Talk:Autism

Brain Damage

Is autism considered brain damage? Somebody on the Joe Rogan experience said it was so I want to know if it is. Theeeggplant (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Autistic brains have fairly subtle differences in neuron density and connectivity from those of allistics (non-autistic people), their brains just develop that way. I am autistic and have a PhD in molecular biology - try doing that with brain damage. Like some allistic people, some autistic people have intellectual disability, but lots do not. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin all exhibited autistic traits, as did Mozart and Picasso. Urselius (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know since I have autism. Theeeggplant (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that. It mostly depends on how you personally define "autism". For example, a significant Traumatic brain injury (the true "brain damage") can cause symptoms that are indistinguishable from autism. If someone defines autism as a collection of behaviors, then the person with the TBI has autism. If second person defines autism as a naturally occurring brain difference (e.g., due to genetics), then (according to that second person) the same person with the TBI doesn't have autism; instead, they have TBI symptoms that just coincidentally happen to look like autism.

For example, kids with cerebral palsy are about twice as likely as non-CP kids to have autism. CP is mainly caused by perinatal asphyxia, which is oxygen deprivation that damages the brain at birth. Even outside of CP, autism is more likely in babies that experienced a loss of oxygen. Some people say these kids don't "really" have autism, because they don't have a genetic predisposition and their brains wouldn't have "just developed that way" if it wasn't for the loss of oxygen. At this point in time, medical and educational groups make no distinction on this point, but other people are allowed to have their own personal ideas, too. The minority with documented medical damage to the brain and the majority with a genetic predisposition all get lumped together by medical and educational organizations, but individuals may separate them.

That said, from what I've heard about Joe Rogan, he might have been using the words brain damage like a playground taunt (more like saying "he's stupid"), instead of talking about any kind of medically recognizable damage to the brain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Trauma is not a cause of neurodevelopmental conditions, except in utero or perinatally. Unfortunately, autism is a portmanteau term for a number of causations having some similar phenotypical features. Does someone with hereditary autism caused by a high incidence of autism-related, minor genetic variations, that are found throughout the general population, have the same condition as someone with de-novo large-scale genetic deletions, transpositions and duplications, with no previous familial history? Or are they separate conditions with some behavioural and sensory features in common? Genetic research is increasingly supporting multiple causations for autism, I think clinicians will be following suit eventually. I feel that the splitters are coming to the fore in the field one more and the lumpers and 'the spectrum' will be eclipsed before too long. Urselius (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: The DSM makes a distinction, e.g., between an individual who has an IQ of 60 from early life vs an IQ of 60 acquired after a car wreck at age 6 vs an IQ of 60 acquired after a car wreck at age 26. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

On average calculated differences don't really allow for determination of etiology or etiological causality. Ether way, there is a relatively large cluster of autism cases that involve damage to the brain during pregnancy/birth or shortly thereafter, e.g. Rubella infection while pregnant or hypoxia. ID/DD rates in autism is variously estimated at between 35 - 60 % so prevalence is 20 to 40 times higher. More than half of all cases of ID/DD has a known cause so Bayesian probability suggests that many of the autistics with ID have a known cause of their condition that involves organic damage to the brain. ~2026-33031-14 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM the Talk page should focus on improving the article, not discussing the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

A somewhat narrowly legalistic take. Non-cogent discussions can be deleted, collapsed, or hidden later, but if someone asks a question that is genuine I will answer it, if able to. It is also arguable that a debate on whether autism-like traits acquired as the result of trauma, post-early infancy, might be included in a definition of autism and why they usually are not, is cogent. Urselius (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, it sounds like this article would benefit from a short, simple statement like "Autism is not normally caused by a brain injury". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Negative statements are notoriously difficult to include in such a way that they remain factually correct. You can't prove, e.g. that there isn't a unicorn somewhere on earth. And brain injury is a fuzzy enough term. Of course, it's fairly easy to prove that head trauma or blunt violence isn't causing most of the autism but it turns into a factually incorrect claim because metabolical damage and degeneration on a cellular level which is technically included in the term brain injury and there is a fairly convincing case that actually a lot more autism cases might be down to that kind of injury than is commonly accepted. Confirmatores (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I agree to some extent, as it would be a major distraction and nuisance if this became the new autism Quora; however, this is merely one discussion asked in WP:GOODFAITH and my only actual objection to it is that it may have distracted us from work on our core task. BlockArranger (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV?

I have a few main arguments here as to why I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. This article pushes a particularly strong use of neurodiversity affirming language that is not present in other articles on similar conditions (ex. ADHD). No matter how well meaning the neurodiversity paradigm is, it is inherently a sociopolitical construct that is affecting the language of this article. Excerpts such as "characterized by differences or difficulties," "a need or strong preference for[...]," "sensory processing differences," "focused interests," and "features of" are clearly indicative that the writer is operating off of the neurodiversity paradigm. Contrast this with the Wikipedia article on ADHD, which describes the condition as "a neurodevelopmental disorder," "characterized by symptoms of," etc, using accurate and precise language that is commonly used to describe ADHD in medical contexts. The basic fact of the matter is that the neurodiversity movement, while popular, is not completely uncontested, and exclusively using language that is in accordance with that model is exhibiting a form of bias that is not present in articles about similar conditions which use language in accordance the medical model. You could argue that the medical model is also a sociopolitical construct, but we are talking about medical conditions, so using medical language to talk about conditions that are medical in nature seems fitting, rather than the dubious language of "differences" and "preferences," which seem to describe autism as a set of personality characteristics and habits, rather than a neurodevelopmental disability. That is also my qualm with the use of this language - autism, in most scholarly literature on the subject, is not merely a set of "differences," "preferences," or "focused interests," and I believe this language is reflective of bias in this article. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate with saying that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by a set of symptoms/difficulties in social interaction, sensory processing, and restricted and repetitive behaviors, which again, mirrors the language in articles on similar conditions. Again, this article is seemingly describing autism as a set of personality traits, characteristics, or habits, as exhibited by the use of language such as "differences" and "preferences," which is not what autism is and is not how it's described in reputable, scholarly literature. We should aim to mirror the language used in other articles on related conditions. I understand that we are not sourcing solely from medical text, and that we can take some liberties, considering autism is frequently discussed in pop culture as well, but the perspective taken in this article (through the use of the language in this article) is biased. It also neglects the experiences of people with HSN autism, who by most estimates make up at least 30% of the spectrum, which is ableist. Saraanhe (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Please list specific sources which you believe are underrepresented or improperly summarized. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, I believe you misunderstood my concerns with this article. I am not arguing that the article itself is inaccurate or that any sources need to be changed or added. I believe that the article over-represents the neurodiversity affirming paradigm through the word choice and language used. Saraanhe (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than comparisons to purely medical conditions with no psychological, sociological or community aspects, autism should be compared with articles on deafness, which also has both medical and social dimensions. Treating autism as a purely medical subject is objectively wrong, when there is a huge amount of non-medical literature available which is equally scholarly but concerns, neurology, sociology, theoretical psychology and lived experience. To selectively ignore aspects of any subject is unencyclopaedic and has no place on Wikipedia, where all relevant aspects of any subject should be made available to readers. To be blunt, your stance seems more POV and extreme than anything in the article.

Accusing disabled people, which is the legal definition (at least in the UK) of all people diagnosed as autistic, of ableism just because they have the facility to advocate for themselves is in itself most certainly ableist. Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the world leaders in autism research, has moved from the 'extreme male mind' and deficits in the 'theory of mind' hypotheses, through 'pattern recognition', to support for the neurodiversity model. He argues that autism should not be viewed solely as a disorder but as a variation in human cognition that can offer unique advantages. To go against the opinion of such eminent autism researchers and revert to a purely medical approach to autism here on Wikipedia would indeed be POV-pushing. Urselius (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, while we technically don't have a consensus to call "people with autism" "autistic people", it seems to have been enforced quite thoroughly regardless. In the same way, despite neurodiversity not being backed as a predominant paradigm by consensus, I think the lead is basically the result of advocates attempting to the best of their abilities to push the lead (especially the first paragraph) as far as possible in that direction. I think that while they may have succeeded in individual discussions here at the Talk page, the total result is that neurodiversity seems predominant, with the only limit being that autism must still be something and that we can't blanantly disregard the model of autism presented in WP:MEDRS.

Furthermore, your response does seem to misrepresent OP's assertion somewhat, as it does not seem like they nor others here are attempting to claim that autism has "no psychological, sociological or community aspects". It seems that they are just pointing out that we have diverged quite far from how autism is actually defined in, for example, the ICD-11 (see: 6A02 in the ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics).

Especially considering that we ought to maintain text-to-source WP:INTEGRITY, I would be interested in seeing how you @Urselius (or anyone else, for that matter) would argue that the first lead sentence actually corresponds to the DSM-5, which is supposedly the source that it is based on. I just think that our representation of how autism is described in the DSM-5 is stretching it a little, based on what other (not cited) sources have to say about autism; however, of course, nobody dared base the lead on the writings of "eminent autism researchers" or "disabled people [...] [with] the facility to advocate for themselves. BlockArranger (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Your reference to diagnostic manuals as the be all and end all of definitions of autism is prioritising the medical and pathology paradigms of autism. Everyone, presumably, knows that autism has important non-medical facets and that there is an ever increasing trend in academic and scientific thought that sees autism as something other than merely a pathology. Diagnostic manuals lag behind the practise of clinical medicine, which lags behind medical research, that itself lags behind scientific research. It is an inevitability. An encyclopaedic treatment of autism that prioritises either diagnostic manuals or contemporary clinical practise over all other considerations, is not telling the full story and is letting down its readership. If world leading researchers on autism are accepting of, and indeed promoting in their publications, the neurodiversity model of autism, Wikipedia cannot demote this aspect of the subject to the status of a fringe theory, or out of the introductory sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As your assertion is an opinion regarding how Wikipedia is to be developed, I make clear that it is to be respected even though I do not fully agree with it. However, it is not factually accurate; it is not my "reference to diagnostic manuals as the be all and end all of definitions of autism", but rather, that of our article (see for yourself if you are so inclined). While your opinion can be brought up in a discussion regarding how Wikipedia ought to work, in its current state, we cannot disregard WP:INTEGRITY; indeed, I would be in the right to change the lead to fully medical and pathologizing language immediately, because that would enjoy the support of the source that we actually cite.

Your case cannot be successfully argued unless you propose specific sources that should replace the DSM-5 for the lead, as it would be collective bad faith (I am not accusing you nor anyone else of that) if we were to knowingly continue to pretend that the DSM-5 can honestly be represented through neurodiversity-affirming euphemisms and other such language. Indeed, I think that this article does not sufficiently describe what autism is defined as, because it is in fact operationalized the way it is defined in for example the DSM-5 and ICD-11; autism research is as far as I know not based on "autism" populations selected by eligibility in accordance with what this article is telling its readers that autism is.

I will end this by citing a fundamental WP:POLICY, namely WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE in WP:NOR:

"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in one's own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication, going beyond what the sources express, or using them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, one must stick to the sources." BlockArranger (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources are of paramount importance, all Wikipedia articles need to reflect the relevant scholarship. However, in this case scholarship is divided. Reliance on, or prioritising, one aspect of available scholarship to the detriment of another is effectively saying that a large amount of the available scholarship is irrelevant or lesser. As Wikipedia editors we cannot do that. Placing the wording of any diagnostic manual as being definitive over the entirety of a complex psychosocial condition is not balance. Over-reliance on the pathologising model of autism is not balance. There is a large banner at the top of this page WP:SUFFER, this has to be given as much respect as all the rest of the 'WP:xxx' strictures. Softening pathologising language is not POV-pushing, it is an attempt to find a level of balance between the opposing viewpoints that are to be found within scholarship on autism. Urselius (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

TL;DR: The current phrasing of the lead section is both factually accurate and appropriately balanced, as neurodiversity-affirming language is well-supported by recent scholarship, required by several major autism journals, and does not conflict with our sourcing obligations under Wikipedia policy.

