Talk:Autism/Archive 13#ASD diagnosed after age 18

{{Closed rfc top|1=No Consensus and No, respectively.

Per WP:IAR, this is a single close for two strongly related RfCs, one for whether the Focus of the Autism Article currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model relative to the social/neurodiversity view, and the other whether the Lede/Lead section of the article should be changed to a specific proposed alternative version that devotes more to the latter view than the former model. As several people have noted, if the first is closed "no", we can't really close the second "yes"; and most (but not all) of the supporters/opposers are the same between the two RfCs.

RfCs are not decided solely by counting supporters/opposers, but by reading the opinions of each and seeing how they hew to policies and guidelines. One opinion based on our rules trumps many opinions based on emotion. That said, in most cases the question of an RfC isn't clearly answered in our rules, and most participants can read our rules as well as I can, so the number of experienced editors who believe the rules support one or the other opinion does matter.

In each RfC here, the main rule being cited on each side is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. For the first RfC, we have 11 supporters believing the article does give too much weight to the medical model, against 9 opposers who do not. The opposers state that since the majority of high quality sources on autism use the medical model, therefore so should our article. The supporters don't dispute this, but cite surveys of reliable sources that over time more weight is being given to the social/neurodiversity, and have counted sections that they believe clearly show that our article gives proportionally more weight to the medical model than the sources do. (By the way, compliments to both sides for the well-reasoned and calm discussion; I wish that all Wikipedia disputes were always so!) Also, this first RfC isn't directly actionable, it doesn't say exactly what should be done if it gains consensus; it leaves that for the second RfC. But I don't see that it did, the persuasive arguments on each side are nearly evenly split. There is a slight majority in favor of the question, so there is clearly room for further discussion, but I find no consensus for any specific change - yet. Keep trying, folks! A proposal from Lova Falk to create separate articles like Autism (diagnosis) and Autism (identification) got support, so is worth exploring, but I can't say it has been discussed enough to judge consensus yet.

The second RfC proposes a specific change, to rewrite the lead to give more weight to the social/neurodiversity. However it has 6 supporters, to 9 opposers of the content, and 2 opposers of the RfC on procedural grounds. That's a clear No, I'm afraid. Objections from the opposers included what they saw as a polemical tone (in violation of NPOV), and omission of the significant impairment that is often part of the definition of autism. The supporters' argument that the current lead gave too much weight to the medical model was disputed, as above, but they also argued that the current lead was too long, which didn't have as many objections, so possibly there is room for discussion, but the proposal as stated clearly fails. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1743519675}}

The neutral point of view policy requires that articles "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of ability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint?

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Viewpoints on autism include a clinical/medical model of disability perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and deficits and uses terms like "cure", "treatment", "severity", "high/low functioning", "burden", "risk", and "co-morbid"; and a social/neurodiversity perspective, which sees autism as a healthy part of human diversity rather than a disorder (though it can be disabling if the environment does not accommodate autistic people’s needs and may also involve inherently disabling features) and uses terms like "features", "characteristics", "accommodations", "likelihood", "co-occurring", and specific descriptions of support needs.

Please answer Yes or No (or the equivalent) with a brief statement in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.

No; while the article uses older sources to contradict connected articles at time, I do not feel that it is spending too much time on one perspective.Abbi043 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm changing to Yes here - @LogicalLens's survey reply makes clear that such is, at least, more dominant within the scientific community than I had thought, and that I have been holding a number of misconceptions on the exact boundary conditions of the various models of disability. Abbi043 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The current article on autism exhibits a significant imbalance, disproportionately reflecting the medical model and failing to adequately represent the growing body of literature supporting the neurodiversity paradigm. This is because the proportion of sources supporting the neurodiversity paradigm has increased substantially in recent years,[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030][https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13534][https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13176] which is not yet appropriately accounted for in the article. The medical model and the neurodiversity model currently co-exist within the scientific literature. There is an ongoing debate over the classification of autism as a disorder.[https://www.science.org/content/article/disorder-or-difference-autism-researchers-face-over-field-s-terminology] A neurodiversity-affirming textbook for psychology students[https://www.routledge.com/Autism-A-New-Introduction-to-Psychological-Theory-and-Current-Debate/Fletcher-Watson-Happe/p/book/9781138106123] exists and two books that provide a neurodiversity-affirming approach to autism diagnosis.[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-adult-autism-assessment-handbook] In addition, many scholarly books have been published that deal with the paradigm shift towards neurodiversity.[https://pavpub.com/clearance/the-neurodiversity-reader][https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-International-Handbook-of-Critical-Autism-Studies/Milton-Ryan/p/book/9780367521011][https://www.routledge.com/Neurodiversity-Studies-A-New-Critical-Paradigm/BertilsdotterRosqvist-Chown-Stenning/p/book/9780367503253][https://www.routledge.com/Improving-Mental-Health-Therapies-for-Autistic-Children-and-Young-People-Promoting-Self-agency-Curiosity-and-Collaboration/Pavlopoulou-Crane-Hurn-Milton/p/book/9781032372525]

Increasingly, research suggests that features previously considered deficits and symptoms may also be interpreted as neutral differences within a neurodiversity framework. There is a growing body of studies indicating that the difficulties arise only when the autistic person is measured against neurotypical expectations. For example, there are many studies backing the Double empathy problem, which states that empathy difficulties between autistic and non-autistic people are two-sided.[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241255811][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1362361317708287][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613231211457][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613231219743][https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1362361320919286][https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/aut.2018.29000.cjn][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221129123] Additionally, recent systematic reviews found that stimming (repetitive behaviors) serve a useful purpose for the autistic person.[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946724001338?via%3Dihub][https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0111] Furthermore, a positive autistic identity has been found by several studies to have benefits for mental health.[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221118351][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613211004328][https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/aut.2020.0016]

Health authorities are increasingly adopting a neurodiversity-affirming perspective. For example, the official Autralian guidelines for autism assessment and diagnosis recommend it[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/second-edition/micro-learning-transcript] and the UK’s health authority NHS also recommends talking about autism positively.[https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/] Moreover, many leading academic journals dedicated to autism recommend or even require neurodiversity-affirming language[https://home.liebertpub.com/publications/autism-in-adulthood/646/for-authors][https://media.springer.com/full/springer-instructions-for-authors-assets/pdf/10803_JADD%20Inclusive%20Language%20Guide.pdf][https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/AUT/Autism-terminology-guidance-2021-1626860796.pdf] In 2023, Wiley announced a “multi-journal special issue” on neurodiversity across 38 journals,[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/products/call-for-papers-neurodiversity] demonstrating the growing recognition of neurodiversity across diverse academic disciplines. Similarly, Sage launched a scientific journal called Neurodiversity.[https://journals.sagepub.com/home/NDY]

