Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism#

{{DR case status|open}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737128771}}

{{drn filing editor|Oolong|15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Autism}}

Users involved

• {{User|Oolong}}
• {{User|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}
• {{User|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan}}
• {{User|HarmonyA8}}
• {{User|TempusTacet}}
• {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
• {{User|FactOrOpinion}}
• {{User|2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0}}
• {{User|GreenMeansGo}}
• {{User|Markworthen}}
• {{User|Urselius}}

Dispute overview

Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

On Wikipedia, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

Wikipedia has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Autism

Talk:Autism#Autism and disability

Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.

Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives

Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions]

Related: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Wikipedia guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders).

This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Wikipedia policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Wikipedia. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.

::My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Wikipedia'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{tl|MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Oolong, let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the #First statements by editors (Autism) section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the Wikipedia:Edit requests process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use Template:Text diff if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.

:(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.

:Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{hat|Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

{{hab}}

I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

• Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
• Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
• Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
• Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
• Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?

:I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.

:Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.

:I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is [https://oolong.medium.com/autism-and-scientism-b7fd4c9e08a6 Autism and Scientism] (published in the [https://www.middletownautism.com/social-media/research-journal-12-2023 Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal]) and Autism, Wikipedia and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and [https://thinkingautismguide.com/2024/11/how-wikipedia-systematically-misleads-people-about-autism.html published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism]. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked for specific statements of how the lede section should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read Be Specific at DRN. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of reliability describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the lede section should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by reliable sources, and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by medically reliable sources. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the medically reliable standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary standard of reliable sourcing.

If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the lede section. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the lede section, and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised lede section. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.

I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as First statements by editors (Autism), because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic talk page guidelines are met.

After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the lede section, I will know better whether DRN is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks @Robert McClenon! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.

:@Димитрий Улянов Иванов has has said that he won't "have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement" - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?

:I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Wikipedia guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... Oolong (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::::@Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):

:::::: " Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "

::2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.

Let's take the opening paragraph.

{{bq|Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; deficits in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.}}

I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.

Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:

{{bq|The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common signs include unusual responses to sensory stimuli. }}

Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. Condition is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of disorder,{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/1362361315588200 |pmid=26134030 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/ |date=2016 |last1=Kenny |first1=L. |last2=Hattersley |first2=C. |last3=Molins |first3=B. |last4=Buckley |first4=C. |last5=Povey |first5=C. |last6=Pellicano |first6=E. |title=Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community |journal=Autism |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=442–462 }} although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent deficits in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see double empathy problem); the difficulties, however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term symptom to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.

I recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1265036302 edited the third paragraph] simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that administrators' noticeboard for incidents may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.

The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for applied behavior analysis

Above entered by {{noping|Oolong}}

Classification goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both

diagnosis and signs and symptoms.

We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.

Possible causes should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise epidemiology.

Management is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the gender dysphoria entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around access: access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.

Prognosis probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.

History and especially society and culture probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.

Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?

--Oolong (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

My explanation about source reliability is my own interpretation, based on the principle to use common sense. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.

The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.

The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the lede. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the lede paragraph.

In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement DRN Rule A.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The provision about responding within 48 hours is in DRN Rule A, which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::::72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:"The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding "at least one user not being familiar" (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side.

:I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic.

:I know, some of my conversation was not nice, including Talk:Autism#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213134300-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241213132400 or me venting out the stresses on several place such as Talk:Autism rights movement#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900-Ongoing dispute in the Wikipedia page on Autism, attentions needed , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing Talk:Autism rights movement#c-Pinecone23-20241217174100-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900 . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means.

:I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available).

:I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! Oolong (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::Try a "hard refresh" ({{keypress|⌘|shift|R}} on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by my talk page with a link to the section you want to click the [edit] button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{keypress|Ctrl|shift|R}} on everything else. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Wikipedia and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" [i.e., other people] - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts).

::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong

To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::: I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of et al was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.

Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.

In the proposed lede by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads: {{tqb|Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.}} That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is verifiable because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.

I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.

Are there any other questions at this time?

Robert McClenon (talk)

I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Wikipedia article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.

I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Wikipedia (Deafness) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the present dispute started about two months ago:

• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity?
• Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk?
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Identity-first language for autistic people categories
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Disability terms
• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Wikipedia and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" [i.e., other people]. It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using Vancouver style [the {{tl|vcite}} citation templates on wiki].)

::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong

As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:@WhatamIdoing ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::@RIT RAJARSHI, please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list:

• Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions "
• Talk:Autism#Autism, Wikipedia and epistemic injustice
• Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics
• Talk:Autism#Brevity
• Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives
• Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions
• Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics.
• Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al.
• Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication
• Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source
• Talk:Autism#Autism and disability
• Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong
• Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request
• Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong
• (edited to add:) Talk:Autism#Paradigm?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. Anthony2106 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the neutral point of view is to describe the different views of different reliable sources. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the lede section first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a Request for Comments will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the lede if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one.

So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone).

If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body.

A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, revising the article to include information about {{tq|autism as a human condition or a neurotype}}, supported by citations to the best reliable sources, will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue:

:Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. [references omitted; quoted text is on pp. 897–898 in: Stein DJ, Palk AC, Kendler KS. What is a mental disorder? An exemplar-focused approach. Psychol Med. 2021;51(6):894-901] - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::Note: In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for reliable sources from WP:MEDRS to WP:RS because I agree with Oolong (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• My answers:
• Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first.
• Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1264073049][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1264831502][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1265128814][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=1266085807] I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary and helpful questions.

Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the Talk:Autism/Archive index (and, for completeness, Talk:Autism spectrum) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start.

One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of WP:MEDRS. The guideline itself states that "Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on.

Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, and overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article.

In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Wikipedia's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16FKwyNSzrpMOtuvq4EHk2n364y1T_dUwCIaVNzK_fpw/edit?usp=sharing see the full responses here], but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10.

Regarding your question about reversions, [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2&page=Autism&server=enwiki&max= one editor has made a total of 29 reversions], often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1265046534 description here] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-Oolong-20241228123400-%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2-20241224212400 what the sources referred to actually are]; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as WP:CPUSH discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately.

--Oolong (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::(I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::For the moderator my lie was here:{{diff2|1258336094}}{{diff2|1258372372}} Sorry this last one was rude:{{diff2|1258372372}} but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what Rule G.11 is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions of your reversions.

::Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'.

::The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. Oolong (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Wikipedia guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Wikipedia. Urselius (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:"autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the double empathy problem, you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are puzzling (they are just very uniform) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but they aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. Urselius (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources.

I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months.

I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that lead follows body. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time.

I will restate the rule of reliability of sources. When autism is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of medically reliable sources. When autism is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of reliable sources. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric.

Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Two quick questions:

:1. Would it be appropriate to post a notification of this discussion/process on Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism?

:2. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the {{unbalanced}} tag on the autism page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. Oolong (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the lede rewrite. After the draft revision of the lede is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a Request for Comments to obtain community input and establish community consensus. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Wikipedia guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement?

:Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users.

:And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I also support your proposal, and (just to be clear) your decision to use Rule G. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hopeful that we can make progress a lot faster once we have overcome some of the roadblocks preventing edits to date.

Dmitriy's concern about being the only neurodiversity-opposing participant in this process is understandable - I did try to include at least two others when I initiated this, but they have not joined. This is one reason I suggested notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism; historically, other editors broadly sharing his outlook have been much more involved. It might be best if he were not the only participant representing the pro-pathologisation side of this discussion, given our goal is presumably to produce an article which is acceptable to people with a range of personal views on these subjects.

--Oolong (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I will again restate, and maybe clarify, about consensus. Any contested changes to the article will be made only by community consensus, which is obtained by an RFC, which runs for thirty days and is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. A majority of the editors in this DRN is only a local consensus and will not change the article substantively.

I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. I think that revision of the lede should precede the revision of the sections of the body of the article, but am ready to consider a plan for a coordinated effort to rewrite the sections of the body first. Editors who want to leave the article more or less as it is may either provide a statement supporting their view, or nothing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Robert_McClenon}}, I have a few questions:

:* In DRN Rule G, you said {{tq|Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.}} Would you clarify when it's appropriate to have a back-and-forth discussion with someone in the Back-and-forth discussion section? For example, is it fine for editors to use this section whenever we want to respond to something another editor wrote, or — given your point that back-and-forth discussion on the Talk page already failed to resolve the content issues — would you like us to reserve the use of this section to limited situations, and if so, would you briefly describe these situations?

:* You emphasized "Comment on content, not contributors" several times in the DRN rule. If I think an exchange is veering into that territory, is it acceptable to give a gentle reminder, or is that something that I should leave entirely to you?

:* I lack the knowledge base to "either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article." Is it acceptable for me to contribute in smaller ways when I think I might be helpful, or would you rather that I simply step back from any active participation (perhaps with the thought that such limited participation is as likely to distract as to help)? If it's the latter, I will likely continue to read some of the exchanges for my own learning, but I'm totally fine with it if you'd rather that I no longer comment.

:Thank you, FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::Here's my summary of the above discussion:

::From editors who are both dissatisfied with the article and also have specific ideas about what they want to see changed:

::* They want the article more prominently reflect a POV that is popular in the neurodiversity movement (e.g., as it appears on social media, but also in some scholarly sources). This POV says that autism is part of each individual's personality and identity. If you could get rid of autism, then you would be getting rid of the autistic person's true character and identity.

::* This POV also believes that autism is good. Everything about autism is to be presented in as positive a light as possible. For example, we [https://www.thirdspace.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/NAIT-Neuro-Affirming-Reports-Guide.pdf should] say that someone "prefers eating the same food every day" or "his favorite food is plain pasta" instead of being negative and saying that person is "at risk of scurvy and other vitamin deficiencies because he refuses to eat anything except plain pasta, rice, and eggs"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scurvy&diff=prev&oldid=1268479498]. We should say that someone "has a strong desire to talk about their particular interests" instead of "fails to engage in reciprocal social communication by noticing that the other person is not interested in hearing a long lecture about the exact differences between Lego Mindstorms robots and Lego Education Spike Prime robots, and thus changing the subject to something the other person would enjoy".

::* By default, if isn't good, then it isn't autism. Any 'bad' things should be called a "co-occurring disorder". If something negative cannot be omitted and cannot credibly be claimed to be a co-occurring disorder instead of autism, then it must be presented sympathetically, and the autistic person should not be blamed or shamed in any way. Most/all distress experienced by autistic people is caused by society's failure to provide sufficient accommodations and to value autistic people's views and perspectives, so "society" can be blamed and shamed.

::* "Treatment" is not wanted, needed, or effective. ABA in particular is evil. If a parent or caregiver wants an autistic person to quit engaging in a behavior (e.g., removing their clothes in public), then the parent should simply figure out what prompts that behavior (e.g., clothes that are too hot, itchy, stiff, loose, tight, synthetic, smelly, colorful, wet, stained, torn, sewn, peed-in) and proactively remove the prompt, so that the child won't think about doing that.

::* Overall, autistic people (adults) are to be presented as capable, autonomous, valuable people who can do great things. Towards this end, the article should focus primarily on the type of autistic people who are similar to Wikipedia's many autistic editors (e.g., having good verbal skills and having normal-to-high IQ) and less on autistic people who are intellectually disabled, who cannot effectively communicate their needs, who require round-the-clock, lifelong custodial care, or who hit or kick people if they are startled or their routine changes. If we write about autistic people who cannot be left in a room with windows because they will break the glass, then neurotypical people will get bad ideas about their co-workers or the autistic people they meet in the community. If there is going to be a bias in the article, that bias should favor making life better for autistic people who are high achieving (or at least living independently).

::For editors who are dissatisfied with the article but not proposing specific changes:

::* I think they see autism as a maladaptive biological situation that is not synonymous with the person's true character and identity. For example: Eating a wide variety of foods/flavors/textures is adaptive; having sensory issues that restrict you from eating whatever food is available is maladaptive and therefore a disorder; you would not stop being "you" if you could eat a wide variety of foods without severe anxiety or physically gagging.

::* I think they also believe that the article should present a significant amount of information about "profound" or "severe" autism, and that autism be presented as a medical disorder serious enough to result in an average lifetime cost (in the US) of US$2,200,000 per autistic person with intellectual disabilities, and US$1,400,000 per autistic person without an intellectual disability.[https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s10803-019-04014-z]

::I do not see any editors who seem satisfied with the current state of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The neurodiversity view does not view autism solely as a positive thing but as a neutral way of being that can come along with challenges as well as positive and neutral aspects[https://karger.com/hde/article/66/2/73/828432/The-Neurodiversity-Approach-es-What-Are-They-and]. This has been pointed out repeatedly in these discussions here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::This (Dwyer's) source gives what it calls an {{xt|"interactionist definition of a neurodiversity approach"}}. This might (or might not) be Interactionism (nature versus nurture). I think it might be a possible compromise model for us, as it is flexible and not extreme in either direction. He describes it as {{xt|a middle ground between biological essentialism and biological denialism}}. It's okay to medically manage or treat features of autism that you dislike, and okay to not treat features that you like. We can predict that editors who hold one POV or the other will want the article to "flex" in the direction of their POV, so this alone will not resolve the dispute.

::::The main focus on the neurodiversity side appears to be marketing: {{xt|"the disabled individual should not feel they are deficient"}}. We are to use euphemisms, e.g., that a person has {{xt|"areas of challenge"}} rather than {{!xt|"deficits"}}, to achieve this end. We are to have {{xt|"a focus on positive aspects of neural differences"}} and to remember that the goal is {{xt|"promoting well-being"}}. One of the main targets of such marketing is parents caring for the kind of autistic editor who won't be editing Wikipedia, or reading it. He says that {{xt|"much opposition to the neurodiversity approaches centers around the idea that the approaches should not be applied to so-called “severe” or “low-functioning” autism"}}, and suggests that these parents would be less likely to want their child to be "normalized" if autism were less stigmatized by society. (Personally, I suspect these parents are looking for well-being for themselves and their child: fewer meltdowns, fewer injuries, better hygiene, something like an ordinary family life – not normal merely to be the same as everyone else, but normal because their everyday experience has low well-being for everyone.) There is an unstated belief that "being normal" is incompatible with well-being.

::::I do not believe that either euphemisms or a strong focus on the positive is compatible with WP:NPOV, so there are limits on how far we could implement this in a Wikipedia article, but I think that some form of this approach is feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::MOS:EUPHEMISM says "Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms." Mitch Ames (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, euphemisms should be avoided but the terms that we are proposing for a more balanced article are not euphemisms. It is euphemistic to use words with positive connotations. Note that all these negative terms like "symptom", "risk", "cure" or "burden" are the exact opposite of euphemisms (words with negative connotations) that should be avoided as well in favor of neutral terms. Two papers explaining that scientific accuracy is fully compatible with anti-ableist language: [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1244451/full] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.2928]. LogicalLens (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@LogicalLens {{agree|strong}} {{support|strong}} RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@LogicalLens {{agree|strong}} Anthony2106 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That sounds like a way forward to resolving the dispute in part so that we can arrive at a version of the article that is at least roughly acceptable to most of us. I envision including a section explaining the pathology paradigm and a section explaining the neurodiversity paradigm. In the pathology paradigm section, it could be mentioned that autistic characteristics are described as "deficits" by the DSM whereas in the neurodiversity section, positive descriptions like mentioning strengths in detail could be used (although actually the neurodiversity paradigm views autism as a neutral thing instead of something positive). In general (when not referring to either the pathology or the neurodiversity paradigm), I suggest using the following language guides for autism [https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/] [https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/autism] [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2020.0014]. These sources disagree in some aspects, for example, the US health authority NIH uses the term "autism spectrum disorder" while the UK’s NHS and Bottema-Beutel’s paper (1094 citations) prefer or recommend avoiding it. In many cases, we could just write "autism" or "neurotype" (and where it is inevitable, maybe "condition") instead to avoid the controversy. @Oolong and I have proposed mentioning the fact that public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the second paragraph of the lead section. The Manual of Style of Wikipedia also recommends using neutral terms and that “Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate”. So we could try to avoid the term “disorder” outside the pathology paradigm section as much as we can.

:::::In many other aspects, these sources agree with eath other, for example:

:::::- avoid “severe” or “disease”/”illness”

:::::- “characteristics”/“features”/”traits” instead of symptoms

:::::- not using the terms “cure” or “prevention”

:::::- “low/high support needs” instead of “low/high functioning”

:::::- “nonspeaking” instead of “nonverbal”

:::::- “likelihood”/”chance” instead of “risk”

:::::- “interventions”/”services”/”therapies”/”adjustments” instead of “treatments”

:::::- prefer identity-first language or “on the autism spectrum” instead of person-first language

:::::- avoid using the term “suffering”

:::::- “distressed behavior”/“stimming”/”meltdown” or other specific and neutral description of behavior instead of “challenging behavior”

:::::- “focused/intense/passionate interests” instead of “special interests”

:::::- describing specific needs instead of writing “special needs”

:::::- “impact”/”effect” instead of “burden”

:::::- “co-occurring” instead of “co-morbid”

:::::- “non-autistic”/”neurotypical” instead of “healthy control group”

:::::- avoid using “psychopathology”

:::::- avoid talking about autism as a puzzle, an epidemic or an economic burden

:::::I would like to hear whether we can reach a consensus on these changes.

:::::Remark: It is far from being a universal viewpoint among parents of autistic children with high support needs (e.g. 24/7 care) to hope for a “cure”. See Shannon des Roches Rosa (author of the well-known blog Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism) for example[https://thinkingautismguide.com/2022/11/grievance-based-parenting-forums-are-autisms-maga-movement.html]. LogicalLens (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:I want to thank @FactOrOpinion for asking the above. I think the volume of back-and-forth discussion is out of hand, and while some of that has been constructive, much of it is exactly the kind of going-in-circles that Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors" is clearly intended to prevent.

:I would certainly welcome clearer guidance on this.

:@Robert McClenon I plan to re-draft my proposed lead section in line with @LogicalLens's comments, and paste them in a separate section below, as nobody else has proposed an alternative or fed back on my earlier draft, aside from Mark saying "I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with."

:Would you support moving to a formal RfC at this stage? Oolong (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this is the Sixth statement by moderator section, not the Back-and-forth discussion section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources.

Addressing the First Issue

Due weight and neutrality on Wikipedia do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Wikipedia:reliable_sources and Wikipedia:scientific_consensus.

Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see list of references). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Wikipedia article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".

The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see list of quotes.

In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Wikipedia article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course".

Addressing the Second Issue

The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Wikipedia:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph:

A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author.

A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD.

In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in list of references, other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Divider line}}

Here is a first stab at a lead. I have combined bits from various versions, and rewritten some parts. I have leaned towards neutral language rather than bifurcating from the start; I think this allows a much more concise treatment, without eliding the major differences of opinion.

Note that in many ways this is a compromise lead; there is language that I am not entirely comfortable with, because it still foregrounds a medical perspective, this being the dominant lens still used by wider society as well as most relevant professionals. The direction of travel of both of those has been strongly towards neurodiversity in recent years; it is likely that in another few years, anything based on current discourse and research will need updating to reflect this ongoing progress.

For now, I have entirely omitted the final paragraph, which in the existing version goes into talking about treatments and cures. Producing a balanced version of this will be a challenge, given the evidence that most autistic people (including those with high support needs) would not want a cure, if such a thing were ever possible, and that the most popular 'treatment', applied behavior analysis is extremely unpopular with autistic people. I am also not sure we need a paragraph on this (this draft lead is about the longest I think a lead should be); we certainly shouldn't be devoting as many words to ABA as the current version does.

{{Dotted divider}}

Autism, officially known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a spectrum disorder, autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language.