Sourcing

WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE does not quite fit here as it is about statements not supported by any cited source (original research). The essay at WP:OUROWNWORDS explains this well: "The misciting of WP:STICKTOSOURCES most commonly occurs when an editor is advocating for a conservative language choice, and their opponents are proposing a progressive language choice. A variant on misciting WP:STICKTOSOURCES is to claim "Wikipedia should follow, not lead", which likewise is core policy on facts and viewpoints but not on word choice."

While the content must be the same as that in the source cited, the precise vocabulary can differ. It is not unusual for journal articles to say "differences in social communication and interaction" and to still cite the DSM. Several academic journals focused specifically on autism recommend or even require anti-ableist language. The prominence of the neurodiversity approach is increasing, and @Urselius is right that the DSM is outdated and lags behind research. It is also heavily influenced by political considerations, as service and support provision often depends on a disorder framing.

Because of the factual correctness, there is no violation of WP:INTEGRITY, but we could cite multiple sources, some of which use neurodiversity-affirming language. A good option is the Australian Guidelines for autism. Using only one source (and then a somewhat outdated one) would anyway be insufficient for a topic like autism. WP:SUFFER says: "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." This requires us to take the effects of word choices more into account here, and terms that depict autistic features as negative symptoms and objects of study separate from an individual's personality have a negative impact on many autistic people.

The concrete word choices

The article currently says autism is "characterized by differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, or repetitive behaviors." I split that up into its parts to discuss each separately:

1. "differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction": This is correct as it both includes difficulties (which is supported by the DSM-5) and other social characteristics that are not by themselves difficulties (which is supported by more recent sources on the Double Empathy Problem that shows that not all social differences in autism are difficulties).
2. "need or strong preference for predictability and routine": This is correct. Last year, I already argued that writing "preference" alone has the disadvantage that it can be perceived as saying that it is just a wish that can be done without (which is what @Saraanhe is arguing), especially without context that can only be detailed in the specific sub-section. The solution was to include "need" as well and to make "preference" more precise by adding "strong". In my view, this is an adequate phrasing.
3. "sensory processing differences": Here, we could write "higher or lower sensitivity", which would describe the sensory characteristics neutrally. The reason we chose "differences" instead was because these differences also include features like sensory craving.
4. "focused interests": This is the aspect with the broadest support for acceptance. Even many who still view the social features of autism negatively often recognize that intense, focused interests are a part of the autistic individual’s personality and can even have benefits. Some have switched to "special interests", which is also the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article. Many do not agree with this, as it somewhat others autistic people by describing their interests as "special". Another option would be "intense interests".
5. "repetitive behaviors": This is pathologizing, as the word "repetitive" has a negative connotation: it sounds like repeating a boring task, while the benefits and purposes of stimming are not mentioned. We could add "self-regulatory" before it or "including stimming" after it.

To @Saraanhe specifically

• The neurodiversity paradigm is more widespread for autism than for ADHD, therefore it is appropriate to give it more weight here than in the article on ADHD. Some change would be adequate there too, but not to the same extent, and I haven’t yet had the time to do it.
• The neurodiversity approach does not deny disability, and we could make that clearer in the article, as it seems to frequently lead to misunderstandings. It is not about saying autistic people do not have problems in their lives or have less severe problems than the medical model proposes. It is about ascribing these problems to a different source, i.e. largely the environment instead of the individual.
• Saying the use of medical language is appropriate because autism "is a medical condition" is not a good argument: Using this kind of language is only appropriate if something is a medical condition and that is precisely the thing that is under debate.
• Neurodiversity proponents argue that it is ableist not to include autistic people with complex support needs under the neurodiversity umbrella because of the assumption that requiring more care and support is equal to suffering. Shannon des Roches Rosa, the mother of an autistic person with 24/7 support needs, is a prominent supporter of the neurodiversity paradigm.

LogicalLens (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"It is about ascribing these problems to a different source, i.e. largely the environment instead of the individual." The sources

• Kapp, S.K. (2020). Introduction. In: Kapp, S. (eds) Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_1
• Ne’eman, A., & Pellicano, E. (2022). Neurodiversity as politics. Human development, 66(2), 149.

clearly position neurodiversity as a political approach or as an alternative point of view on family dynamics. In these sources "the environment" means social constructs of "normal" vs "problem".

A different, more sensible, and less polemic middle ground exists:

• Aftab, Awais (May 11, 2026). "Opinion | We're Thinking About Mental Health Diagnoses All Wrong". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-05-12.

In this point of view the "environment" consists of living situations and life challenges which different people with different skills and limitations respond to differently. Because the diagnosis of mental health is based on observations of a response to an environment, the environment is a contributing factor to the outcome. See also

• Levinovitz A, Aftab A. The Rumpelstiltskin effect: therapeutic repercussions of clinical diagnosis. BJPsych Bulletin. 2026;50(2):191-195. doi:10.1192/bjb.2025.10137

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that Rumpelstiltskin effect is a notable subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to create an article on that if you have enough reliable, secondary sources. LogicalLens (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton, Awais Aftab, the author of the NYT article you cited, has had an interview with a neurodiversity proponent in which he is sympathetic to the concept: Most of the diagnosis he writes about in the NYT are true disorders, which even neurodiversity advocates do not deny.

@WhatamIdoing, I am always open to suggestions for re-phrasings that are related to neither the medical model nor the neurodiversity perspective. Regarding the other point: We are not predicting the future, but are citing current peer-reviewed scholarship and journal guidelines that exist right now, as I have pointed out in my longer response above. That is not speculation. LogicalLens (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@LogicalLens In the link you posted Awais Aftab is the interviewer and I would characterize Awais' questions as "curious" rather than "sympathetic". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

But, importantly, then we are not basing the sentence (solely) on the DSM-5. By this point I really do expect specific arguments for why we should retain the DSM-5 specifically as a source for this claim. If we add other source, however, we may end up doing a WP:SYNTH. Why not find a WP:MEDRS source that actually lends direct support to what is claimed in the lead? I also think that the lead does not conform with the DSM-5, because, while the lead includes the DSM-5 definition, I think the lead definition includes cases that the DSM-5 does not. As such, the DSM-5 should not be considered to support a looser definition, and if we let this slide, I think it is dishonest. An honest approach would be to use sources directly supporting what is stated in the lead.

Also, while it is true that we can decide to be woke as in writing "disability" instead of "handicap" and still comply with WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES, it is not merely a progressive word choice to redefine autism using neurodiversity-affirming or depathologizing language for the definition of languages, because that entails a change of facts, at least in the form "we" have done it. It seems to me that several editors of this article are in fact here in order to, in their view, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In fact, we are supposed to follow what the mainstream sources say and the very recent ICD-11 is "up-to-date mainstream".

As @Urselius wrote: "Diagnostic manuals lag behind the practise of clinical medicine, which lags behind medical research, that itself lags behind scientific research. It is an inevitability." I fully agree, and as explained in WP:NOR, Wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source; it is well within reason that Wikipedia ought to stay within its bounds by not attempting to mirror what current recent journals are stating. Instead, we could have a "Research directions" section where we discuss that supposedly the definition of autism should include those with merely "differences [...] in social communication and interaction, a [...] strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, [and] focused interests", if there is support to be found in WP:MEDRS. At any given moment, we should "[prioritise] either diagnostic manuals or contemporary clinical practise over all other considerations". If not, what WP:POLICY is that claim based on?

Furthermore, you, @LogicalLens are seemingly disregarding WP:INTEGRITY, because it seems to me like in your opinion, it is okay to go ahead and change a fact supposedly supported by the DSM-5 just because the fact is, for example, "supported by more recent sources on the Double Empathy Problem that shows that not all social differences in autism are difficulties". Well, did this research change the content found in the DSM-5? If not, why can't we be honest about using the sources you provided? Perhaps because it would be WP:SYNTH? BlockArranger (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree that "Diagnostic manuals lag behind the practise of clinical medicine". That happens sometimes, but it does not always happen. Sometimes diagnostic manuals lead clinical practice out of bad and outdated practices.

I do not think that editors should be trying to predict the future of the DSM or other significant sources, and then write this article based on what Wikipedia editors believe the answer "should be" in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thank you for pointing that out, @WhatamIdoing! It has seemed to me for a long time now that people on this talk page have decided that they know better than clinical guidelines, the DSM, ICD and so on. You put it really well: indeed, they seem to be trying to make this article lead the world's perception of autism. Of course, doing that on Wikipedia can be successful as our encyclopedia is in fact very popular and trusted, but let's stick to its purpose and not develop hubris, with outcomes similar to those in the old Greek story. And by the way, see how they still can't seem to find an explanation for us citing the DSM-5 for the first sentence? BlockArranger (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly many scientific autism researchers consider the diagnostic manuals as being questionable. Where do you think that the many drastic changes between recensions of the diagnostic manuals come from if not from scientific researchers and expert practising clinicians? Urselius (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The revisions reflect clinical consensus, which will keep on being updated. Also, as pointed out by WhatamIdoing, it's not this one-sided. For example, when it comes to personality disorder, society and clinical practice, as well as many of the afflicted people are not catching up with the progress, which has gone mainstream with the ICD-11 going dimensional as not only an option but the only option. In regards to autism, one example is that this was the launching ground for making ASD the mainstream default way of seeing it, rather than having separate condition. When it comes to researchers and their views, these must become mainstream and supported by consensus, if they are to have a significant influence on Wikipedia. BlockArranger (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The ICD was finished in 2019 and the DSM-5 in 2013. The DSM-5-TR is just a copy-edited version, at least for the autism chapter. If they had sit down specifically to update it, they would have changed some of the content. I am not referring specifically to neurodiversity-related changes, but new scientific evidence has emerged in the meantime and a rewrite would have resulted in changes at least in details. Most neurodiversity literature has been published after 2019, and this is a clear argument that we need to do more than just use these sources to base our definition of autism on. The fact that the Australian clinical guidelines have adopted the neurodiversity paradigm in the meantime shows that neurodiversity has gone mainstream in the past years, even if not all researchers agree yet. LogicalLens (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but why should we cite the DSM-5? BlockArranger (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

While I still believe that the expression “social differences” can be sourced to the DSM (also because “differences” is a just broader term that can include positive, negative, and neutral features), I am not here to camouflage anything and as that impression arises, I agree on replacing or complementing the source. I also think writing just “diagnosis” without “formal” is appropriate.

I understand the concern that the term “differences” could be understood as including far more people; perhaps “specific differences or difficulties” would be clearer. “Differences” alone can mean many different things, but the same is true for “difficulties” as there are other reasons why a person can have such difficulties, for example, trauma or anxiety. In addition, as you have already pointed out, it says directly after that that significant challenges must be present, which excludes people who do not meet the threshold.

Regarding the proportionality of medical and neurodiversity views, it is important to note that the lead is, in large part, not neurodiversity-affirming as it still says “condition “and “is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder”, “difficulties” in social interaction, and “repetitive” behaviors. Not all editors here have agreed to the less pathologizing language, but it has remained stable for about a year, and that is what I normally understand as a consensus, since a consensus in the sense of nearly everyone agreeing can almost never be reached. LogicalLens (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I like the “specific differences or difficulties” language. It encompasses things like someone being able to engage in small talk (it's a learned skill for everyone), but preferring to skip the preliminaries (e.g., instead of "Hello, how are you? I'm fine, too. Do you have the key to the supplies cabinet?", to just say "Do you have the key to the supply cabinet?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

LogicalLens wrote: Saying the use of medical language is appropriate because autism "is a medical condition" is not a good argument: Using this kind of language is only appropriate if something is a medical condition and that is precisely the thing that is under debate.