While many professionals are adopting a more neurodiversity-affirming approach, diagnostic criteria and clinical interventions often still operate within a medical model framework. Therefore, the goal is not to eliminate the medical model, but to ensure that the article provides a balanced representation of both perspectives and the current state of scientific understanding and discourse. I propose that the article be revised to give more balanced weight to the neurodiversity paradigm. LogicalLens (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No. There is an ongoing effort to present a flourishing but minority perspective on autism as having equal standing with the widely accepted mainstream medical model. This approach is often justified by citing the lead sentence of the NPoV policy. However, reducing the policy to a single sentence is a misapplication that undermines the encyclopedic tone and style, ultimately degrading both the quality of the article and its accessibility for readers. While it is essential to represent all significant viewpoints, Wikipedia policy does not suggest that every minority perspective must be presented alongside mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Recent proposals introduce excessive hedging and unencyclopedic structures, such as a persistent back-and-forth juxtaposition of models. In scientific topics where a strong consensus exists, presenting an opposing view without appropriate "due weight" can create "false balance." I deeply appreciate and value the contributions of all editors involved and fully recognize that everyone is acting in good faith. However, we must remain committed to Wikipedia’s core principles and ensure that decisions align with its mission of providing accurate and well-balanced information. There is clear evidence of Advocacy occurring in the editing history and discussions herein, which, like conflicts of interest (CoI), should be addressed with appropriate action. Contributing editors: as someone uninvolved up to this point, I would kindly and respectfully ask each of you to please consider if this is applicable to you and to determine for yourself if you should refrain from further edits and adjust your continued participation in discussions on this article due to lack of ability to do so neutrally. Tacitusmd (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for this. Though as well as advocacy, some editors do have potential professional CoI that they have chosen not to represent here. It would be useful if editors with these possible CoIs - for example profiting from talks and courses on the perspective they’re lobbying to have included in the article - would make them clear. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:E8E7:31E6:D5B2:CC94 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting, now I am about to go off on a tangent here. But what other articles you've already read that has a similar problem as with this article "Autism"? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The existing article does not come anywhere close to recognising developments in mainstream understandings of autism in the twenty-odd years since it was started, let alone the last half-decade or so.

This shows in the article's structure, tone and content.

The article as it stands is out of step with many mainstream sources in its frequent use of stigmatising language and framings, and misses out a huge amount that is actually helpful for people to know about autistic experiences.

Obviously Wikipedia is not a how-to, but it does aim to be useful to a general audience. The existing version of this entry does a poor job of benefiting readers, which I would suggest is largely because it has been written with little regard for what autistic people, our families and professionals working with us think is important for people to know about. We can absolutely fix this without compromising on our reliance on high-quality sources for claims.

Oolong (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment. At the top of this talk page, there's an information section − collapsed, but with an information icon, 30px − titled "Section sizes." People responding to this RfC may find it useful to look at the relative sizes of the sections devoted to different aspects of autism. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'll paste it here for ease of reference:

{{Section sizes}}

:FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::So that would lead me towards the answer Yes. Thanks FactOrOpinion for flagging that empirical information! If as per the table the neurodiversity-aligned approach is currently something like maybe ~10% of the wikipedia page, with the vast majority reflecting a more traditional medical lens, then that seems unbalanced as a recent systematic review of language use in the contemporary peer-reviewed academic autism literature by Bottini et al. suggests that 30% of the peer-reviewed literature language use is neurodiversity-affirming and 70% is traditional medical (https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0030). That would definitely suggest a considerable discrepancy between the wikipedia page and the contemporary peer-reviewed academic literature on this topic.

::Previously a lot of the assertions here have been based largely on the subjective opinions of a given editor, based on their appraisal of the relative importance of different sources in a pretty extensive literature. Whereas these sorts of empirical numbers at least provides some basis for more precise assertions. Of course one can still debate these numbers - one could for example discuss whether the 10% number from the table pasted by FactOrOpinion is misleading, or how to interpret the Bottini et al. review - it was based on the literature in 2021 so not 100% contemporary - I expect the 2024/2025 literature is even more neurodiversity aligned since the field is definitely heading in that direction, but I don't have 2024/2025 numbers. Or perhaps there are other ways to quantify how much of the contemporary science and research follows one approach or another. Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Of course, there are autistic people who are never diagnosed. However, all formally autistic people have once gotten a diagnosis. The D criterium for getting this diagnosis states that symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning. People who have autistic characteristics but don't have a clinically significant impairment should not have been given a diagnosis.

I have an idea though. We need to create two articles: Autism (diagnosis) and Autism (identification). File:Coin Icon.svg Lova Falk (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

no. per Lova Falk rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes The existing article is notably unbalanced. It treats the patholigising 'medical model' of autism as being falsely definitive or sacrosanct, while marginalising the non-patholiogising 'neurodiversity model' of autism. The neurodiversity model has a great deal of published academic and scientific support. Medical thought is always behind relevant science, it is inevitable. Diagnostic manuals are often many years behind contemporary science. There are plenty of academic publications that have accepted the validity of the neurodiversity model. Even Sir Simon Baron-Cohen (originator of the 'extreme male brain' and 'systematising' theories of autism), a world expert in autism research, has accepted the validity of some aspects of the neurodiversity model in his more recent works. Urselius (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Autistic clinical phenomena are what a biomedical paradigm seeks to explain, and autistic social phenomena are what a neurodiversity paradigm seeks to explain. These two links follow directly from the explanatory text of the RFC (associating "clinical"<->"medical model of disability," and "social"<->"neurodiversity"). In fact, on a previous version of this very Talk page I seemed to have gotten some buy-in from editors that we should primarily lean on a biomedical paradigm to explain WP:BMI, and primarily use a neurodiversity paradigm to explain WP:NOTBMI in the context of Autism.

But looking at the word count table that FactOrOpinion posted makes it clear that there's a glaring imbalance here. If we consider symptoms, causes, management, and comorbidities to be biomedical/WP:BMI, that's 66% of the entire article in just those three sections, compared to 9.6% of the article dedicated to social implications. If this were an article on, say, Carbon monoxide poisoning, it would make sense to only briefly consider the social implications of it. But this is a disorder that both current and proposed new ledes declare to be a social disorder in the very first sentence! So why do we spend only 10% or 20% on those implications?

It's strange that a page about a social disorder has a paucity of explanation on the social implications. The best way to correct this is to use more of the paradigm best suited for explaining social implications, which (following from this RFC's text) is the neurodiversity paradigm, and the existing academic articles that fall in that paradigm. Patrickpowns (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

No - At least not as how is implied here and by certain users. Though I think there is a lot of room for more nuanced and developing perspectives, however as per wikipedia's rules on how to write on medical conditions based on the mainstream medical authorities, such often in practice directly conflicts with the writing to give more space for the social/neurodiversity perspective on the condition. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes - The current article is very negative and biased towards the medical model of disability. It should focus more on the social model and internal experiences, as opposed to only external observations. While the proposed lede, is better because it is less negative and less biased towards the medical model of disability, it overtly seems to also lean towards the social model of disability. Being on the spectrum myself, I believe that the proposed lede is a lot better at serving the interests of autistic and other neurodivergent people who want the world to be more understanding and accommodating of them.

Another part noted is "Research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population." This sentence (and the research) could be biased because the people researched may not be representative of all autistic people and the people researched could have had external influences (ostracism and wanting to join a community, etc). I agree with cyberwolf that it should be ommited. If, however, this sentence is included in the lede, then I would recommend "LGBTQ+" be replaced with "LGBTQ" instead because the first term resonates with a left liberal/progressive leaning bias (with the plus + symbol) and the latter would be more neutral.