Public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder.(World Health Organization: International Classification of Diseases version 11 (ICD-11)): https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624{{Cite web |date=2013-08-28 |title=Overview {{!}} Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management {{!}} Guidance |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}{{Cite web |title=IACC Subcommittee Diagnostic Criteria - DSM-5 Planning Group |url=https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc/subcommittees/resources/dsm5-diagnostic-criteria.shtml |access-date=1 August 2024 |website=iacc.hhs.gov}}{{Cite journal |last1=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 |last2=Dalwai |first2=Samir |last3=Ahmed |first3=Shabina |last4=Udani |first4=Vrajesh |last5=Mundkur |first5=Nandini |last6=Kamath |first6=S. S. |last7=C Nair |first7=M. K. |date=2017-05-15 |title=Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ |journal=Indian Pediatrics |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=385–393 |doi=10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4 |issn=0974-7559 |pmid=28368272}}{{Cite journal |last1=Howes |first1=Oliver D |last2=Rogdaki |first2=Maria |last3=Findon |first3=James L |last4=Wichers |first4=Robert H |last5=Charman |first5=Tony |last6=King |first6=Bryan H |last7=Loth |first7=Eva |last8=McAlonan |first8=Gráinne M |last9=McCracken |first9=James T |last10=Parr |first10=Jeremy R |last11=Povey |first11=Carol |last12=Santosh |first12=Paramala |last13=Wallace |first13=Simon |last14=Simonoff |first14=Emily |last15=Murphy |first15=Declan G |date=2018-01-01 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology |journal=Journal of Psychopharmacology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |doi=10.1177/0269881117741766 |issn=0269-8811 |pmc=5805024 |pmid=29237331}} An alternative perspective, arising out of autistic communities,{{Cite book|date=2020 |editor-last=Kapp |editor-first=Steven K. |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0|isbn=978-981-13-8436-3 }} is neurodiversity, which positions autism as a healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder. This is usually associated with some version of the social model of disability,{{Cite journal |last1=Dwyer |first1=Patrick |last2=Gurba |first2=Ava N |last3=Kapp |first3=Steven K |last4=Kilgallon |first4=Elizabeth |last5=Hersh |first5=Lynnette H |last6=Chang |first6=David S |last7=Rivera |first7=Susan M |last8=Gillespie-Lynch |first8=Kristen |date=2024-09-18 |title=Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241273029 |journal=Autism |language=en |pages= |doi=10.1177/13623613241273029 |pmid=39291753 |issn=1362-3613}} suggesting that disability arises out of a mismatch between a person and their environment.{{Cite book |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |url=http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf |title=The disability studies reader |date=1997 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-91470-3 |editor-last=Davis |editor-first=Lennard J. |location=New York |chapter=The Social Model of Disability}} Others argue that autism can be inherently disabling.{{cite journal | url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 | doi=10.1111/japp.12470 | title=A Critique of the Neurodiversity View | date=2021 | journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=335–347 | vauthors = Nelson RH }}{{Cite journal |last1=Shields |first1=Kenneth |last2=Beversdorf |first2=David |date=1 July 2021 |title=A Dilemma For Neurodiversity |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |journal=Neuroethics |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–141 |doi=10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |issn=1874-5504}} The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities.{{cite book |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline |vauthors=Robison JE |date=2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-13-8437-0 |veditors=Kapp SK |place=Singapore |pages=221–232 |chapter=My Time with Autism Speaks |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16 |doi-access=free |s2cid=210496353}}{{cite journal |last=Opar |first=Alisa |date=24 April 2019 |title=In search of truce in the autism wars |url=https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars |url-status=live |journal=Spectrum |publisher=Simons Foundation |doi=10.53053/VRKL4748 |s2cid=249140855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708195918/https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars/ |archive-date=8 July 2022 |access-date=9 July 2022 |doi-access=free}}

The causes of autism are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that the disorder is highly heritable and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant.{{Cite journal |last1=Hodges |first1=Holly |last2=Fealko |first2=Casey |last3=Soares |first3=Neelkamal |date=February 2020 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation |journal=Translational Pediatrics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=S55–S5S65 |doi=10.21037/tp.2019.09.09 |doi-access=free |pmid=32206584 |pmc=7082249 |issn=2224-4344}}{{Cite journal |last=Ratajczak |first=Helen V. |date=2011-03-01 |title=Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |journal=Journal of Immunotoxicology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=68–79 |doi=10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |issn=1547-691X |pmid=21299355}}{{cite journal |vauthors=Mandy W, Lai MC |title=Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=271–292 |date=March 2016 |pmid=26782158 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.12501 |doi-access=free}} Autism frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, and intellectual disability, and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population.{{Citation |last1=Bertelli |first1=Marco O. |title=Autism Spectrum Disorder |date=2022 |work=Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder |pages=391 |editor-last=Bertelli |editor-first=Marco O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4mtvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 |access-date=8 June 2022 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-95720-3 |quote=Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have transgender identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. |last2=Azeem |first2=Muhammad Waqar |last3=Underwood |first3=Lisa |last4=Scattoni |first4=Maria Luisa |last5=Persico |first5=Antonio M. |last6=Ricciardello |first6=Arianna |last7=Sappok |first7=Tanja |last8=Bergmann |first8=Thomas |last9=Keller |first9=Roberto |editor2-last=Deb |editor2-first=Shoumitro (Shoumi) |editor3-last=Munir |editor3-first=Kerim |editor4-last=Hassiotis |editor4-first=Angela |url-access=subscription}}{{Cite journal |last1=Lord |first1=Catherine |last2=Charman |first2=Tony |last3=Havdahl |first3=Alexandra |last4=Carbone |first4=Paul |last5=Anagnostou |first5=Evdokia |last6=Boyd |first6=Brian |last7=Carr |first7=Themba |last8=de Vries |first8=Petrus J |last9=Dissanayake |first9=Cheryl |author-link9=Cheryl Dissanayake |last10=Divan |first10=Gauri |last11=Freitag |first11=Christine M |display-authors=10 |date=2022 |title=The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism |url=https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2975811/Lancet+Commission.pdf?sequence=1 |journal=The Lancet |volume=399 |issue=10321 |pages=299–300 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 |pmid=34883054 |s2cid=244917920 |via=Norwegian Institute of Public Health |hdl=11250/2975811}}{{cite journal |last1=Graham Holmes |first1=Laura |last2=Ames |first2=Jennifer L. |last3=Massolo |first3=Maria L. |last4=Nunez |first4=Denise M. |last5=Croen |first5=Lisa A. |date=1 April 2022 |title=Improving the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Health Care of Autistic People |journal=Pediatrics |publisher=American Academy of Pediatrics |volume=149 |issue=Supplement 4 |pages=e2020049437J |doi=10.1542/peds.2020-049437J |issn=0031-4005 |pmid=35363286 |quote=A substantial proportion of autistic adolescents and adults are LGBTQIA+. Autistic people are more likely to be transgender or gender nonconforming compared with non-autistic people, and findings from a recent autism registry study suggest that among autistic people able to self-report on a survey, up to 18% of men and 43% of women may be sexual minorities. |doi-access=free}}

Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism,{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR |date=December 2021 |title=The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond |journal=Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |volume=51 |issue=12 |pages=4253–4270 |doi=10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 |pmc=8531066 |pmid=33624215}} and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.{{cite book |vauthors=Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J |title=Autism Spectrum Disorders |chapter=The Broad Autism Phenotype |year=2011 |pages=457–476 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-996521-2 |language=en-US |doi=10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031}}{{cite journal |vauthors=Chapman R, Veit W |title=Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact? |journal=Molecular Psychiatry |volume=26 |issue=11 |page=7069 |date=November 2021 |pmid=34697454 |doi=10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6 |s2cid=239771302 |doi-access=free}}. Estimates of autism prevalence have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased.{{cite journal |vauthors=Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J |title=The autism epidemic: fact or artifact? |language=English |journal=Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=721–730 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17513984 |doi=10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b}}{{cite journal |display-authors=6 |vauthors=Russell G, Stapley S, Newlove-Delgado T, Salmon A, White R, Warren F, Pearson A, Ford T |date=August 2021 |title=Time trends in autism diagnosis over 20 years: a UK population-based cohort study |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=674–682 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.13505 |pmid=34414570 |quote=The figure starkly illustrates an overall 787% increase in recorded incidence of autism diagnosis over 20 years. |s2cid=237242123 |doi-access=free|hdl=10871/126929 |hdl-access=free }} [https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1961 Lundström et al 2015 - fix ref] The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine activists that autism is caused by vaccines.{{cite journal |vauthors=DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT |date=September 2019 |title=The MMR Vaccine and Autism |journal=Annual Review of Virology |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=585–600 |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515 |pmc=6768751 |pmid=30986133}} Boys are far more frequently diagnosed than girls{{cite journal |display-authors=6 |vauthors=Maenner MJ, Shaw KA, Baio J, Washington A, Patrick M, DiRienzo M, Christensen DL, Wiggins LD, Pettygrove S, Andrews JG, Lopez M, Hudson A, Baroud T, Schwenk Y, White T, Rosenberg CR, Lee LC, Harrington RA, Huston M, Hewitt A, Esler A, Hall-Lande J, Poynter JN, Hallas-Muchow L, Constantino JN, Fitzgerald RT, Zahorodny W, Shenouda J, Daniels JL, Warren Z, Vehorn A, Salinas A, Durkin MS, Dietz PM |date=March 2020 |title=Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2016 |journal=MMWR. Surveillance Summaries |language=en-us |volume=69 |issue=4 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1 |pmc=7119644 |pmid=32214087}}, although this gap has been narrowing.{{citationneeded}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Dotted divider}}

Note: I have [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1996NUU48lsOgAyCJ0wiK1jfLa9_Qwgn9HiGlT8pkB4M/edit?usp=sharing copied the text of the article into a Google Doc that anyone can comment on], in order to start collecting notes about what ought to change, because I find Wikipedia's own interfaces extremely clunky for this sort of thing. Hopefully, keeping the rest of the article in mind while we focus on the lead will help us to navigate the potential issues that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY flags up.

--Oolong (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Divider line}}

While I, like @Oolong, would like the lead section to be significantly more respectful and neurodiversity-affirming, I also agree that we should be aiming to build bridges, but I still want to make some suggestions to make the proposal by @Oolong clearer and more neutral. Feel free to comment on them.

1) Is “officially known as” the best wording? On the one hand, it can encourage readers to just use autism in daily life contexts but on the other hand it can imply a sense of authority that is already conveyed in the second paragraph and doesn’t necessarily need repetition. But it might still be better than just calling it ASD and suggesting it to be a fact of nature.

2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it).

3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties.

4) Change „Being a spectrum disorder“ to „Being a spectrum“: the term disorder has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph makes it clear that diagnostic manuals classify autism as a disorder, using the term „disorder“ out of this context makes it appear more objective than it is.

5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition. [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/aut.2018.0035 1]

1) Change „healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder.“ to „healthy part of the diversity of humankind to be valued and supported, rather than a disorder to be treated.“

2) Remove the citation of Shield’s paper as it focuses mainly on the criminal justice system and states that its conclusions need not apply to autistic people who don’t commit crimes, which is the overwhelming majority. It is too marginal of an aspect to be included in the lead section. Maybe Russell (2020) [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21 2] could be cited as an analysis of critiques of the neurodiversity movement. The sentence that others view autism as inherently disabling would then have to be changed. It is also misleading because neurodiversity academics don’t state that autism cannot have inherently disabling features alongside neutral features and strengths [https://karger.com/hde/article/66/2/73/828432/The-Neurodiversity-Approach-es-What-Are-They-and 3]. It is a misconception and when deliberately used, a straw man.

3) Make it clear that the debate is changing and the support for the neurodiversity movement is growing rapidly. Your proposal makes it appear to be a stalemate conflict which it isn’t. Also highlight the growing importance of self-advocacy and of seeing autistic people as the primary experts on the topic [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00438/full 4]. Also cite Bottini et. Al (2024) [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030 5]. It is a secondary source with regard to the terminology being used in autism research. The fact that it is a primary source in its judgement of some of the terms as neurodiversity-affirming and others as not neurodiversity-affirming does not change that because critics would (if they are well-informed) not contend that not calling autism a disorder, for example, is neurodiversity-affirming while doing the opposite is not. Moreover, as @Robert McClenon has argued for, we should only apply the rigid standards for medically reliable sources for sources that are about biomedical information. So even someone who sees it as a primary source cannot reasonably contend its citation anymore. Additional useful sources to cite are: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1362361318820762 6] and [https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13534 7]

4) Maybe change „The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy ...“ to „There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among ...“

1) Write „autism is highly heritable“ instead of „the disorder is highly heritable“ (see my remark 4) for the first paragraph). This is completely neutral and even those who view autism as a disorder should be able to agree.

2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2215036619302895 8], ideally with a reference to masking and stigma [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735821001239 9].

1) Change „Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis“ to „There is an ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria“ and also cite [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_13 10].

2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“

3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females [https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0890-8567(17)30152-1 11] and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed.

--LogicalLens (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, I support most of these suggestions. I suggest we wait a day or so to see if any other parties to this dispute have other feedback, before co-producing a draft lead integrating suggestions.

:A few of your suggestions, like 'entirely disproven conspiracy theory', may be unnecessarily wordy - important to keep in mind the guidelines here, I think, given how many of the problems with the existing entry relate to its ballooning length.

:Just to reinforce the overall thrust of what we're trying to do here: accoding to Wikipedia guidelines, 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 avoiding language that disparages autistic people should be a priority, as long as it doesn't otherwise violate neutrality (or other guidelines).

:The Manual of Style also explicitly states, in case there was any doubt: "Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." Oolong (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::This paper [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867423008589] mentions the tensions between autistic people and the research community, calling for a paradigm shift in biomedical autism research. The authors are important figures in Europe's largest autism research project, AIMS-2-Trials. It could be cited at the end of the second paragraph where it is about the controversy between the models. LogicalLens (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have re-drafted the lead below. As you will see, I have adopted many but not all of LogicalLens's suggestions. Brevity has been my biggest consideration where I have not accepted their changes; in a couple of cases, I have left the wording as it was in the name of maximising neutrality. One or two other bits have been tweaked for the sake of clarity or, again, brevity. "Health authorities classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder" is shorter, for example, and, I think, unambiguously accurate; the reason the diagnostic manuals and guidelines are seen as important is because they are produced and endorsed by medical or public health authorities, after all.

I have also tweaked the description of the social model of disability slightly, and the following sentence now reads "It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling" - I take LL's point that this is argued by many of the same people taking the former position, so saying 'other people' here (let alone 'other scientists'!) was misleading. Few proponents of the medical model are absolutist about it, certainly in the context of the neurodiversity movement.

{{Dotted divider}}

{{tqb|text=

Autism, referred to in clinical contexts as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a spectrum, autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language.

Health authorities classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder, characterised by deficits.(World Health Organization: International Classification of Diseases version 11 (ICD-11)): https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624{{Cite web |date=2013-08-28 |title=Overview {{!}} Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management {{!}} Guidance |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}{{Cite web |title=IACC Subcommittee Diagnostic Criteria - DSM-5 Planning Group |url=https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc/subcommittees/resources/dsm5-diagnostic-criteria.shtml |access-date=1 August 2024 |website=iacc.hhs.gov}}{{Cite journal |last1=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 |last2=Dalwai |first2=Samir |last3=Ahmed |first3=Shabina |last4=Udani |first4=Vrajesh |last5=Mundkur |first5=Nandini |last6=Kamath |first6=S. S. |last7=C Nair |first7=M. K. |date=2017-05-15 |title=Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ |journal=Indian Pediatrics |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=385–393 |doi=10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4 |issn=0974-7559 |pmid=28368272}}{{Cite journal |last1=Howes |first1=Oliver D |last2=Rogdaki |first2=Maria |last3=Findon |first3=James L |last4=Wichers |first4=Robert H |last5=Charman |first5=Tony |last6=King |first6=Bryan H |last7=Loth |first7=Eva |last8=McAlonan |first8=Gráinne M |last9=McCracken |first9=James T |last10=Parr |first10=Jeremy R |last11=Povey |first11=Carol |last12=Santosh |first12=Paramala |last13=Wallace |first13=Simon |last14=Simonoff |first14=Emily |last15=Murphy |first15=Declan G |date=2018-01-01 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology |journal=Journal of Psychopharmacology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |doi=10.1177/0269881117741766 |issn=0269-8811 |pmc=5805024 |pmid=29237331}} An alternative perspective, arising out of autistic communities,{{Cite book|date=2020 |editor-last=Kapp |editor-first=Steven K. |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0|isbn=978-981-13-8436-3 }} is neurodiversity, which positions autism as a healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder - with advantages, as well as disadvantages. This is usually associated with some version of the social model of disability,{{Cite journal |last1=Dwyer |first1=Patrick |last2=Gurba |first2=Ava N |last3=Kapp |first3=Steven K |last4=Kilgallon |first4=Elizabeth |last5=Hersh |first5=Lynnette H |last6=Chang |first6=David S |last7=Rivera |first7=Susan M |last8=Gillespie-Lynch |first8=Kristen |date=2024-09-18 |title=Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241273029 |journal=Autism |language=en |pages= |doi=10.1177/13623613241273029 |pmid=39291753 |issn=1362-3613}} suggesting that disability generally arises when a person's environment does not accommodate their needs.{{Cite book |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |url=http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf |title=The disability studies reader |date=1997 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-91470-3 |editor-last=Davis |editor-first=Lennard J. |location=New York |chapter=The Social Model of Disability}} It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling.{{cite journal | url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 | doi=10.1111/japp.12470 | title=A Critique of the Neurodiversity View | date=2021 | journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=335–347 | vauthors = Nelson RH }}{{Cite journal |last1=Shields |first1=Kenneth |last2=Beversdorf |first2=David |date=1 July 2021 |title=A Dilemma For Neurodiversity |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |journal=Neuroethics |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–141 |doi=10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |issn=1874-5504}} There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among autistic people, practitioners, researchers and charities.{{cite book |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline |vauthors=Robison JE |date=2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-13-8437-0 |veditors=Kapp SK |place=Singapore |pages=221–232 |chapter=My Time with Autism Speaks |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16 |doi-access=free |s2cid=210496353}}{{cite journal |last=Opar |first=Alisa |date=24 April 2019 |title=In search of truce in the autism wars |url=https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars |url-status=live |journal=Spectrum |publisher=Simons Foundation |doi=10.53053/VRKL4748 |s2cid=249140855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708195918/https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars/ |archive-date=8 July 2022 |access-date=9 July 2022 |doi-access=free}} Support for the neurodiversity approach has greatly increased in recent years among all of these groups.{{Cite journal |title=Moving from Disorder to Difference: A Systematic Review of Recent Language Use in Autism Research |journal=Autism in Adulthood |date=2024 |doi=10.1089/aut.2023.0030 |last1=Bottini |first1=Summer B. |last2=Morton |first2=Hannah E. |last3=Buchanan |first3=Kelly A. |last4=Gould |first4=Kait |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=128–140 |pmid=39144072 |pmc=11319857 }}{{Cite journal |title=Annual Research Review: Shifting from 'normal science' to neurodiversity in autism science |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |date=2022 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.13534 |last1=Pellicano |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Den Houting |first2=Jacquiline |volume=63 |issue=4 |pages=381–396 |pmid=34730840 |pmc=9298391 }}