By the same logic, saying the use of neuroaffirming language is appropriate because autism is a normal variation/difference/not a medical condition is not a good argument: Using this kind of language is only appropriate if something is matter of ordinary human diversity, and that is precisely the thing that is under debate.

And now we can't use either medical or neuroaffirming language, if we want to follow that logic.

The usual thing to do in such situations is:

• to find a third option (neither medical nor neuroaffirming)
• to use both in a suitable proportion (e.g., half and half, or three to one, or whatever seems reasonable)
• to reject the "taking sides" approach altogether, accepting whatever words seem to fit the individual fact/claim/sentence/paragraph and not worry about whether the overall article ends up with the "wrong" words or "too much" of the other POV's language.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, indeed facts can remain facts, but in this case, it seems like we can't agree on facts either. Me and some others present and support mainstream definitions of autism and attempt to build an article on that, whereas others seem to agree what the topic ("autism") is, and often do a good job at writing about it, but do not seem to have any clear idea about what exactly we should define it as. Their view of neuroaffirming language seems to invariably result in changing the meaning and scope of autism itself; and using objectively true (as of 2026) definitions of autism (which is a construct tied to this definition) is seen as POV and ableist. I cannot see how we can discuss autism if it is suddenly treated as some vague thing that may or may not necessarily entail disability in the social domain. I wonder, do you perhaps have any suggestions on what do do about these differences which seem hard to reconcile? BlockArranger (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that the underlying problem is solvable at the moment. Autism is many things, and everyone wants "their" version to be the one that is represented as the primary (or even sole) version on a Wikipedia page titled "Autism". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Not true, many people, me included, want a balanced article that gives equal weight to any view of autism that has good quality scholarship behind it, be that medical, scientific or sociological. Urselius (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I was making a sweeping generalization, and not even primarily speaking of Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Urselius Greetings, I appreciate your perspective on these topics. I have a few points to make about your comments here:

1. There are no "purely medical conditions" that do not have psychological, societal, or other implications behind them. If your argument is that autism is not a "purely medical condition," I would retort that no medical conditions are "purely medical." There are social determinants surrounding every condition, as well as unique communities for every condition. Even the field of medicine itself is not "purely medical," it is deeply intertwined with other disciplines such as the humanities. If you're arguing that autism has unique implications that are not otherwise naturally assumed, as with all other medical conditions, then you should list them and explain why the language used in this article is necessary to reflect that.
2. In the same vein, there is nothing objectively wrong with treating a medical condition as a medical condition. It is not "extreme," nor ableist, nor ignorant, to treat autism as a medical condition. As I've said previously, there are no "purely medical conditions," so to treat autism as a medical condition does not mean we ignore any other "non-medical" aspects when talking about autism. To quote the DSM diagnostic criteria here, to have ASD, "symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning." This is a required criteria. To briefly summarize the definition of a medical condition, it is "a broad term for any, often abnormal, state of health that impairs an individual's physical or mental well being, including illnesses, injuries, diseases, disorders, or syndromes." Language in the criteria in both the DSM and ICD clearly establish that autism is a medical condition. Because the criteria for autism requires that a person is clinically significantly impaired in important areas of functioning, we can reasonably surmise that autism impairs a persons physical or mental well being, making it a medical condition. Your main rebuttal to this, I'm assuming, is that those impairments do not come from having autism, but rather from society. However, this disregards the realities of millions of autistic individuals, especially the ones that need the most support. Being nonspeaking and unable to verbally communicate your needs is not because of society. Having sensory issues is not because of society. Being unable to emotionally regulate yourself is not because of society. Executive dysfunction is not because of society. Special interests occupying your mind to the point where you are unable to focus on anything else is not because of society. ARFID is not because of society. Need I go on? While all of these can be mediated or amplified by the supports you get and how society responds to your condition, these are not caused by society, they are caused by autism.
3. Deafness and being Deaf is more of an "abstract" experience that includes millions of people with vastly different conditions, while autism is solidly one condition (or many conditions combined into a spectrum, depending on who you ask) with a relatively rigid criteria. For example, take two members of the Deaf community, one having hearing loss due to aging, and another having a genetic syndrome like Pendred syndrome. Both of these community members are Deaf and may participate in Deaf culture. Autism is arguably not comparable to Deafness because ASD is a clearly defined clinical syndrome, not an attribute or symptom of another condition. While autism can be caused by a genetic syndrome, in nearly 80-90% of cases, the cause is idiopathic. This can also be the cause with hearing loss, however, once again, hearing loss and Deafness is a symptom and not exactly a condition on its own. Autism is (usually) not a symptom of something else, it is a standalone condition that has clear criteria that one must meet in order to be diagnosed as autistic. Being autistic is contingent on the fact that you meet the criteria for autism. Deafness is not a diagnosis. There is no criteria for being Deaf and being in the Deaf community other than experiencing significant hearing loss.
4. To nip any potential loose ends in the bud, the broader autism phenotype still does not make autism comparable to Deafness. The BAP refers to subclinical autistic traits that, in research settings, are prevalent in the families of some autistic individuals. However, having the BAP does not mean someone is autistic, and it does not make autism an attribute or an extremely malleable concept like Deafness. The existence of the BAP also does not necessarily support the argument that autism is a natural variation, as many conditions have subclinical phenotypes (such as subclinical hypothyroidism, masked hypotension, and unaffected carriers of genetic syndromes). Many mental conditions also have these subclinical profiles, such as depression, OCD, and ADHD, where symptoms are not clinical to the point of meeting the criteria for a diagnosis but are still somewhat present in a subclinical capacity.
5. Furthermore, the Deaf community has a well established culture behind it, partially due to some of the unique languages Deaf people have created and used in order to communicate, such as ASL. You can argue that AAC is a unique language such as ASL, however, AAC is not exclusive to autistic individuals, nor is it used by the vast majority of them. While non-Deaf people can learn ASL, the language is primarily used by Deaf people, and it and all of its different dialects and translations are unique to Deaf people. AAC is not similar to ASL in those aspects, as it is used primarily by nonverbal individuals, not autistic individuals as a whole (although it is open for them to potentially used as needed). AAC is not used solely for autistic individuals, rather, for anyone with difficulties in communicating and speech, which includes conditions such as apraxia and ALS. I don't have any specific sources I can cite for this, but I would actually speculate that autistic individuals are only a minority of people who use AAC. I would also argue that AAC isn't a language on its own, but rather, a mode of communicating language. To make an analogy, a Deaf persons hands can be used to communicate language, but their hands are not a "language" by themselves. Autism does not have a well established culture like the Deaf community does. This isn't to say that autism has no culture surrounding it, but autistic culture and Deaf culture are also in no ways comparable to each other. What aspects of autistic culture can you say are unique to autistic people and their community that make it distinct from disability culture as a whole? The diabetic community has a culture, but you would not say it is the same as Deaf culture. Autistic culture is a subset of disability culture and not a distinctly separate culture like Deaf culture (which is still intertwined with disability culture but has many important aspects that make it unique from disability culture).
6. I never accused anyone of anything, and it is certainly in bad taste to make such assumptions. I myself have been diagnosed with ASD and clearly, I am able to advocate for myself, so why would I ever claim that autistic individuals do not have the capacity to do so? Your talking point here is a clear example of WP:SOAPBOX. It also, ironically, proves the point that I am making. Having such a strong response to the mere suggestion that we change the language of the article so that it reflects what autism is more accurately and concisely as through mirroring some of the language used in diagnostic and scholarly texts, rather than using words such as "preference" and "differences," shows that, at the very least, you do not hold a neutral position.
7. Likewise, I did not make any claims about the state of autism research. I did not make any rebuttals to the existing research, nor did I present any new research or suggest that we replace or add any additional sources. What I said does not go against existing research whatsoever. We also must remember that most research is merely a hypothesis or theory. Such as Baron-Cohen's "extreme male brain theory" is just a theory, the "double empathy problem" is also a theory. Neither of these should be regarded as absolute truths about the nature of autism. That is not why we publish research. The reason Baron-Cohen moved away from the "extreme male brain theory" was because there was no evidence suggesting that it was a clinically significant cause of autism, not because of neurodiversity. Furthermore, while Baron-Cohen supports the neurodiversity model, he does not move away from the medical model entirely - in fact, he advocates that both of these models can coexist and does not regard them as mutually exclusive. Simon Baron-Cohen has said, quote, "Regarding scientific evidence, there is evidence for both neurodiversity and disorder. For example, at the genetic level, about 5% of the variance in autism can be attributed to rare genetic variants/mutations, many of which cause not just autism but also severe developmental delays (disorder), whilst about 50% of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms, which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation." Your statements seem to suggest that you do regard these models as mutually exclusive, which is curious, because that means that you cited a well reputed researcher who does not agree with you.
8. Furthermore, there are many major scientists in the field of autism research that do not agree with the neurodiversity model. This does not make them any less reputable than Baron-Cohen. For example, Uta Frith, who is nearly unanimously described as a "pioneer" in autism research, wants to dismantle the autism spectrum and "reiterates that autism should be considered a disorder" - both of these concepts clearly go against the neurodiversity paradigm. She's pioneered research into theory of mind deficits in autistic individuals (the same research as Baron-Cohen), was one of the first people in the UK to research Asperger syndrome (now ASD), one of the first scientists to recognize autism was biological and not due to poor parenting, has published an entire book on autism, discredited the now debunked theory that dyslexia is caused by low intelligence, and is, evidently, highly accomplished. I could just as easily cite her, as you did with Baron-Cohen, as evidence that researchers have not done away with the medical model.
9. I and @BlockArranger have not suggested that the diagnostic criteria are "end all be all" when it comes to defining autism. Sociological and anthropological research are certainly welcome in discussions on autism. However, as Wikipedia enthusiasts, you and I both know that when the "common folk" use Wikipedia, they are not usually reading because they are experts at the topic of an article at hand. Wikipedia is often the first thing that pops up when people search "what is___?" It is also generally good advice for writing nonfiction that the first few sentences concisely and accurately convey the topic in a very broad manner, before going deeper in the subsequent paragraphs. Let's take a layman who knows very little about autism, much less concepts like the neurodiversity paradigm. What do you think is being conveyed to the layman when they read the first lines of this article that autism is defined by "strong preferences" and "differences"? Do you think the nature of autism is being accurately conveyed? How do other articles on autism compare to this one? For example, the CDC summarizes autism with this paragraph: "People with ASD often have problems with social communication and interaction, and restricted or repetitive behaviors or interests. People with ASD may also have different ways of learning, moving, or paying attention. These characteristics can make life very challenging." The Mayo Clinic says: "Autism spectrum disorder is a condition related to brain development that affects how people see others and socialize with them. This causes problems in communication and getting along with others socially. The condition also includes limited and repeated patterns of behavior. The term "spectrum" in autism spectrum disorder refers to the wide range of symptoms and the severity of these symptoms." The NIMH says: "Autism spectrum disorder is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn, and behave. Although autism can be diagnosed at any age, it is described as a “developmental disorder” because symptoms generally appear in the first two years of life." Do the first few sentences of this Wikipedia article convey this information in a similar manner? None of these quotes are overly "pathologizing," yet they still are accurate to the medical reality of autism.
10. Autism being or not being a "pathology" is your opinion and is up for debate. There is no consensus that autism is not a pathology. Pathology is also not language one typically hears when describing autism, so I'm curious as to where you got your perception that people hear autism and think "pathology." The medical model's consensus is that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (true, and may be subject to change with future research, similar to how we debunked the refrigerator mother theory) that causes substantial difficulties in daily living (true, because autism is a disability and because we have not found a case of autism that does not involve clinically significant impairments in daily functioning) with the core symptoms being impairments in social communication and restricted and repetitive behaviors (true, may be modified in future criteria). Nothing about the medical model literally states that autism is a "pathology" (language that is usually reserved for infectious diseases, histology, and other fields, notably not the psychiatric field). I assume you are using pathology in place of disorder because pathology sounds more stigmatizing despite the fact that most research does not describe autism as a pathology. So then, your argument is autism is not a disorder, which according to the diagnostic criteria, it is. But even if we did not go by diagnostic criteria, autistic individuals' subjective experiences still implicate autism as a disorder in some capacity. You can listen to MSN and HSN individuals on social media describe their experiences. Even many LSN individuals describe their experiences as being solidly in the realm of disordered and disabling. Just because a few individuals that do not need as many supports describe autism as not disordered does not mean that is true of every autistic individual or of autism itself. I can tell you now that as someone with autism, it is very disabling for me. Obviously, anecdotal evidence is not as strong as empirical evidence, but you have also not presented empirical evidence that autism is not a disorder.
11. The lead does not support the source that is cited (as pointed out by @BlockArranger). If we are citing the DSM, then why does the language not reflect what is said in the DSM? It does not need to be one to one, or overly pathologizing, but clearly the language is so different that it is not recognizable as being from the DSM.
12. The neurodiversity model is controversial and this article is treating it as though it is consensus. The controversy is not just from "autism moms" or self hating autistic people, as one may assume, but from top researchers, developmental neurobiologists, and autistic people themselves who have qualms with how the model treats autism and who is behind the model. "Against neurodiversity," "21 Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement," "Autism research at the crossroads" are all good articles on the subject of "anti-neurodiversity." There are also some minor groups of autistic individuals online who identify with "anti-NDM" (which, as you can guess, is anti-neurodiversity model), r/AutisticPeeps, or "Neuropracticality" (which describes itself as a heterogeneous ideology that believes in both the medical and neurodiversity models but does not align with one or the other). To treat the neurodiversity model as the baseline is inaccurate to the experiences and beliefs of many autistic individuals.
13. If we are to use the neurodiversity model, its shortcomings should be elaborated upon (such is the case as well with the medical model) - namely, there is no acknowledgement of ASAN's controversies anywhere on Wikipedia, and definitely not in this article, despite ASAN being a huge promoter of neurodiversity within the community. If this is soap boxing, feel free to correct me. However, as we discuss the harms of the medical model, if we are to use the language of the neurodiversity model, it seems apt that we at least discuss its controversies more than just the extent of "some people disagree" so that we remain as unbiased as possible and give the audience the full context. I mentioned this on the Talk page of ASAN as well, but it is just a tad worrying that there is little mention of ASAN's controversies in order to promote the neurodiversity model. For one, Ari Ne'eman is an incredibly hateful Zionist, as shown by their X/Twitter posts, yet their article gets around 2 paragraphs dedicated to their political beliefs, and the ASAN article gets none. Furthermore, ASAN lobbied the APA to change the diagnostic criteria of autism, openly supports facilitated communication, has opposed some efforts of biomedical scientists and has halted biomedical research, there are no records of HSN/level 3 autistic individuals on their staff and their executive director, Collin Killick, has no history of being diagnosed with autism (I will note there is obviously a debate on formal vs. self diagnosis, and that Collin is neurodivergent but does not have a history of any diagnosis of autism, self diagnosis or not), opposed Kevin and Avonte's Law (this is mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but there is not nearly enough context given for both sides of the debate around this law), opposes all forms of guardianship (ignoring that some autistic individuals have severe cognitive disabilities that do not allow them to make complex decisions for themselves), has greatly influenced public policy that other organizations pointed out did not reflect broader community opinions, and other smaller controversies (Steve Silberman, while not officially associated with ASAN, is a supporter of neurodiversity and has described NAMBLA member Allen Ginsberg as "his hero"). Again, I recognize that this point of mine could potentially be soap boxing and even grand standing, but if we are to use the neurodiversity model, and if we are to remain unbiased, why is none of this mentioned on any pages related to neurodiversity - not on this page, not on Ari Ne'eman's page, and not on ASAN's page? If we are to recognize and discuss the flaws of the medical model, why do we not recognize and discuss the flaws of the neurodiversity model to a similar extent?