In my opinion, it would be best to start small, such as replacing terms with more neutral terms or sentences, some included in the proposed lede, using the table below:

class="wikitable" |+ Terms/Sentences to be replaced
Old Term (Biased/Negative)	New Term (Neutral)
Neurodevelopmental disorder	Neurodevelopmental condition
Sensory abnormalities	Uncommon responses to sensory stimuli
There is no known cure for autism.	There is no known method of eliminating autism.
Severity	Presentation
Deficit	Difference
Symptom	Trait or Characteristic
Comorbid	Co-occuring

Also, the use of "ASD" should be replaced with "Autism" to avoid bias towards the (almost) strictly medical model the original lede has.

Frequency (1%) is outdated (due to masking, low levels of awareness, underdiagnosis) and should be updated to 2.8% up to 5% (citation needed) to represent the most up-to-date model.

--DependableProportion (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No per Lova Falk. That does not mean we can't improve the article, but that is another thing than disputing its neutrality. CFCF (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The article uses frankly outdated and medicalising language that presents autism as a disease. I concur with @LogicalLens above. The article should shift away from presenting the medical model as widely accepted truth when society at large is beginning to change its attitudes to autism, even if the medical and neuroscience communities remain in a disease mindset. I agree with @DependableProportion's suggestions for how we can change the language used in the article. —Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 11:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No - In compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I believe the article reflects the status of the global scientific consensus. As indicated by international guidelines, national guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, scientific consensus statements, systematic reviews, and other secondary peer-reviewed sources, unanimously around the world, ASD is characterised as a valid neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and deficits in specific psychological traits. However, they tend to interchangeably use the terms signs and symptoms, so I am for the use of both of these terms in the article. While some of the primary literature such as editorials and advocacy papers subscribe to the Neurodiversity Movement, they are refuted by other papers and are far outweighed by the quality/reputability of the aforementioned sources.

Note that while one publication from the NHS advocates against the use of certain terms, this is continuously being cited in a selective way that omits crucial context. First, that publication is not scientific in nature; it is not evidence-based. Second, it is contradicted by its own actual evidence-based guidelines elsewhere, including by NICE which supersedes the NHS.

References

: The ICD-11 and World Health Organization (WHO), guidelines used globally, conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder and that "The onset of the disorder occurs during the developmental period, typically in early childhood, but symptoms may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed limited capacities. Deficits are sufficiently severe to cause impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning". https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624 1 . The Wikipedia article also has concluded that "ICD-11 was produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".

: The DSM-5 criteria, used internationally, concludes that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder; per diagnosis that "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning" and that "Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior". [https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc/subcommittees/resources/dsm5-diagnostic-criteria.shtml 2]

: Guidelines from the UK National Institute of Health & Care Excellence (NICE) conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental spectrum disorder. They write "The clinical picture of autism is variable because of differences in the severity of autism itself". [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 3] NICE guidelines also refer to "symptoms of possible autism..." [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg128/resources/signs-and-symptoms-tables-primary-school-children-msword-183220669 4]

: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Guidelines conclude that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological and developmental disorder" and acknowledge the existence of "signs and symptoms of ASD". [https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd 5] Paradoxically, a different NIMH publication advocates against some of the above https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/autism 6.

: The European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) and Autism Europe (AE) guidelines, used internationally, conclude that "autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is now recognised not only as a childhood disorder but as a heterogeneous, neurodevelopmental condition that persists throughout life". They also state that "Earlier recognition of autism symptoms could also be improved...". [https://www.autismeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Fuentes2020_Article_ESCAPPracticeGuidanceForAutism.pdf 7]

: German AWMF guidelines conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels in accordance with the above guidelines. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30326807/ 8]

: National Guidelines in France conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels, characterised by symptoms and the presence of significant impairment, endorsing the DSM-5 and ICD-11([https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-04/cpg_asd_diagnostic_assessment_child_teenager_2018.pdf 9]).

: A scientific consensus statement on the evaluation of ASD conclude that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, with varying severity levels and is characterised by symptoms and the presence of impairments ([https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders et al., 2018)]).

: Consensus Guidelines on ASD concluded that "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated lifetime prevalence of at least 1% (Baird et al., 2006; Brugha et al., 2011). Core symptoms include..." ([https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269881117741766 Howes et al., 2018]).

: Canada's national diagnostic guidelines from the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) conclude autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder; that "[children with ASD] can present with a wide range and severity of symptoms"; that "This statement proposes three ASD diagnostic approaches, the choice of which depends upon the paediatric care provider’s clinical experience and judgment, and the complexity of symptom presentation" ([https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/asd-diagnostic-assessment CPS, updated: 2024]).

: The International Consensus Statement on ADHD, authored by 80 scientists, coendorsed by 403 experts and numerous associations, across 27 countries and 6 continents ([https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8328933/ Faraone et al., 2022]) conclude that ADHD [another neurodevelopmental disorder] "the clinical significance of the signs and symptoms of the disorder has been recognized for over two centuries". This shows that the term symptoms and signs are applicable to neurodevelopmental disorders, not merely diseases as some have suggested. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses use these terms for Autism as well, not just that specific neurodevelopmental disorder ([https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/ehtj.v4i0.7111 Dietert et al., 2010]; [https://journals.lww.com/jrms/fulltext/2017/22000/Environmental_factors_influencing_the_risk_of.27.aspx Mojgan et al., 2017]; [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613221133176 Belmonte et al., 2022]).

: Regarding primary literature, some blog posts, advocacy papers and textbooks advocate for a change in terms deviating from calling ASD a neurodevelopmental disorder but simply a neurodiversity with "traits" rather than symptoms and impairments.[https://www.routledge.com/Autism-A-New-Introduction-to-Psychological-Theory-and-Current-Debate/Fletcher-Watson-Happe/p/book/9781138106123?srsltid=AfmBOoohIIWKeqE8wkwP4OLzAtUWg0EjjUxpDqJxsluYBEBnl_bK410l 10],[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17243849028263424617&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en 11],[https://www.theopennotebook.com/2023/06/27/eradicating-ableist-language-yields-more-accurate-and-more-humane-journalism/ 12]. However, these are advocating for something that is not currently established. Thus, they are not sources that can overturn the global scientific consensus on how ASD is currently defined. Other textbooks do not share such views (e.g., [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d0pkEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR29&dq=autism+textbook&ots=dFEFSTWCHk&sig=sg2D_OIfZNOs3XnkvipbSuP9M6Q&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=autism%20textbook&f=false Volkmar, 2021]), and the Wikipedia articles cites other reviews that refute the Neurodiversity Movement claims ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 Neison et al., 2021]; Shields et al., 2021). Blog posts should be discounted as they are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers.

Wikipedia Guidelines/Policies

: Wikipedia:Scientific consensus concludes:

: "It is important to note that in forming its consensus it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is scientific and what is questionable science or pseudoscience. Public opinion or promoters of what is considered pseudoscience by the scientific consensus hold no sway in that determination. (See Wikipedia policy and guidelines regarding Undue weight, extraordinary claims sourcing, verifiability, reliability, and dealing with fringe theories.)"

: Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, which is an "an English Wikipedia content guideline... that editors should generally follow", concludes:

: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources"

: Further on, they state:

: "Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged"

: And that:

: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources"

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

No. The article focus, e.g. the infobox, means the article is about Autism as a medical condition, so NPOV is limited to variations inside that boundary. It would be good to have breakaway topics as separate articles for that reason and for simple practicality of article writing not having to somehow balance dissimilar content and a resulting excessive length. Perhaps it would be good to have a top hat line describing the bounds of this article and lead to a disambiguation page, or perhaps have See Also links or sub articles - but not to try and cram every possible aspect into this one article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. In reading a lot of people's !votes, it seems that they're interpreting autism as a medical condition and thus conclude that the article appropriately focuses on that topic. But people who are looking for information about autism aren't only looking for medical information, and may not primarily be looking for medical information. If you look at RS content about autism there's significant non-medical information: content from a neurodiversity perspective, content about the lived experiences of autistic people, and so forth. This is especially the case with more recent RSs. So there is a disproprotionate emphasis in this article on the medical perspective. As I said in the Discussion section, I think one solution to the significant difference of opinion is to split off a lot of the content in the current article to Autism spectrum disorder (the medical diagnosis, a page that currently redirects to Autism), and to create a more balanced article for the Autism. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

No; as noted above, diagnosis requires clinically significant impairment. Wikipedia determines WP:WEIGHT from the most reliable sources, i.e. scientific ones, not internet discourse. The latter tends to be dominated by people with less severe symptoms and/or lack the clinically significant impairment. Although some academic sources do endorse a neurodiversity perspective, and that is represented in the article, there is not an excessive emphasis on medical views in the article. The POV tag should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes -- this article approaches it completely, reading the lead, from a medical perspective. An equal focus on the neurodiversity perspective would be good, I think, although I'm not autistic. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I would love it to sound less medical. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No; mainly per rationale as stated by Lova Falk. While I am skeptical towards the infobox being seen as permanently defining the scope of this article, I agree with Markbassett that we should run several articles about Autism. Possibly, there could be one specifically for ASD, with Autism as the central article. However, I think it might be difficult to actually implement this.

For now, I think the medical model is of great significance, and per the current scope of the article, clinical diagnosis is what qualifies a subject for conceptual inclusion within the set of people to whom this article is applied.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion! BlockArranger (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abbi043, it would be helpful to talk more about reliable sources and less about feelings. Another question: Could you agree on making some language changes even if you are on the side of those who do not think that the proportion of space dedicated to each viewpoint should change? LogicalLens (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I definitely think some language changes are in order. Some of the sources could probably stand to be double checked, too - for instance, since I spotted it while checking myself again, source 153 (Hartman, L., & Hartman, B. (2024). "An ethical advantage of autistic employees in the workplace". Frontiers in Psychology, 15, [tel:1364691 1364691]. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1364691) is a comparison of 33 autistics and 34 neurotypicals where they found that autistics are less responsive to having bystanders, the degree of which is impacted by Moral Disengagement as defined in the study, which also reduced the odds that Autistics intervene less than it did neurotypicals. This somehow becomes "Autistic people are less likely to show cognitive or emotional biases, and usually process information more rationally." Abbi043 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Also, in regards to my statement on the use of older sources to contradict connected articles - since I maybe should've been more particular about that - the sources used to establish that ABA is effective are a 2008 and a 2015 source, while the Criticisms section of the article on ABA, which is where studies of effectiveness of ABA (instead of how ABA is practiced) is covered, shows sources as late as 2022, with most of the sources being 2020 or 2021 sources, stating that there is a lot of unreported COI and low quality of evidence, and that claim is not contested in the article. I would therefor expect that that claim stands - since my earlier research into the matter had showed them just getting repeatedly, utterly rammed with things along the lines of citing their official ethical code, educational criteria, latest attempt to address criticisms, and a large study backed by the US gov, even should there be a way they could address that claim, their likely too busy on that. Abbi043 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tacitusmd, thank you for raising your concern about neutrality. I understand the importance of representing all significant viewpoints appropriately.

You mentioned the problem of back-and-forth juxtapositions between viewpoints, which is a valid point that I have already addressed in one of the discussions. We agreed on improving that paragraph of the proposed new lead section further, it is not finished yet.

To address your concern about source balance, I would like to point you to the list of citations I posted above.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20250226044700-Survey_(on_RFC_on_focus)] It is important to note that this field is evolving rapidly, with leading autism-specific journals and health authorities increasingly moving towards the neurodiversity paradigm. The medical model continues to be a significant perspective, but the previously strong consensus to view autism as a disorder has given way to an ongoing scholarly discussion that incorporates the neurodiversity paradigm. I have focused on citing pro-neurodiversity sources here because they are currently underrepresented in the article, which historically leaned heavily towards the medical model. This is an attempt to bring the article into alignment with the current state of research and discourse.

If you believe there are specific areas where our proposals lack neutrality, please provide concrete examples and cite your sources. I am open to discussing these points and working together to ensure a balanced and accurate representation of all viewpoints. LogicalLens (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion and your recognition of the importance of neutrality.

:You are correct that the field of autism research is evolving, and there is an ongoing discussion regarding the role of the neurodiversity paradigm. However, we must be cautious not to conflate the increasing presence of this perspective in academic discourse with an equivalency to the well-established medical model. While the neurodiversity paradigm is gaining traction, it does not currently hold equal standing in the broader scientific consensus, and Wikipedia's "due weight" principle requires that we reflect this appropriately.

:Regarding source balance, citing more pro-neurodiversity sources to "correct" an alleged historical bias in favor of the medical model is not a neutral approach. Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform; our role is to summarize the state of scholarship as it exists, not to rebalance perceived biases through selective weighting of sources. If the majority of high-quality, peer-reviewed literature still supports the medical model as the dominant framework, then that should be proportionally reflected in the article, even as we acknowledge the growing discussion around neurodiversity.

:I also appreciate your efforts to refine the proposed lead section. However, the concern remains that structuring the article as a constant back-and-forth between two perspectives, rather than summarizing them in a proportionate and coherent manner, risks introducing unnecessary hedging and a false equivalency. If the scholarly consensus is shifting, that shift should be demonstrated through a broad and balanced representation of the literature, not by artificially constructing a debate where none meaningfully exists at the level being implied. As it stands today, the neurodiversity paradigm should be introduced as an emerging framework primarily advocated by autistic self-advocates, certain researchers, and organizations. It should be framed as a perspective that challenges traditional pathologization, emphasizing autism as a natural variation of human neurology rather than a disorder. Due weight should be given to the fact that, while some academic and clinical sources incorporate aspects of neurodiversity, it has not replaced the medical model in mainstream clinical practice or research. We cannot conflate increased discussion and advocacy with an actual overturning of the existing consensus. We should not hedge or use language that implies a consensus of doubt that does not (yet) actually exist. Language as described in WP:WORDS in relation to the medical model should be a red flag.