The causes of autism are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that autism is highly heritable and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant.{{Cite journal |last1=Hodges |first1=Holly |last2=Fealko |first2=Casey |last3=Soares |first3=Neelkamal |date=February 2020 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation |journal=Translational Pediatrics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=S55–S5S65 |doi=10.21037/tp.2019.09.09 |doi-access=free |pmid=32206584 |pmc=7082249 |issn=2224-4344}}{{Cite journal |last=Ratajczak |first=Helen V. |date=2011-03-01 |title=Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |journal=Journal of Immunotoxicology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=68–79 |doi=10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |issn=1547-691X |pmid=21299355}}{{cite journal |vauthors=Mandy W, Lai MC |title=Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=271–292 |date=March 2016 |pmid=26782158 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.12501 |doi-access=free}} Autism frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, intellectual disability, hypermobility{{Cite journal |last1=Donaghy |first1=Bethany |last2=Moore |first2=David |last3=Green |first3=Jane |date=2023-01-02 |title=Co-Occurring Physical Health Challenges in Neurodivergent Children and Young People: A Topical Review and Recommendation |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13575279.2022.2149471 |journal=Child Care in Practice |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=3–21 |doi=10.1080/13575279.2022.2149471 |issn=1357-5279}} and gastrointestinal problems.{{Cite journal |last1=Leader |first1=Geraldine |last2=Abberton |first2=Cathal |last3=Cunningham |first3=Stephen |last4=Gilmartin |first4=Katie |last5=Grudzien |first5=Margo |last6=Higgins |first6=Emily |last7=Joshi |first7=Lokesh |last8=Whelan |first8=Sally |last9=Mannion |first9=Arlene |date=January 2022 |title=Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review |journal=Nutrients |language=en |volume=14 |issue=7 |pages=1471 |doi=10.3390/nu14071471 |doi-access=free |pmid=35406084 |pmc=9003052 |issn=2072-6643}} Research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population.{{Citation |last1=Bertelli |first1=Marco O. |title=Autism Spectrum Disorder |date=2022 |work=Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder |pages=391 |editor-last=Bertelli |editor-first=Marco O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4mtvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 |access-date=8 June 2022 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-95720-3 |quote=Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have transgender identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. |last2=Azeem |first2=Muhammad Waqar |last3=Underwood |first3=Lisa |last4=Scattoni |first4=Maria Luisa |last5=Persico |first5=Antonio M. |last6=Ricciardello |first6=Arianna |last7=Sappok |first7=Tanja |last8=Bergmann |first8=Thomas |last9=Keller |first9=Roberto |editor2-last=Deb |editor2-first=Shoumitro (Shoumi) |editor3-last=Munir |editor3-first=Kerim |editor4-last=Hassiotis |editor4-first=Angela |url-access=subscription}}{{Cite journal |last1=Lord |first1=Catherine |last2=Charman |first2=Tony |last3=Havdahl |first3=Alexandra |last4=Carbone |first4=Paul |last5=Anagnostou |first5=Evdokia |last6=Boyd |first6=Brian |last7=Carr |first7=Themba |last8=de Vries |first8=Petrus J |last9=Dissanayake |first9=Cheryl |author-link9=Cheryl Dissanayake |last10=Divan |first10=Gauri |last11=Freitag |first11=Christine M |display-authors=10 |date=2022 |title=The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism |url=https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2975811/Lancet+Commission.pdf?sequence=1 |journal=The Lancet |volume=399 |issue=10321 |pages=299–300 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 |pmid=34883054 |s2cid=244917920 |via=Norwegian Institute of Public Health |hdl=11250/2975811}}{{cite journal |last1=Graham Holmes |first1=Laura |last2=Ames |first2=Jennifer L. |last3=Massolo |first3=Maria L. |last4=Nunez |first4=Denise M. |last5=Croen |first5=Lisa A. |date=1 April 2022 |title=Improving the Sexual and Reproductive Health and Health Care of Autistic People |journal=Pediatrics |publisher=American Academy of Pediatrics |volume=149 |issue=Supplement 4 |pages=e2020049437J |doi=10.1542/peds.2020-049437J |issn=0031-4005 |pmid=35363286 |quote=A substantial proportion of autistic adolescents and adults are LGBTQIA+. Autistic people are more likely to be transgender or gender nonconforming compared with non-autistic people, and findings from a recent autism registry study suggest that among autistic people able to self-report on a survey, up to 18% of men and 43% of women may be sexual minorities. |doi-access=free}} Autistic people are also significantly more likely to experience anxiety and depression, especially if they feel the need to mask their autism.{{Cite journal |title=Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review |journal=Clinical Psychology Review |date=2021 |doi=10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102080 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735821001239 |last1=Cook |first1=Julia |last2=Hull |first2=Laura |last3=Crane |first3=Laura |last4=Mandy |first4=William |volume=89 |pmid=34563942 }}

There is ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism,{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR |date=December 2021 |title=The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond |journal=Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |volume=51 |issue=12 |pages=4253–4270 |doi=10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 |pmc=8531066 |pmid=33624215}}[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_13 fix this citation] and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.{{cite book |vauthors=Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J |title=Autism Spectrum Disorders |chapter=The Broad Autism Phenotype |year=2011 |pages=457–476 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-996521-2 |language=en-US |doi=10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031}}{{cite journal |vauthors=Chapman R, Veit W |title=Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact? |journal=Molecular Psychiatry |volume=26 |issue=11 |page=7069 |date=November 2021 |pmid=34697454 |doi=10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6 |s2cid=239771302 |doi-access=free}}. Estimates of autism prevalence have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased.{{cite journal |vauthors=Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J |title=The autism epidemic: fact or artifact? |language=English |journal=Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=721–730 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17513984 |doi=10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b}}{{cite journal |display-authors=6 |vauthors=Russell G, Stapley S, Newlove-Delgado T, Salmon A, White R, Warren F, Pearson A, Ford T |date=August 2021 |title=Time trends in autism diagnosis over 20 years: a UK population-based cohort study |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=674–682 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.13505 |pmid=34414570 |quote=The figure starkly illustrates an overall 787% increase in recorded incidence of autism diagnosis over 20 years. |s2cid=237242123 |doi-access=free|hdl=10871/126929 |hdl-access=free }} {{Cite journal |title=Autism phenotype versus registered diagnosis in Swedish children: prevalence trends over 10 years in general population samples |journal=The BMJ |date=2015 |pmid=25922345 |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1961 |last1=Lundström |first1=S. |last2=Reichenberg |first2=A. |last3=Anckarsäter |first3=H. |last4=Lichtenstein |first4=P. |last5=Gillberg |first5=C. |volume=350 |pages=h1961 |doi=10.1136/bmj.h1961 |pmc=4413835 }} The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine activists that autism is caused by vaccines.{{cite journal |vauthors=DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT |date=September 2019 |title=The MMR Vaccine and Autism |journal=Annual Review of Virology |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=585–600 |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515 |pmc=6768751 |pmid=30986133}} Boys are more frequently diagnosed than girls{{cite journal |display-authors=6 |vauthors=Maenner MJ, Shaw KA, Baio J, Washington A, Patrick M, DiRienzo M, Christensen DL, Wiggins LD, Pettygrove S, Andrews JG, Lopez M, Hudson A, Baroud T, Schwenk Y, White T, Rosenberg CR, Lee LC, Harrington RA, Huston M, Hewitt A, Esler A, Hall-Lande J, Poynter JN, Hallas-Muchow L, Constantino JN, Fitzgerald RT, Zahorodny W, Shenouda J, Daniels JL, Warren Z, Vehorn A, Salinas A, Durkin MS, Dietz PM |date=March 2020 |title=Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2016 |journal=MMWR. Surveillance Summaries |language=en-us |volume=69 |issue=4 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1 |pmc=7119644 |pmid=32214087}}, although this gap has been narrowing.{{Cite journal |title=What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |journal=Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |date=2017 |pmid=28545751 |url=https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(17)30152-1/abstract |last1=Loomes |first1=R. |last2=Hull |first2=L. |author3=Mandy WPL |volume=56 |issue=6 |pages=466–474 |doi=10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013 }}

{{reflist-talk}} }}

{{Dotted divider}}

I await guidance from @Robert McClenon on how to proceed with feeding back on and refining this draft.

--Oolong (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oolong, I sometimes find it hard to find/re-find draft text amidst the wall of other text on the page. Would you mind using something like the {{tq2}} template to set the draft text off? (That's the template I'm familiar with, but perhaps there's another that has a similar effect.) Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::FYI (for everyone):

::{{tq2}} = {{tqb}} = [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Talk_quote_block Template:Talk quote block]

:: -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, I wondered what markup you were using for that! Yes, I'm happy to - but note that this one has the heading #Redraft so you should be able to find it that way! Oolong (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

: Further edits: "especially if they feel the need to mask their autism" - naming autistic masking, at LogicalLens's suggestion. "characterised by deficits", "hypermobility[1] and gastrointestinal problems" suggested by Urselius. Note that the references have been added as bare links because the visual editor is currently not available for this section (I have no idea why not). --Oolong (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Oolong, @Robert McClenon, I am willing to accept the amended redraft by Oolong as a compromise and would consider the dispute over the lead section to be resolved at the current state of reliable sources if this draft was adopted, although I think that the sentence "It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling." sounds a bit unnatural at its place and perhaps, a new editor will step in and blow away our consensus. It was right to change the previous wording "Others argue" because neurodiversity proponents do not deny that autism can sometimes be inherently disabling but now it sounds a bit odd. LogicalLens (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that for autistics who cannot use, or have difficulties using, the spoken word, but have average, or above average intelligence, it is difficult to interpret this as anything other than a disability inherent to their autism. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't argue for weakening the sentence anymore. The thing that I wanted to point out is that before the change, the sentence started with "others argue" which fit into the paragraph but misrepresented the neurodiversity advocates who also agree that there are aspects of autism than can be inherently disabling. Now it sounds a bit odd and out of context to me, but maybe that is just my perception and everyone else is fine with it.

::::In a reply to @Oolong a few days ago I suggested writing "aspects of autism can be inherently disabling". Maybe critics of the neurodiversity viewpoint see this as an unacceptable weakening. As I have already written, I accept the current draft by @Oolong. LogicalLens (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Urselius, AIUI if you're using the social disability model, then being non-speaking could be "an impairment/inability/incapacity/debility/problem inherent to their autism", but it cannot be a disability, because that model defines the word disability in ways that exclude inherent disability. Disability in that model is what you can't do because society is insufficiently accommodating; it is not what you can't do inherently. Being non-speaking can be inherent to their autism, but in this model it can only be disabling if society fails to accommodate non-speakingness, and it stops being disabling if society starts accommodating non-speakingness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I replied in the back-and-forth section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Autism_discussion#c-LogicalLens-20250122021500-Unhelpful_framing_and_misinterpretation:] as writing back and forth is discouraged in this section here. LogicalLens (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I thank the editors who are developing a proposed revised draft of the lede section. I have one question, and that is: Do you think that you will be able to develop a draft that has the support of those editors who want to rework the article to reflect the neurodiversity viewpoint? My plan, as I have noted above, is to prepare an RFC for the lede section, knowing that it may have to be revised again after the body of the article is revised.

I am responding to the comments about the walls of text that have been posted by moving this dispute. I have created two DRN subpages for the discussion of the article on Autism. I am copying all of the material except the back-and-forth discussion to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism, and am requesting that future work be in that subpages. I have copied the back-and-forth discussion to a separate subpage, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism discussion. In the near future, I will be collapsing the previous dispute resolution on Autism in the main DRN page so that it does not overwhelm other cases.

Are there any questions at this point either about future procedures for this task, or about the Autism dispute in general?

User:FactOrOpinion said that they had three questions. User:FactOrOpinion had written:

{{tqb|

:* In DRN Rule G, you said {{tq|Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.}} Would you clarify when it's appropriate to have a back-and-forth discussion with someone in the Back-and-forth discussion section? For example, is it fine for editors to use this section whenever we want to respond to something another editor wrote, or — given your point that back-and-forth discussion on the Talk page already failed to resolve the content issues — would you like us to reserve the use of this section to limited situations, and if so, would you briefly describe these situations?

:* You emphasized "Comment on content, not contributors" several times in the DRN rule. If I think an exchange is veering into that territory, is it acceptable to give a gentle reminder, or is that something that I should leave entirely to you?

:* I lack the knowledge base to "either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article." Is it acceptable for me to contribute in smaller ways when I think I might be helpful, or would you rather that I simply step back from any active participation (perhaps with the thought that such limited participation is as likely to distract as to help)? If it's the latter, I will likely continue to read some of the exchanges for my own learning, but I'm totally fine with it if you'd rather that I no longer comment. }}

I will try to reply to questions 1 through 3. Question 1 is how much back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the section for back-and-forth discussion. Since that section has already become something of a great monster with tentacles, I might as well allow unlimited discussion, permitting the thing to grow more tentacles. The advantage and disadvantage to allowing unlimited back-and-forth discussion is that most of us will ignore the back-and-forth discussion. I have not yet thought about a vehicle for limited back-and-forth discussions to which attention should be paid. Question 2 is about what to do if the discussion becomes personal. At this point, I will probably ignore inappropriate discussion in the section for back-and-forth discussion , and so I will not take issue with reminders that the discussion is getting personal. Question 3 is about whether limited participation in the discussion will be useful, and the answer is yes. If an editor doesn't want to make a major contribution to the discussion, but is ready to make minor contributions, go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:You asked {{tq2|text=" Do you think that you will be able to develop a draft that has the support of those editors who want to rework the article to reflect the neurodiversity viewpoint?"}}

:I would say it's looking promising; nobody has objected in any major ways to the draft as it stands. @Urselius indicated approval, subject to a couple of sensible edits, which I will incorporate. @LogicalLens hasn't indicated yet whether they're happy with the extent to which I've incorporated their earlier suggestions, I don't think.

:@Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan and @RIT RAJARSHI haven't fed back on the lead directly, so far - I think the arguments may have pushed them to take a break from editing, and I wonder if that's what had already happened with @TempusTacet before this process started, so hiving off the back-and-forth discussions seems like a sensible move to me. Thanks for that. Oolong (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've just been reminded that I asked this a while back and never had a response:

:Would it be appropriate to reinstate the {{unbalanced}} tag on the autism page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. Oolong (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon, I have gone ahead and re-instituted the unbalanced tag, reasoning that we have a general agreement that the article as it stands is unbalanced.

::@Urselius and @LogicalLens have both endorsed this draft now. Would you be content to initiate an RfC?

::Thanks! Oolong (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to thank User:Oolong and the other editors who have cooperated on the draft rewrite of the lede section. Are we ready to submit this draft to an RFC to replace the current lede section? If not, does anyone have any specific issues or questions, or do you just want more time to work on it?

Are there any other questions about this matter?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I vote "Yes" to start an RfC to discuss the revised lede written by Oolong (with input from other editors). -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Urselius (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Shouldn't it be drafted at Draft:Autism? Where is it being drafted? Anthony2106 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Anthony2106, it shouldn't be in draft space, as the Autism article already exists. This is only a draft for revising the lead of the existing article. The draft is above on this page, under the title "Redraft". Here's a link to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well. Oolong, there are a couple of small errors. In "hypermobility[18] and gastrointestinal problems.[19]", the citation notes were inadvertently added as inline external links instead. Also, reference 12 has a cite journal error (because of the {{cite journal |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x}} at the end after the Opar citation; I'm not sure whether you'd intended that to be a second use of Shields and Beversdorf or if it was there inadvertently). FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks!

:Perhaps not entirely inadvertent, but I appreciate you drawing attention to it, as I had meant to return and fix it - the visual editor doesn't work in the Wikipedia namespace for some reason, and I was flummoxed by the extra input required for the manual template. I fear the other error arose from an attempt to add an additional reference manually; I've taken it out now, and inserted the other citations correctly by pasting them into my User page and then copying the Wikicode generated across!

:I feel like I may be missing an easier way, but I can't think what it might be. Oolong (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just copy paste it into your sandbox to use the visual editor then paste it back. T Anthony2106 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Nothing works on phone

:::There should really be an offline wikitext interpreter/parser for writing pages offline. There are some alternative parsers but they probably don't have a visual mode. Anthony2106 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::Oh you already did that, but did you do it with one citation or the whole page? Because can copy paste this whole page into your sandbox to use the visal editor. But there might be a reason why you shouldn't do this. Like ive seen some people say they made a small edit, but then they also added spaces in the template boxes for no reason.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartbreak_High_%282022_TV_series%29&diff=1219176393&oldid=1219176393&variant=en] (that was one of my first edits with my account, ive gotten better at writing these and wrote most of season 2, the autistic character is really good) Anthony2106 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The reason that the visual editor isn't enabled for this namespace is because it doesn't play well with pages the size of WP:ANI. Also, it doesn't support ::::indentation formatting. But you could click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Autism?veaction=edit to bypass that setting.

:::Anthony, I believe that the visual editor (but not the mw:citoid service for automatic ref formatting) can also run offline. I don't know if they're still maintaining the non-MediaWiki version (PLoS used to run it), but you could install MediaWiki with the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree too. LogicalLens (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's! Thanks, {{User|Robert McClenon}}. --Oolong (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I was asked whether the proposed rewrite of the lede will go in Draft:Autism, and the answer that it will not go there because draft space is for new articles is correct. I have created a subpage, Talk:Autism/Draft Lede, where the proposed replacement lede section can go. Please put the current version of the proposed rewrite of the lede into the subpage, and we will review it to see whether it is ready for an RFC. For arcane reasons, that subpage is in the Talk namespace, and I think that the visual editor works in the Talk namespace, although I have never tried to use it. (I understand the conventional editor and dislike the visual editor, but I know that the visual editor is fine for those people for whom it is fine.)

Please put the revised lede in the subpage, and provide a statement when it is ready for my final review before the RFC.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Use this link if you want the visual editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism/Draft_Lede?veaction=edit WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for this! That's really helpful to know.

::Note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism/Draft_Lede&veaction=edit this is the correct link] - you can't use ? twice in a URL without things getting confused. Oolong (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Robert McClenon, RfC questions/comment:

:Oolong has added a copy of the draft to the subpage you created. But my understanding is that the RfC is going to ask people to choose between the draft lead and the current lead. Are you planning that the RfC will take place on the subpage you created? If so, I think it will be easier for editors to respond to the RfC if there's also a copy of the current lead on that subpage. I suggest that collapse top/bottom templates be placed around the draft and, if you agree that a copy of the current lead should also appear on that subpage, that a second pair of collapse top/bottom templates be placed around the copy of that current lead. I think this will make it easier for editors responding to the RfC, given the amount of text involved.

:Also, there needs to be phrasing for the RfC itself. I'm guessing that it will be something quite short (along the lines of: Which text should be used for the lead of the Autism article, A or B?). Are you going to write the RfC question, or do the rest of us need to settle on that? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an answer to two questions by User:FactOrOpinion. First, the RFC will take place on the main article talk page, Talk:Autism. Second, I will write the RFC question. I have written many RFC questions. I will address other issues later.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{User|Robert McClenon}} and anyone else following, the draft is ready for review. Thanks.

--Oolong (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have prepared the draft RFC for your review. The draft RFC is at Talk:Autism/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. Please do not vote in the Survey or engage in Discussion, because then those votes or comments will precede the starting time of the RFC, which may confuse the other participants and may confuse the closer. When it is ready to go live, I will move it to Talk:Autism, will activate the template, and will insert my signature below the opening question. This way, the opening question, which will be displayed by a bot in a list of all open RFCs, will be short. Editors who want to see the proposed revised lede can either click on the link to view the subpage or scroll down to the Comparison section.

I don't have any questions at this point, but am ready for questions from the participants, either about the RFC or anything else related. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I have inserted the missing paragraph from the draft RFC. Thank you for calling this to my attention. That illustrates why I thought that this should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Two questions: (1) On Talk:Autism/Draft RFC should we comment only on how the RfC question is written, or should we do that and also comment on the proposed lede? I am assuming it is the former (comment only on how the RfC question is presented), but I am not positive.

:(2) If we want to comment on the RfC question you have written, would we post such a comment here or at Talk:Autism/Draft RFC, between {{reflist-talk}} and ===Survey===? I assume we should comment here, but I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes, so I want to make sure.

:Many thanks Robert McClenon for your skillful leadership and advice. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the question. However, you forgot the first paragraph of the current lead section.

Although we don't yet know the outcome of the RfC, we could maybe start discussing some of the changes that should be made to the rest of the article. Parts of that discussion are not only about medical/neurodiversity viewpoints. For example, it was suggested by @Oolong to shorten parts of the article because it is too long for us to manage and keep up to date. Also, the inclusion of some common autistic experiences was controversial because some of the sources supporting them don't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for medically reliable sources, but as we have agreed upon, only normal reliable sources have to be provided for non-medical aspects.

I also think much of the dispute here is more about language than about content. So if we could reach a consensus to follow the recommendations of, for example, the UK's health authority NHS [https://www.england.nhs.uk/learning-disabilities/about/get-involved/involving-people/making-information-and-the-words-we-use-accessible/] (bottom of the page) on language use for autism (the US' NIH page has suddenly disappeared, as all of their style guides), rewriting the article could become easier. LogicalLens (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}, I've noticed your absence, and I want to make sure that you saw that this dispute resolution discussion had not actually been closed (despite the "Closed discussion" notice that appeared as the title of the collapsed Autism discussion at the DRN on 1/17, and the subsequent archiving of the discussion there). It was only moved to this subpage and to a discussion subpage.

:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, please see my note above to Димитрий. Because he said that his time constraints meant that he was unable to visit the DRN every 48 hours, I think it's possible that he entirely missed the move here, only seeing that the discussion on the main DRN page had been closed. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

:Re: the RfC draft, I agree with the RfC question. The explanation makes sense, though I might move the last sentence of that paragraph, instead making it the first sentence of the paragraph (and deleting "So"). LogicalLens is correct that somehow the first paragraph of the current lead was omitted from the copy in the RfC. I've been working on an RfC for a policy page, and WhatamIdoing recommended to me that I place the Discussion section before the Survey section, to encourage people to discuss the issue before jumping right in with their !vote. Just something to consider. Is there a reason for the References appearing above the Survey/Discussion sections rather than at the bottom of the page? I'd rather that it either be moved to the bottom or collapsed if it remains in the middle. Also, something happened with a few of the references: #s 28, 29, and 34 are empty. With #s 28 and 29, I'm guessing that it's because these first appear in the Autism article as references in the Info box, but I'm not certain, and I don't know why #34 is empty. There are also two footnotes in the current lead, a and b. The first one appears in the missing first paragraph. The text of the second one wasn't copied over either (it appears as [a] in the current Draft, but is currently empty, and it will become [b] once the first paragraph of the article is added to the Draft). Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов Anthony2106 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Anthony, thank you for notifying me about the change. I read with interest the replies and updated status of the dispute. For now, I do not intend to engage in further dialogue as it is unlikely to lead to consensus. The structure of this DRR has led to a circulatory of reasoning and hasn't been productive in addressing the primary issues we raised in talk pages, which include the context, relative quality and quantity of sources. For example, I see the NIMH and NHS document continues to be cited for justifying terminology usage yet this ignores the repeatedly highlighted context that their claims are contradicted by other guidelines of theirs, one of which supersedes them. There also seems to be a strong sense of urgency to conclude matters and I don't think the moderator has clarified or been consistent with the time limit. In one instance, a conclusion was prematurely reached before the 72-hour response period had elapsed to which I enquired about twice but did not receive a response on either occasion from them. While it's reassuring to see the proposed drafts are undergoing review, they should note the concerns expressed previously about the interpretation of the evidence which are likely, in my opinion, to show similar levels of relevance. I strongly encourage participants to check the context of all the data and publish an erratum. I would encourage the authors also to revise their proposed draft accordingly with this information as it is currently misleading. Popular encyclopaedic articles such as this are important for the public's perception of science. A current and future challenge for Wikipedia is to ensure its content is both accurate and balanced. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов - I hope you will participate in the RfC. Your voice is an important one in this dialogue. I'm listening. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 18:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Robert McClenon, I see that you've fixed the first paragraph, but I'm not sure if you saw my comment above, which also noted a few other things, such as a few empty footnotes and references.

::::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов, I join Markworthen in hoping that you'll participate in the RfC when it opens.

::::@Markworthen, I assume that the moderator will respond, but re: your second question: the answer right now is "neither." Once the RfC is opened, all of us who wish to respond will respond there; that way, the RfC closer will be able to read/consider our !votes. Right now, we just let the moderator know if we have any comments/questions about the RfC draft, and then we sit tight. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon, the bit about "Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for" should be removed, as editors who start RFCs do not get to unilaterally declare that other editors can't engage in normal discussion. I believe I've mentioned this fact to you in the past, for other RFCs. Per WP:RFC, the responses are "an ordinary Wikipedia discussion that follows the normal talk page guidelines and procedures", which means you can't tell people that they're not allowed to ask questions in the 'wrong' section or reply with your agreement to something someone else wrote.

:====Explanation of Procedure==== is a WP:BADHEAD problem. Section heading levels must be consecutive. If you don't like the way it looks, then use Template:Fake heading instead. The explanation itself could probably be placed at the end (it's not essential; you can prefer version #1 or #2 of the lead without knowing why #2 has been written). The contents of that paragraph are wordy and could probably be reduced by 30%.

:Also, the normal bold-faced formatting is missing from the first sentence of the proposed lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the RfC as it stands looks good.

It sounds like WhatamIdoing has a fair point about responses, although I'm not exactly sure how this works with this passage:

{{tq2|text=Responses may be submitted in a variety of formats. Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor. Others result in a threaded (indented) conversation involving multiple editors. Yet others offer one or more alternative proposals that are separately endorsed or opposed by editors using a polling process. Other RfCs combine polling with threaded discussions.}}

I think perhaps {{u|Robert McClenon}} was calling for the first one? Are these formats supposed to arise organically, or is this the call of whoever initiates the RfC?

Oolong (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. You can provide a structure that encourages the format you want (e.g., have a ===Discussion=== section heading), and you can gently ask for a style, but you can't insist that people follow the format you want. Even if you posted a rude nastygram at the top saying that you absolutely prohibited anyone to reply to anyone else, this is completely unenforceable. Editors will do whatever they want, and people starting RFCs need to be willing to accept that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon, this looks like a Double-barreled question. That is, we're asking people "Do you think lead #1 or #2 is better?" but if they pick #1, we intend to interpret this as endorsing the use of the medical model throughout the article, and if they pick #2, we intend to interpret this as endorsing the use of the neurodiversity model throughout. We should separate those questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, the formatting makes sense.

::You're probably right about the double-barrelled nature of the question being asked. I wonder what a well-balanced way of asking the implied question would look like?

::What exactly do we think is at stake here?

::It seems like there are various ways you could slice this. I don't think it's easy to boil this down to a simple yes/no question, at least not without making it sound leading:

::'Should we consider autistic people's views, in determining the contents and framing of this article?'

::'Should medical professionals be considered the ultimate authority on disorders of this sort?'

::I think Robert is taking as read that the article contains (and should contain) general information as well as biomedical information, hence non-WP:MEDRS sources are valid and appropriate for significant chunks of the article; I agree, and I think any reasonable person would, but there is an open question about how much non-biomedical info to include, and how do we decide what sorts of information to cover?

::There seems to be room for reasonable disagreement about how to interpret relevant Wikipedia guidelines:

::"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources."

::On some level, the question comes down to:

::Do reliable sources afford much prominence to neurodiversity-based perspectives?

::If yes, then it follows that the lead needs rewriting, and the overall balance of the article needs to be addressed.

::If no, it follows that the medical/pathology paradigm is (for now, at least) the only perspective that should be given much weight here at all.

::There are some background questions implied, about what counts as a reliable source at all in this context, but perhaps we can get away with leaving those to one side for now. Oolong (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The two questions would probably be something like this:

:::* Is this a better lead, or is that one?

:::* Does the existing body of the article put too much emphasis on biomedical viewpoints/too little on the social/neurodiversity viewpoints?

:::It should be possible for someone to reply that they prefer the longer lead but think the body should be focused on societal content, or that they prefer the shorter lead but think the body should be primarily biomedical content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think that general information is the opposite of biomedical POVs. General information includes biomedical things like prevalence, and does not necessarily include things like whether it's immoral to exclude people with atypical behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::I hadn't noticed that when I first read the RfC, but now see the issue you're raising. The RfC question says "Should the paragraphs in Talk:Autism/Draft Lede replace the current lede section of the Autism article?", but the Explanation of Procedure says "the primary purpose of this RFC is to obtain community input on a change in the focus and orientation of the article." I agree that if the goal is to learn both about the draft lead and also the orientation of the article as a whole, then there should be a second question about the second issue. But it's a lot to ask editors to read (or at least skim) the entire article before responding. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Good point, Whatamidoing. I have viewed the proposed lede as a good starting place for improving the article. Maybe we should phrase the question like that, for example:

:::"Is the proposed lede a good starting point for improving the article, keeping in mind that editors will continue to refine it through the usual consensus-building process?" Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 00:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to make a comment as someone otherwise uninvolved, but there is one area with wording problems I consider significant. The third paragraph opens with, "Health authorities". However, the following (oppositional) statement specifically states that autistic communities have an alternative perspective. This implies that an institution or small number of people is the source of the former viewpoint, which is misleading, especially to someone unfamiliar with who or what these "Health authorities" might be. This untrue implication undermines the medical perspective and induces a subtle bandwagon effect. It is better to be specific and truthful about who is supporting this perspective: a large (likely majority) proportion of scientific and medical professionals.

:The term "autistic communities" is also biased, presenting people with autism as some kind of unified bloc against "medical authorities" - this is not accurate, and many people with autism consider it to be a medical condition and disability. In a broader sense, these two phrases come off as someone writing with an agenda, attempting to persuade the reader of a certain perspective. It's the kind of thing I would do when I got paid to write things under names of people who don't exist.

:As a smaller nitpick, I do think that some mention should be made of people with autism who are nonverbal. For those people and their families, this reality is extremely impactful. The exclusion of this feels like "whitewashing" or someone who wants to suppress something that is uncomfortable, but true and important. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Just-a-can-of-beans, I don't expect the draft lead will be revised further before the RfC is opened (though the RfC itself anticipates that it will be revised later). After the RfC opens, I suggest that you post your comment there, so that everyone participating in the RfC (including the closer) can read it. I have no doubt that the editors participating here will consider the suggestions that a variety of people are likely to make during the RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Just-a-can-of-beans over here, but you probably know that. Anthony2106 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Just-a-can-of-beans - Good points. I hope you will participate in the RfC when it starts. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::From a logical viewpoint, health authorities classify it as a neurodevelopmental disorder because large proportions of scientific and medical professionals support the medical model viewpoint. Regarding the inclusion of the information that many scientific and medical professionals view autism as a disorder:

::1) It is a complicated question whether it is the majority because support for the neurodiversity viewpoint varies greatly between countries. For example, the Autralian health authority recommends taking a neurodiversity-affirming approach.[https://www.autismcrc.com.au/best-practice/assessment-and-diagnosis/second-edition]

::2) "Arising out of autistic communities" in this context does not imply that all autistic people support the neurodiversity view. Also, taking a neurodiversity-affirming approach does not deny disability. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13623613241273029] [https://karger.com/hde/article/66/2/73/828432/The-Neurodiversity-Approach-es-What-Are-They-and]

::3) Mentioning professionals for the medical model and only autistic communities for the neurodiversity paradigm is misleading because there are many professionals advocating for the neurodiversity-affirming viewpoint.

::4) Also read this interesting paper regarding the levels of support for the neurodiversity viewpoint among community members. [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/aut.2023.0202] It found that people who are not close to autistic individuals with intellectual disability are more likely to think that their challenges are less related to the environment (and more to the disability itself) while people close to autistic individuals with intellectual disability do not generally think so. LogicalLens (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@LogicalLens Your reply is not internally consistent. The different opinions of people of autism are not a problem for calling it "the autistic community" and yet the differing opinions of medical and scientific professionals are a problem for referring to them as the medical and scientific community?

:::Further, if you want to argue the matter on the subject of "majority" and you believe there is insufficient evidence for the medical/scientific standpoint to be called a majority opinion of the medical/scientific community, then you must also acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to call the neurodivergent viewpoint a majority for the autistic community as well. Personally, I doubt that this is actually a majority-held opinion in that community, based on those I have personally known who have autism.

:::Point 4 is also not relevant to this discussion. I do not know or care what the reasoning is behind why individual people think the ways that they do. I simply think that it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to be used as a platform for influencing those beliefs.

:::There is a simple reality here. The so-called "medical viewpoint", which itself is a questionable term, is stated in this draft lede as being supported only by vague authority figures, whereas the alternative perspective is presented as a community-led effort. This is overtly biased and manipulative language and it can and should cause this entire effort to fail if left in. There are two solution - either directly acknowledge the wider medical/scientific community support for that viewpoint, or change the follow-up sentence to something like, "Supporters of the neurodiversity perspective, which positions..." such that there is no implication of community support for one and not the other. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::By "autistic community", I believe that they mean something smaller than "people who happen to have autism". It seems to be closer to the distinction we might make between "anyone who has ever edited Wikipedia, even once" and "The Community™".

::::It is possible that editors will reject this proposed change to the lead because of this issue. However, if editors decide that this version (however imperfect it is) is better than the existing (also imperfect) version, then that particular sentence could be improved later. As there appears to be little interest in fixing it now, you might just keep an eye on Talk:Autism for the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::As a retired biomedical researcher (not in autism) I would refute that the medical and scientific communities can be conflated. They are not the same animal. Medical practises and opinions necessarily lag behind cutting edge science in any medically relevant field. Things like diagnostic manuals are often years behind changes in the attitudes of researchers. In my view, having tried to teach medical students experimental methodology, a medical training does not foster the same flexibility of thought that a scientific training does. There is a dichotomy between medical and scientific views on autism, with research scientists being far more amenable to considering the neurodiversity model as a valid approach than the medical establishment does. Anyone putting forward the concept of a monolithic medico-scientific consensus regarding autism is plain wrong. Urselius (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree Urselius, the same is true in clinical psychology. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is sort of an interim statement. I see that WhatamIdoing has said that the question of the RFC should be split into two questions, the first about the focus of the article, and the second about the rewrite of the lede to reflect the change in focus. I would like any editor who has an idea for a first question to propose wording for the first question, so that we can discuss and agree on the question. I also see that there is discussion about a point in the lede. I haven't read the comments from beginning to end yet, and will do so shortly, and will comment on the lede. So, for now, anyone who wishes to propose a first question is invited to do so.

I will comment further within a few hours.

Are there any questions at this point?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll give it a try: "Do you support the proposed revised introduction as a framework for rewriting the article, or do you oppose it and prefer to keep the current introduction, believing it accurately reflects our current understanding of autism?" -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:This is balanced but to me seems a bit verbose, and it may be unclear that there are two matters to consider. How about,

:Should this revised introduction replace the current page introduction? If accepted, this will be used as a framework to rewrite the entire page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::What would we do with answers like "I think the proposed revision is good, but I don't support it as a framework for rewriting the article"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::Earlier, in response to discussion here, Robert McClenon said {{tq|I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources.}} Similarly, in his Explanation of Procedure paragraph in the RfC draft, he says {{tq|the primary purpose of this RFC is to obtain community input on a change in the focus and orientation of the article.}} As I think about this more, I actually suggest shifting to that bigger question:

::* Should the focus of the Autism article change from viewing autism primarily as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources?

::I think that there should be links to some of the RFCBEFORE discussions on both the article's Talk page and in the DRN. I'd then present the Explanation of Procedure paragraph, but rewording it in light of the shift in the question. I'm no longer convinced that we need to have a second question about the draft lead itself. Rather, as part of elaborating on what kind of change is envisioned for the article, I'd present the current lead and the draft replacement lead, noting in the Explanation of Procedure paragraph that the draft is an example of how the article would change and — as is already in the Explanation — describing why we decided to start with the lead instead of the body, even though the normal sequence is lead follows body. State that if there is consensus for changing the focus of the article, the expectation is that draft lead would replace the current lead and serve as a framework for revising the body, perhaps with some changes in response to people's comments in the RfC, and recognizing the the lead might be revised again after the body is revised.

::I think that however people respond to the question above, if they want to make suggestions for improving the draft lead / voice their concerns about it (either as a lead per se or as a framework for revision of the body), they will. I suppose that it's possible that there will be a consensus for changing the focus of the article, yet so many concerns are voiced about the draft lead that a major redraft should occur before replacing the current lead, though I don't think that likely; I think it's more likely that people would only suggest smaller improvements rather argue for wholesale redrafting. But if the latter is the case, then at least we already know that there's a consensus for changing the focus of the article, and we have input about what people would like to see in the lead. Another possibility is to start with the question above and ask a second question:

::* Should the paragraphs in Talk:Autism/Draft Lead replace the current lead section of the Autism article and serve as a framework for revising the body of the article?

::If anyone has different answers for "replace the current lead" vs. "serve as a framework," they'll say. I don't think this question needs to be split apart to address that possibility. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The first phrasing you state omits the change in lede - this obscures the immediate effects of the vote and seems dishonest. The content of this lede is important to consider. If I were to go in and make significant changes to multiple paragraphs of this lede immediately after the vote, would that not seem inappropriate in the immediate aftermath of what is ostensibly a community consensus?

:::The second phrasing is still a single yes or no question, and this means that anyone answering this question (which is phrased as a yes or no, not an open-ended question) is prompted to either accept both components or reject both components. So I think I just simply agree with @WhatamIdoing that there should be two separate questions. Personally, I agree with the shift in perspective for the article, but I dislike the proposed lede and find more reasons to reject it each time I read it. I propose:

:::1. Should the focus of the page shift from a medical perspective that primarily views autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder, to a perspective incorporating both medical and alternative views?

:::2. Should the paragraphs in Talk:Autism/Draft Lead replace the current lead section?

:::Mitigating bias is important here. Saying "as they are described by reliable sources" is exceptionally bias-inducing, as it strongly implies that the "multiple viewpoints" are supported by a broader consensus from reliable sources, and that the medical/disordered viewpoint is not. There should be no comparative statements of legitimacy, popularity, or who supports what (and in this vein, I am borderline on excluding the word "medical"). I sat on and revised these two questions for a while before hitting the reply button. I think they are sufficient for an someone otherwise unfamiliar with this discussion to be able to make their own determination and voice a qualified opinion. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I suggest "both medical and other views", as alternative will make some editors think that Alternative medicine is intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I see that I wasn't clear enough. I suggested two ways of enacting this:

::::* The RfC presents a single question: {{tq|Should the focus of the Autism article change from viewing autism primarily as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources?}} (Fine with me to use WhatamIdoing's modification of your Question 1 instead.) Then give the Explanation, noting in the Explanation that (1) the juxtaposition of the current lead and draft lead is an example of what it would mean in practice for article text to change to focus on multiple viewpoints; (2) we started by drafting an alternative to the current lead because it seemed manageable as a start; (3) if consensus in the RfC is "yes," then the draft lead will replace the current lead and will serve as a framework for revising the body; and (4) after the body is revised, we'd revisit the lead to see if it needs to be revised further. Don't ask people to present !votes about the draft lead itself, but recognize that people may well comment on it in their !votes on the question, and improve the draft in light of those comments, before replacing the current lead. I don't think that this approach "obscures the immediate effects of the vote," as the Explanation would make clear in (3) that if consensus is "yes," the immediate effect would be to replace the current lead with the draft and then use that new lead as a framework for working on the body.

::::* The RfC presents two questions (this is what I meant by "Another possibility is to start with the question above and ask a second question"): {{tq|Should the focus of the Autism article change from viewing autism primarily as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources?}} and {{tq|Should the paragraphs in Talk:Autism/Draft Lead replace the current lead section of the Autism article and serve as a framework for revising the body of the article?}} Again, revise the Explanation as needed.

::::The point of the phrase about RSs was only to note that it's not necessary for all of the RSs to satisfy MEDRS, since some of the content of the page isn't medical content. It wasn't intended to bias anything. But it's fine with me to rephrase it, and WhatamIdoing's modification of your question 1 works for me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is apparently an ambiguous statement. It can be read as:

:::::* We want to have the POV that is in the sources, not the biomedical POV that we have now (implication: what we have now is not supported by sources).

:::::* We have the biomedical POV in MEDRS sources, which we intend to contrast with the POV that is in non-MEDRS sources.

:::::* We have the biomedical POV, and we want to add another POV, but just to reassure you, we don't mean a POV based on personal opinions or social media posts; we'll be using proper sources.

:::::If the middle one is meant, then "non-MEDRS reliable sources" might be clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we can just omit the text about RSs. It served a purpose in Robert McClenon's comment to us here, but I don't think it's needed in the RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::1) I think the problem here is that "as" can mean "because" and "how". The former could imply that only the other views are supported by reliable sources.

:::::::2) It is important to mention that there are reliable sources for viewpoints other than the medical model as it has sometimes been suggested in the talk section that the neurodiversity viewpoint is only supported by blogs or social media posts which is wrong.

