. They are hotly debated in the literature, with many prominent autism researchers speaking out in their favour (including, incidentally, a strong majority of autistic autism researchers) and multiple journals explicitly coming down on the neuro-affirming side of the debate.
4. Key positions associated with neurodiversity include:

{{ordered list|Autism is a healthy part of the variability of human experience and the ways people process information.|Curing or preventing autism, if it were ever to become possible, is likely to be undesirable.|Making autistic people as much like non-autistic people as possible is also unhelpful.|It is worth pursuing autistic thriving.|The degree to which autistic people are disabled depends heavily on their social and physical environments.|Autistic people often have considerable insight into autism, and should be listened to about it.

| type = lower-alpha

}}

{{ordered list|Of the above, a (which largely defines neurodiversity) remains controversial; b is largely a moot point, given what we now know about the genetics of autism, but we do have survey-based evidence that most autistic people would not want to be cured, if that ever came up. Certainly, many autistic people would not. c is much more immediately relevant, and backed up by extensive research on the harms of masking (i.e. hiding the things that might make someone be seen as autistic, or just 'not normal'). d might sound uncontroversial, but is in tension with psychiatric orthodoxy, which only grants a label of 'autism' in case of considerable suffering. Notably, there is substantial research on the relationship between autistic wellbeing and positive autistic identity, and the harms of stigmatisation. e is sometimes referred to as the social model of disability, and in this weak form, at least, is quite clearly correct.  f is something that seems obvious to many people, but is in any case backed up by evidence on the value of autistic-led autism training, studies directly looking at autistic insight into autism, and various scientists and others writing about how much they have learned by listening to autistic people about autism.

| 2 = The prominence and acceptance of the neurodiversity approach has increased hugely in recent years. Many autism scientists are now talking about it. [https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0030 Something like 30% of relevant scientific papers use neurodiversity-affirming language]; this number is certainly growing, but again, these are not primarily scientific questions - just questions of great relevance to scientists.

It is also relevant that most of the [https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=autism&i=stripbooks&s=exact-aware-popularity-rank&crid=2P4842RBWIWS0&qid=1744033902&sprefix=autism%2Cstripbooks%2C161&ref=sr_st_exact-aware-popularity-rank&ds=v1%3Ai2xfp24Ks%2FWzlWSQ%2F9PjPUSs%2BiB0ak0YvvRhiZvyDik books people are buying about autism], from respected publishers, take a broadly neurodiversity-affirming approach; that governments and other relevant authorities (in health and education, for example) are increasingly taking these perspectives on board (although many do not); and that among autistic people and stakeholders such as family members and professionals, in the English-speaking world, [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613241273029 the basic claims and goals associated with neurodiversity are widely accepted] (though not universal).

| start = 3

}}

To give a flavour of that ongoing shift, just in the week or so since the RfCs on this page ran their course, we have seen the [https://www.un.org/en/observances/autism-day UN run their World Autism Awareness Day event with the Institute of Neurodiversity] (on the theme of neurodiversity and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals), and [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jGQgEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=Yj9pVIHzhR&sig=o49ktK0JrapM4WcNS108c32rorM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false The Neurodiversity Affirmative Child Autism Assessment Handbook] has become available to pre-order.

First, if we have one central article on autism, it must give due weight to these perspectives. That probably doesn't mean equal weight, but right now, something like 90% of the Autism entry is written from a medical/biomedical perspective. That is clearly not justified by the balance of relevant, reliable sources; it certainly doesn't reflect the views of leading scholars on the nature of autism, either.

In order to fairly represent mainstream understandings of autism, we can either rebalance this entry, or split it: we could have one entry on autism as a medical concept (i.e. Autism Spectrum Disorder) and a separate article on autistic people - or, to put it another way, on autism as a way that some human beings are different from others.

We do have models of how this kind of thing can work in practice, from other categories of difference where medicalised and non-medicalised approaches are both important. Wikipedia has one entry on being trans, for example, and another on gender dysphoria, which is the medical diagnosis associated with being trans (replacing 'Gender Identity Disorder'). It also has a short entry on deafness, which links to both hearing loss and Deaf culture. I remain unsure whether a split of this sort would be the best approach, but I do see it as the only defensible alternative to substantially refocusing and restructuring this entry.

Some of the objections to changing the focus of this entry were based on the fact that autism is a medical condition - which it is, of course, in the sense that it is included in diagnostic manuals and largely diagnosed by medical professionals; but it is [https://www.autismnetworkinternational.org/dont_mourn.html much more than that]. Autism is something that pervades autistic people's beings, shaping how we experience the world at every level. It is not a disease, and does not fit most definitions of 'disorder'. From what I can gather, most autistic people never see medical professionals about their autism at all, outside of the diagnostic process (80% of 120 respondents to [https://autistics.life/@Ferrous/114290318766609721 this poll] said they had never done so; it may be somewhat more common among those with high support needs, but only about a third of autistic people are now thought to have co-existing learning disabilities). There is, of course, some fuzziness around the boundaries of what counts as a medical professional, and what counts as part of autism.