Saraanhe (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:WALLOFTEXT. DonIago (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the word count of the text, I calculated that it would take roughly 10 minutes to read at a slightly faster than average reading pace. Also given that I received 25 notifications underneath my original text post, and that there was another text post created loosely based on what mine said ("What is Autism?") with that addition text thread, I really do not think that me being comprehensive is a problem but rather points to the fact that this article is clearly divisive and needs some reworking. I would encourage you to look at WP:BITE would like to gently remind you that WP:AUTISTIC editors are, evidently, autistic people, who tend to be highly verbose and unaware of normal social conventions. Saraanhe (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Okie-doke. DonIago (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Being nonspeaking and unable to verbally communicate your needs is not because of society. Having sensory issues is not because of society. Being unable to emotionally regulate yourself is not because of society. Executive dysfunction is not because of society. Special interests occupying your mind to the point where you are unable to focus on anything else is not because of society. ARFID is not because of society.

It seems like you misunderstand what the social model of disability is about. It is not about saying that autistic people would not have these characteristics in a different society, but that most of the disability is created by society not accepting these differences, and having built an environment in which it is difficult to live with these features. You can find further information in the sources I cited in my longer response a few days ago.

I do not have the time to write multiple pages of text to take apart your arguments around deafness and ASAN one-by-one; they contain many inaccuracies, inadequate comparisons, ad hominem attacks, and anachronistic judgements that measure people’s actions of the past by today’s standards. As for the medical websites you referred to, there are other pages like this by the British NHS that does not pathologize autism: LogicalLens (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

As a simple example:

• Being nonspeaking is not because of society.
• But society strongly preferring (to the point of almost requiring) that you communicate your needs via speaking is because of society.

In this model, "can't speak easily (or at all)" is an individual 'impairment', but "and not being able to speak is a problem for daily life" is society turning that 'impairment' into a 'disability'. The idea is that the nonspeaking bit wouldn't matter if society had other ways to meet the needs (e.g., universal support for nonspeaking ways of communicating). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

1. I'll only mention here the issue that autism, like most psychological disorders, doesn't behave like the neurological or physiological diseases normally subsummarized under medical conditions.

2. Most of the listed issues are not, per se, part of autism and I've noticed over the last couple years that a lot of issues are shoved under the autism label which do NOT constitute autism.

"they are caused by autism." -> Autism is a set of symptoms, symptoms can't cause themselves. Wittgenstein would have to say a lot about how our way of speaking about autism makes critical investigation impossible.

3. Autism being a clearly defined clinical syndrome is different from it being a clearly different neurobiological entity. The two have, per se, nothing to do with each other. Deafness and autism are both solely determined by disability alone, so they're actually similar conception-wise.

4. Is not actually relevant to any of your points.

5. Is that point even relevant to any of this here? I agree, there is no such thing as an 'autistic' culture, but more so because diagnostic incoherence and the lack of similarity as perceived by me between most people diagnosed with autism makes it difficult for a coherent group to show up in the first place.

6. There is a fairly large chain of arguments by various philosophers, sociologists and medical professionals that the way we choose to speak about mental disorders is anything but neutral and I personally agree that going beyond terms like disability, interpersonal dysfunction etc. unnecessarily introduces claims into the argument that, scientifically, we're lacking because they're derived from medicinal science which involves identification of genuine pathologies.

7. Simon Baron-Cohen believes, although he rarely ever publicly states this, that severe autism isn't autism at all, but that it is a cluster of various diseases that just so happen to fulfill autism criteria in a large number of cases. I have no source other than an article from 2005 or so though.

8. This is exclusively an argument ad auctoritatem and research into mind blindness in regards to autism is a separate issue that, even in the DSM-5 is now explicitly stated as a comorbidity rather than a intrinsic characteristic of autism. Having personally read her work, it also seems to me that she did not account for low verbal ability in autistic subjects. I'm aware of other studies that could not replicate mind-blindness in verbally competent people diagnosed with autism. In addition, her research may constitute an unfortunate instance of scientific positivism where, again, mere correlation is mistaken for causation. There is probably an argument to be made here that psychiatric research has always been ignorant of volitional processes so that psychological factors such as disinterest, opposition etc. are automatically elided and instead replaced by neuro-psychological processes simply because the positivist framework doesn't allow for any other approaches. So, yes. Autism research is inherently ideological.

9. "The Mayo Clinic" largely hosts bot-generated content. Yes, my opinion. Do I have proof, no... "None of these quotes are overly "pathologizing," yet they still are accurate to the medical reality of autism." -> I redirect to Wittgenstein. Personal note; If the standard of what counts as 'pathologizing' speech is measured on the basis of models that inherently pathologize disability, then 'neutral' factual speech may be pathologizing. Admittedly, this isn't an issue that belongs on the autism article but we would do well issuing a separate article in regards to social construction theory in relation to autism since there is a lot of work already available (Hacking, Yergeau etc.)

10. Pathology describes a disease pathway. Autism, by definition, isn't a pathology. You wouldn't describe blindness as a pathology either even though an infected eye or so may be the pathology causing it.

11. Again. This is a personal note: Why exactly should we regard the DSM as the sole arbitrer on autism? Because it just so happens to be the foundation of a legal framework which, in one way or another, enables the autism diagnostic construct to proliferate in the first place?

12. I personally agree that the article should not be unnecessarily introduce concepts derived from neurodiversity (activism) where it is not necessary. Simultaneously, to accurately describe the state of knowledge anyway, we would have to change most of the article anyway since e.g. genetic variants associated with autism only MIGHT explain the condition, but might not as well.

13. Shortcomings in regards to the neurodiversity model should be discussed in the neurodiversity article.

In regards to; "ignoring that some autistic individuals have severe cognitive disabilities that do not allow them to make complex decisions for themselves"

Are these cognitive defects co-morbid or intrinsic to their autism. If they are intrinsic to their autism, then the question must be asked why other autistic individuals do not have severe cognitive disabilities. If the difference cannot be reconciled while allowing diagnostic coherence, I'm inclined to believe that they are, fundamentally, two different conditions and may not need to be included in the discussion about autism at all since intellectual disability is officially simply a co-morbidity. ~2026-33031-14 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

"No matter how well meaning the neurodiversity paradigm is, it is inherently a sociopolitical construct that is affecting the language of this article."

The medical model itself is a sociopolitical construct. If you want a politically unbiased article, you would best be served with terms like; "psychiatrically or medically defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder".

The problem is that neurodevelopmental disorder as a term doesn't really exist outside of insurance manuals and the DSM-5, rendering medical jargon meaningless because the term, strictly speaking, has genuinely no meaning in medicine where problems of neurological development generally involve other things. ~2026-33031-14 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There are graver problems as a minor edit of mine has been undone despite it only being concerned with fixing typoes and providing additional sources. In general, failure to streamline the project here puts everyone at risk, especially rhetoric and scientific integrity.