:Since you asked for specific feedback, I want to be candid: inclusion of the neurodiversity paradigm in the lead section at all should be contentious, yet it has not been. This in itself is concerning. I say this despite personally supporting its inclusion. I believe the existing lead in fact already gives this perspective slightly more weight than warranted but arguably it remains within an acceptable margin of editorial discretion. However, any rewrite that further amplifies this weight is a non-starter for me. I know you've put in significant effort, and I don’t say this lightly, but I would strongly encourage you to leave the lead largely as it is and instead focus on the main body of the article, where I see clear opportunities for meaningful improvement that may, in turn, alleviate underlying concerns and lead to broader editorial consensus.

:My initial impression is that there is both room and sufficient scholarly support to:

:* improve discussion of the neurodiversity paradigm's growing prominence, tracing its evolution from self-advocacy movements to its gradual entry into academic discussions, while making clear that this perspective remains contested in most scientific and clinical circles;

:* dedicate section to summarizing the ongoing debate: presenting arguments for and against the neurodiversity paradigm specifically as it relates to autism, along with the evolving discourse on disability rights, accommodations, and ethical considerations regarding autism interventions; and

:* include a section on the sociopolitical impact of the neurodiversity paradigm, detailing how it has influenced public discourse, policy, and advocacy efforts, while ensuring it is distinguished from its scientific standing.

:Since the neurodiversity paradigm and the social model of disability extend beyond autism - applying to multiple conditions under the neurodivergent umbrella - only aspects strictly related to autism should be included in this article, with appropriate links directing readers to the broader frameworks in their own dedicated articles. Tacitusmd (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Tacitusmd, you've used words/phrases like "equal standing," "equal validity," and "equivalency" your !vote and discussion comment. This makes me wonder if you're reading something into the question that isn't there. "Does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint?" does not imply that a "yes" !vote means the two perspectives have to be given equal weight (though some editors may judge that to be appropriate). As a rough gauge of the current proportions in the article, the section sizes suggest that ~9/10 of the article is devoted to the medical model and ~1/10 to the neurodiversity model. Suppose (as a hypothetical), representing the two views in proportion to their discussion in RSs meant that the actual weighting should be ~7/10 and ~3/10; in this case, one would conclude that the medical view is disproportionately represented in the current article without implying that the medical and neurodiversity models should be treated equally. Also, WP:NPOV is about the appropriate representation of "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," but does not limit RSs to scholarship, nor do WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:BESTSOURCES. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Tacitusmd, thanks for your suggestions on what additional content could be included in the body. As this RfC runs for 30 days, we should wait for input from other editors, but your suggestions are helpful.

::I recognize the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's rules, including WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. By "historically leaned heavily towards the medical model" I meant that in the past, there was a strong consensus in the academic literature to view autism as a disorder and that the Wikipedia article has been written to reflect that and not been fully updated in accordance with the recent changes. My aim is to ensure the article reflects current scholarship and evolving understanding, within those guidelines.

::Determining the right balance is the central question and it is difficult because the viewpoints of researchers vary widely between countries. The fact that health authorities in the UK and Australia have already adopted a pro-neurodiversity viewpoint shows that there cannot be a consensus in these countries to use the medical model. These dramatic differences in autism conceptualization between countries is because the question whether autism should be seen as a disorder is heavily influenced by value judgements and political considerations, i.e. that, without a diagnosis, autistic people would have many problems in life and society. Currently, society is only willing to provide accommodations and services if something is wrong with a person because it has certain notions of normality and thinks that the current environments accommodate everyone who is healthy. @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, based on this systematic review,[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030] estimates the proportion to be about 30% neurodiversity-affirming sources as of 2021 and says that this number has probably increased since then.

::If it is the case that the majority of reliable sources views autism as disorder, then of course, the article’s balance should reflect that. However, a viewpoint being in the majority, for example, does not justify using Wikipedia’s voice for claims such as "Autism is a disorder." (instead of "Health authorities X, Y, … classify autism as a disorder.") as this requires that something is uncontested (WP:WIKIVOICE). See this article in the magazine Science (journal) that describes the dispute in autism research.[https://www.science.org/content/article/disorder-or-difference-autism-researchers-face-over-field-s-terminology] It is important to note that Science is not a sensationalist lay newspaper or tabloid but one of the two leading scientific journals (along with Nature). I am not thereby intending to use words listed in WP:WORDS that are non-neutral. Have you encountered words like these in our proposals? If yes, please point them out so that we can replace them.

::You warned of hedging and back-and-forth juxtaposition because it can lead to both positions being presented as being equally prevalent in the literature. It has been discussed on the dispute resolution page that the current lead section describes the sources inaccurately by saying that "other scientists argue that autism is inherently disabling". This is crucial for accuracy. Especially, there is no simple dichotomy between medical and social models of disability and the neurodiversity paradigm has similarities with the social model but does not completely align with it. Much of the criticism of neurodiversity is directed towards strong social model conceptualizations. See, for example, a paper by Patrick Dwyer that explores viewpoints between the social and the medical models.[https://karger.com/hde/article/66/2/73/828432/The-Neurodiversity-Approach-es-What-Are-They-and] Kapp also says that neurodiversity advocates agree with using interventions to ameliorate aspects that inherently reduce quality of life independently from the environment, for example being unable to communicate basic needs.[https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/2/106] There is a lot of work to do in this paragraph so that it presents the different models in a way that is both accurate and balanced.

::Regardless of the extent of changes we make to the content, would you still agree on changing some of the terminology? The Manual of Style for medicine-related articles says: "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." So, while it should be made clear that the medical model conceptualizes autism as a disorder, I consider it inappropriate and unnecessary to constantly repeat terms like "the disorder" or "ASD" just to avoid tedious repetitions of the word "autism". "Autism" is completely neutral and I would rather choose repetitions than value-laden terms.

::Another aspect is the use of terminology that does not have much to do with science at all. For example, using identity-first language ("autistic person"/"is autistic") is preferred by most autistic people to person-first language ("person with autism"/"has autism"). Another case is the term "risk" which is just the word "likelihood" with a negative value judgement. I think, when it comes to mere value judgements about whether being autistic is something to be afraid of, Wikipedia should use the more neutral and less stigmatizing words, especially because most of the autistic community does not view being autistic as a problem.

::In more scientific cases, a neutral ground could be chosen that is compatible with the medical model (if it is still the majority view), but not too offensive or stigmatizing. If, for example, the terms "deficit" or "symptom" are perceived as ableist by neurodiversity supporters and alternatives like "features" are seen as whitewashing by medical model supporters, we could settle for "difficulties". It should also be noted that researchers and clinicians in the medical domain are experts in their own paradigm but they are not experts on ableism and the effect words can have on people. LogicalLens (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk, the question is not whether autistic people experience disability. The word 'impairment' stems from the medical model, which locates disability within the individual. However, this is not the only perspective. The neurodiversity paradigm offers an alternative, viewing autistic traits as natural variations that become disabling primarily due to societal barriers. This applies to all autistic people, including those with a diagnosis and with support needs. The list of academic sources I've provided demonstrates this perspective[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20250226044700-Survey_(on_RFC_on_focus)] and even includes two books for diagnosticians and the official Australian guidelines for autism assessment and diagnosis. Maybe you have heard some wrong information online or in the real world, but the claim that neurodiversity is limited to undiagnosed individuals is inaccurate and contradicts established neurodiversity-affirming scholarship. LogicalLens (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::LogicalLens I don't claim, and I don't think that neurodiversity is limited to undiagnosed individuals! Quite to the contrary, I think that all diagnosed individuals also are neurodiverse neurodivergent. Lova Falk (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It is not only the term "neurodivergent" that extends to all autistic people but also the neurodiversity paradigm that views disability as mostly stemming from a mismatch between person and environment.