Acknowledging the limitations of the medical perspective - and the fact that many autistic people, scientists and relevant professionals see it as a healthy aspect of human diversity - does not mean glossing over how difficult life often is for autistic people. However, it does mean thinking carefully about how we use language, and about what sort of thing we include.

Ask yourself: when someone looks up autism, what sort of thing are they likely to want to know about it? What sort of thing might it be helpful for them to know? Is there anything it might be unhelpful for them to read?

For reference, the existing entry spends more than 1000 words on classification, more than 3000 on 'signs and symptoms' or 'common characteristics', 2400 or so words on 'causes' (even though this has its own entry), almost 1000 on 'correlations and comorbidities' (which also has a separate entry), 800 or so words on 'epidemiology' (although this, too, has its own entry) and 2000+ words on 'management'. It adds up to more than 8,000 words before the entry even starts to try to address the question of what might be helpful for autistic people, their families or people working with them, leaving aside a few words in the lead, and maybe a couple of scattered comments along the way. There is also remarkably little on what it means to be autistic

Who is this for? Do we think people are more likely to come here with an academic interest in autism science than they are to come here because they know people who are (or might be) autistic? Surely not?

There are some difficult questions about how to improve this entry, but also some changes which should not be controversial at all, at least in outline.

Clearly we need summaries, but no more than that, on things which have their own entries: causes; co-occurring conditions; epidemiology; and history.

I would argue, as many autistic people do, that [https://oolong.medium.com/autism-symptoms-are-no-such-thing-fa94c0e97b9a 'symptoms' is at best an extremely misleading term, and worst, totally inappropriate], beyond describing the diagnostic criteria (which are also described in both 'classification' and 'diagnosis'). The 'signs and symptoms' section largely describes a mix of coping strategies, difficulties caused by inaccessible environments, and things which are not inherently negative.

It also omits many extremely common autistic experiences, which are important for anyone interested in autism to understand, such as meltdowns and sensory overload. In common with quite a few of the things that are mentioned, these may or may not be considered in the diagnostic process, which makes 'common characteristics' or perhaps 'common experiences' a more accurate heading. WP:MEDORDER has just 'characteristics', but is clear that its headings are just suggestions.

Causes and physiology are highly technical topics, of little relevance to most readers, and the science on these is, in any case, extremely inconclusive. There is no reason that these should appear in the article before a section on supporting autistic people, but if they were appropriately short summaries, their placement would be less important than it is now.

I would suggest fully replacing 'management' with 'support', and moving this immediately after 'common characteristics'. Symptoms might be managed; people need support. This is a huge topic, taking in parenting, education, workplaces, community and healthcare, as well as therapies of various sorts and also disability aids. We will therefore want numerous subsections.

The 'prognosis' section is about the right length, but it's a mess.

The 'society and culture' section should also be reduced to a summary of the points that are of widest interest, given the societal and cultural aspects of autism entry exists; but the place of autistic people in society is something that should inform many other parts of this article, as you would expect in any article about a minority group.

Alternatively, we could have an article that is only about autism as a medical thing, as seen by psychiatrists and similar. My suggestion would be to file this under Autism Spectrum Disorder, and have 'autism' cover the broader view of autistic people's existence - similar to the gender dysphoria/trans split. Alternatively, we could have a short 'autism' article, giving a balanced account of the different perspectives, similar to the 'deafness' entry. We could then have a new entry titled something 'autistic people' (or possibly just 'autistic'? 'being autistic'?) setting out to cover what autism actually means in human terms: common experiences, the place of autistic people in society, education, work, families, and so on. Oolong (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - This sledgehammer approach is not likely to lead to anything positive. Pick out relevant issues and build consensus iteratively. CFCF (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::If we can get past reflexive opposition to iterative improvements, based on misconceptions, we can absolutely do that. This was always very much my preferred approach. Oolong (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oolong, does anyone actually believe that "pursuing autistic thriving" (2d) is an unworthy goal? NB that I'm looking for a reliable source that says nobody should care about this. I am not looking for a reliable source that sort of implies it by saying society should (for example) put more effort into improving diagnosis or into discovering why "normal human variation" is associated with neurotoxic pollutants, even if we interpret that preference for their "Goal A", in purely practical terms, as resulting in fewer potential resources being available for other goals (including, but not limited to, autistic thriving). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::I ask this because you say there is no consensus about this, and I've literally never seen anyone – not even an ignorant nasty person on the internet – saying that they wished autistic people weren't thriving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tps|w}} This is from my personal experience, so it's certainly not universal, but I've had someone say to me that I should have been aborted because I was autistic. I have certainly met horrible people that would love to wipe autistic people (and neurodivergent people in general) off the face of the earth. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::As I say, it might seem obvious, but it's in tension with psychiatric orthodoxy. If an autistic person thrives too much, we cease to meet the diagnostic criteria. Many people, in practice, are denied a diagnosis because a clinician doesn't think they meet the threshold for 'functional impairment'.