:::::::3) It is not mentioned in the proposed RfC question that it is about giving the neurodiversity and non-pathological viewpoint appropriate weight (there is only a vague reference to "multiple viewpoints") and it does not say that a main point of our proposed change is using more neutral terms like "features, characteristics, support, interventions" instead of "symptoms, severity, functioning, treatment, cure, prevention" and contextualizing the term "disorder" by making it clear that it arises from the medical model instead of using it out of this context and thereby implying that it is objective or uncontroversial. LogicalLens (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We can continue to work on improving the questions, keeping in mind that the questions need to be worded neutrally. I think the overriding concern is whether the article is consistent with this NPOV statement: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." (Clearly a number of editors think the current article isn't consistent with that.) Ways in which this article might depart from NPOV: the relative amount of text devoted to the medical perspective vs. the neurodiversity perspective (and I don't know it there are any additional perspectives that are prominent in RSs, or if it's just those two), the specific language used (which you elaborated on in your point 3), the presence/absence of specific content (where one's view might vary with beliefs about who the audiences for the article are / what these audiences want to learn from the article), and the overall organization of the article. If there are other key ways that this plays out, please say. The challenge (for me at least) is how to word a question neutrally about these issues. I'll see if I can make any headway with that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::OK, I've worked on this some more. How does the following work?

:::::::::Viewpoints on autism include a medical perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity; 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. Reliable sources exist for both medical and non-medical information about autism.

:::::::::1. With respect to NPOV, does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize biomedical viewpoints relative to social/neurodiversity viewpoints? (Y/N)

:::::::::2. Should the paragraphs in the proposed revised lead replace the current lead? (Y/N)

:::::::::FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@FactOrOpinion This is very well-balanced. I also agree with @WhatamIdoing's issue with the word 'alternative' in my version, so I think I like your version better. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That sounds better. I also think that maybe discussing that some aspects can be seen as inherently disabling even under the neurodiversity paradigm is too complicated for this short paragraph. Perhaps editors will respond that they are in favor of a mixed view of the medical and the neurodiversity perspective and I consider this appropriate when I look at the reliable sources. LogicalLens (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Is my description of the social/neurodiversity perspective OK? (I'm still pretty new to learning about autism. I based it on wording in @Oolong's draft.) @Димитрий Улянов Иванов, I know you said that you didn't intend to engage in further dialogue here, but I'd appreciate it if you'd confirm that you're comfortable with the way I described the medical perspective. I based it on some of what you wrote in your Summary of dispute comment. I hope that you'll participate in the RfC, even though you don't want to participate further here at the DRN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Like I said, the neurodiversity perspective does not rule out that there can be inherently disabling features. I thought this is too complicated to address here but maybe other editors think differently about it. On the one hand, your current wording is simpler, on the other hand, editors might find the neurodiversity perspective implausible because of that simplification. Apart from that, your description of the neurodiversity perspective is accurate. LogicalLens (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No problem,I appreciate your efforts and for seeking clarification on these issues. I don't have time now to prepare an extensive review comparing the proposals and so will try to summarise my interpretation. Overall, its significantly better in terms of due weight to some other versions I saw offered but should be reworded to reflect the quality of the sources for accuracy and so the weight is more due. Consider the current wording in the article, which states:

::::::::::::"Public health authorities and guideline developers classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder, but the autism rights movement (and some researchers) disagree with the classification. From the latter point of view, autistic people may be diagnosed with a disability, but that disability may be rooted in the structures of a society rather than the person. On the contrary, other scientists argue that autism impairs functioning in many ways that are inherent to the disorder itself and unrelated to society. The neurodiversity perspective has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities."

::::::::::::The current wording may not be perfect, but it mentions the specific sources adhering to which perspective, and doesn't minimise or overstate the importance of one or the other perspective. For example, "On the contrary, other scientists argue that autism impairs functioning in many ways that are inherent to the disorder itself and unrelated to society" is far more accurate than just a passing mention of it being inherently disabling, or removing it entirely, as is the case with your proposal. That also gives due weight as both opinions on the issue are written with comparable detail. The inclusion of the terms public health authorities and guideline developers (andperhaps standardised diagnostic criteria as well) is also important to substantiate the reputability of the scientific classification of those terms, otherwise we risk portraying it as just two competitive viewpoints as if they had equal footing.

::::::::::::Reliable sources do exist for both positions but the quality and degree of sources and thus scientific consensus varies substantially, so I don't think this sentence is something we should write. It should be left up to the reader to determine that for themselves in my opinion based on the citations given.

::::::::::::On another note, portraying it as a "medical" perspective is very inaccurate for the reasons I have given before. While I do understand "medical" doesn't necessarily refer to "medicine" but can be synonymous with clinical, many reputable sources exist (e.g. systematic reviews) that reach the same conclusions but are not merely covering a clinical or medical context. Many are also not clinically/medically related at all.

::::::::::::Regarding the RfC, I'm not sure how these are structured but I will consider participating. Unfortunately, much of the dialogue that has taken place here and initially in talk pages has been very unconstructive so I'm hoping an RfC wouldn't just replicate these problems. More importantly, I hope any conclusions are not be based solely on participant consensus as some have advocated for, as that can be misleading, and I take issue with editors trying to steer the outcome by rallying support through promotion in spaces that align with their views. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов, I see that I wasn't clear enough. I was only asking whether you think that the wording "Viewpoints on autism include a medical perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity" is OK as a way of very briefly describing what the medical perspective is. I see that you don't like the name "medical perspective." What phrase would you prefer to "medical perspective"? (That is, we need to be able to name the two perspectives. Instead of contrasting "medical perspective" and "social/neurodiversity perspective," what one or two words would you use instead of "medical" there?)

:::::::::::::In terms of how RfCs are run, people pose an issue about which they want broader community input, most often by presenting two or a few alternative responses for editors to choose between. You can see some examples in this list of open RfCs. Each of those links to a different page where editors can respond to the question. We're trying to figure out how to phrase the RfC question for the Autism article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The term "medical" can cause confusion here because it mainly refers to the medical model of disability which is not restricted to the medical realm but generally describes the viewpoint that the problem with disabled people is the characteristics of the disabled person instead of the environment. It is an individualistic model and "medical" is used often as a synonym for that in this context because people who hold an individualistic viewpoint towards disability think the disability should be solved by medical interventions. LogicalLens (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I will quickly address questions about how many RFC question there should be and what the questions should be. My original idea, which we will call Option 1, had been that there would be one question, which would be whether to accept the rewritten lede section. If the replacement of the lede is approved, that would change the focus of the article to describe both the medical model and the neurodiversity model, and would initiate the rewriting of the sections of the article, to be followed, at the end, by a second revision of the lede to be consistent with the sections. WhatAmIDoing took exception to this approach, saying that this was a double-barreled question, one part being the change in focus of the article, and the other part being the specific wording of the lede. It appears that there are now at least two other ideas or options being discussed. Option 2 is first to ask about a change in the focus of the article, and then to ask about the specific wording of the lede. Option 3 seems to be first to ask about the rewrite of the lede, and then to ask whether the change in the lede means that the focus of the article should be changed. On the one hand, I still think that Option 1, which was my original idea, is a reasonable approach. However, I am willing to defer to a rough consensus. If the editors think that a free-standing question on whether to change the focus of the article is in order, I will suggest an Option 4, which is to defer any question about the lede, and instead present a single RFC to the community to ask whether to change the focus of the article. I was trying to avoid having the RFC ask any general or non-specific questions. However, if the editors think that we should address the general question of the focus of the article first, I am willing to follow the wishes of the participating editors. I will use my role as the moderator to veto Option 3, which seems to put a cart before a horse.

So I will ask the editors whether they prefer to proceed with Option 1, which is what is in the draft RFC, or to go with Option 2 or Option 4. I would prefer Option 4 over Option 2, as simpler, because any consensus to change the focus of the article permits us to begin reworking the sections, and because we don't need to revise the lede in the beginning if we know that we are changing the focus of the article.

Which option should we follow?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

In my view, it is better to ask for approval for the change in focus of the article, because I think this intended change does not necessarily become fully clear after reading the proposed change of the lead section and because I think that the discussion about details in the lead section will continue for a long time without us moving forward regarding the changes in the body. As I understand it, a decision through the RfC to change the focus of the article would automatically permit us to change the lede accordingly and your proposal to ask for approval for the new lede was just to be specific so that editors know what we are talking about (correct me if I am wrong). We could append the proposed new lede as an illustration without asking a yes/no question regarding the lede and also insert more information about what specifically we are intending to change, which we would have to discuss beforehand. LogicalLens (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support Option 4 and, as LogicalLens suggested, "append the proposed new lede as an illustration without asking a yes/no question regarding the lede." However, I suggest that we not "also insert more information about what specifically we are intending to change" because that would require more lengthy discussion, which would be exhausting. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :We might need to include something like "this proposed lede is an illustration, not a mandate, i.e., if one votes to support changing the focus of the article, that does not mean that we must use the proposed lede or that we would be restricted to changes in strict conformance to the content of the proposed lede" (wordsmithing welcome on how to phrase such an explanation). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that we should probably not include more information which would require a complicated discussion. The wording could be changed to "this proposed lede is an illustration, not a mandate, i.e., if the result of this RfC supports changing the focus of the article, the exact changes to the lede and the body will be discussed further". LogicalLens (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Your phrasing is much better. :0) -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 01:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 4 (I'm not yet sure which, but will try to reflect some more and strike one later.Either is fine with me, with a slight preference for Option 4.) I think the general question is one that might be difficult for many editors to weigh in on in any informed way. In order to assess whether the Autism article puts too much emphasis on biomedical viewpoints relative to social/neurodiversity viewpoints, you have to have a sense of the proportion of reliable sources associated with each of these viewpoints. As a newcomer to understanding autism, I can easily say that the article currently looks very biomedical-viewpoint heavy to me (even just skimming the names of all of the section headings), but even having read a bunch of the talk page and DRN exchanges, I don't know what the "right" proportions are. Maybe it's sufficient to think that it's too clinically/medically-focused and should shift in the direction of more social/neurodiversity content, even if I can't say how far it needs to shift. If we go with Option 4, I think Mark's suggestion makes sense re: being explicit about the draft lead being an illustration, not a mandate. An alternative might be to omit the current/draft leads, and instead list the current section headings and give an example of how those might change (in wording and sequence), though I understand Mark's concern about that potentially requiring a lengthy discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Option 2 (preferred) or Option 4, both would be fine. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• I do think Option 1 is basically okay, in that while it's double-barrelled in principle, I'm not convinced that the two implied questions can realistically be separated. Option 4 with the lede as an illustration (4b?) seems a very reasonable compromise to me.

: I suppose we still need to settle question of what exactly we're asking about the change of focus, right? I go on feeling like this is not something that lends itself to binary yes/no questions...

: I will add a note of mild concern here: while none of this is urgent, the existing lede is bad. Not just mildly unbalanced, but really poor. The whole thing, really, but in particular the section mentioning neurodiversity and disability is actively misleading, and quite clearly not backed up by the sources given. I'm wary of dragging on for weeks and weeks more without even starting to fix serious existing problems!

: --Oolong (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::The deficits in the existing lead are why I'm concerned about the double-barrelled question. I can imagine (some? a few?) people voting that the proposed lead is better than what we've got, so should be added as an incremental improvement, but that overall we should take a hard biomedical stance in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Mm, okay, I take your point, I guess that is plausible.

:::It's not my place to call it, but it sounds like we have a general consensus in favour of 4, but no real objections to 2 either (the difference between them seems small - either way we're asking about general direction, it's just a question of whether we expect to ask about the lead subsequently, right?)

:::@Robert McClenon what do you think?

:::[as an aside: I go on wondering if a conduct-based process would have been a better approach to this dispute, especially given the bad frozen lead; I do think we could have made a lot of progress if not for a series of misrepresentations...] Oolong (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Oolong, re: your aside, given that there is no significant dispute among the editors who continue to participate in the discussions here at the DRN (sometimes disagreements, yes, but nothing rising to the level of a significant dispute), I'm not sure that it makes sense to continue using the DRN.

::::I think it makes sense to move forward with the RfC. As you said, we have consensus for Option 4 (ask a single question about whether to change the focus of the article), and no real opposition to Option 2 (ask 2 questions, where the first is about a change in the focus of the article, and the second is about the specific wording of the lead). Returning to the specific text that would be used in the RfC, here's the current status of the draft questions:

:::::Prefatory text:

:::::Viewpoints on autism include a medical perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity; 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. Reliable sources exist for both medical and non-medical information about autism.

:::::Option 4:

:::::With respect to NPOV, does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize biomedical viewpoints relative to social/neurodiversity viewpoints? (Y/N)

:::::Note: copies of the current lead and a draft replacement lead are below. The draft replacement is an illustration of how the lead might shift if the consensus is "yes." However, it's only intended as an illustration, not as a mandate; if the result of this RfC supports changing the focus of the article, the exact changes to the lead and the body will be discussed further.

:::::Option 2:

:::::Questions:

:::::a) With respect to NPOV, does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize biomedical viewpoints relative to social/neurodiversity viewpoints? (Y/N)

:::::b) Should the paragraphs in the proposed revised lead replace the current lead? (Y/N)

::::

::::Two issues were raised re: the wording of the first sentence in the preface:

::::* Should the portion describing the social neurodiversity perspective be adjusted to account for the following? LogicalLens: "the neurodiversity perspective does not rule out that there can be inherently disabling features. I thought this is too complicated to address here but maybe other editors think differently about it. On the one hand, your current wording is simpler, on the other hand, editors might find the neurodiversity perspective implausible because of that simplification."

::::* Should the term "medical perspective" be modified? Димитрий Улянов Иванов: "portraying it as a "medical" perspective is very inaccurate for the reasons I have given before. While I do understand "medical" doesn't necessarily refer to "medicine" but can be synonymous with clinical, many reputable sources exist (e.g. systematic reviews) that reach the same conclusions but are not merely covering a clinical or medical context. Many are also not clinically/medically related at all." LogicalLens: "The term "medical" can cause confusion here because it mainly refers to the medical model of disability which is not restricted to the medical realm but generally describes the viewpoint that the problem with disabled people is the characteristics of the disabled person instead of the environment. It is an individualistic model and "medical" is used often as a synonym for that in this context because people who hold an individualistic viewpoint towards disability think the disability should be solved by medical interventions."

::::Unfortunately, Димитрий didn't say what term they'd prefer. But here's a possible rewrite of that first sentence in response to the comments above:

:::::Viewpoints on autism include a clinical/medical model of disability perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity; 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.

::::Is that any better? Would the second prefatory sentence ("Reliable sources exist for both medical and non-medical information about autism") also need to shift a bit? I'm hoping that we can come to agreement on the wording so that the RfC can be opened.

::::Sorry for such a long comment.

:::: FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Questions like "Does this article as a whole currently overemphasize ___?" always make me want to have a preceding question that says "Have you actually read this article recently?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The reason why I preferred option 4 over option 2 is that I think we would continue to discuss details of the lede for weeks without moving forward and that it would therefore be better to just use it as an illustration and discuss the details later. I also thought that an RfC result that permits us to change the focus of the article would automatically permit us to insert the new lede because that is a part of changing the focus. Option 2 would be better in my opinion if we had a perspective for settling our discussions on the lede proposal. Is that realistic? LogicalLens (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think it makes sense to have any further discussion of the draft lead now, even if people decide to go with Option 2 or Option 5. But we need to settle on the wording of the RfC itself. Does the following work any better than the previous version?

:::::::Viewpoints on autism include a clinical/medical model of disability perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity; 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.

::::::FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes. It could additionally be made clear that while it is correct that the medical model characterizes autism as having "varying levels of severity", the neurodiversity model does not deny the existence of different support needs but only the word "severity" which has a negative connotation. LogicalLens (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Would you mind just rewriting the text yourself? I'm not sure how to add that specific change. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Suggestion that also includes a more detailed illustration of what our proposed changes would look like:

:::::::::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. LogicalLens (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think we're getting bogged down in the disability stuff there - probably the key thing is just that the neurodiversity approach doesn't in any way precludeautism being a disability. Oolong (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The point isn't that "the neurodiversity approach doesn't in any way preclude autism being a disability". The point is that "the neurodiversity approach has a soft version of the social disability model that says that autism sometimes has inherent impairments in addition to the disabling experiences imposed by society". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think this point is sufficiently accounted for in my proposal and also agree with @FactOrOpinion and @Oolong that we should move forward because everyone of us is increasingly tired. LogicalLens (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Is that really a key point that we need to fully articulate in the lead section? I'm really not sure it is.

::::::::::::Not worth holding things up to argue about though, either way! Oolong (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It might not be important to include in the lead. I strongly agree that it's not worth holding things up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Any doctor who says "burden" can go fuck themselves, anyway where are all the options to vote? I know two of them are at the bottom but there are more aren't there? Or should I not vote because I haven't been joining in enough? Anthony2106 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Anthony2106, Robert McClenon describes the options in his Twelfth and Thirteenth statements; also see his statement 13.1. You'd probably want to post your preference in the Thirteenth statements by editors section. Robert McClenon was also asking for us "to propose the wording for the question for the RFC on the focus of the article." I posted a couple of possibilities in that Thirteenth statements by editors section, in case you have a preference or want to suggest an alternative. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Anthony, the use of innuendo in your statement is precisely this sort of highly provocative and biased writing that can complicate our efforts to reach a consensus or at least compromise on an issue. When someone comes in hot like this, experience will tell people that any response won't even be considered, just replied with more blind heat. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Dimitry what do you mean by "innuendo"? Anthony2106 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The profanity you used is sexual in nature.

:::::::::::::Dimitri, in casual speech, the original sexual meaning is unimportant; in context it means something closer to "If a doctor uses this word, then I don't care if he dies".

:::::::::::::Anthony, slang doesn't translate easily, and a lot of Wikipedia's editors don't speak English as a native language. Maybe try a more formal tone (whatever your school or work place would accept in a 'formal' context, not just chatting with your friends) to avoid confusing people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Anthony2106, I also agree that we should use a formal tone and remain as civil as possible. I understand and share your frustration about the deficit framing of autism but using such expressions does not help us here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Oh yeah the swear word, good point, sorry Anthony2106 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::As almost everyone here seems to agree that the existing lede is bad, I wonder why we cannot just insert the new one and leave it up to opponents to provide arguments and suggestions. The existing lede is, as far as I know the Wikipedia rules, not more "standard" or "default" than our suggestion. Opponents who are not willing to take part in a constructive discussion might just revert it but it cannot be that the bad lede remains in the article just because we are more civilized and shy away from making bold changes.

::Then, of course, the RfC should also ask for comments on the changes to the lede that were made and make it clear that the lede has been updated and the body has not. LogicalLens (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Re: inserting the draft into the lead, one of the DRN rules we agreed to is "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress, unless the moderator says to change the article." I think it would also be seen as inappropriate to make a sizeable change to the article just prior to opening this RfC, given that the RfC norms say "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I'm hoping that we can come to agreement soon about the RfC question(s) and open the RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, I didn't know that and just thought that it can be done because, as @WhatamIdoing mentioned, it is likely that there are even people who support the medical model and find the new lede better. I now see that we shouldn't start such conflicts.

::::The one question I still have is if the proposed RfC question by @FactOrOpinion is the best way to summarize the neurodiversity viewpoint. As I wrote above, neurodiversity does not rule out that parts of autism can be inherently disabling, but I mentioned that discussing this is very complex and wanted to know how other editors view this issue. LogicalLens (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I will suggest an Option 5 for how to proceed, and that is to split the RFC into two physical RFCs. The first one will be about the focus of the article. The second one will be to replace the lede with the current draft lede, and will be either the same as the current draft or almost the same as the current draft. The two RFCs will run concurrently. I will start the second one a few hours after the first one, as soon as I see that the bot has taken note of the first one and added it to the list of RFCs. This will mean that the two RFCs will then both be displayed in the list of RFCs as separate questions, and one will be under the other on the article talk page. I think that this will permit editors who want to retain the current medical focus to discuss and possibly approve a change in the lede.

What does anyone think of Option 5?

By the way, most of the participants have been ignoring Rule G.11, which says not to engage in back-and-forth discussion The purpose of that rule is to stop hostile exchanges between editors who disagree. Since the rule has been ignored, and since the disregard of the rule seems to be useful, I will be replacing it with a rule stating that back-and-forth discussion must be civil and must comment on content rather than on contributors. That will be a restatement of existing rules, and it does not hurt to restate those rules. Also by the way, thank you all for being civil and constructive.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the Explanation of Procedure from the Draft RFC, and have renamed it to Talk:Autism/Draft RFC on Lede.