In my opinion, the article is at risk of degenerating into a hot politically charged piece which, by selectively sourcing material, ends up pushing for a specific notion of autism that may have ultimately limited or no basis in reality. It probably isn't that hard to start the article similarly to how articles on ADHD, anxiety etc. start with a basic definition of what we're dealing with followed by a basic exposition. Autism, by definition, is rooted in the medical model so applying the social model to what is a medical construct necessarily causes tension. Confirmatores (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Or autism could be treated in the same way that deafness is. In many ways this is a superior paradigm as, just like autism, deafness has medical, sociological and community aspects not merely medical. Urselius (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The Deaf community's definition begins with the medical definition, and then narrows from there: most people who meed the medical criteria aren't Deaf, but all Deaf people meet the medical criteria.

The online autism community seems to go the other way: decide you want to be part of the autism community, discover that you don't actually meet the medical criteria, so reject the medical definition because the "sociological and community aspects" are more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

all Deaf people meet the medical criteria — Not necessarily - "The [Deaf] community may include hearing family members of deaf people and sign-language interpreters who identify with Deaf culture." Mitch Ames (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about a DSM-5, ICD-10/11 construct here, more generally so, in my opinion, the exposition ought to adher to the definition there despite potential shortcomings. Frankly, the most neutral and most factually introduction to the article would read something along the line of: "Autism, short for Autism Spectrum Disorder, previously such and such diagnoses, is defined, per DSM-5 and ICD-11, as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by such and such issues. There are probably several section, often articles of their own, to be made dealing with the neurodiversity movement, criticism of the diagnostic unit itself, failures of most attempts to theoretically account for it etc. Confirmatores (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that the point is that some Wikipedia editors aren't talking about a DSM/ISD construct. They want to talk about a non-DSM, non-ICD concept of autism that is more about a personal or social identity. Consider a hypothetical self-identifying person who might say "I feel like I belong in this Reddit forum, like I've really found a group of people who accept me, and since it's an autism forum, that means I'm autistic, even though psychologist who did the formal DSM-based assessment said I don't have autism at all". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

To be frank. If they are talking about a social concept, then that should not be part of the first few sentences in the exposition. Otherwise you lend extra-disciplinal authority to a concept that has emanated from psychiatric/psychological sciences and originally served its own interests. In this sense, there is apparently little or no difficulty adhering to that principle in the case of the ADHD article, which, in my opinion, too aggressively reifies a diagnostic unit as a natural entity. Confirmatores (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

A lack of agreement over what autism really, truly, genuinely is has been the main problem for this article for a couple of years. Is it a collection of behaviors (in which case, it would be possible for people to have autism temporarily as a result of severe stress, or to develop autism as an adult after a brain injury)? Is it a genetic situation (in which case, many of the adults being diagnosed today don't have autism)? Is it a difference in nerve density? Is it a way of experiencing the world (in which case, it would be possible to be 100% non-impaired in daily life and still have autism)? Is it a way of viewing yourself? Is it a personal identity, similar to thinking of yourself as being a smart person or a good person or an American?

I could go to an article like Cancer and get a fundamental agreement on the definition of cancer. Even though there are difficulties in practice (e.g., some malignant cancers take 50 years to kill people, while an unfortunately located benign tumors can kill someone within months solely due to the location [squeezing against an artery, say]), it wouldn't be difficult. We'd quickly settle on the key factors (dysregulated growth, whether due to rapid cell division or immortalization; tendency to spread), acknowledge that pre-cancerous conditions aren't technically cancer, acknowledge that non-cancerous benign tumors can kill people, and be ready to write the article. If we unexpectedly ran into problems with the definition, we would easily agree on which sources to use, and we would expect the sources to agree with each other.

There is no similar fundamental agreement here. Editors have different views and don't agree; sources have different views and don't agree. Worse, different fields/groups have different POVs, so you could look in a textbook and get a medical definition ("Autistic people are the ones who are significantly impaired in at least two of these five ways"), in an academic journal and get an incompatible POV ("Autistic people are people whom society doesn't accommodate appropriately"), and on a website and get a third, incompatible POV ("Autistic people are smarter than neurotypicals and often have superpowers; there is nothing wrong with being autistic"). This means that if you say something that normally sounds good and unbiased to Wikipedia editors, such as "Let's only use high-quality WP:MEDRS sources", you're affecting which POVs can be included. (Autism is not unique; many psychiatric subjects are affected by this.)

We don't have a shared understanding of which/how many of the available POVs are within the scope of this article, vs belonging to other page (e.g., Autistic (identity)). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Technically, the relevant sources are agnostic on most of these questions. I'm aware that specific forms of hepatitis and herbes infections can cause proto-typical, really infantile-like, autism in adults, but they're not listed anywhere as possible causes of autism because etiological research is limited, at least in the USA, to purely genetic research which pretty much rules out all questions of environmental contribution. And "syndromic" forms of autism are variously considered either autism or not depending on what, in essence, suits some research framework and sometimes PR work. You wouldn't usually call somebody with Down's autistic but Down's syndrome represents like 10 % of all "syndromic" autism cases. It's such examples why I consider de novo mutations to be massively inflated in terms of relevance to autism proper.

Anyway, the Wikipedia article doesn't have to solve these legitimate questions although I think, it's appropriate, to share or allocate more space to such critical questions generally. Autism is primarily a ICD/DSM construct, whether or not the construct has much explanatory power or accurately depicts the people it identifies is not relevant to the exposition section. Frankly, it's primarily an insurance construct meant to enable institutions to deal with people that are found disruptive, inconvenient or incapable of carrying out work which is why autism has been, erroneously, been reframed as that kind of disorder where a person is regarded as socially unskilled or "unfriendly". Confirmatores (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't have to "solve these legitimate questions", but we do have to solve the problem of what this Wikipedia article's scope is. Is this Wikipedia article's scope "primarily a ICD/DSM construct"? When (as happens once or twice a year) an autistic editor appears on this page to complain that autism isn't really an ICD/DSM construct and that we should expand our view to include a world in which a person has autism and is really thriving (because ICD/DSM requires "impairment"), to what extent are we willing to exclude their POV and reject their proposals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This might be a simpler way of saying this:

When a Wikipedia editor objects to this article because it doesn't represent their non-DSM/ICD POV about autism, do we:

• say that yes, we agree, that belongs in this article, and we agree that we should present autism as a perfectly normal, non-disordered variation on human development, use non-pathologizing language in this Wikipedia article, and downplay any perceived problems, or
• say the subject of this particular article is the DSM/ICD concept, but there's another article at (e.g.) Alternative conceptions of autism that they may be interested in expanding?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"we agree that we should present autism as a perfectly normal, non-disordered variation on human development"

I don't think this is really as widely shared a sentiment as it is made out to be by certain advocates. I also fail to see its relevance in regards to simply presenting what has been published on the subject so far. It will likely turn out that autism is little more than a figment that has likely retarded and not improved research but my personal opinion doesn't justify me striking down the article in its entirety. Neither should neurodiversity advocates modify the article so as to push their own interpretation of the situation when it deviates from what is legally and nominally the "accepted" norm.

Technically, a woman with a severely autistic child, e.g. non-verbal and intellectually disabled, should be able to derive useful information from the article. If she can't, we can either conclude that the article is biased (e.g. only written from the perspective of high-functioning autism) or that autism is an incoherent psychological category. If the article is biased, we can fix it. If the construct itself turns out to be useless, that's not our problem then and the article is indirekt proof of diagnostic or scientific inadequacy.

"at (e.g.) Alternative conceptions of autism that they may be interested in expanding?"

There's enough primary and secondary literature (e.g. I can think of Yergeau, Cohen, Timimi) to justify an article along the lines of Social constructive theories of Autism. There's also work that shows that both Asperger's and Kanner's conceptualization and introduction of autism were hardly as "scientific" as they're made out to be as both acutely reacted to socio-political demands and problems. Kanner's "autistic" patients were notorious for their parents not wanting them to be diagnosed as "mentally retarded". Asperger's notion of "autistic sociopathy" repeats numerous national socialist tropes, e.g. he contrasts the autistic child against the normal child who readily subdues himself to national decision-making, the "popular will" if you will. The problem, in the end, is that neurodiversity advocates aren't wrong in stating that societal arrangements are the primary determinant of disability in some autistics. On the other hand, such claims are simply irrelevant for other autistics where no level of accommodation or change will improve upon their impairment. Confirmatores (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You've worded this quite adequately, and I do applaud your scholarship and bringing up a lot of points myself and others did not really think about before. I guess my main concern now is whether autism should be a Wikipedia article at all? Many people here clearly have varying definitions and ideologies they are adhering to when considering writing about autism, including myself, and these ideologies are directly in conflict with one another. Even professionals do not truly know what autism is, and we don't know what to do about it. Other encyclopedia's, to my knowledge, do not usually struggle so badly with the definition of autism and other concepts that are hard/impossible to define, though they usually tend to stick with one model. Even the online encyclopedia dedicated to philsophy does not struggle to define concepts as hard as we struggle here to define autism. What my point is, Wikipedia is a vast wealth of knowledge that many people use and rely on every single day, whether they should or shouldn't is a separate debate. People use this article as a reference, some people use it to self diagnose. But if we cannot define what autism is, and if professionals can't define what autism is, and if no one else seems to know what it is either, how useful is this article to anyone at all? Should we just delete this article and lay out all of these issues under the outline and/or glossary of autism, instead of having just one article dedicated to defining something that isn't really definable? It would cause a lot fewer arguments if, say, we had separate articles under the outline of autism for the medical model and the social model, and didn't have one article trying to define something that may not even "exist" as we know it (there are a lot of good arguments out there that autism isn't really "autism," but "autisms," and that people with certain traits actually have an entirely different and undefined disorder entirely, plus the whole issue with childhood disintegrative disorder apparently appearing to not be autism at all despite being under the umbrella, etc...). This might be the cynical "anti-psych" side of me talking, since a lot of psychiatric diagnoses seem to have this problem where we don't actually know what they are, but regardless, overall I don't really see the point of this article's continued existence when it's the subject of such a hot debate - not only on Wikipedia, but pretty much every community that is vaguely involved with it. Saraanhe (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia editors deciding what this Wikipedia article is about, the question of "Who is right?" is unimportant. Facts and views – whether right or wrong – can be described in this article or in a separate article. We just need to decide which information goes in which article (and hopefully stick to that decision). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I already said so that the article should follow the DSM/ICD definition. Attempts to police the article must be prevented and responsible parties banned from editing the article.

Autism is defined as a neurodevelopmental disability with impairments in social functioning and rigid or repetitive behavioral patterns. That's what it is. We then include sections on symptomatics where we largely have to recite the DSM/ICD definition, go over to history (first introduced by such and such, then such and such), etiology and cause, epidemiology etc. Confirmatores (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you said that the article should follow the DSM/ICD definition. And other editors have disagreed with this. The thing about consensus is that a consensus requires more than just you saying what you want.

Autism is also defined as a normal variation in ordinary human development that produces no impairments whatsoever. "That's what it is" – according to some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Autism is also defined as a normal variation in ordinary human development that produces no impairments whatsoever."

I don't know who says that. Words should have meaning so if autism stops being a disability, what was the point? If people feel so, they're free to write on the broader autistic phenotype or on similar issues. Confirmatores (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oddly, we have used the word impairment six times in Broader autism phenotype, and that language has produced no objections so far. It's only Autism itself that gets complaints when we use words like impairment.

I wonder if we could write an RFC question that could concisely explain the problem and get the Wikipedia community's view on what should be in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I refer to you to the discussion section of the article "Broader autism phenotype". I have changed several parts of the article, feel free to look over and reconfigure.

"and that language has produced no objections so far."