::See Robert Chapman and Havi Carel, [https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/neurodiversity-epistemic-injustice-and-the-good-human-life Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life].

::"Here we build on the neurodiversity perspective by arguing that autistic thriving has been rendered both invisible and unthinkable by interlocking forms of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. On the view we propose, rather than autism being at odds with the possibility of living a good life as such, We argue that our mainstream conceptions of the good life have excluded autistic manifestations of happiness and flourishing. This leads to an epistemic catch-22-like paradoxical situation whereby one can be recognised as autistic or as thriving, but not both." Oolong (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So the model here would be "If you're not unhappy about your experience of the world, you can't be autistic", to be compared against "If you're not unhappy about your gender, you can't be trans"?

:::I obviously oversimplify, but it seems to me that this is just another way of saying nobody knows what autism is. If you define autism as people who are not thriving, then thriving people can't have it. It's not that "our mainstream conceptions of the good life have excluded autistic manifestations"; it's that our conception of autism requires the existence of problems that need clinical attention. If you instead defined autism as people with a brain structure of ____ or people with a genetic situation of ____, then you could have people with autism and no problems. But you'd have to agree on what autism actually is first. (For myself, I suspect we will eventually agree that autism is a bunch of different things – neurobehavioral complications of autoimmune disease for this person, neurobehavioral complications of a viral disease for that person, result of neurotoxic pollution for the next person, and so forth.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is at least partially true, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

::::Someone doesn't stop being autistic when they find themselves in a situation where their traits are fully accommodated and they are capable of thriving - the fact that the diagnostic criteria suggest otherwise is something that many people would take issue with, if they ever stop to consider it.

::::Autistic thriving is possible, and worth pursuing. That is something that, for example, autistic people and family members need to hear; it was a radical suggestion 30-odd years ago, when autism was widely viewed as an awful tragedy for everyone. It is much less likely to be seen as radical now, but it is still something that we should be talking about; more particularly, what does it take for autistic people to thrive, and what are the barriers to doing so? Oolong (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• First steps...Stop posting suggestions that are 2,000 words long. Has the 50-100k words already spilt on this not taught anyone anything? Pick a specific issue. Make a specific suggestion. Make your pitch in a format that someone can read in under a cigarette. GMG^talk 20:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :How about this for a short summary?
• :"The Wikipedia article that is at the title Autism should represent my POV, and if necessary, other POVs should be shunted to a separate article."
• :I have suggested on another page that Autistic identity or Autism as an identity might be the appropriate place for an article dedicated to this POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm not sure a POV fork is really helpful. But if you think it'll survive AfD, make whatever article you want. Whatever this is from OP, is not helpful. GMG^talk 00:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::A separate "autistic identity" article has the same problem that you think @Oolong's suggestion has: The main autism article reflects the views of proponents of the medical model and other viewpoints are shunted to a different article. An article “autistic identity” could be created and filled with information on identity and autistic communities, but I don't think this would resolve the conflict around the main autism article.
• ::The question regarding the POV fork is whether the editors who disagree with the proposed changes would accept that the current autism article is unbalanced towards medical information but are hesitant to shorten the medical sections because they consider the information important. Then this would be an article spinoff (WP:SPINOFF). But if these editors think the balance in the current version of the article is adequate and we just want to avoid our conflict, then it would be a forbidden POV fork, if I understand the guidelines correctly and if @FactOrOpinion is wrong in arguing that we are talking about different things. The category of autism contains articles for different diagnoses such as Asperger’s, “pervasive developmental disorder” and others but none called “autism spectrum disorder”. So it could also be argued that it is the lack of such an article that creates an undue weight problem here in the autism article.
• ::On the other hand, the amount of medical information could be reduced by following @Oolong's suggestion because it is generally recommended to reduce sections to summary length for which separate articles exist. This would solve a significant part of the undue weight problem, along with inserting some of the more recent research. The other major part is the language. But the other editors who said it is better to discuss individual issues rather than an overarching strategy are also right. Therefore, I start with two proposals.
• ::WP:MEDORDER lists as suggestions either “Signs and Symptoms” or “Characteristics”. So, the latter can even be used following the medical model. This guide does not specifically suggest “Common characteristics”, but the heterogeneity of autism could justify this.
• ::We could change “management” to “interventions and supports”. “Interventions” is used by both medical model and neurodiversity proponents and medical model supporters would not deny that autistic people need supports outside the medical realm.
• ::From my understanding, some editors who disagree with the changes are not aware that diseases and disorders are social constructs and take the framing of “clinically significant impairment” and the underlying norm of what humans should be like as a fact without truly understanding that exactly this concept is under debate. LogicalLens (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Two points in response:
• :::* I am not opposed to shifting language towards a less disease-centric model - for instance I shifted comorbid across the entire article to co-occurring. Sure, it might be taken to be slightly more clunky, but the central point here is that it is precise, and the terms are direct synonyms. If you look to replace "signs and symptoms" with characteristics, these are not directly synonymous to "characteristics". The problem is that signs are distinct from symptoms - and to establish a suspicion of autism among children - signs are among the most important part of this. This is precisely why adjustments need to be discussed on a case by case basis.
• :::* The suggestion that there is a lack of awareness that diagnoses are social constructs is most certainly false - and there is nothing to support that assertion among editors who oppose large-scale changes here. This relativism is unlikely to serve anything but to muddy the waters and is not a valid argument. The fact remains that for the vast majority of readers, the medical diagnosis of autism will be what they are looking for in this article. We should adapt to accommodate neurodiversity and interest group perspectives, but not if this risks harming what the majority of first time readers will be looking for or creating confusion.
• :::CFCF (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::"The fact remains that for the vast majority of readers, the medical diagnosis of autism will be what they are looking for in this article."
• ::::Is it? How do you know?
• ::::If I was looking for a specifically medical perspective on something, I'd probably go to a specifically medical site... but again, even such sites, for example [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/ the National Health Service] and the [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/autism Cleveland Clinic] - often go for far less medicalised framings than we have here on Wikipedia, a general encyclopaedia.
• ::::I think this is probably because they figure people looking up autism mostly just want to understand what autism is? Oolong (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Oolong - Thank you for this. Cleveland Clinic is my go-to site for basic medical info, but I had not read their [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/autism Autism] article. It's worth reading, especially for others like me who lean toward the biomedical approach, to get an idea of how other sources incorporate the neurodiversity perspective. (Since we do need to harmonize our autism article with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.) Here is a quote from the article:

  When discussing autism, it’s important to acknowledge that words aren’t perfect. And sometimes, “medspeak” that healthcare providers use — like disorder, symptoms or diagnosis — doesn’t quite match the lived experience of autistic people or their families. Throughout this article, we’ll use such language as needed to describe how healthcare providers can support your family — while recognizing that autism is an identity, not just a diagnosis.

• :::::I am not suggesting that we mimic Cleveland Clinic's approach. Rather, because the piece exemplifies a well-written review that adopts a predominantly neurodiverse framework, it might help enkindle ideas for improving our article. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Thanks @Markworthen! Yeah, I've linked it a few times in this discussion because it's a very neat example of how it's possible to balance these perspectives. Oolong (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@CFCF, would you agree on "Signs and Characteristics"? We could then leave instances of "signs" but change "symptoms" to "features" or "characteristics". There are some cases in which the word "deficit" is used. I suggest replacing it with "difficulties" except within direct quotes. LogicalLens (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It's complicated. I do think this article needs to clearly discuss "signs, symptoms and deficits" in the classification and diagnosis sections - but it might be appropriate to use characteristics outside that section. I think it would have to be handled carefully. CFCF (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::The sections on classification and diagnosis directly quote the DSM and ICD. This is what I meant by instances in which words like "deficit" cannot be replaced, but as you said, "characteristics" can be used outside these two sections. That would be a step forward. LogicalLens (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::As no one else responded, I now made these changes outside the sections on DSM and ICD. LogicalLens (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::This seems okay, not unless everybody starts using support labels the same way as functioning labels. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::This paper even recommends avoiding support labels and to instead talk about specific needs. But it is sometimes difficult if a section is not about specific support needs as this would then make the section longer.[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2020.0014] LogicalLens (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Next: The term "risk" is only appropriate for co-occurring conditions that are universally viewed as bad and for things like suicide. When referring to autism, "likelihood" should be used, which is recommended even by the NIH style guide.[https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/autism]
• ::::::::Moreover, I suggest changing the section title "epidemiology" to "prevalence". LogicalLens (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Yes, 'risk' is an obvious one to correct.
• :::::::::I wonder if 'demographics' wouldn't fit better than just 'prevalence'? Oolong (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Next: we could proceed with expressions like “autism spectrum disorder”, “ASD” and “disorder” in a similar way as with “symptoms”. These terms are appropriate in the sections on classification and for the description of the formal diagnosis in the assessment section. When the reader knows that DSM and ICD classify autism as a disorder and that these manuals are used for diagnosis, there is no need to repeat the term disorder every time. WP:SUFFER says: “Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate.” This is another reason to reduce the number of repetitions of these words.
• ::::::::::Regarding the lead: WP:WIKIVOICE says that (even majority) viewpoints must not be presented as facts which is the case with a sentence like “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.” One way to solve this would be “neurodevelopmental disability” which is accepted by neurodiversity proponents as well. LogicalLens (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I agree with LogicalLens that "A separate "autistic identity" article has the same problem" – if it is actually a POVFORK to get identity information out of this article. If it's just an ordinary article about autism as an identity (just like any other article on a sub-topic), then I think it would be fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is exactly the kind of gross misrepresentation that has prevented us from making the sorts of substantial but piecemeal improvement that people keep saying we need.
• ::Can you not? Oolong (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tps|w}} This is a complex issue that warrants a complex response. Sure, specific suggestions for improvement would be very useful, but we need a lot of them, and having a bigger strategy to them would help us not waste time. Not all issues on Wikipedia can be solved in a single edit. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::A valid analogy and heuristic from complexity science, is that sometimes a complex issue does not warrant a complex response. Rather an admission that it is complex means we should refrain from radical change to parts where our thoughts are not fully formed. This is precisely what is being suggested - to pick out individual issues and to work them through. As for the need of an overarching strategy, sure - but we aren't going to agree if we can't even summarize potential faults in less than a few thousand words. I've seen UN strategies that are shorter than this on far more complex issues than what is wrong with a Wikipedia article. CFCF (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Again, the only reason I'm resorting to 2000-word essays is because edits - by many different editors, not just me - have persistently been blocked on grounds that are based on misunderstandings of the edits being made, and/or what reliable sources collectively say about autism. Wikipedia is supposed to proceed by consensus wherever possible.