I have tweaked DRN Rule G to specify that back-and-forth discussion is permitted, subject to rules, most of which always apply in Wikipedia, such as no casting aspersions.

I am asking the participating editors to propose the wording for the question for the RFC on the focus of the article.

Are there any other questions or comments at this time?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 5 seems a very reasonable and workable format to me. Urselius (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Option 5 is probably the best, which we could follow after finishing our discussions of the topics @FactOrOpinion mentioned and agreeing on a phrasing for the second paragraph, where disagreements exist. LogicalLens (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I support Option 5. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I want to double-check what the full text (i.e., question + any explanatory text) would be for each RfC in Option 5.

• For the first one (re: the overall focus of the article), am I understanding right that it would include the prefatory text + the question, but with no attempt to illustrate what a shift might look like?
• For the second one (re: replacing the current lead with the draft lead), you said that it "will be either the same as the current draft or almost the same as the current draft," and that makes no sense to me. The current draft has an entire paragraph titled "Explanation of Procedure." If there's a separate RfC about the focus of the article, why would the RfC for replacing the lead include that paragraph? I thought that the point of including a separate question about the overall focus of the article was in order to disentangle that from the question of whether the draft lead should replace the current lead.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I also support Option 5. --Oolong (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon asked us "to propose the wording for the question for the RFC on the focus of the article." I'm copying two options from the Twelfth statements by editors section into this section for discussion:

:1) Viewpoints on autism include a clinical/medical model of disability perspective, which sees autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity; 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.

:With respect to NPOV, does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint? (Y/N)

:2) 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.

:With respect to NPOV, does the Autism article as a whole currently overemphasize the clinical/medical model of disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint? (Y/N)

Do people have a preference and/or does anyone want to modify one of the above? Or do we just leave it for Robert McClenon to decide? Personally, I'd like to get this settled sooner rather than later, so the RfCs can be opened. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:Should the "With respect to NPOV" line mention reliable sources, as a quiet reminder that NPOV is not a matter of personal opinion about which words/viewpoints we personally like best? NPOV is mostly determined by sources, but it is complex and subtle: We should WP:Use our own words and avoid outdated or needlessly stigmatizing language even if sources use them, but we also don't want to stray too far away from the sources in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::Previously, I'd included the sentence "Reliable sources exist for both medical and non-medical information about autism" at the end of the prefatory text. I'm not sure why I lost track of it, perhaps because people had more concerns about the wording of the first sentence. I now think it would be better to rephrase the question itself:

::"With respect to the WP:NPOV policy, which 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 disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint? (Y/N)"

::FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::That works for me, but I want to emphasize that a wide variety of things will work for me. Any RFC that determines what the consensus actually is (i.e., the results 'stick' without ongoing disputes, not just something that gets a note at the top claiming that the closing editor believes the consensus is ____) is a good outcome from my perspective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::That sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for this. Oolong (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I support Option 5 as well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:I forgot to say that right now, the draft RfC re: replacing the current lead with the draft lead has a copy of the current lead but refers people to another page for the draft lead. I think it would be helpful to the editors responding to the RfC if both texts appear on the RfC page, and I suggest hatting them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I have prepared a brief draft RFC on the focus of the article, at Talk:Autism/RFC on Focus. This draft RFC is very short, and almost certainly should be expanded. It should not be expanded too much, because, as some editors have pointed out, there is a list of all open RFCs by subject area, and the question in the RFC should not be a wall of text. If any long explanations are needed, they can be included below the signature.

User:FactOrOpinion writes: {{tq|I forgot to say that right now, the draft RfC re: replacing the current lead with the draft lead has a copy of the current lead but refers people to another page for the draft lead. I think it would be helpful to the editors responding to the RfC if both texts appear on the RfC page, and I suggest hatting them.}} I have replaced the link with a statement that the draft lede is shown below. Both texts do appear on the RFC page in the Comparison section. They appear below the signature so that the RFC summary question is not a wall of text. Maybe I don't understand the mention of hatting them. That will make it more difficult for respondents to see the texts, because they will have to unhat them. Is there an explanation, or should I treat that comment as a brainstorm that can be skipped?

Please comment further on both draft RFCs.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Robert McClenon}}, ignore my previous suggestion about hatting. My proposal for the question in the RfC about the focus of the article: {{tq2|With respect to the WP:NPOV policy, which 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 disability viewpoint relative to the social/neurodiversity viewpoint? (Y/N)}}

I think that everyone agrees that there needs to be some brief text explaining what's meant by each of those viewpoints. This is short enough that it could be used as a preface to the question, or it could instead be placed underneath: {{tq2|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.}}

FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I support the phrasing by @FactOrOpinion and also think that writing "both medical and alternative views" (as proposed on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/RFC_on_Focus]) is not optimal because "alternative" can mean anything. LogicalLens (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have revised the draft on the focus of the article, at Talk:Autism/RFC on Focus. The revised wording is mostly the same as was proposed by FactOrOpinion. I will explain that the four dashes will be replaced by four tildes, which will be my signature. So the portion of the RFC above the signature will be in the listing of RFCs, with the additional information below the signature, and only visible on the talk page.

Please comment further on both draft RFCs.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Three small suggested changes: it looks like you intended to wikilink to WP:NPOV, but it's missing a closing ]]. In the paragraph that contrasts the clinical/medical model of disability perspective with the social/neurodiversity perspective, I suggest that you wikilink the word neurodiversity (I should have thought to do that myself, but overlooked it). Also, there's a "Missing text?" section with a question that Oolong posted a few days ago, and you'll want to remove that prior to opening the RfC. Otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It also looks good to me, but for some reason, you have inserted a dash in "specific -descriptions".

For the other RfC regarding the lede, our current version should be used which does not exactly match that one in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/Draft_RFC_on_Lede]. LogicalLens (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it looks good. Thanks!

--Oolong (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Oolong, @LogicalLens, Robert McClenon has asked "Will someone please provide me with the link to the location of the current draft of the lede section?" I think the two of you are in the best position to know which is the current version. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Will someone please provide me with the link to the location of the current draft of the lede section?

I have made what I think were the needed copy-edits to the RFC on the neutrality and focus of the article. Some of the errors were introduced in copying and pasting, which is not always as accurate as one expects it to be. I must have been distracted when I revised that draft RFC, because I usually don't make as many typographical errors as I did.

Please comment further on both draft RFCs.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, our current version is this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LogicalLens/sandbox2]

@Oolong, I allowed myself to insert more words on the vaccine conspiracy theory, even though you previously argued against it on the grounds of not increasing the word count. The recent political developments make it necessary in my view to put more emphasis on the fact that it is not just a "myth" but a "completely debunked conspiracy theory".

Disagreements and discussions on the second paragraph persisted and we agreed to postpone that as we will have to revise the lead after rewriting the body anyway and should aim to move forward. Nevertheless, I have written a revised version of that paragraph on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LogicalLens/sandbox] that can be discussed even if it is not inserted now. @Oolong also mentioned that we should include information or a link to the Double Empathy Problem in the lead section after it was removed from the first paragraph following the suggestion by @Markworthen. LogicalLens (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:I take your point about the changed political context. Thanks for that. Oolong (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have copied the current proposed draft lede from the sandbox to the RFC at Talk:Autism/Draft RFC on Lede with one change. I have also copied the current lede of the article into the RFC. The replacement of the current lede caused a shortening of the RFC by about 1380 bytes or about 250 words. I am assuming that this reflects changes made to the lede after I composed the RFC. I am requesting that a participating editor review and compare the current lede in the article and in the RFC to verify that I copied it correctly.

The one change that I made was to change "debunked conspiracy theory" to "debunked theory". In my opinion, the theory is not a conspiracy theory, because it does not posit the existence of a conspiracy, because it does not imply that a vaccine cabal is intentionally causing autism. It is a pseudo-scientific theory because it masquerades as science but is not influenced by evidence. Sometimes a person with a scientific education insists on precision in the use of words.

Please comment further on both draft RFCs.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems you have copied it correctly. The decrease in character count is probably because some links and footnotes are broken in the section of the current lede.

The reason why I wrote "conspiracy theory" is that I believe it is actually one and it is called one by multiple researchers, for example in this NBC article[https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/autism-vaccines-kennedy-cause-spectrum-rcna180837]. The author of the one prominent (and later retracted fraud) study that seemed to show a link between autism and vaccines (Andrew Wakefield) as well as the new US health secretary say that evil Big Pharma causes autism and that there is a conspiracy between public health officials and pharmaceutical companies to obfuscate the link between autism and vaccines and to discredit Wakefield, see also Wakefield's wikipedia article. LogicalLens (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• In the RfC on the lead, the text for Footnote [a] and for reference #s 29, 30 and 35 is missing. In the question, it might make sense to replace the phrase "the paragraphs shown below" with "the proposed revised lede below," since the paragraphs immediately below the question come from the current lead.

:In the RfC on the focus, either the phrase "medical model of disability" should be linked to the corresponding article (to parallel the fact that "neurodiversity" is linked to its corresponding article), or the word "neurodiversity" should be unlinked. These terms are linked in the short explanation below the question, and I don't think it's essential that they be linked in both places, but I do think that it should be consistent in the question, either both linked or neither linked. There is also an empty References section that can be deleted, since there are no citations. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|In the RfC on the lead, the text for Footnote [a] and for reference #s 29, 30 and 35 is missing.}} {{mdash}} Fixed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism/Draft_RFC_on_Lede&diff=1276878057&oldid=1276794169], taking references from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1276308546 current] version of Autism article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the phrase conspiracy theory based on statements that it implies a conspiracy to conceal the (alleged) risk of vaccines.

There are mention of missing links to articles and missing references. I am asking the editors who identify missing links or references to edit the RFCs to insert the references.

Please comment further on both draft RFCs as appropriate.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like all broken citations have been inserted. I am now content with the two RfCs, if I have not overlooked anything. LogicalLens (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I am content.

It doesn't seem worth holding things up even further for, but I do stand by my previously expressed misgivings about the section on disability, which seems far more verbose than it needs to be: {{Talk quote inline with quotes|(though it can be disabling if the environment does not accommodate autistic people’s needs and may also involve inherently disabling features)}} could simply be {{Talk quote inline with quotes|(though it can still be disabling)}}.

--Oolong (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have activated the two RFCs, and they will run until 27 March. They are both at the bottom of Talk:Autism.

Are there any remaining issues about other parts of the article that can be addressed while we are waiting for the RFCs to be completed? What do the participating editors think are the next steps? If there no other issues, I will put this discussion on hold for about a month.

Are there any other questions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Robert McClenon, it seems clear that the existing RfCs are not about to yield a consensus, and I wonder if you have any thoughts about next steps after they close on Thursday?

:Thanks! Oolong (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Robert McClenon, you asked

:{{tpq|"Are there any remaining issues about other parts of the article that can be addressed while we are waiting for the RFCs to be completed?"}}

:The short answer is "yes, tonnes".

:I think I mentioned early in the discussion that I'd made [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1996NUU48lsOgAyCJ0wiK1jfLa9_Qwgn9HiGlT8pkB4M/edit?usp=sharing a Google Doc] to facilitate collaboration on improving the entry. Various people have commented on this. I think some of the improvements originally suggested have been implemented in the months since, but there remain many major outstanding issues.

:Some of these might be better left until we have something resembling a consensus on how to balance medical-paradigm viewpoints with others, and some changes might end up being redundant once we restructure the article (which very much needs doing) but some could certainly be addressed in the meantime.

:Remarkably, it looks like four pages of Talk Page archives have been made since this process started, but here is a link to some glaring omissions from the article as it stands, on page 7 of the archives. Oolong (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Would it be appropriate to tag all of the editors originally tagged in the DRN to notify them of the RfCs?

:Thanks! Oolong (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think nothing prevents us from tagging @HarmonyA8, @TempusTacet and @Markworthen who have not yet responded in the RfCs but are listed above as being involved in this dispute resolution process. It makes no sense for the IP users. @GreenMeansGo and @Cyberwolf have responded in the discussion section of the RfCs but have not yet answered the survey itself. LogicalLens (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

We will probably have long discussions in the RfC discussion sections because many previously uninvolved editors step in. Nevertheless, we could start some further discussions here if we have time. @Oolong mentioned somewhere that the causes section is too long (because the topic has its own article and its section in the autism article should only be a summary) and that it includes many outdated sources that do not even match the requirements for reliable biomedical sources on Wikipedia.

I also think that replacing the word "risk" by "likelihood" in the causes section (when we rewrite it) is appropriate and unproblematic because it means the same thing without a value judgement. As editors have mentioned previously, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles|Manual of Style for medical articles] recommends using neutral labels and says: "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people." The word risk is appropriate for cancer and in my view also when it refers to suicidality (or self-harm) but not when it refers to autism in general. The submission guidelines and policies of at least three leading journals dedicated specifically to autism also recommend or even require not using this term.[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] LogicalLens (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with changing "risk" Anthony2106 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Personally, I suggest ending this DRN intervention, since there is no significant dispute among the editors who are still participating here. (Differences of agreement, sometimes, but nothing that can't be resolved through normal discussion. There was a significant dispute between some of the editors invited to participate, but that group is not the same as the group of editors who are still participating.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::So we should finally put the new lead? Anthony2106 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You should join the discussion at Talk:Autism#RFC: Lede Section of Autism. When that discussion is finished (assuming it reaches a consensus), then we should do whatever editors in that RFC agree to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I notified WikiProject Autism about the two RfCs. Is there anywhere else where we should post a notification? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Crossroads kindly notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. If there's no note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability yet, then those are other obvious groups. Any WikiProject that has tagged the article as being within scope might be interested.

:::::A note at one of the Village pumps is also acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I inserted the RfC note (that I copied from @FactOrOpinion and that is neutral) into the talk pages of the WikiProjects Psychology and Disability and also copied it into the WikiProject Countering systemic bias that has been mentioned in these discussions here as well. It seems to be more related to racial bias but contains a reference to disability. There might be more WikiProjects that are in some way related to autism and it seems there is no systematic way to find all of them. LogicalLens (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've added one to WikiProject Science as well, because autism is studied across various sciences.

:::::::I wondered about WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Politics because on some level these issues are both philosophical and political, but I've left those for now. Similarly it might make sense to post at WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Education?

:::::::I'll think on these further, but if anyone else feels like taking them up in the meantime, then please do. Oolong (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would say, the editors in the WikiProject Politics might be confused what autism has to do with their domain because, while small parts of the autism article are related to this subject, the general questions of the weight of the models and the new lede are not. But maybe, @WhatamIdoing would argue that it is desirable to get as many responses to the RfCs as possible and would therefore prefer to insert it there too, which could also include the WikiProjects Education and Discrimination that you mentioned. It could be that there is one editor in these projects who is interested in autism.

::::::::The WikiProject Philosophy is much more related to the topics we are discussing because the question what is "normal" is ultimately a philosophical and sociological one and medical and scientific professionals choose one framework and then work within it without much deliberation of the choice of the framework.

::::::::The bottom of the talk page of the autism article says that it also falls within the scope of sociology so I inserted the neutral RfC note on that WikiProject's page too. LogicalLens (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree with you that WikiProject Politics might be surprised to see a note about it, whereas WikiProject Education and WikiProject Discrimination would not be.

:::::::::Mostly, I think that if anyone believes a particular group would be interested, then you should feel free to invite them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks for sharing as discussed, @LogicalLens! Oolong (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::New editors with diverse viewpoints are entering the discussion on the RfC page but probably do not know of this dispute resolution page. I do not think the dispute has been resolved and it will probably continue for some time. LogicalLens (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@LogicalLens, I'm curious about why you think there's a dispute among the editors who are still participating here, where it's significant enough to need a mediator's involvement. Also, the DRN rules that we agreed to includes "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress." I would think that editors would want to be able to edit the article as soon as the RfCs close, not wait while dispute resolution continues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The small number of editors here (compared to the talk page and the RfCs) actually do not have a significant dispute anymore, but before the RfCs close, we cannot edit the article anyway. The disputes over the article seem to have existed for years and perpetually, new editors entered the discussion and added new emotional disputes, therefore my personal opinion is that it would be better to continue the DRN, even if we do not actively discuss much until the RfCs are over. @Robert McClenon suggested putting this discussion here on hold until the RfCs are finished. I do not have much experience with these procedures, but after the RfCs, it could even be thinkable to loosen the DRN rule of not editing the article. If I understand it correctly, this rule is primarily to prevent edit wars and unproductive emotional escalations. So if the RfCs lead to a clear consensus, it could be reasonable to make the edits even if the DRN is still running and the rule could be reinstated if new emotional disputes emerge. @Robert McClenon, what do you think? LogicalLens (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::A confession: I forgot that the DRN rules preclude editing the article at all, thinking they only applied to the section we were specifically discussing, and about a week ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1277265203 I edited one sentence] to remove a claim about "brain mutations caused by autism" that was so poorly phrased it was just silly.

:::::I hope this doesn't put a spanner in the works at all! I thought I'd better flag it up.

:::::I agree that it would be highly desirable to proceed with editing the article not too long after the RfCs conclude. Oolong (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm glad that you made that edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Oolong|FactOrOpinion|WhatamIdoing|LogicalLens|Anthony2106}} I apologize for having paid almost no attention to this case for several weeks. I knew that I hadn't checked on it, but didn't realize until now that the RFC is almost complete. I will take another look at the RFC and will comment shortly, but am asking now whether there is anything that needs my attention.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think all the hot talk is happen on the autism page now. Anthony2106 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{User|Robert McClenon}}, the RfCs were due to close one week ago now.

It feels to me like this process has so far brought us no closer to a consensus, or any kind of conclusion, than we were in mid-December - but perhaps I am missing something; I am not very clear what you see as being the next steps to take from here.

{{User|WhatamIdoing}} discouraged us from trying to persuade people who came and contributed to the surveys, which I could see the sense of - but there are now numerous contributions from people whose votes appear to be based on misapprehensions about what is being suggested, what neurodiversity means, and/or what reliable sources say about autism. I don't know if it would be constructive to invest time in trying to correct these.

I am inclined to start a fresh discussion, summarising what we know and proposing possible ways of moving past the current impasse. I very much hoped this Dispute Resolution process would bring us to a point where all parties could agree to sufficient common ground to build on. I do not currently see that on the horizon, and it seems important to move forwards regardless. However, I would welcome input.

--Oolong (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that the RfCs led to any consensus about making the current article more balanced, and I think the following makes the most sense as a way to move forward:

:There is currently an Autism spectrum disorder → Autism redirect; the ASD page has never been an article. In its own section, start a WP:SPLIT discussion on the Autism talk page, proposing the following sequence of actions: (1) end the ASD → Autism redirect, (2) split the medical content from the Autism article into the ASD article, (3) summarize the ASD article in a new section of the Autism article, including a Main:ASD note at the top of that section, (4) expand what remains of the Autism article as a more general introduction. In addition to proposing the split on the Autism talk page, advertise it elsewhere (as occurred with the RfCs, but not making this an RfC itself). FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::But wasn't autism spectrum its own page? You really wanna split these up again? On the autism page it says at the top that autism is short for ASD, and these two are the same. Couldn't it be confusing to have them be split? But I guess there are other autism pages so it wouldn't be completely wrong, but it just seems like a step back since they were merged in the past. Anthony2106 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Autism spectrum and Autism spectrum disorder are not the same page. Autism spectrum was once an article (feel free to delve into its history, but much of it was split into Classic autism, which continues to exist as a separate article). Autism spectrum now redirects to Autism. Autism spectrum disorder has never been an article; it also redirects to Autism. I don't think that it has to be confusing to split the Autism article into a general article that approaches autism from lots of perspectives (history, neurodiversity, medical, lived experiences, etc.), as there is more to autism than the neurodevelopmental disorder; then there can be a second article that just focuses on the medical perspective, for all of the people who insist that the current Autism article must focus on the medical perspective. I'm simply trying to find a way for all of this to move forward. There has been an unresolved conflict for a very long time, and the RfCs don't seem to have any consensus. If you have a better solution, by all means, let us know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think it would resolve the conflict. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::One way to get a sense of that is by having a split discussion. If people support the split, that suggests to me that it will reduce the conflict in both of the resulting articles. Of course, I could be wrong about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Shunting most of the medical POV to a separate article risks a WP:POVFORK (no matter what the title of that article is).