Well, it has because BAP is a relatively good example of what it means for "certain" interest groups to shift the boundary of what is considered "disabled". I personally feel uneasy when merely deviating social behavior is argued to constitute an intrinsic disability. Sociologists have been aware that disability has long been used as a category to mask contempt and hatred for deviating groups while still allowing for brutalization and policing.

"the Wikipedia community's view on what should be in this article."

The article should reference sources, compilate an synopsis of what has been written so far, while also somewhat critically engaging with the material. I think the autism article here does this much better than pretty much all the other articles on psychiatry and psychology elsewhere. Confirmatores (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

All articles should be built from sources. However, deciding whether any individual Wikipedia article should be a narrow/split subject vs a broader/merged subject is a decision made exclusively by Wikipedia editors. There are no reliable sources that say things like "In terms of the proper scope for a Wikipedia article, we have objective proof that the article should cover A, B, and C, but not D or E".

This is the correct path:

Step #1: Wikipedia editors decide what the article is about. For example, they could decide that this article is going to be about a DSM/ICD concept. Or they could decide that this article is going to be about the narrower subject that was called autism in the 1970s. Or they could decide that this article is going to be about the broader subject of the DSM/ICD concept plus the ideas about autism that involve subjective personal identities, superpowers, and non-impairing differences that look like the DSM/ICD concept except for the parts of that concept that require the difference to produce an impairment. Or they could decide anything that they can agree on, but the key point is that they reach a good shared understanding of what they're going to put on this page, and what they're going to send to some other page.

Step #2: Wikipedia editors decide what title describes the subject they've chosen for this page (and what other pages might need to be created).

This is the wrong path:

Step #1: Look at the article's current title, and think "The title is Autism, and autism means the DSM/ICD concept to me, so this article is about the DSM/ICD concept".

Step #2: Another editor looks at the article's current title, and thinks "The title is Autism, and autism means an internal personal identity and the online autism communities to me, so this article is about that internal personal identity and the online communities."

Step #3: A third editor looks at the article's current title, and thinks "The title is Autism, and autism means a normal human variation to me, so this article is about what it means to be normal, and that has consequences like rejecting words like impairment and declaring unwanted bits, like severe anxiety, to be separate 'co-occurring' conditions."

Step #4: Another editor looks at the article's current title, and thinks "The title is Autism, and autism means a socially created disability to me, so this article is about how society makes life difficult for some people, and declaring unwanted bits, like a five year old who keeps trying to play with poop, to be a perfectly rational form of communication about his sensory needs or interests in how the digestive system works, and if you would just take the time to understand him, then you would either agree that playing with poop is fine or you would be able to find a substitute that could replace it so he didn't want to."

We've been doing it the wrong way. Editors do not agree on what's in scope for this article. Therefore it's harder to write this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There is an objective criterion, the international legally binding definition of autism, and the same convention poses no problem for other articles.

There is no point sacrificing informal content over fringe and minority views, many of which seem to be pushed by the private market rather than "autistic" people, solely because such views exist. Confirmatores (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that there any "international legally binding definition" of autism actually exists. AFAICT there are international definitions that are not legally binding (e.g., in the ICD), and there are non-international definitions that are legally binding (and those only in the context of certain government programs or funding sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"There is an objective criterion, the international legally binding definition of autism". No, there is no such thing. You are just making stuff up now! Urselius (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, but I want to add here as well that, as per the points mainly brought forward by me in the dedicated thread ("What is Autism?"), I insist that this article is about ASD as defined in the ICD and DSM as our sources are about people to whom these definitions apply as well as research which is about this construct. The ontology of autism can possibly be brought up in the article; however, regardless of whether or not ASD "is real" or "is reflected in a specific structure of the brain", this specific construct is WP:NOTABLE and should have an article, which this one is for all intents and purposes. Regarding RFC, I support it; I also think that we should aim to use it to clearly establish whether (or that) this article is about ASD so that we wouldn't have any reason to use obnoxious disclaimer footnotes after the mentions of ASD in the lead and infobox. Perhaps this article could even be called "Autism spectrum disorder" in order to make the scope clear (but we cannot disregard WP:COMMONNAME either). Indeed, I think we should aim to get rid of the disclaimers because they're not very inconspicuous in implying that ASD is a bad term (not all too dissimilar from negro or cripple) that is not accepted because autism wokeness is the default and only decent ideology. BlockArranger (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To reach a durable agreement via an RFC, I think we would need to explain concisely what's not included in the ICD/DSM construct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I get your logic here, but I don't think it is feasible, as we should not base an article around the original research conducted on this talk page regarding what these definitions exclude. Rather, I think it is more sensible to discuss whether to strictly apply ICD-11 and DSM-5 definitions, with this article thus clearly being about ASD. These definitions define quite well what they include, with the rest being excluded; our article should also define autism that way, rather than as a list of what autism is not. BlockArranger (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If the RFC doesn't specify what would be excluded or mentioned only in passing, or at least give examples of what would be excluded or mentioned only in passing, then editors will continue to add the non-DSM/ICD content, because it's a reaction to/criticism of/commentary on/alternative to the DSM/ICD content "and therefore obviously in scope". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, do we need to make it more complicated than defining that we exclude "what is not covered by the ICD-11 and DSM-5 definitions of ASD; e.g., conditions similar to autism without impairment in the social domain" or something along those lines? Would you come up with an example of an argument by the autism-woke crowd which could not easily be shut down by a passed RFC in favor of a definition similar to the one I provided? Also, I think the RFC does not actually stand on its own, as we do seem to have growing consensus in favor of my viewpoint here. Assuming that @Urselius and @LogicalLens et al. did not just go on a WP:BREAK, they seem to have run out of valid arguments for the moment being. BlockArranger (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Mitch, there's a definition of cancer survivor that says friends and family members are all cancer survivors, too, because they were all affected by the treatment mentally, emotionally, and socially. But that doesn't mean that all of them actually had cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

that doesn't mean that all of them actually had cancer — True, but some of them could be part of the hypothetical (capitalised) Cancer Survivors community. The point is that there are people with the condition foo and people (e.g. family and friends) in the Foo community who do not have that condition themselves; the two groups overlap, but neither is a subset of the other. I.e. it is not true to say that "all Foo people meet the medical criteria [for foo]". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"People belonging to the Foo community" is not the same as "People having Foo". "All people who emotionally feel like they're part of the Deaf community" is not the same thing as "All Deaf people". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What is Autism?

You, the reader, may find this question utterly silly, but in this current context, I find it necessary for us to ask ourself what autism actually is. We all seem to know, yet the definition is up for heavy debate here. Contrary to what some think about word choice simply being a matter of using affirming or less pathologizing language, I think we have gone so far as to changing the definition of autism itself in such a manner that, if applied, it would apply to more people than the ASD defined in the ICD-11, which is, of course, highly problematic and threatening the factual accuracy of the article. Let's take a look at the definitions:

Social skills and communication

Our article claims, first of all, that autism is characterized by "differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction". The DSM-5 opens with stating that there are "persistent deficits in" (with the ICD-11 specifying this to being "in the ability to" perform the following:) "social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts". We don't go on to specify anything, so that is not a major issue in the lead. However, are we really saying that a condition is autism merely because (hold your horses; obviously, we will get to other aspects) they have some "differences", that are perhaps not "persistent deficits" (even if perhaps merely phrased with euphemisms if some are going to persevere in insisting upon it)?

Restricted and repetitive...

Well, we don't really give an overall description of this element (not that this would necessarily be necessary). However, I think we lose a bit of the spirit of what is expressed in the DSM-5 describing these symptoms as "restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities". Our article states that people with autism have "a need or strong preference for predictability and routine". Well, perhaps; a "need" can be up for debate, and indeed the preference is likely to be strong. This might be an acceptable rephrasing of "insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior".

"Focused interests", as described in the article, are also part of autism, as are "repetitive behaviors"; however, we fail to clarify that these must, according to criterion B in the DSM-5, be "restrictive". The ICD-11 confirms that this is not just some word that someone just added for the sake of it; they describe these symptoms in the following way: "persistent restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context." Notice that not only must the symptoms be "restricted"; indeed, they must also be "persistent" and "clearly atypical". Are we really being honest by omitting this?

Discussion

While people with autism frequently exhibit various skills and strengths, it is also true that what makes them be defined as eligible for ASD diagnosis is that they do have specific deficits. Even neurodiversity advocates don't attempt to point out the astonishing social skills and ability be flexible in the autistic people they advocate for; instead, they recognize that these people may be very kind, intelligent, talented and the like. Also, recognition of deficits does not require that we call them "mentally handicapped" (pejorative) or use overly clinical language. However, I think we cannot let this article succumb to concept creep so that autism becomes diluted, as seems to have happened in the lead of this article.

We need to actively make sure that we stick to facts, and as pointed out, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Regardless of whether or not the DSM-5 is "right" about autism, I think that based on this analysis, it is not honest or compliant with WP:INTEGRITY that we cite the DSM-5 for the first sentence, with the ICD-11 also not being an option. Feel free to propose WP:MEDRS sources that can honestly be summarized as the first sentence. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and as such, we should not attempt to change how autism is defined in the pursuit of neurodiversity, which is as of yet not the consensus view, neither on this talk page nor in MEDRS, BlockArranger (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

While I can't weigh in on all your specific points at this time, I did decide to review the lead and several issues jumped out.

1. It's not until sentence three that we state autism is neurodevelopmental disorder. Why isn't this in the first sentence before "characterized by"?
2. Autism is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder,and a formal diagnosis requires professional assessment that these characteristics cause significant challenges in daily life beyond what is expected given a person's age and social environment.

The use of "formal diagnosis" instead of just "diagnosis" is confusing. Also the language at the end of the sentence seems unnecessary. This article is about a diagnosis, yes? For the lead, it should just say "diagnosis requires professional assessment".

To me, the intent of the "formal diagnosis" language along with the "significant challenges" is for the acknowledgment of self-diagnosed people. While I'm not against discussing self-diagnosis in the body of the article (perhaps under "society and Culture"), making a caveat for them would be undue in my opinion.

At its core, this article should be about those individuals diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder called autism spectrum disorder but - and I think this gets at BlockArrangers point - the characteristics in the first paragraph are so general and lacking specificity, it's hard for the reader to infer that this is actually a real medical condition with real diagnosis criteria instead of a nebulous, benign list of character traits. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I am also having a hard time understanding why the lead is mostly framed from the neurodiversity perspective when an RFC in June 2025 resulted in "No" for changing the lead to give more weight to neurodiversity. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The "behind-the-scenes" of autism coverage in Wikipedia is similar to Russia. There, they have institutions that seem similar to those in Europe, as in what entities there are and how they are supposed to work. However, while on the outside, it seems like a big bureaucracy with strict rules and paperwork, it is really a big network of corruption and disobedience of the law; while the political system seems European in nature, in fact, it is an authoritarian oligarchy with Putin as the czar. I think you get the picture. Here, we also claim in a banner that neurodiversity is a significant minority view, while we have no official guideline regarding whether to call the afflicted people "autistic" or "people with autism". However, it has been strictly enforced in practice that they are "autistic people". The DSM-5 is misused as a source for the first sentence... I can go on but I won't; you get the point. BlockArranger (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think I get the point PositivelyUncertain (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The point being that you are operating under the delusion of a conspiracy theory? Urselius (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVILITY; I have not personally attacked anyone. Regarding a delusion, would you mind telling me in exactly what way I am wrong? Is it untrue that the article is strongly skewed towards one side of several different discussions that never gave rise to consensus? Are we being honest in citing the DSM-5 regarding the first sentence? Furthermore, I am not really suggesting a conspiracy theory, and all communications are public; rather, it seems to me that several, individual neurodiversity and depathologizing advocates have gained far too much influence in the development of this article. I mean that whereas it seems like we are building this on consensus, citing sources with WP:INTEGRITY, and actually sticking to mainstream WP:MEDRS, there is a lot of bending rules and covert anti-consensus action, all from individual advocates. BlockArranger (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If you write something that seems rather divorced from reality, you can expect comments regarding this. Please note the question mark. My comment was a question, not a statement. When people start WP:whatever-ing I turn off completely. Urselius (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's your answer regarding the first issue you raised: classification is in a separate sentence because I decided to do it that way, and nobody has (IIRC) dared complain since then. Originally, we did in fact state that "Autism [(ASD)] is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by [its symptoms]. However, this lead to this absolutely huge discussion: Talk:Autism/Archive 15#Neurodevelopmental disorder/disability.