• :::If people think the neurodiversity approach suggests things that it simply does not, and persistently block constructive edits on that basis, those misconceptions need challenging. How would you prefer to approach this?
• :::I would absolutely prefer to just work through individual issues - which is, of course, what nearly the whole suggested changes section above is about. As @Bowler the Carmine says, though, this is a complex issue, and it does call for at least a somewhat strategic approach. Oolong (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :It's long because there are complex issues at stake, which people need to have some grasp of if they hope to contribute constructively; and a lot of work to be done.
• :Here's a bullet-point summary for you:
• :* This article is heavily slanted towards a biomedical perspective on autism
• :* That perspective was once overwhelmingly dominant in autism research and discourse, but this is not the case any more
• :* This article is badly out of date, not just because the mainstream has shifted, but also because it just hasn't been updated enough
• :* Articles of this size should be written in summary style, meaning several sections should be reduced to mere summaries; separate articles have already been spun off, but the summarising bit never happened
• :* There are a series of major omissions that need rectifying
• :* There is weirdly little about what kinds of support can be helpful
• :* To attain neutrality in Wikipedia's autism coverage, it would be simplest (but not simple) to balance competing perspectives in this article (see points 1-3)
• :* An alternative would be to split the article, on similar lines to transgender (general) vs gender dysphoria (specifically medical)
• :Hope this helps. Oolong (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's also a bunch of stuff in there about what the neurodiversity approach actually means, because this is just required background knowledge for contributing to public-facing things about autism in 2025 - and because there has been a pattern here of people resisting changes based on apparent misunderstandings of neurodiversity.
• ::It would be very helpful if we could simply take this stuff as read, but it has come up again and again, so I spent a few paragraphs summing it up once more. Oolong (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Fundamentally, part of what you take issue with is central to Wikipedia's coverage of any topic (see WP:GOODBIAS). Wikipedia is biased towards science, and the fact remains that at its core autism is a medical diagnosis that has been explored chiefly through this scientific lens. The diagnosis arose through scientific development, and it is still today far more a medical diagnosis than a social phenomenon (even if the latter may exist in its own right).
• :::Whether other movement build upon this diagnosis, construct support or advocacy networks etc. does not change the fundament of what autism is. The neurodiversity movement has certainly brought with it a fair share of good, but when it comes to fundamentally redefining what autism is - that just isn't what Wikipedia is going to cover, and it is certainly not something over which there is consensus. Instead I would say there is a general consensus in the published literature against it, with diagnostic manuals not considering it beyond needs to use inclusive and respectful language.
• :::There is also absolutely no divide between a biopsychosocial and psychiatric perspective on autism, and whatever the alternative is. It is quite telling that you say it is slanted towards the biomedical perspective, without expressing what it is slanted from. The simple answer is that it is not biased, because there is no divide.
• :::There may be room to include more information on the neurodiversity movements views on how autism should be considered, but this can under no circumstance redefine what it is.
• :::The analogy to transgender and gender dysphoria is also entirely inadequate, because autism is the medical diagnosis. If anything this argues for the construction of autistic identity as a separate article, but I don't think that is an appropriate response - because it is likely to turn into a WP:POVFORK. CFCF (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::While the neurodiversity viewpoint is not currently the majority perspective in the academic literature, there are many sources supporting it. I posted a list of citations in February.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20250226044700-Survey_(on_RFC_on_focus)] There is clearly a divide between the medical model and the neurodiversity perspective, because neurodiversity is not just a cultural concept within autistic communties but actively challenges the classification of autism as a disorder. The goal is to replace the psychiatric notion that there is a correct brain and to move towards a non-pathologizing disability framework that recognizes support needs without labeling the person as disordered.[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_13] The distinction between disorder and disability is crucial because some people think neurodiversity rejects disability, which is does not and which would be absurd, at least when looking at autistic people with intellectual disability etc.