:::By the way: The term "neurodiverse" can only refer to groups of people with different neurotypes, while the term "neurodivergent" is used describe a person whose neurocognitive functioning is different from the perceived societal norm. LogicalLens (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I was not aware of the difference between the term "neurodiverse" and "neurodivergent". I'll change my comment. Lova Falk (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not at all clear why you think your observations about diagnostic criteria point towards this article already being well-balanced as it stands? Could you perhaps expand on what you see as being the connection?

:::::For whatever it's worth, I was formally diagnosed as autistic 15 years ago; a strong majority of the advocates of neurodiversity who I know (of those who say they are autistic) were likewise formally diagnosed, which as you correctly observe, requires what the DSM calls 'functional impairment' in addition to the specific listed characteristics... Oolong (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Lova Falk, it might be that I have not expressed clearly what I wanted to talk about. This RfC is about the question whether the current autism article is unbalanced towards the medical model. For this, looking at reliable sources (in Wikipedia's sense) is necessary and we have cited sources that say that there is a significant dispute in the autism research [https://www.science.org/content/article/disorder-or-difference-autism-researchers-face-over-field-s-terminology community] and that as of 2021, about 30% of sources were neurodiversity-affirming,[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030] which has probably increased since then. Saying that there is "the" diagnosis that calls the disabilities experienced by autistic people "impairments" is not a useful overview of reliable sources and is misleading as there are neurodiversity-affirming ways to conduct diagnoses that lead to the same group being diagnosed as autistic (when discrepancies due to a greater awareness of masking are put aside for the moment) but without the framing that being autistic is 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-adult-autism-assessment-handbook] which is even recommended by the official Australian guidelines for autism assessment and diagnosis.[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/second-edition/micro-learning-transcript] LogicalLens (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oolong and LogicalLens I understand that this is the question. I don't think the current autism article is unbalanced towards the medical model, because autism is a psychiatric, that is, medical diagnosis. Lova Falk (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Oolong and @LogicalLens: Please stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you.

::::::This RFC is making a big request. Answering it requires reading (or at least skimming) a huge article. It's about 10,000 words long, so that's half an hour's reading for most native English speakers. Every time an editor stops what they're doing to read the article and give us their honest feedback, they are giving us a valuable gift. When you argue with them, you are not showing them that you value their gift.

::::::This RFC has been open for a few days now. During that time, only three (3) uninvolved editors have sacrificed their time and energy to answer the question. This is less than we would normally expect for such an important article. One or both of you have argued with all three of them and told them that you think their answers are wrong. Stop it. It's not polite, and it's not helping us get responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you for that perspective. I was in no way intending to be impolite or to make people feel as if I do not value or respect their contributions and always try to use friendly language. Admittedly, these are the first two RfCs that I participate in on Wikipedia. As far as I understand it and as it says in the description („Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.“) the discussion section was inserted precisely in order to enable replies. Can you tell me why there is a discussion section if replying is impolite? Personally, I do not feel that my time is not being valued if people argue with me (as long as it is friendly and factual) and am fine if people respond to my answers to the RfCs because that can lead to a way forward. Wikipedia has no final decision-maker who looks at the RfC responses and then decides what to do. So I thought it is better and more time-efficient to discuss now than to wait until the RfC is over and to continue discussing then. But maybe some of the respondents just want to share their perspective, which would set them apart from the other editors here on the talk page or on the dispute resolution page who tend to have stronger views on the proposed edits. I did not think about that. LogicalLens (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I know you're trying hard and that you're very interested in this subject. That's why I wanted to be clear about the social standards.

::::::::It's okay to have a discussion. It's not okay to begin a discussion with every editor who disagrees with you.

::::::::It's okay to start a discussion if you don't understand the other person's comment. I don't mean that you can't understand how someone could be so wrong. I mean if you need more information to figure out what they meant. If someone posts something cryptic or oblique, like "Autism is like beauty; it's all in the eye of the beholder", you could ask for more information about what they meant by that simile.

::::::::But mostly, you have to let people say what they think, and say nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@LogicalLens, I sometimes have the same struggle when I'm interested in a topic. I end up posting too many responses, often because I want to convince someone and/or better understand someone's thinking. I'm still working on that myself. Here's a relevant essay that I've seen a number of editors refer to.

:::::::::@WhatamIdoing, in terms of eliciting more responses: there's an unbalanced tag at the top of the article right now, and it invites people to "discuss the issue on the talk page." But it links to the Dispute Resolution Request section of this page. Would it make sense / be acceptable to change that link so that it goes to this RfC instead? I realize that that's unorthodox and would probably be inappropriate with most RfCs, but perhaps this is an appropriate exception, since the RfC is about the article as a whole. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think that would be fine, if someone felt like doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@FactOrOpinion Thank you for sending me the link to that essay. While I intended to provide non-repetitive and useful arguments, I recognize that no editor should take up too much space. Especially the point "Wait a few days and perhaps add one comment at the bottom of the discussion that may address any or all of the concerns expressed by others." is helpful. LogicalLens (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WhatamIdoing Thank you very much for this comment. I did doubt for a long time if I would weigh in or not, and finally I decided to do so. My hesitations were not based on uncertainty about where I stand on this issue, but just because I don't feel like engaging in a long discussion. Lova Falk (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate hearing others' thoughts about the following: I see a number of editors responding "no," and my impression is that for these editors, "autism" = "autism spectrum disorder" for the most part, and therefore the article appropriately focuses on clinical information. (For those who've responded "no," please correct me if I've misunderstood your overall view.) I see a number of other editors responding "yes," and my impression is that for these editors, "autism" ≠ "autism spectrum disorder," and therefore the article overemphasizes the latter. (Again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Also, I don't know whether there's an autism-specific term corresponding to this view, analogous to "autism spectrum disorder" but from the social/neurodiversity perspective.)

Would it resolve the concerns of both groups if there were both an Autism article and an Autism spectrum disorder article (where the latter didn't redirect to Autism), where most of the current article was moved to Autism spectrum disorder, and the Autism article:

• had a section on Autism spectrum disorder with a Main link to the Autism spectrum disorder article and perhaps some See also links to other articles with a clinical focus (e.g., Vaccines and autism);
• had a section on the social/neurodiversity perspective with a Main link (and I'm not sure whether that would be to the Neurodiversity article or the Societal and cultural aspects of autism article or something else) and perhaps some See also links to other articles with a social/neurodiversity focus (e.g., Autism rights movement);
• included text addressing/linking to other key articles (e.g., History of autism, which currently has no text, only a section header; Autistic meltdown, Sensory overload, Stimming), where those might or might not have their own section, and might or might not have Main/See also templates, depending on editors' views; and
• perhaps added more content about topics that are important but don't themselves have articles and don't have sufficient info right now?