::::::It could be that this just isn't the time when it's possible to resolve this. For example, https://www.science.org/content/article/mom-s-antibodies-may-cause-some-autism thinks they can predict which mothers will have autistic children for non-genetic reasons. We might even be able to predict the likelihood of autism as part of ordinary pre-conception counseling. If that research pans out, it could significantly change the story from "normal human variation" to "category of disease, some of which are definitely actual diseases and not 'just who I am' ". That would have the effect of increasing the biomedical POV. Or there could be conclusive research showing that there has been a generational increase in autism rates, and that it is due to assortative mating, and that would tend to increase the identity POV. But we won't settle that this year, or even this decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't actually think they'd be addressing the same content. Transgender and Gender dysphoria are different articles with different content, as are Deafness, Hearing loss and Deaf culture. I don't consider those POVFORKS either. I'd explained what I envisioned in more detail a few weeks ago. I'm not wedded to that though. I don't think it makes sense to determine this on the basis of what might be known at some point in the future; if people's thinking is different years from now, the articles can be adjusted accordingly. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The disorder/difference debate is a value judgement. See this paper that describes a similar causal hypothesis for homosexuality.[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5777026/] Even if homosexuality is caused by immune reactions, that does not make it a disease instead of an identity. Consider another example: Drugs often have effects and adverse side effects. You cannot say that because the drug is good (treats a disease), all of its effects must be good. In the same way, you cannot look at biological processes, attach a negative value judgement to them and then conclude that everything that is caused by them must be negative. LogicalLens (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Right.

::::::::This might not be a path to fully resolving the dispute, but if people are determined to keep blocking efforts to bring the existing article up to date, we can either find ways to prevent that from happening (probably on the basis that this stonewalling violates Wikipedia's rules of conduct) or we can find a compromise - and forking the article is the only plausible compromise I've seen anyone suggest.

::::::::The existing entry is clearly unacceptable to a large number of people, on multiple levels, for reasons backed up by plenty of reliable sources. A stream of mostly-autistic people have independently come along and tried to fix it, probably for as long as it's been around, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

::::::::Earlier in its history it was actually written as more of a compromise, even though the neurodiversity approach was much less prevalent ten years ago than it is now. A few editors have worked hard to ensure that the medical perspective overwhelmingly dominates, even while the opposing view has become mainstream to the point that the UN's World Autism Awareness Day event this year was hosted by the Institue of Neurodiversity.

::::::::We've seen that split-based compromises can basically pretty much work, for topics which are subject to irreconcilable disputes regarding their medicalisation. I'd like to think we can find a way of reorienting the one article to be more helpful, less harmful and more encyclopaedic, but so far, progress has remained strikingly slow and wearing. Oolong (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Autism as an identity doesn't exist. Autism identity redirects to Neurodiversity. If we want to have an article on the autism-is-my-core-identity concept, then it should be called neither Autism nor Autism spectrum disorder.

:::::::::For myself, I would be happy if Wikipedia had an identity-based article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That's a very strange way of characterising it. I'm talking about what it means to be autistic. Oolong (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think you were talking about "what it means to be autistic from the viewpoint of personal experience shared by a particular subset of people who consider autism to be a core part of their Identity (social science)".

:::::::::::If you want to an article that focuses on this viewpoint, then that's fine – but it should begin neither with "Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as well as difficulties in social interaction and social communication" nor with "Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as well as difficulties in social interaction and social communication."

:::::::::::Instead, it should IMO begin with something like "Autistic identity is a personal identity held by autistic people that centers on being autistic. It includes their self-concept as an autistic person as well as their social identity, which is developed by social and cultural factors, such as their culture's acceptance of neurodiverse behaviors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::LogicalLens, I think the social history of Tuberculosis provides a contrasting model.

::::::::Because people had no idea what caused TB then, the 19th-century Cultural depictions of tuberculosis tended towards the romantic: the ethereally beautiful, usually wealthy, always sympathetic heroine is tragically struck down by random chance.

::::::::When the general public began understanding that TB was a contagious germ, it began being portrayed as a disease of dirt and poverty.

::::::::This shift, though caused by solid scientific facts, did not do good things for TB stigma. IMO the same thing could happen to any form of neurodiversity, if the general public (not you, not me, not scientists, not autism activists – the "half of people are below average intelligence" general public) starts associating it with "brain damage". And if that happens, it will be "a disease" instead of "an identity". Consider: Where is the dyslexia pride movement? When is cerebral palsy pride day? Those are both understood to be "a disease" instead of "an identity".

::::::::Remember that what counts as "a disease" is socially constructed. That means that something is only "normal human variation" if the general public (not the affected individuals) agrees that it is normal. Short stature is not "normal human variation" because the general public doesn't accept it as normal, even when it is completely harmless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Regarding aetiology, if a neurologically compromising event such as TBI is identified as a cause, the classification wouldn't as a result of this change from viewing autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder to a disease. For instance, we know that ADHD is primarily genetic but that in rare cases it arises secondary to a TBI later in life or from exposure to biohazards prenatally. Such findings, however, have not altered its scientific classification.

:::::::::The Neurodiversity Movement often argues against autism being viewed as a disease, although basically no one views it as such. I suspect some do this as a form of virtue signalling or to strawman 'neurodevelopmental disorder' as 'disease' to cast doubt on the scientific evidence contradicting its position. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::People with bad education might actually think it is a disease if it is associated with brain damage. The same could happen if the vaccine trash spreads further. Shannon Des Roches Rosa says: “even saying “don’t worry, vaccines don’t cause autism” is still making my son’s neurology into something to be feared rather than understood and accepted“.[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_12] So even a tacit association with damage can influence the perception, which, of course, largely depends on the framing of the biological processes as “damages” rather than “differences”.

:::::::::Other causes for the shift in attitudes towards tuberculosis were the influence of the Romantic age which emphasized individual feelings very much, together with the much higher prevalence of suffering in general in the 20^th century because of which it was helpful to “celebrate” the suffering without really considering the tuberculosis itself to be a good thing. Religious notions of “redemption” also played a role. It seems tuberculosis was mainly associated with creativity because of some prominent sufferers without there being an actual link.

:::::::::Perspectives viewing dyslexia in a non-pathologizing way exist[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-biology-of-human-nature/202207/seeing-dyslexia-as-a-unique-cognitive-strength-rather-than#:~:text=An%20aptitude%20for%20art%20and,art,%20architecture,%20and%20engineering.] and it is even part of neurodiversity. There is also disability pride that includes cerebral palsy. The reason why this perspective is not as advanced as neurodiversity is probably that being autistic is perceived as closer to one’s identity than physical disabilities, which leads to more advocates and autistic researchers driving the change in perspective. LogicalLens (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The RFCs have been closed robotically. A next step is to request formal closure, but my assumption is that both RFCs will be closed as No Consensus. I will read the discussion here in more detail in the near future. I don't have a recommendation on how and whether to go forward. Does anyone have either any specific questions or any thoughts for what if anything to do next?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've posted a (lamentably essay-length) comment at Talk:Autism#Next steps about what I see as plausible routes forward for this. Oolong (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that both RFCs should be posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Even if you are correct that the net result is "no consensus", having a narrative summary of the arguments might be useful later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon, were you still intending to submit a formal closure request? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe it could help to some degree in further discussions but the article and the lead are very different now from either the previous and the proposed new variants. LogicalLens (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If this dispute is to move forward formally, I recommend giving people the chance to accurately summarise and cite their positions, perhaps collectively for several people who share similar views to improve the position and minimise repetition, then leaving it for the community to review, and to discuss voluntarily. I understand that consensus is fundamental to Wikipedia but overreliance on this overlooks valid minority positions, which, in turn, can even conflict with Wikipedia's other policies. Perceiving a consensus has value but I'd argue it shouldn't take priority in outcomes over the site's guideline on content and citations.

A major concern for me has been the tendency towards soapboxing. I encourage the proposal’s authors to stop focusing on treating disagreements of their proposal as something to "correct", and to retract their misconduct accusations based on people simply having not adopted their viewpoint. Dispute resolution can be useful but has its own shortcomings particularly when handled by writers who actualise their own biases. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been a textbook case of how Wikipedia processes are often unfit for purpose. A dispute resolution procedure that does not resolve a dispute, but merely generates an enormous amount of verbiage. No reasonable middle ground found at all, as everyone involved merely stuck to their polarised viewpoints. Urselius (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do you feel like you suggested "middle ground" options? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, a balanced approach between the medical model and the neurodevelopmental model is the middle ground. I never suggested that the medical model should be abandoned or even diluted, just that a more balanced wording was necessary. This, rather than an insistence that only one viewpoint has any validity, is reasonable. We still have Dimitry calling the medical model a 'scientific consensus' in edit descriptions. A scientific consensus does not really exist regarding autism, it is in a state of evolution, and anyway a scientific consensus is not the same as the wording of a clinical diagnostic manual (or two), even if it existed. Urselius (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with you that the professional views on autism are in a state of flux.

:::Did you (or could you) propose any specific/discrete change? (I don't remember seeing one, but I could easily have forgotten it.) I think that part of the difficulty is that everyone can agree in principle that we need a balanced approach, but "balanced" somehow always looks a bit more like "my" POV than the current article. Do you think that the attempted new lead was a balanced approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe I suggested that the article on deafness might be a good paradigm. It is not a particularly long article, but it treats the medical and the deaf community aspects essentially alternately, with neither given undue prominence. I think that the suggested replacement lead was, whatever its faults, much better than the present one, which jumps straight into pathologising definitions drawn from two clinical diagnostic manuals. These should remain in the article, but not in the lead. Urselius (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Deafness is much shorter, and it has separate sections for ==Medical context== and ==Cultural context==. It mixes non-medical content into the medical section (e.g., the number of deaf and HOH people; the use of non-medical devices like alarms that emit light instead of noise). The cultural section includes straight-up advocacy (e.g., {{!xt|Many non-disabled people continue to assume that deaf people have no autonomy and fail to provide people with support beyond hearing aids, which is something that must be addressed}}, {{!xt|we can build a more inclusive and tolerant environment}}). ==Schooling== is a separate section, though the section on Deaf culture also includes some information about schools. The ==History== section is largely a history of sign language.

:::::I kind of think that the article is not a very good Wikipedia article right now, but if we imagine it in its ideal form, it is separating the medical problem (which is mostly about older adults who previously had good hearing, as opposed to a lifelong condition) from the centuries-old cultural community (which is mostly about people who grow up using sign language). I'm not sure that autism is a good parallel here. We don't have a centuries-old cultural community, and autism is not a condition that mostly creeps into existence after decades of being neurotypical. I'm also not sure that we could neatly separate the two. For example, would sensory overload belong to the "medical" or "cultural" section? It's both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::In an autism article the medical model would alternate with the neurodiversity model, any cultural aspects would naturally be subsumed into the neurodiversity sections. I did not intend the parallel to be complete, just that alternating two viewpoints would be a good way to treat such a subject. I think that it is inescapable that two major modes of representing autism co-exist at present. Scientists and academia in many ways span the two. Leading researchers are increasingly referring to both in their publications. In my view, an encyclopedic treatment has to treat the medical and neurodiversity models in an equal-handed manner, otherwise it is not encyclopedic, it is biased. The Wikipedia article is biased at present and is not fit for purpose because of that. Urselius (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks, @Urselius.

:::::::This is it: attempts to shift the balance from around 90% medical model (with some blatant swipes at the neurodiversity approach) towards something balanced have persistently been treated as if we were trying to rewrite the entire article in line with the neurodiversity paradigm.

:::::::Nobody has been advocating that. We've consistently pushed for something resembling the balance of views on autism found in reliable sources.

:::::::Obviously that means something 'a bit more like "my" POV than the current article' because the current article is glaringly unbalanced. Also, badly incomplete, poorly structured, out of date, and just not well thought through on any level.

:::::::I'd settle for something that's maybe 70% medical-model, and makes a little bit of effort to avoid pointlessly offensive or misleading language.

:::::::This is so exhausting.

:::::::It reminds me of the way nominally-leftish parties are constantly chasing some kind of compromise with the right, while right-wing parties almost never give an inch, since they have no interest in compromising.

:::::::

:::::::Oolong (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Disclosure: I have kept tabs on this discussion, but have not been invited to participate in it. If my comment breaks policy, let me know and I will remove it.

::::::::It was clear to me that dispute resolution was doomed from the start because a certain faction of editors pushing the bio-medicalist viewpoint was not engaging with the discussion in good faith. Dispute resolution only works if people are interested in compromising and hearing opposing views; the faction of editors seeking to include the neurodiversity model was consistently willing to compromise and work incrementally, while the bio-medicalists were not.

::::::::I think this has become a conduct issue. Progress will be impossible until this conduct issue is corrected. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::These accusations are being presented sas undeniable facts based solely on the fact that editors are keeping to their positions. I've personally not seen one of the "bio-medicalist viewpoint" (an inaccurate framing) not engage properly in a discussion.

:::::::::Content stands or falls on the basis of citations provided for that content to other, in this case, scientific publications relative to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for which I and others have been engaging and referencing extensively. And subsequent editors are free to correct content that is inaccurate. I am against the proposed drafts in the recently concluded RCTs because it provides far undue weight to Neurodiversity Movement positions, which are inconsistent with the international scientific consensus. Unless sufficient rebuttals are given, the persistence of the debate does not necessitate concession of facts. Acompromise can, to some extent, be helpful in terms of far more subjective matters like the proportion to which person-first to person-last language is uded. I'd agree with that statement. And perhaps on other matters too, but not necessarily around underlying substantial differences in the positions.

:::::::::It's interestign that the portrayal of "actign in bad faith", not "hearing opposing views", and other such assertions, jhas extended only to editors who rejected the proposal. The fact that, for example, supporters of the draft have been basing permissibility of terms continuously on selective misleading citations goes unfactored in such accusations, I take it. And while that's a double standard, I would not say there is an issue here of misconduct. Barring insults or harassment, which I have not seen, it is up to the reader to interpret the veracity of a position in a discussion and consequently formulate an opinion,.

:::::::::I am concerned that these accusations are being misused as a resort because of the indefensibility of their own position. This is consistent with the soapboxing activites of user(s) making them whereby they would comment directly on RFC positions they disagreed with, even though they were informed to do so exclusively under voluntary discussion in a different section, thus unfairly engaging the dispute and potentially discouraging participation. Or how the focus has been implied or stated to be on treating the disagreements of their proposal as something to "correct", rather than meaningfully consider or deliberate further, as there were various valid critiques of their writings.

:::::::::I am not familarised wihh Wikipedia's policies on to what extent misinterpretations are permissible. But I'd like to say that these should in any case be treated as a guide than an objective standard; such issues are typical with extended debates over controversial topics such as these, and shouldn't be suprising, irrespective of intention. In general, these are issues to be resolved by challenging with more speech and hopefully with additional editor involvement whilst maintaining the possibility that there may be nuance you are unaware of or haven't yet considered fully, than attempting to restrict the speech. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::One can 'engage properly' in discussion' and not concede any measure of validity to the premise and arguments of an opposing viewpoint. This is what has happened in these tediously extensive discussions. We have also seen repeated straw man propositions to the effect that the people supporting a greater inclusion of the neurodiversity model wish to exclude the medical model from the article entirely or even in part. When someone as eminent in academic/scientific/psychological/genetic/medical aspects of autism as Sir Simon Baron-Cohen admits the validity of the neurodiversity model of autism, the stubborn rear-guard action here of the medical model as the only valid model smacks of extreme obtuseness. Urselius (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The reputation of an individual researcher is not a valid appeal, especially in the context of national and international guidelines, diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, consensus guidelines, systematic reviews and other high-quality sources, developed by unifications of scientists around the world, used to ascertain facts and a global scientific consensus in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm afraid that you have not addressed much of the points I made above, including instances of misrepresentation by the supporters of the draft, and the soapboxing and rule breaking some have made. It eviscerates the narrative which is why I suspect it goes omitted. The latter are actually indicative of misconduct in my view but I still don't think it necessarily warrants calling for restriction of speech. Indeed such accusations seem to be based more on a narrative of opposing the arguments against the drafts collectively, without actually considering the various kinds of criticisms of the draft as they individually stand. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I wonder if editors have different views about where the line between "medical" and "neurodiversity" lies. Since "medical" people support the neurodiversity model, then maybe the models overlap significantly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The growing acceptance of the biopsychosocial model could explain this. Medical professionals and social workers now use the biopsychosocial model over the biomedical model, and because the BPSM elevates the social aspect of psychiatric conditions to be co-equal with the biological and psychological aspects, acceptance of the neurodiversity viewpoint necessarily follows. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Clarifying this could maybe help in attenuating the dispute. My perception is that neurodiversity accepts interventions not only for co-occurring conditions (depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, epilepsy etc.) but also for certain inherent difficulties like being completely unable to communicate even basic needs or inertia. We discussed this earlier but maybe some newer editors still assume that neurodiversity means subscribing to a very strong version of the social model of disability that denies all kinds of interventions or inherent contributions to disability. I would like to know what other editors think of when they hear "neurodiversity". LogicalLens (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It is still better than the insistence that the neurodiversity model "goes against scientific consensus" — an insistence presented without a shred of evidence. At least the neurodiversity faction has presented evidence supporting their position. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Um, no. Why on earth do you feel the need to make claims that are so blatantly wrong? I’ve directly referred to the evidence in my comment you’re replying to. Indeed one simply has to look at the extensive list of citations accompanying my position in the RFC (autism talk page) (visible under “RFC: Focus of Autism Article”) or where else I’ve provided them. As I directly quote each reference and place them in the context of Wikipedia guidelines, the data is clear: the Neurodiversity Movement positions contradict the international scientific consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::When you write something like "the Neurodiversity Movement positions contradict the international scientific consensus", it's easy to read that as "every single position held by the neurodiversity movement contradicts all the positions held by mainstream international researchers", which is not true.

::::::::::::::I think it would be more function to identify specific points of agreement and disagreement. For example: Neurodiversity advocates and biomedical researchers agree that children with autism deserve an education. Neurodiversity advocates and biomedical researchers disagree about the importance of determining the causes of autism. And so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I understand, so I apologise for any confusion. But I make clear the differences in my response in the RFC and they go without saying to some extent. It mainly pertains to scientific facts like the validity of autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder rather than approaches to research. And contrary to Oolong, neurodevelopmental disorders are indeed scientifically determinable matters, not one of ethics or one's personal whim. As the first International Consensus Statement on ADHD by scientists (2002) concluded, for instance:

:::::::::::::::"All of the major medical associations and government health agencies recognize ADHD as a genuine disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so overwhelming." Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Two things can be true. We can recognize people with autism (and/or ADHD) as having psychiatric conditions, and as a distinct population within society at large with their own strengths, challenges, and group identity. The neurodiversity movement does not contradict the scientific consensus that autism and ADHD are disorders (although it does acknowledge that "normal" and "abnormal" are defined relative to the majority); rather, it takes a wider view that encompasses both the biomedical context and the social context.

::::::::::::::::The crux of the matter, to me, is that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. You are so hung up on semantics and terminology that you fail to see the broader issue: that the biomedical model that sees autism and ADHD as aberrant and invariably bad is fast becoming deprecated by the scientific consensus you love to point to (c.f. Biopsychosocial model), and the purely biomedical viewpoint Autism espouses is now either WP:FRINGE or close to it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Firstly, this political movement does in fact consistently reject the framing of them as neurodevelopmental disorders. Nor is this is a mere semantic terminological issue. A disorder necessitates the presence of significant impairment resulting from symptoms, which the movement rejects in favour of traits only which would wrongly expand prevalence.