• ::::Gender dysphoria is also a medical diagnosis within the DSM. LogicalLens (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::So to summarize, because I think you misunderstand. The broader aims of the neurodiversity movement to improve people's lives and to be considerate of self-described understanding of autism is not at odds with the biopsychosocial psychiatric model of autism.
• :::::Redefining the diagnosis is however a minority viewpoint, that at its best could merit a one sentence note that such a movement exists per WP:DUE. At worst, it is fringe, and should not be described in this overview article. This is not bias, and this is not the article being slanted.
• :::::Lastly, yes precisely - gender dysphoria is the diagnosis, gender identity is not. Autism is the diagnosis, autistic identity is not. CFCF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@CFCF I have read quite a lot—books and hundreds of articles—on neurodiversity, and from what I have consistently seen, depathologizing autism and reframing it from a disorder to a difference is a core principle. I would be happy to share more sources that support this if it is helpful. What is the source or perspective behind the idea that it is only about acceptance and lived experience?" LogicalLens (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::What is at issue is how there is a difference between 1) acknowledging a movement that wishes to depathologize a condition and to act to use language that avoids stigma or overt pathologization, and 2) accepting head-on a redefinition of the diagnosis in accordance with that movement. Those are not the same thing.
• :::::::While neurodiversity perspectives have gained much traction, and are WP:DUE, they are still not dominant. As for rejection of the current diagnostic manuals and a push for redefinition of the diagnosis, this is a very small minority view. If it does reach such momentum that guidelines adapt - then we are in another ballpark - but right now it doesn't, so it needs to be treated appropriately per WP:DUE and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact remains that this article is about the diagnosis - not the identity - which when I give it some more thought fits under Neurodiversity rather than Austistic identity.
• :::::::I think perhaps this strikes to the heart of the issue. Neurodiversity is a perspective, but not the total perspective, and frankly hitherto a minority perspective. CFCF (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Nobody here argued that the article or the section on diagnosis should be written from a neurodiversity-only perspective and @Oolong are ready to accept that the medical model is still presented as the majority viewpoint.
• ::::::::The reason why neurodiversity advocates in general do not directly call for a removal of the autism diagnosis in the ICD or DSM is that in many current legal systems, having a diagnosis is necessary for access to support services. A similar debate existed for transgender people where the question was whether depathologizing gender identity would end insurance coverage of transition treatments. The long-term goal of the movement is switching to a disability framework that assesses the needs of individuals without using a disorder diagnosis.
• ::::::::While the neurodiversity perspective is not currently dominant, I guess you still underestimate its prevalence even in guidelines. See the guidelines from Australia that recommend neurodiversity-affirming practice.[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/guideline/reading-the-guideline#reading-the-guideline] The Psychological Society of Ireland writes in the preface that the classification as a disorder is being challenged.[https://www.psychologicalsociety.ie/source/PSI%20Autism%20Guidelines%202022%20(Interactive%20Version).pdf] There are also multiple professional books on carrying out diagnosis in a neurodiversity-affirming way without viewing autism as a disorder.[https://www.routledge.com/Is-This-Autism-A-Guide-for-Clinicians-and-Everyone-Else/Henderson-Wayland-White/p/book/9781032150222][https://uk.jkp.com/products/the-neurodiversity-affirmative-child-autism-assessment-handbook][https://uk.jkp.com/products/the-adult-autism-assessment-handbook] LogicalLens (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::@CFCF yes, it's a minority view, but a very significant one. Nobody is suggesting that the entire entry should be rewritten to conform with it!
• :::::::::This article is about the phenomenon known as autism, which is both a medical diagnosis, and a neurodevelopmental difference which profoundly shapes people's experiences of sensory and social worlds, among other things. The psychiatric category is an attempt to characterise this difference.
• :::::::::A huge amount of work has also been done on and around autism that doesn't have a medical focus or a medical framing at all. It's still a minority of the literature, but it's a large and growing one - widely acknowledged as a major shift within autism research, while popular literature has come a lot further still. Bear in mind that many professionals working with autistic people are in education, or other non-medical fields.
• :::::::::We could have an entry on the diagnosis, which is actually Autism Spectrum Disorder, and make it all about the psychiatric category - in other words, discussing autism from a specifically medicalised perspective.
• :::::::::That is not what we have now, though. The encyclopaedic approach to covering autism would be to balance the main coexisting perspectives on it. Oolong (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I have to say, {{U|Oolong}} I strongly disagree that this article is not mainly on the medical diagnosis, which as you say is the dominant view. You are right that neurodiversity is a significant view, as is clear by the neurodiversity article at the very least.