This is related to Lova Falk's suggestion that "We need to create two articles: Autism (diagnosis) and Autism (identification)," but is a bit different, as it still envisions an Autism article, where the main article is more balanced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:How nice that you picked up on my idea! I find you analysis very sharp. Yes, "autism" = "autism spectrum disorder" for the most part, and therefore the article appropriately focuses on clinical information. Exactly! Lova Falk (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:If it turns out that we really cannot reach a consensus here even after extensive discussions then a version of what you suggest might be a solution, although it is sub-optimal. The Dutch Wikipedia seems to have followed a similar approach.

:I think the reason why some editors insist that autism simply is a medical disorder or that autistic people simply have impairments is a reification fallacy/fallacy of misplaced concreteness: The medical model, i.e., the assumed norm and the deviation from this norm that autistic people show (which is called impairment) is often taken to be the objective reality because it has been repeated so many times and in so much detail that people have forgotten that it is still a human construct and a value judgement (whether one considers this value judgement right or wrong). It is explained in relation to neurodiversity in this paper.[https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/medu.15565]

:Also, while the Australian guidelines[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/second-edition/micro-learning-transcript] and the UK health authority NHS[https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/][https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/] still use a diagnosis for access to services, they use neurodiversity-affirming language and that is the important thing. It has been pointed out even by neurodiversity advocates that abandoning the diagnosis is not the goal as of now because autistic people would lose their access to necessary supports. Instead, the goal is moving towards a non-pathologizing framework.[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_13] LogicalLens (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::LogicalLens I agree with you that we won't be able to reach consensus, and I don't want to engage in a long discussion, but I find it troubling that you dismiss all those who disagree with you as committing a fallacy, implying that you see things clearly and correctly. No. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. Lova Falk (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Lova Falk, without trying to draw you into further discussions: of course we should not dismiss others. When you wrote that autism simply is a medical diagnosis, it seemed equally dismissive of the opinions of others, as if your view is simply a fact. This was maybe not your intention and I misinterpreted it. Also, by pointing to that paper regarding the logical fallacy, I did not intend to invalidate your opinion on autism but only to show that “autism is simply a medical diagnosis” is not a helpful argument while “the majority of diagnoses is carried out using the medical model” could be.

:::Others here (not you) insisted that editors who are in favor of the changes must be activists, which is unproductive. That is taking a bad direction here and we should avoid further futile discussions, as you said.

:::No one of us has the ultimate decision making power and we should wait for further RfC responses, but if it stays that way probably that compromise is the best solution. LogicalLens (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::LogicalLens Thank you for that! BTW I think (or, hope) that we agree on many more things than you may think. 20px For instance, I am convinced that our society wouldn't be half as developed as it is, if it weren't for autistic people who immerse themselves in something and don’t give up until it’s done. If it may seem that I am blind for other sides of autism than the medical diagnosis, it is because I tried to avoid getting into a discussion and restricted myself to my main point. Lova Falk (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Lova Falk I do think that the only viable alternative to a main autism article which balances biomedical and neurodiversity viewpoints is to have two or more separate articles about different aspects.

:::::It is very clear that a large proportion of autistic people, and a significant (and growing) proportion of relevant tweets and other professionals do not see the medical perspective as the only valid one, or necessarily the most valuable one. This is well-reflected in reliable sources; there are many reasons for the shift, which it may or may not be constructive to dig into here. The point, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is simply that reliable sources reflect said shift. The article has a long history of autistic people coming and trying to edit it to better reflect this shift, and other editors coming and undoing their changes.

:::::I think @FactOrOpinion asked what a neurodiversity-affirming equivalent of 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' might be; the obvious choice would be simply autism. An alternative might be autistic people, given that many autistic researchers and activists have been at pains to emphasise that there is no autism without autistic people, and that talking about autism in the abstract seems to lend itself to dehumanising attitudes (compare 'preventing autism' with 'preventing autistic people'). We would then have one entry on the psychiatric diagnosis, and one on autistic people as human beings: what it means to be autistic, how to live and work with autistic people, challenges and supports for autistic people; that kind of thing.

:::::An article focusing on autistic people as human beings would, from my perspective at least, be far more interesting and useful than what we have now; my strong impression is that people interested in learning about autism usually want to know about autistic people.

:::::An article which both gives due weight to the human experiences of autistic people, including the many social aspects of autistic experience, and gives a sensible encyclopaedic treatment of medicalised diagnosis, would also make sense to me.

:::::What we have now is bizarrely ill-balanced, largely outdated and sprawling; even leaving aside the questionable language choices, I'm struggling to imagine who would want to learn about the topics it covers from an online encyclopaedia, but wouldn't care about the many crucial aspects of autistic experience that it skims over it misses entirely (meltdowns, sensory overwhelm, masking and so on). Oolong (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not because I said it, but the good thing about two articles is that instead of balancing and having recurring discussions about too much of this or too much of that, we can just go ahead and make the content edits that we would like to make. Lova Falk (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@WhatamIdoing, in a previous RfC about another topic, a couple of additional options were added to the RfC after it was opened (in response to editors' comments about the original wording/options), and Raladic noted that this is OK per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC. I'm wondering if it would be good to add this as another option, and if so, whether there's any norm about how to go about that (e.g., should I check with Robert McClenon, who opened the RfC? would I note the date on which the RfC's wording changed?). The current question is worded "Does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint?" Y/N. If I were to change it, I'm thinking that there would be three options along the lines of:

:::::::a) Yes, and the proportion of the article devoted to each view should be adjusted accordingly.

:::::::b) No, the proportion of the article devoted to each view does not need to be adjusted.

:::::::c) Autism spectrum disorder should become an article rather than a redirect, and most of the clinical/medical information in the Autism article should be transferred to Autism spectrum disorder, with the content/relative emphasis in the Autism article shifting as a result.

:::::::Or do you think that would be too disruptive? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It might be complicated to do that now. Have you found/looked over the discussions that led to the merge? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you're probably right - or rather, I think if we were to request comments on splitting the page, it would warrant a new RfC.

:::::::::The previous merge isn't really relevant; the old autism article was nominally (and bizarrely) about 'autistic disorder' (or classic autism) in particular, except when it wasn't - while the autism spectrum article was about autism in the sense that has been standard for the last 15-20 years.

:::::::::More helpful points of reference here would be deafness/hearing loss/Deaf culture and transgender/gender dysphoria. Oolong (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WhatamIdoing, as best I can tell, the title Autism spectrum disorder was never involved in a merge, it was only a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_spectrum_disorder&action=history series of redirects]: first to Autistic spectrum disorder, then to Autistic spectrum, then to Autism spectrum, then here. My impression is that Autism redirected to Autism spectrum; the two were swapped in May 2024, and the latter became a redirect here discussion here. If you uncollapse the "Other talk page banners" at the top of this page, it shows a combination of copied content, merging and splitting, where one of the merge tags has an error (but I haven't been able to find when it was added to see what it originally said). This is as much digging as I'm up for right now, as it's hard to keep track / hard to figure out where to look, not only because of the multiple shifts, but only some of the Talk page archives from Autism spectrum got moved when the swap occurred, so I'm uncertain whether I need to search here or there. I see that Oolong was involved in some of the relevant discussions going back a few years, and so might be able to provide more background.