Beware that it takes some effort to read through it all, but basically people were having a battle about whether to call it a "neurodevelopmental disorder" or "neurodevelopmental disability". There did not seem to be any solution in sight, until I decided to ask myself what we actually intend to convey by it. I concluded that because it is (allegedly) sourced from the DSM-5, it refers to its classification of disorders, one of the categories being "neurodevelopmental disorders".

Thus, we cannot change it to "neurodevelopmental condition". In order to ease the combat, I made it very clear in the lead that this refers to classification, without implicit reference to etiology (which is mentioned later in the lead). After that, the discussion finally cooled down. As you see, this is not an attempt to be woke about it, but rather, to include this fact including what it means.

The second issue you bring up is something I have thought about many times. Indeed, I also think it is strange that we write "formal diagnosis" as that indeed seems to imply the existence of informal (self) diagnosis. I think we should shorten it to "for a diagnosis".

However, it is objectively true that the symptoms must "cause significant challenges in daily life beyond what is expected given a person's age and social environment". This is stated in the DSM-5 and ICD-11. I don't think that this is an issue, especially since this actually contradicts many of the "nebulous, benign list of character traits", as this confirms to the reader that indeed, there is a threshold to be reached in order to be diagnosed with ASD. BlockArranger (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for all this context. The neurodevelopmental disorder/disabilty concerns you list our are interesting and I agree that the aim of that sentence was compromise. What sticks out to me though is we use "disorder" multiple times in the lead and the last paragraph points out that the use of "disorder" is contested. From this limited amount of context (I have not read the whole conversation you linked), I am surprised "disorder" was so contested.

This is stated in the DSM-5 and ICD-11. I don't think that this is an issue, especially since this actually contradicts many of the "nebulous, benign list of character traits", as this confirms to the reader that indeed, there is a threshold to be reached in order to be diagnosed with ASD. I do know that significant challenges is a requirement and you make a good point that, especially in regards to readers. For some reason, it "significant challenges" seems out of place to me but that could just be a my brain thing.

I do agree with your point that sticking closer to the diagnostic criteria in the lead would be an improvement. Why be so general when we have the ability to be specific? Anyway, I'll try to dig into some sources tomorrow. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Very many autistic editors, including myself, have argued long, hard and cogently that no diagnostic manual (ICD is more used globally than DSM) should be used as the final arbiter of any definition of autism. Do not ignore this! To ignore, for whatever reason, the collective opinion of people directly affected by a disability is ableism. All the sophistry and proceduralism in the world does not elude this basic tenet. Urselius (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly not ignoring your advocacy, as is evident based on this response; however, the only thing you state is that you have advocated for your position together with autistic editors and that ignoring it is ableist. The reason that I am not convinced is not that you are supposedly autistic, but that this goes against how Wikipedia is built. I wonder, in accordance with what policy can we do anything on Wikipedia because people associated with the topic have a certain interpretation or feeling regarding it? Using reliable sources and using them honestly is a very basic principle on Wikipedia, as we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Based on that, if autistic people think the definition given in the ICD-11, we can still not override it without obtaining consensus for another source being more suitable. Also, tell me, why then do we need to cite the DSM-5 in the first sentence, which I think is clearly dishonest? Might it be because it looks good on the outside but it is good at camouflaging the WP:SOAP which is seemingly what you argue that autistic people should be able to do on Wikipedia? BlockArranger (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as the frequent flagging of copyright infringements demonstrate, is not immune to either what pertains in the real world or legalities. As such, Wikipedia is as subject to anti-discrimination legislation as anywhere else. You misread my position entirely, possibly on purpose. I am a professional scholar/scientist and sources are of paramount importance to me - a quick perusal of my very many Wikipedia contributions will show that I write nothing without citing relevant, good quality, sources. What I am railing against is the over-reliance on one type of source and giving it unwonted and uncontested paramountcy in an article whose subject is riven by contradictory source material of equal scholarly weight. Urselius (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted that we cite the DSM in the first sentence and have removed the cite. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@BlockArranger I might have been too hasty. If you would like me to self revert I can. But my initial thought was we should rewrite the characteristics to better reflect the DSM-5 before adding the reference back in. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the issue I noticed in your edit was that it implied that all of the content is supported by the following citation, as we are supposed to cite sources for WP:VERIFIABILITY; no reader can be assumed to guess correctly what content, specifically, is supported by a citation in such a case. Thus, I replaced it with a template specifying that this is under discussion, so that potentially interested people can join in. BlockArranger (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that tag. My brain was on "lead doesn't typically need citations" but yes, given that all sentences are cited in the lead my removal did make it seem like the next cite applied.

I have followed this page/talk page ever since the DRN RFCs and I believe splitting the diagnosis and the identity has been mentioned, but renaming the page Autism spectrum disorder could help clarify the scope of the page and alleviate conflicts around neurodiversity vs medical model. You have far more knowledge of the pages history, so admittedly this idea could be naive. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Urselius wrote To ignore, for whatever reason, the collective opinion of people directly affected by a disability is ableism and I cannot imagine applying this POV to "the collective opinion of people directly affected by" Morgellons. They're disabled, but their opinion of what's going on really should be ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is an unhelpful comment. While the opinions of autistic editors here do not outweigh what sources say that are defined by Wikipedia as reliable, comparing autistic self-advocacy to what people with Morgellons say will only further anger Urselius (and me too, to some degree). Autistic people do not have delusions, and people with a purported mental disorder have always been excluded from discussions around the pathologization with the argument that they are supposedly "too ill" to see that they are ill. This has been the case with homosexuality too and is called epistemic injustice. LogicalLens (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Urselius is free to clarify the statement, but as it stands, the original statement above says that it's ableist to ignore the POVs of anyone affected by any disability, and that includes people who are delusional, people who have no insight into their condition, people with dementia, and so on. I think the statement is overbroad and wrong.

Also, it is not true that people with mental disorders have "always" been excluded; it has varied by time and place, and depended on the symptoms (e.g., depression is different than schizophrenia). I've read that some early psychiatric works, like other early medical works, were by people who had first-hand experience with the condition they were describing, or lived with a family member who had it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Ridiculous and ableist comment. In the UK, from a legal perspective - employment law and protection from discrimination - all people clinically diagnosed as autistic are classed as disabled. It is a legally recognised disability. Autistic people may or may not qualify for any form of state aid, but they are legally entitled to 'reasonable accommodations' in education and work. Autism is obviously not an imaginary condition. Trying to shut down the expressed opinion of a disabled person concerning their disability is rather blatant ableism. Urselius (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that people with every type of disability should have their opinions about their disability treated with the same weight. Do you? Do you think, for example, that a high-achieving autistic person's view of autism should be treated with the same weight as a person with anorexia nervosa's view of food, or a delusional person's view of why they have lesions on their skin? I would think that the autistic person's view should be given more weight than some other disabled people's views of their disabling conditions.

More importantly for Wikipedia, if reliable sources aren't doing that, it's not our job to correct them. We are supposed to represent reliable sources as they are, and not as we believe that they should be, if only the reliable sources weren't so biased/ableist/wrong-headed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the lived experience of anorexics, bipolar, and schizophrenic people, as described by themselves, are valid to include in any encyclopaedic article on those subjects. I would dearly like to see and hear you defend your position against Stephen Fry, a very erudite bipolar person.

All reputable sources with scholarly credentials should be given equal weight here. This is what Wikipedia should do. I am arguing that giving undue weight to diagnostic manuals, which are demonstrably mutable and aspects of them have been, are and will be questioned and challenged by researchers in the autism field, is going against Wikipedia principles. Urselius (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A (full) professor I knew had bipolar. He said that he took his medications regularly because, even though there was nothing wrong with him, it made everyone else behave better. That was his lived experience, as described by himself. I wouldn't treat that as a fact about bipolar, and you wouldn't either.

I'm concerned that this article is not showing a balance for "All reputable sources with scholarly credentials". I think that specifically in the word choice, it is showing "All sources that have a neurodiversity POV". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

As to what autism is, the jury is out, it seems to be a portmanteau term, used by clinicians and in society generally, covering a rather ill-defined number of traits or symptoms that have some vague similarities, produced by a variety of causal factors, many being genetic. Even the genetic causes are complex, multi-factorial and in most cases characterised, so far, by mere association rather than proven 'cause and effect'. Relying on diagnostic manuals to give some form to this might seem attractive, but it would be a disservice to any interested reader, and I'm sure that people who suspect that they or a loved one might be autistic read this article, to reduce such a complex and frankly uncertain subject to a mere parroting of any clinical manual that is, in itself, both highly mutable (see the history of ICD and DSM recensions) and demonstrably behind both clinical and scientific advances. What you might think is firm ground is in fact shifting sands, Urselius (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A "Research directions" section might be in order, as described in WP:MEDSECTIONS. BlockArranger (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a fair summary of our prior what-autism-is discussions (in no particular order):

• One group thinks autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with emphasis on the Medical disorder sense. It is not a benign difference; it is caused by something that has gone objectively, medically wrong (albeit usually just a little bit, and sometimes, some of the people have changes that are socially rewarded in certain scenarios). This model explains why, e.g., autism is twice as likely among children who experienced hypoxia at birth and why it is associated with some medical conditions, such as Fragile X syndrome. Polygenic genetic variations resulting in slight neurological changes can fall into this category.
• One group thinks that autism, like all psychiatric conditions, is a collection of behaviors, with an emphasis on the behaviors that are observable to others, and that it doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is. In this sense, because autism is the behaviors, then autistic-like behaviors as a result of PTSD or anxiety really are autism, even if the person has no underlying medical/neurological situation and even if the symptoms only appear temporarily. This model does not attempt to explain autism; it only says that autism exists. This is the smallest group.
• One group thinks autism is a normal human variation. Some of these people seem to have been diagnosed as adults and have lower support needs, so they perceive themselves as being essentially normal; however, others think that congenital conditions in general are just normal human variation. That is, some people are short or tall or medium; other people have high or low or in-between IQ; some people have more or less rigid thinking patterns; some people broader or narrower interests; some people have varied or restricted diets for any number of reasons, etc. If it appears (more or less naturally) in a human, then it's good and normal. This model attempts to persuade people that autistic people are intrinsically valuable. It may be the group most prone to the autism-as-superpower thinking. Polygenic genetic variations resulting in slight neurological changes can fall into this category, but this group does not necessarily care about the cause.
• One group thinks autism is a personal identity: You are autistic if you feel like you belong to the autism community and/or if the autism community feels like you belong to it. This group seems to have higher verbal skills (e.g., to argue on the internet). It may have a higher proportion of self-diagnosed members. This group is probably the most opposed to cure-oriented thinking about autism.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There is increasing evidence that the genetic causes of autism fall into two categories. 1) The autistic person has inherited a larger than average incidence of small-scale genetic variations (typically SNPs) that occur throughout the general population and that individually may have beneficial effects (they have not been weeded out by natural selection and some autism associated variants are also associated with higher than average academic attainment). 2) The autistic person has large-scale genetic changes (DNA transpositions, duplications and deletions), these have occurred de novo in the gametes of one or both parents. This form is not normally acquired through heredity, there may be no one else in their family with autistic traits. The first cause tends to result in autistic people with average or above average intelligence and low support needs, the second tends to result in autistic people with a greater incidence of co-occurring intellectual disability and higher support needs. Different causes, different outcomes, are the two things the same condition? This is rather neatly indicated by IQ graphs. That of the general population follows a classic bell curve, with a single peak around the average IQ. Most people cluster around the average with fewer at the extremes of intelligence. In contrast the curve of autistic IQ has two peaks with a trough around the average. The peaks are at above average and below average intelligence. First principles would point towards this being produced not by one cause, but two. Urselius (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC) A clarification - a parent or parents producing one autistic child with de novo mutations probably is at higher risk of any other children they might have being similarly affected, if there is a recurring fault in meiosis, or some other process, occurring during gamete production. It therefore may appear heritable, and, if an autistic person with such mutations were to have children, it would indeed become hereditary.