:::::::::::::::::It also falsely attributes the impairment to modern society. Indeed, to give one example here, the vast majority of the 13 year reduction in life expectancy and the accumulative health risks predisposing to ADHD have been shown in research to be underlain by inhibitory deficits/disinhibition (a core symptom), not societal factors (Barkley & Fischer, 2019).

:::::::::::::::::Secondly, the scientific consensus has not shifted. For example, the latest International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2022) has a section specifically for validating it as a disorder whilst debunking common criticisms against it. It summarises the variety of impairments, and increased risks for morbidity and earlier death as a consequence of untreated ADHD, with no mention whatsoever of any benefits, gifts, or associations of improved funnctional performance.

:::::::::::::::::The consensus statement is coauthored by 80 researchers and its contents endorsed by 403 other experts, along with numerous medicla associations, across 27 countries and 6 continents, thereby substantiating a global scientific consensus.

:::::::::::::::::Of note, the scientific consensus has never framed them as "bad" and "entirely" so, or other such assertions. Rather it shows how they are impairing. This doesn't preclude the possibility of benefits but in either case, proportionality just speaks for itself. I don't think it's necessary to address all of the misinformation promoted by the movement, especially in regards to assertions of benefits and the like. But I hope this gives an idea as to the scientific consensus, especially for ADHD now as I've mainly been focusing citations for autism. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@Bowler the Carmine, Neurodiversity actively challenges the classification of autism as a disorder. A list of scientific sources supporting it can be found here.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20250226044700-Survey_(on_RFC_on_focus)] LogicalLens (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Where is the position statement saying that "All of the major medical associations and government health agencies recognize autism as a genuine disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so overwhelming"? Yes, the neurodiversity activists tend to include people with ADHD as being neurodiverse, but we're talking about what to do with Autism, not ADHD, so if the goal is to say that autism is realio-trulio a Disorder™, then we need a statement about autism being a disorder, not a statement about ADHD being a disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Throughout the discussions. Most recently I've given references on the validity of autism a neurodevelopmental disorder at "RFC: Focus of Autism Article" under Talk:Autism. But also, the global scientific consensus on ADHD is pertinent in the context of one making claims about the categorisation of neurodevelopmental disorders itself. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::This consensus statement cited by @Димитрий Улянов Иванов says in the section "ADHD and science": "We cannot overemphasize the point that, as a matter of science, the notion that ADHD does not exist is simply wrong. All of the major medical associations and government health agencies recognize ADHD as a genuine disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so overwhelming." This is a refutation of the anti-psychiatry view that ADHD does not exist, but has absolutely nothing to do with neurodiversity. As I have cited earlier, neurodiversity accepts autism and ADHD as legitimate categories, but as non-pathological ones.[https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350268937&tocid=b-9781350268937-chapter5][https://muse.jhu.edu/article/899938]

:::::::::::::::::We are talking about autism here, therefore please refrain from citing the same ADHD material again and again. LogicalLens (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I raised the consensus statement in the context of the classification of neurodevelopmental disorders themselves. The context of which disorder is irrelevant, because it was in response to claims about the categorisation itself not being scientific which is false. The citation is thus relevant because it shows that the criteria for a disorder is indeed met based on scientific evidence.

::::::::::::::::::And the applicability of those conclusions are not specific nor where they intended to be specific for the anti-psychiatry movement. It was not in the context of any specific movement; but to any claims that reject the validity of the classification regardless of who says it. The scientific consensus also affirms it based on symptoms plus impairment.

::::::::::::::::::I have continuously provided references for the validity of autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. But because a commenter above included ADHD in their claims, I thought that I'd also extend the evidence to ADHD.

::::::::::::::::::In my view, the Neurodiversity Movement is not as unscientific as the anti-psychiatry or scientology advocates, because it at least accepts an underlying biological basis. But when its taken to the extreme, they can be problematic as eachother, particularly when one advocates for declassification and defunding of treatments based on perceiving modern society as causing all of the impairment.

::::::::::::::::::And sometimes they even overstep on the genetic basis as well by asserting it accounts for all of the variation to reconcile it with their neurodiversity view, by doing so they exclude the rare cases of (for example) ADHD arising secondary to traumatic brain injury even though in the vast majority of cases its genetically caused. While it is true that for Autism we know little about the specific environmental factors, and whether they contribute accumulatively only, twin studies have shown that after genetics there is residual influence from non-shared events, but like with ADHD, no influence from the rearing social environment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Maybe we need to improve Neurodevelopmental disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::As I wrote above, neurodiversity is about challenging the criteria for disorders themselves. Just that there is scientific evidence that autistic people match the currently used normative set of criteria does not mean that opposing these criteria themselves contradicts science. LogicalLens (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Scientific evidence can only prove that something is a disorder if a set of criteria of what a disorder is has been defined. That is a value judgement mainly made by society and then formalized by science. Society currently does not accept it as normal if people do not have certain abilities, science then assumes that not having these abilities is a disorder, then accumulates evidence that autistic people do not have these abilities and then you say it has been scientifically evidenced that autism is a disorder, instead of it being a value judgement.

::::::::::::::The word “consensus” is sometimes used in an unhelpful way in these discussions. Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality requires that each perspective be presented proportionately, so if 70% of reliable sources say A and 30% say B then it must be presented in this way. The word “consensus” serves to diminish other perspectives and implies that there is something special to the “consensus” viewpoint that would allow or require it to be represented even more than according to its proportion. This is not how Wikipedia works.

::::::::::::::@Oolong has suggested 70% medical model and 30% neurodiversity paradigm. This would be a good compromise between the supporters of the current balance and those who argue that it should be 50/50. LogicalLens (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I'm doubtful that the 90/10 estimate mentioned above is true. What if we investigated it sentence by sentence, and determined that it was already 70/30? Would we be done?

:::::::::::::::For example, Autism#Signs and symptoms has been called a "medical" perspective because of the section heading, but the actual sentences talk about "features", which is pro-neurodiversity language. It speaks of "Differences in verbal communication" rather than "deficits in verbal communication". "Deficit" language appears about 15 in the body of the article; the word "difference" appears almost twice as many times. This section has a long sub-section on the Double empathy problem, written entirely from the neurodiversity POV.

:::::::::::::::It's possible that this section, at least, is already 70/30 or even more equal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I could imagine that shifting the language as discussed with @CFCF, reducing for example the causes section, inserting the things @Oolong mentioned as glaring omissions and correcting mistakes in the section on neurodiversity would solve a large part of our disagreements, meaning that a compromise is easier to reach than it might seem. The problem has always been that some editors consistently block any changes in these directions. LogicalLens (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Maybe we need to try very small steps. No proposal affecting more than a single paragraph? Start with the ones sourced to the previous century? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"... a certain faction of editors pushing the bio-medicalist viewpoint was not engaging with the discussion in good faith." - Who are these editors? Almost all participants in this dispute resolution discussion seemed to approach the issue with an open mind and a willingness to consider other perspectives. At least that had been my experience, although I guess if you think I have not participated in good faith, then you might say that I am blind to my own prejudice. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::To steelman what's being said here, as I think this is incredibly important, we should always be looking for potential bias including in ourselves. A common one, for example, would be confirmation bias. We all kind of get a bit lazy when it comes to information we already agree with and so people tend to be less sceptical of information if you agree with its conclusion. The way I find to circumvent it is to try to debunk yourself from the perspective of an opponent, in other words thinking of what they may do to find something wrong with it no matter the apparent evidential support. Though here, that task can be difficult for me where certain claims and their prominence can come off as so offensive to patients I work with that one has reason to be emotionally taken aback, especially in contrast to the voluminous research establishing the seriousness with which these disorders have to be taken. So it is to some extent a personal matter to me and I'm sure to others as well, one to acknowledge so we can contain it to ensure it does not blead into our analyses. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The important part of the bias that you should be aware of is your negative experience of being autistic yourself that you talked about in January.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Autism_discussion#c-%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2-20250108234800-Oolong-20250108094600] While being autistic does not mean that one cannot contribute neutrally in an article on autism, it is important to recognize one's own bias if strong emotions are present as in your case. LogicalLens (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::In what may have been a rush to judgement, the error is in your choice of words. While I have ASD mildly, that does not actualise a bias, it only creates the potential for one. I am containing my opinion of my own ASD to, just that, my own personal life experience. Indeed, the context of that comment shows I was expressing my own opinion in response to some controversy about why the framing is helpful, not specifically on whether the framing is factual in reality. Thus the implication of a bias is derived from a strawman, and not a real issue.

::::::::::::We are wise to keep track of context insofar that we do not overstate. It is partly why I abstain getting involved with the far more subjective matters like the proportion to which person first or person last language is used. These cannot be ascertained through the references objectively. It is often difficult to establish thus leaving interpretations wide open to bias from one’s personal life experiences, which I notice editors tend to rely on, or at least to a significantly higher degree. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@LogicalLens you gotta put [url] not url when putting in urls. Dimitry how can you be so against neurodiversity and be autistic? Also please don't kill me for templating you Dimitry. Anthony2106 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tqq|you gotta put [url] not url when putting in urls}} {{mdash}} Relevant help pages are:
Links to external web pages: {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking|Syntax}} - single square brackets
Links to Wikipedia pages: {{section link|Help:Link|Wikilinks (internal links)}} - double square brackets
Mitch Ames (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I am against neurodiversity, the movement, because hundreds of research studies directly contradict its main thesis, and yet it continues to adhere to these ideas, nonetheless. The movement causes real harm as it contradicts what the scientific literature is telling us about ASD.

::::::::::::::what can get missed in these discussions I think is that I and others do respect anyone who personally prefers a neurodiversity perspective on their own ASD, so long as they are not generalising that experience or imposing their beliefs onto others. The movement, however, categorises individuals into a group and passes judgement based on the collective, stigmatising people with the disorder, among other issues like top-down decisions concerning the diagnosis, availability and research into treatment, etc. which bleeds into policy decisions, and that’s when things start to get complicated. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{citation needed}} Oolong (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Mark, I think that sometimes (and I've not looked at which editor said that above, so this is not a comment directed at any person here), the working definition of "engaging with the discussion in good faith" is "agreed with me", or at least "met me halfway".

::::::::::That can be difficult for editors to do. Wikipedia seems to attract high-volume contributors who are less skilled at proposing compromises than the average population. Even if the editors propose compromises in some situations, it feels impossible when you're saying something that you think is as obviously factual as "2+2=4", and you feel like the other person is saying "actually, 2+2=6, but for the sake of agreement, maybe we should compromise and have the article say that 2+2=5?"

::::::::::I think the current state of Autism is terrible. I think that improving it to the point of "only mostly bad" would be a significant service to the world. But I'm concerned that some of the NDM-focused goals would result in the article being "still terrible, although in a different way".

::::::::::For example: Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder. But a minority of sources – who are clearly not thinking about the non-speaking, low IQ, high-aggression minority – think it should be called 'normal human variation'. So there's been a persistent proposal to marginalize the 'disorder' classification as "only" something that the "medical" people say, and not reflective of reality or as being a widely held viewpoint.

::::::::::For example: We present the POV that Applied behavior analysis is abusive, and a few editors have been persistent in advocating for that POV to be expanded and strengthened. But we don't mention actual child abuse at all in the article, even though high-quality sources say that autistic people are more likely to be victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and criminal neglect than neurotypical people.[https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-91280-6_227]

::::::::::The article is already in terrible shape, but shifting the POV to (for example) use the word "deficits" even less and "difference" even more, or to add additional sentences about how ABA is evil isn't going to solve the problems that I'm seeing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::WhatamIdoing - I am certainly familiar with smart, experienced Wikipedians with extensive, detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, who have strong opinions on some topics. These high-volume contributors impose their viewpoint by constant monitoring of "their" articles, reverting edits, criticizing other editors in edit notes and Talk page missives (often using disparaging language), and relentlessly opposing any edits that are not consistent with their viewpoint, even if the edits are supported by systematic reviews published in highly respected academic journals. These editors find each other and create informal groups that they can call upon to swarm talk pages with objections and disdainful rebukes of editors who dare to question "their" article. And their strategy works! When I see them reverting one of my edits or posting a diatribe on a Talk page, I quickly abandon that article because I know from experience they will wear me down until I quit in despair.

:::::::::::

:::::::::::I should note that I am not referring to any of the major editors involved in the Autism discussions. In my experience, most of us have at least acted civilly and I've observed a willingness to acknowledge errors, sincere attempts to understand others' perspectives, and at least a little bit of flexibility regarding word choice, phrasing, sourcing, etc. I believe more flexibility and compromise is needed, but I have not personally experienced any blistering attacks.

:::::::::::

:::::::::::I agree that the Autism article needs a long stay in the ICU. I'm coming to believe that a separate article on Autism Spectrum Disorder might help resolve the stalemate. (I think you might have suggested something like that previously).

:::::::::::

:::::::::::Btw, I love your essay on the phrase committed suicide - you review the history and explain the issue exceptionally well. Thank you! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't think the split will help. This DRN effort, the pair of RFCs, the split proposal – everything is aimed at getting more of "my" POV on the page. We need people who will ignore POV and update objective facts that all the POVs in all the reliable sources agree with. Like: Autistic people are more likely to be victims of crimes than to be perpetrators, and when they are perpetrators, it's usually because of poor social skills (e.g., not being able to navigate sexual consent fluently).

::::::::::::(I'm glad you liked the other page. Maybe its existence means we won't have to have the same conversation over and over and over.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Including the elevated risk of becoming the victim of a crime is a good idea. It should be made clear though that the reason for a crime is always the perpetrator and never the victim. In the same way, there are people who downplay sexual assaults saying the woman was wearing a short skirt etc. LogicalLens (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::(I think that assigning blame for crimes would be off-topic for the Autism article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tqq|Autistic people are more likely to be victims of crimes than to be perpetrators}} {{mdash}} That sentence adds very little value. If we assume that crimes by multiple perpetrators against a single person are relatively rare, and many criminals have more than one victim - then any random person or group of people is more likely to be a victim of crime than to be a perpetrator. In particular the average neurotypical person is more likely to be a victim of crime than to be a criminal. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Her intended meaning is that an autistic person is more like to be a crime victim than the average person and less likely to be a perpetrator than the average person, which does add value. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Also: Among the occasional perpetrator, there is an unusual pattern to the crimes. Autistic people are less likely than neurotypical people to engage in what you might call 'crimes of dishonesty' and more likely than neurotypical people (but still uncommonly) to engage in what you might call 'crimes due to social miscommunication'.

:::::::::::::::None of this is in the Autism article, and none of this depends on your POV about whether autism is 'normal variation' or 'a medical disorder'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::It should be included in the article but without blaming autistic people's social characteristics for the crimes. LogicalLens (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I'm pretty sure that's a detail to be sorted out at the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, you have always been a pleasure to see in these discussions. I must confess that I have had trouble keeping track of all the names, but reading through again, it's one editor in particular that I see acting out of line.

::::::::::On that note, I'm self-ibanning from @Димитрий Улянов Иванов in the psychiatry topic area. I do not believe further dialogue with them will be productive, and I can save myself and others a lot of trouble by disengaging now. Bowler the Carmine | talk 15:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов, bias extends to the selection and weighting of sources. While other editors who are skeptical of the changes are willing to compromise, you seem to have strong negative emotions regarding the neurodiversity perspective. This makes you not only argue against it (which is legitimate) but also diminish the sources that support it with blanket expressions like "scientific consensus" that are incorrect in most cases but make one feel confident. The fact that another editor complains about your behavior should be a reason for you to reflect on it. We need to move forward and constantly blocking changes by positioning one’s own interpretation of the sources as the absolute truth is the reason why this dispute has been going on for months now. LogicalLens (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@LogicalLens I was stealmanning a claim by describing the common bias of confirmation, how we can be more mindful such potential biases, and a way to usefully counteract them so it is not actualised. You've used this as an opportunity to posit that my positions are emotionally driven on the basis of a mischaracterisation. Not helpful.

::::::::::::I've been relying on references, directly quoting them, and placing them in context of Wikipedia guidelines to establish a scientific consensus. @WhatamIdoing gave a good basis in another comment for why compromising here may not be necessarily reasonable. Other editors and I have also addressed the problems with sources taking contrary positions in terms of their reliability, due weight, and other issues such as selectively citing outdated or contradicted material.

::::::::::::As such, I do not base this at all on my personal life experience. The user above who "complained" about my behaviour merely asserted baseless accusations. I do not see how it is appropriate to cite allegations. The link you shared in this thread to imply my position arises from emotional bias, mischaracterises what I’ve said. I explicitly expressed a personal opinion on why the framing of a disorder is helpful in response to some controversy, not whether it is factual in reality, which is what the Wikipedia article is concerned with. I was containing my opinion of my personal life experience to just that, my personal life experience.

::::::::::::Thus I kept my personal reflections strictly separate, and others have likewise shared personal views in good faith. If we can still agree that a personal connection to a topic does not automatically entail bias, then this should not be an issue.

::::::::::::What I also acknowledged is that in working with patients, certain harmful and thoroughly debunked assertions can understandably lead to one being emotionally taken aback for which I think there's good reason. This can make it more difficult to momentarily adopt those positions oneself for the sake of a sort of intellectual exercise. The fact that it may require more effort is not a refusal to engage critically, however. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Димитрий Улянов Иванов, please review WP:REHASH. Repeating the same argument, even if it seems obvious to you (which @WhatamIdoing also did), is not productive when it hasn't convinced others. The neurodiversity view is supported by sources including autistic individuals who are non-speaking or have intellectual disabilities ([https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_6][https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_12]). WP:Writing for the opponent reminds us to understand and present various viewpoints, even those we disagree with. Your assumption of universal truth for your viewpoint is problematic, especially as @Oolong, @Bowler the Carmine, and I have all raised concerns. Please reconsider your approach. LogicalLens (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Neither of the sources cited here are written by people who have an intellectual or expressive communication disability. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:5C8:2C75:37DD:F58 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Welcome. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That is true, but medical model proponents do not care about this either and just assume that these autistic people must suffer from being autistic. LogicalLens (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I don't think that the medical POV is to just assume that autistic people with intellectual or communication disabilities are suffering. Traditionally, the medical bias has been towards assuming that people with intellectually disabilities are unusually happy, except when they are communicating distress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::This assumption that intellectually disabled people are happy is something I have read several times for Down's syndrome but rarely for autism with intellectual disability. The medical model view is that these autistic people live a bad life because they cannot live "independently," which is considered the definitive measure of quality of life in capitalist societies. LogicalLens (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Adults with Down's syndrome cannot live independently either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::For some reason, they are nevertheless considered happier.

:::::::::::::::::::The point that I was trying to make is that proponents of the individualist/medical model of disability often accuse autistic advocates of inappropriately trying to speak for autistic people with intellectual disability while they do the same. Their inability to advocate for themselves is used as a criticism of the neurodiversity perspective but not of the medical view. LogicalLens (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::@WhatamIdoing they probably can but it probably depends on there intellect. For example I saw a woman with Down's syndrome use the train by herself. She seem pretty independent. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::"Living independently" means that you can live (e.g., in an ordinary apartment) without needing any help. That means things like being able to plan and prepare meals, clean your house, wash your laundry, get/keep a job, sort out medical appointments, take care of your body (e.g., is it time for a haircut? Did I get enough exercise this week?), figure out how much money you can spend on different things, and pay your bills by yourself. Lots of people can figure out certain things (e.g., taking the bus from home to a familiar location) but can't manage all the things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::: Yes that is true, but its crazy to say a whole group of people can't live Independently. Theres lots of people in the world, I'm sure at least one of them with Down's syndrome figured out how to live independently. Anthony2106 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::It appears to be true to a first approximation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::Well it must be correct because a simple google search shows its true. [https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/down-syndrome] Anthony2106 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

We are coming into a new month (witch is normally when people do things) and this despite is still not closed. Did we win? Did we make it less scientific? Or have we forgotten what we were arguing about? We have already started editing the page before the despite is over, witch is not that common. Do we still even need to talk anymore? Are we gonna use the new lead, or just forget about it? Can't we just use it anyway and see what happens? Anthony2106 (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think the article's lead and body have changed so much that it does not make much sense to continue debating the version of the lead that was proposed here. Some progress has been made, other things are still under debate, but this is not about a complete shift in the article's focus anymore. LogicalLens (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)