:::::::::::I am inclined to agree with {{U|LogicalLens}} here: (even if I disagree that {{tq|Nobody here argued that the article or the section on diagnosis should be written from a neurodiversity-only perspective}}) that if this is present in guidelines especially as phrased as acknowledgement and adoption of "neurodiversity-affirming practices" - I think it appropriate to mention this perspective from guidelines in the article in a WP:DUE fashion. One should note however, adopting neurodiversity-affirming practice does not necessarily entail full adoption of depathologization or a rejection of other perspectives. I do not see that these guidelines reject the disorder as such, even if they mention the existence of debate - and I am less inclined to include mentions from medical text books to support it at the high-level article on autism, because there are so many and it would need to be balanced with a myriad of textbooks and reviews that take other views.

:::::::::::The fact of the matter is that the medically defined condition is the focus of this article, and it should be written as such. Autistic identity is a significant minority view, and it is not dismissive to be clear that this is described in the article on Neurodiversity (I don't think we need a new article for it, because that would just contribute to making things more unmanageable, by adding one more to the overwhelming number of articles that already exist about autism. CFCF (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::As many editors not involved in the dispute resolution have entered the discussion, the moderator @Robert McClenon is not active anymore, and several users have made changes anyway, I think it no longer makes sense to follow the rule of not editing the article while the dispute resolution is ongoing. We would still need some discussion beforehand as otherwise, pro- and anti-change editors would consistently revert each other’s edits. While debating abstract strategies is difficult, it will take years if we discuss every paragraph separately like @WhatamIdoing suggested. LogicalLens (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• :::::::@CFCF is correct. Declassifying autism as a disorder is NOT a core principle in the field, in fact it contradicts the international scientific consensus. For comprehensive references in the context of Wikipedia guidelines on this matter, see: Talk:Autism#c-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20250317212900-Survey (on RFC on focus). Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I really wish you would stop using the phrase 'scientific consensus,' when you really mean the 'medical model'. There is no scientific consensus concerning the causes and effects of autism, this is why there are and have been so many hypotheses in and out of vogue - childhood schizophrenia - refrigerator mother - vaccination - extreme male brain - monotropism - systematisation-driven etc. etc. Urselius (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::@Urselius Daim yeah, along with symptoms.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20250406173000-Anthony2106-20250403015800] Maybe changing words is hard. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::It is not solely a medical model and equating it with the "refrigerator mother" hypothesis absolutely is not a valid comparison. That idea was the parent bashing engaged by Bettelheim and colleagues back in the 40s and onwards who saw the learning, development, and neurodevelopmental disorders of children as merely the parents' fault. There was not a shred of scientific evidence to support his position and the decades of cruelty suffered by people with ASD and their families was atrocious and inexcusable and is one of the worst historical periods in the history of ASD. You can read the book In a Different Key if you want to read what about what happened to families and children back then; it is unconscionable. How that borderline pre-scientific era and nonscientific idea about autism has anything to do with our current, evidence-based understanding is beyond me. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@CFCF depathologisation has always been one of the core features of neurodiversity. Oolong (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I don't believe I've called that into question. CFCF (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to join in the talk about the standard image for 'autism' on Wikidata:Talk:Q38404#Image. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would really appreciate you joining in the discussion on which image or photograph would best symbolize autism. Thank you in advance. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The article needs a section explaining the difference between the medical model and the neurodiversity perspective in sufficient detail, and it is best, in my view, to place it directly below the lede.

@Oolong made several suggestions for new content in a discussion section a few months ago. These could also be included. LogicalLens (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I fully endorse your and Oolong's suggestions as they relate to the proposed new content. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, @LogicalLens.

:Here's my original list of glaring omissions. Just things that really obviously need to be included - there are a lot of other things that one could also make a case for! Oolong (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz, a co-occurring (or comorbid) condition does not require a causal link, although there is a genetic overlap between autism, ADHD, and other things. This means there is no specific reason to have a section that is only about conditions and leaves out everything else for which a correlation has been found. @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan argued above (Talk:Autism#c-Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan-20250307003100-Tacitusmd-20250302111500) that it is biased towards the biomedical view of autism. LogicalLens (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|LogicalLens}}, what are you talking about? I modified it because being gay (or transgender) is not a “condition”. Gender dysphoria is a condition, so I put that into the list. The section title refers to ‘conditions’. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Would you agree on changing the section title to "Co-occurring conditions and other correlations"? LogicalLens (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure this is wise. That title is far too long - and whatever one may make of it, definitions-wise sexual identity is a "condition", even though it certainly isn't a medical condition. If anything having that long title would lump them together more. One could perhaps use "Co-occurring conditions and traits" or even better "Co-occuring phenomena", but I'm not sure it is wise to lump this together in a single section - because it will regardless imply that there is something in common with medical conditions and these non-medical conditions/traits. Correlations also means so much more, and we don't want to get into a semantic debate or need to spell out our definitions in the section. CFCF (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Why not just something like "demographics"? Agree that we shouldn't label non-medical associations as being comorbid. I can't imagine a world where we would label being black as "comorbid" with heart disease. GMG^talk 12:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we went in that direction, I would suggest merging this section with "epidemiology". Oolong (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Comorbid" has been changed to "co-occurring" which carries no connotation of medical disorders/diseases. LogicalLens (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problem is with correlation not co-occurring. One could reasonably split with:

::::::==Co-occuring conditions==

::::::===Medical conditions===

::::::===Traits===

::::::The issue with correlation is that everything that is co-occurring is also correlated - so the distinction is false. The majority of readers will also likely not get what we mean with correlations, as it is a technical term. Association is also better from a purely methodological/epidemiological standpoint, but is no less confusing for lay readers. As for merging with epidemiology, I think most general readers would not look under the ==Epidemiology==-section for co-occurring conditions, assuming instead that the section would cover prevalence of autism etc.