::::::::::Oolong: it's possible to have two RfCs open on a single article, so in theory, nothing prevents someone from starting an RfC now about splitting the article. Do you have any key background to add about what led to the name swap with Autism spectrum and whether there was previously an Autism article (vs. only being a redirect until the article names were swapped)? WhatamIdoing, what do you think about opening a second RfC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I briefly described the history of the earlier in my comment above; you can read some of the (often bizarre) discussion leading up to it at Talk:Autism/Archive 4.

:::::::::::That merge was much, much harder to push through than it should have been. Some very similar patterns to the discussions that were going on here when you first came in. Oolong (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Oolong, I was thinking of deafness/hearing loss/Deaf culture and transgender/gender dysphoria when I decided to think more about Lova Falk's suggestion. What I'm wondering is what makes most sense right now: wait until this RfC closes and see what the closer says? Or start a second RfC now with a few options? Possible options:

::::::::::* keep the Autism article mostly as is

::::::::::* have an Autism article of the sort I proposed above and move most of the content of the current article to ASD (a transgender/gender dysphoria model)

::::::::::* some other set of autism articles, where it's less clear to me what they'd be (perhaps more like the deafness/hearing loss/Deaf culture model)

::::::::::What are your thoughts? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::At this point, the current RfC only has six more days to run, if I am understanding correctly; probably not much point starting another one concurrently.

:::::::::::I'm not sure 'keep the Autism article mostly as is' should be an option at all - I think it's clear from this RfC (if it wasn't already, from the endless stream of disgruntled editors arguing for change) that there is not a consensus for that - although there's obviously no consensus at all on the broad question "Does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint?"

:::::::::::If people were serious about keeping the focus of the article as it is, I think they would need to propose a dramatic programme of bringing it up to date and down to size.

:::::::::::But maybe you really meant something more like 'keep Autism as the one central entry providing an overview of the topic of autism'? Oolong (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There's no guarantee that an RfC is actually closed by a closer after 30 days, that's only when the bot removes the RfC tag / when it stops being listed. I'm still waiting for my RfC from January to be closed. (Here's the closure requests page.) It's certainly possible to phrase another RfC as a Y/N, something along the lines of the following, but saying more about what the Autism article would include: should most of the content of the current article be moved to ASD (removing the redirect) and the Autism article revised to provide an overview that doesn't emphasize the medical aspects (but still says a bit, and directs people to ASD for more details about that)? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Alternatively, perhaps that could be done as a Move discussion, which doesn't typically stay open as long. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::@WhatamIdoing, seeking your input as a very experienced editor.

::::::::::::::Background: there is currently an Autism spectrum disorder → Autism redirect; the ASD page has never been an article and has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_spectrum_disorder&action=history limited history].

::::::::::::::It seems to me that there is no consensus about making the current article more balanced, and I see a couple of ways forward in resolving the conflict:

::::::::::::::* open another RfC about: ending the Autism spectrum disorder → Autism redirect, splitting/transferring most of the Autism content to Autism spectrum disorder, and then expanding what remains of Autism as a more general introduction

::::::::::::::* open a requested move discussion about moving Autism to Autism spectrum disorder over the redirect, with the expectation that we then open a redirects for discussion about ending the Autism → Autism spectrum disorder redirect, subsequently creating Autism as a more general introduction

::::::::::::::Questions: Is there another option to consider? Among the options, does one strike you as the best way forward? Are there additional things to think about as part of the process, such as first seeking agreement but working on a draft for a general Autism article before carrying anything out? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::An ordinary, but well-advertised, WP:SPLIT proposal would be the usual approach.

:::::::::::::::Also, whether it's a good idea is something that should become more apparent if we wait another decade or three, so I wouldn't necessarily be in a rush to do anything about this. These articles are impossible to get completely right because the real world/sources are unsettled. Nobody knows what autism is. Is it a behavior pattern? (That would explain why people with disparate conditions all have 'autism'.) Is it a change to how individual nerve fibers are organized? (That would explain the excessive rate of epilepsy.) When they agree on what autism is, we'll be able to figure out what the various pieces of this puzzle are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Thank you. I'm mostly motivated by a desire to reduce the time/energy that's currently taken up by disagreements; also, I think a solution may make it easier for WP readers to find info that they're looking for. If there's consensus for splitting the article, I think that's a good move, even if editors later reconsider and move/merge/further split/... relevant articles as the field makes progress. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Currently, the category of autism articles (Template:Autism) has Autism as its main article. Creating an article for "autistic people" and another for "autism spectrum disorder" would mean there is no main article anymore. The word "autism" is not preferring either the medical or the neurodiversity view. Would opponents of our proposed changes accept balancing medical and neurodiversity perspectives in the "autism" article if there was a separate "autism spectrum disorder" article?

::::::Maybe the article Diagnosis of autism (which currently has multiple issues and has to be rewritten anyway) could be renamed to "autism spectrum disorder" and much of the medical/clinical content from the autism article could be moved there. On the other hand, there is an entire subcategory "Diagnoses" which contains Asperger's syndrome etc. but not "autism spectrum disorder". So a new article could also be created there. LogicalLens (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

What a waste of time and effort on everyone's part. It confirms to me how fatuous and unfit for purpose most Wikipedia processes are. Urselius (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Especially in light of the above comment, I'd like to thank {{user|GRuban}} for taking on what must have been a challenging and time-consuming RfC closure and doing so with such thoughtfulness. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{smiley|embarrassed}} --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:From the "no consensus" result in the first RfC, I conclude that moderate changes are appropriate, although not to the extent some editors have imagined. The RfC regarding the lede is obsolete in my view because many changes to the lede have already been made and the version that was proposed there is now outdated. LogicalLens (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please don't lose your composure because you didn't get your way. Consider that it's not the process that's flawed, but the change you supported that's flawed. Here to note that I've removed the maintenance tags per WP:WTRMT as the issue has been decided via RfC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can't but agree. I think there is a lot of nitpicking going on over here, and I really do not agree with the notion that this article is biased, especially not to the degree that it would warrant a warrant a warning label in the heading. This is an informative and well-written article that many have worked on. I do not believe it will be possible to find a satisfactory and objectively superior solution in the discussion of person or identity first, or in whether autism is a mental disorder or a healthy, normal difference. These are subjective value judgments and a matter of philosophy. BlockArranger (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I’m going to counter this with it was only a waste of time because no one stepped in sooner. GRuban has made the correct decision based on what was obvious even six months ago - there is, and there will be, no consensus on this issue & it should have been shut down long ago. Editors have been extremely patient, perhaps too patient, but the crux of the issue is that there’s no consensus among autistics or even the neurodiversity movement as things stand. No one here is in the right, just debating from the PoV of the hypothesis that matches most closely with their own lived experience and that’s fine, but a Wikipedia page it does not make. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:85D:509:5D84:397E (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I know it’s been awhile but I wanna say real quick that I’m alive and safe.

Now, my question: is the dispute for the article still available or open? I wanted to say my opinion on it too but wanted to make sure if it is ok to do so. thanks as always lol. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 08:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:The dispute resolution is here Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism# 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:A8EA:8B86:472E:AC2 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:You can join, it should be fine. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wow, I never even knew about this, I only came back to make a minor edit and there was several essays worth of debate from different users which I had no idea of. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)