::::::What do we make of this? CFCF (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::On second thought, I'm also a bit apprehensive how we should describe the correlation with LGBTQ - it may be difficult, as we have to be very short in this overview article. CFCF (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The difference between "co-occurring" and "comorbid" is purely semantic. GMG^talk 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So is the one between trait and condition, barring medical conditions. CFCF (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The subheadings could be "non-medical traits" and "medical conditions". The heading of the entire section is now "co-occurring phenomena", so I see no reason why these non-medical characteristics could be mixed up with the medical ones. LogicalLens (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The subsection "non-medical traits" could be called "non-medical phenomena" and then also include the higher likelihood of being the victim of a crime in autistic people. LogicalLens (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Yes, the chief difference between any two terms is semantic, which is to say they mean different things.

:::::::::In this case, comorbidity is the subset of co-occurrence that describes diseases in particular, or medical conditions more broadly. Oolong (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Are you content with this edit?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1287738469] I moved the content into the demographics section. LogicalLens (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I thought the argument was that autism is (according to this POV) not a type of morbidity itself; ergo, it can't be co-morbid with anything. Autism is only allowed be considered a perfectly healthy, normal, non-morbid thing that correlates with actual diseases.

::::::Compare: There's nothing wrong with having abnormally long and thick eyelashes, even though it correlates with a long list of actual diseases. Or even: There's nothing wrong with having red hair, green eyes, and freckles, even though it causes disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe you're right - those traits could go under epidemiology, and have the co-occurring conditions section only be medical conditions. Hmm... CFCF (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think using "Co-occurring phenomena" as a section title with subsections "medical conditions" and "traits" is best. LogicalLens (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@LogicalLens, can you name some "Traits" that "co-occur" with autism, but are neither medical conditions nor part of autism? For example, stimming is a "restricted, repetitive behaviors", which means it's a core feature of autism, and therefore it can't be a "co-occurring phenomenon".

:::::::::It might be clearer if I say it this way:

:::::::::* Autism has these traits: A, B, and C. (example: stimming)

:::::::::* People with autism often also have co-occurring medical conditions: D, E, and F. (example: epilepsy)

:::::::::* People with autism might have some co-occurring non-medical traits: G, H, and I.

:::::::::The "co-occurring" model means that anything in the "A, B, and C" group cannot be part of either the "D, E, and F" group or the "G, H, and I" group. Items can only be placed on one line. You cannot say that stimming is part of autism and also that it is not part of autism. ("Co-occurring" means "not part of"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Also isn't stimming clearly a behavior as opposed to a trait? Unless we want to be convoluted about it and say "a propensity to stim" - but that is just intentionally confusing. CFCF (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, stimming would be better described as a behavior, feature, or characteristic than as a trait. This is especially true if you're using trait in the sense of a genotypic or phenotypic trait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@WhatamIdoing the user @Zenomonoz removed the higher rate of LGBT and atheism because these are non-medical traits. Therefore, I suggested splitting it up into "medical conditions" and "other traits" while renaming the section to "co-occurring phenomena". I still prefer this approach but these non-medical traits could also be inserted into the section that is currently called epidemiology and that we could rename to demographics. LogicalLens (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It sounds like a split between ==Associated medical conditions== (e.g., epilepsy) and ==Demographics== (e.g., LGBT prevalence) would be feasible.

:::::::::::How clear is the line between core features and co-occurring psychiatric conditions? Does everyone agree whether anxiety is a feature of autism vs a separate condition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::As far as I know, reliable sources generally describe anxiety as a co-occurring condition. LogicalLens (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with CFCF. I also think things like this belong more under the epidemiology section and that co-occurring conditions should focus on actual medical conditions. Just like you wouldn't put something like race or age under "co-occuring conditions" it would go under epidemiology. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 23:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You've convinced me of my own argument now. CFCF (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is a bulleted list not appropriate? Official government websites also use them.[https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/autism-spectrum-disorder-asd/signs-characteristics.html] LogicalLens (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Probably because it is "less readable" as per MOS:LISTBULLET. However, I do agree that the list looks fine for it. 24.155.147.107 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::A bulleted list is not appropriate for a high level encyclopedic entry without any narrative explanatory text (or that extends far longer than the narration). The problem is not that bulleted list are never appropriate, but it is not appropriate here. CFCF (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The page currently contains a template that the article repeatedly makes medical claims with not sufficiently reliable sources. In my view, this pertains particularly to "Social and communication skills" and its subsections in "Signs and characteristics", while other sections use better sources. LogicalLens (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you think it would help to flag these sources with Template:Medical citation needed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, and I did that. LogicalLens (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)