A graph showing IQ distributions would be interesting for this article. Do you happen to have a solid source for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Figure 1, here: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.856084/full

The highest peak of incidence for non-autistic people in the study falls in the 85-114 IQ range, the highest peak for autistic people falls in the 115-129 range, with a distinct subsidiary peak in the 50-69 range. Urselius (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I have issues with points you've made relating to how much weight someone with disabilities should receive, but I feel like we should have it as disorder, not disability or condition. I, as an autistic editor, am disordered in certain areas, like social cues. There are genetic factors to autism, like with ADHD. I truly believe autism is a disorder, but it should not be treated like it makes someone incapable of doing certain things, as disabilities are often classified. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The irony is that autistic people are often very ordered, we have all our ducks in a row, literally. Legally, autism is classed as a disability. Speaking personally, my autism is not something that produces a definite deficit. Autism is often presented as an absolute limit on what people can do, in my case this is not so, it just makes doing certain things very, very, very much more difficult. Before I realised that I was autistic, and had this subsequently confirmed by a clinical diagnosis, I imagined that other people had similar difficulties to me, they were just stronger than me and coped better. I was completely wrong. Allistic people could not even imagine the difficulties I had on a daily basis, they did not exist at all for them. I was the strong person, I was the one overcoming difficulties and coping. As an illustration, I make eye-contact, apparently like most people. However, while allistic people make eye contact entirely subconsciously, with no effort, I do so consciously. I have found what frequency and duration of eye contact makes people happy. So while I am conversing, my conscious brain is also monitoring when it is appropriate to make, break and maintain eye contact. Most social situations require a lot of intellectual effort from autistic people, constant vigilance on what others are doing and conscious decisions about what to say, how to say it and how to act. It is, of course, exhausting. There is the very great difficulty. Can I socialise, can I make small talk, can I discern body language? Yes I can, but only by the exertion of conscious intellectual effort. I am not limited by my autism, but it does make me exhausted, I do need to pace socialising, I do need alone time to recharge my social batteries. Urselius (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheClocksAlwaysTurn, the push for a 'disability' model wrt autism is usually not about "someone is incapable". It's usually the Social model of disability. As a brief but an oversimplified explanation, in that model, the autistic person is fine, and the true problem is that other people expect the autistic person to make eye contact, or to wear annoying clothing, or to understand facial expressions, or to communicate through speaking, or whatever it is that the autistic person finds difficult or impossible. For example, if an autistic person has a job that requires wearing a uniform, and that uniform happens to have a scratchy tag that makes them distracted and uncomfortable, then the problem isn't the autistic person being sensitive to sensory input; the problem is society negligently making the autistic person's life worse by putting scratchy tags inside uniforms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I actually do not really fit into any of the categories as you have described them. I think that this article is about ASD, which is defined as necessarily entailing disability. This does not mean that I think autism is bad or wrong, or that it isn't natural. For me, it doesn't really matter, as I think it is subjective what phenomena among humans are viewed as being outside what is normal for humans. Furthermore, I do not believe that autism decreases the value of a person, and I believe that autistic people can be very talented in areas that are not for example impacted by the disability in the social domain.

I think this article must define its topic as being ASD, as we do in the lead. If we let the self-identified autism identity be part of it, we dilute the concept and immediately fall outside what our sources discuss, this being ASD. Wikipedia should anyhow not take a stance on what is good and what is bad, so it is up to the reader to make up their mind. However, I think we must make clear what the defined thresholds of autism are, as our sources are based on research that applies the ASD diagnosis instead of someone who has social awkwardness, focused interests, and a preference for routines, as these would not necessarily refer to a person eligible for ASD.

@Urselius is pushing for moving on to models that are based on real, underlying conditions. I could agree with those in the sense that I think the view that because "autism is the behaviors, [...] autistic-like behaviors as a result of PTSD or anxiety really are autism, even if the person has no underlying medical/neurological situation" is misguided, as autism should still plausibly be a condition beyond behaviors. However, I think we cannot at this point define autism as anything different from ASD, as that is what the consensus is. I would however not have anything against Urselius writing a "Research directions" section describing that research has produced findings that show evidence for underlying neurological conditions and/or causes.

For those who want to make this article be broader in scope than the ASD construct, do you have a lot of reliable sources discussing that group of things called autism, including such content that can replace all the ASD content in the article? Otherwise, I think that we in practice have an article skeleton (and a lot of content) based solely off of ASD, with us then diluting (and WP:SYNTHing) the content to broaden the scope to for example the identity. As of now, I am absolutely certain that this article at least poses as being specifically about ASD, and thus, it is dishonest that we have diluted the definition in the lead. BlockArranger (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

In re If we let the self-identified autism identity be part of it, we dilute the concept and immediately fall outside what our sources discuss: Reliable sources discuss both self-diagnosis and having autism be a part of people's personal self-perception/identity.

It sounds like you want the article to use reliable sources that have the same POV as the DSM5, and not reliable sources that disagree with the DSM5 (e.g., that believe autism is best understood as a part of a person's identity). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I mean, we are not supposed to WP:CENSOR the fact that there is an autism identity that people apply to themselves, without an actual assessment in clinical settings. However, if we expand our idea of "autism" (the topic or scope of this article) so that it directly includes areas beyond what is captured in the clinical definitions of autism (not necessarily only the DSM-5), then this article becomes unmanageable. If we rely on ASD as the anchor of this article, it is, for example, very clear what we should write about prognosis, management and the like; however, if this article starts being about some vaguely understood concept that ha a clinical definition but can also be self-identified in various ways, the topic becomes so heterogeneous that the article stops making sense. Do you, for example, (and @Urselius, for that matter) actually think this article should encompass the conditions of people who do not meet the threshold of the ASD, as defined by the ICD-11 or DSM-5? I guess by this point we will have to do an WP:RFC on this in order to establish binding consensus regarding whether or not this article is specifically about ASD. BlockArranger (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Not everyone who sees autism as an identity is self-diagnosed. People can meet the DSM-5 definition, have a board-certified psychiatrist pronounce the diagnosis, and think that autism is best understood as a political or personal identity. Compare, e.g., Men who have sex with men vs Homosexual vs Gay. There are differences between these labels, and only the last is generally construed as an identity. Something similar happens with autism: Some people say "I have autism, and it's a problem caused by atypical neurological development in my brain". Other people say "I'm autistic! See you on Autistic Pride Day!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, and I think it is reasonable to have different articles for the perspectives on homosexuality. However, in the case of autism that you present here, both seem to refer to ASD, both seen clinically (alongside a common view on its etiology) as well as adopting it as an identity. Again, I am not really arguing against the identity, but against letting broader autism wokeness (which is easily confused with neurodiversity and adoption of autism as an identity – neither of which conflict with ASD as a construct) have such influence on this article that we stray from the very definition of ASD. As I see it, one can fully accept that "autism" is ASD and also accept it's definition, while also being against curing it as well as advocating for acceptance and inclusion of autistic people. While they would not like to call it a "disorder", as they see it as a non-pathological variation, that very variation can still be defined with a conventionally accepted threshold. Furthermore, adoption of autism as an identity does not necessarily require that the definition of autism be changed. The main issue here is that people who do not have ASD identify as autistic, but I think we should not adapt our article's definition of autism in order to include them within the scope of that definition. BlockArranger (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

How do we know that there are people who have actually never met the DSM-5 criteria for ASD in their entire lives, but who identify as being autistic? Note that I'm not asking about people who meet the criteria but have never gone through a formal diagnostic process. I'm only asking about people who are definitely neurotypical but say they're autistic anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, for me this is not very important as it ut not specifically my point. I sometimes come across the phenomenon of suspicious self-diagnosis of autism. If you are interested, there is a subreddit called r/fakedisordercringe with lots of autism content. However, regardless, I have just supposed that such people are what is being referred to. Otherwise, what would be the point in diluting the ASD definition in the lead, if we are only going to accommodate people who identify as autistic and who have ASD, and thus need the definition in the lead? BlockArranger (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The basic error, as I see it, is presenting autistic diagnostic manuals as defining autism. They do not define autism, they were not created to define autism; they are clinical tools used by clinicians to help make diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism is very much more than this. For example, sensory difficulties are a major part of the experience of autistic people, and this was recognised by clinicians and scientists in the field, but this aspect of autism was not included in any diagnostic manual until 2013. Diagnostic manuals are important, but they should not be given undue weight because they are demonstrably mutable, fallible and often behind current scholarship. Urselius (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well then, what ASD are the sources referring to; do they all make up their own definition of what autism is, for the purpose of defining what population to conduct their studies upon? If there are alternative definitions of autism in reliable sources, please provide references to them so that we can read them. Furthermore, if you can find reliable sources describing autism in another way, such as for example not requiring significant impairment in the social domain, we have to make sure that we maintain WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

Indeed, this means that if we are going to describe autism as both ASD and as a vaguely defined concept which may or may not involve impairment in the social domain and which might include focused interests or a preference for order, you (or another proponent of that approach) will have to provide a reliable source for it being the case that there is controversy about how autism is to be defined. Furthermore, for lead inclusion, this must be comparably authoritative to the ICD-11 or the DSM-5, which are authoritative as the predominant secondary sources use these definitions; otherwise, it is WP:UNDUE. If you only find that reliable secondary sources differ significantly on the definition of autism, but no authoritative source makes that claim, then it is WP:OR. Either issue that might come up would violate principles of Wikipedia, which means that your endeavor would be like a WP:SNOWBALL in hell until those who want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about autism get their corrections to go WP:MAINSTREAM in WP:MEDRS (both of which Wikipedia is supposed to align with). BlockArranger (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@BlockArranger, regarding self-diagnosis:“However, regardless, I have just supposed that such people are what is being referred to. Otherwise, what would be the point in diluting the ASD definition in the lead, if we are only going to accommodate people who identify as autistic and who have ASD, and thus need the definition in the lead?“

Broadening the definition of autism is not my intention behind using less pathologising language. This is probably also why you reject WP:OUROWNWORDS that relates to words instead of the factual content of the definition (i.e. which people would get an autism diagnosis). For me (and I think everyone else here who is arguing similarly), the discussion is about using a less pathologising and more up-to-date framework for those who get an actual autism diagnosis. The sentence that a diagnosis requires significant challenges clarifies that. Autism is a complex topic that can never be defined in just one sentence, which is why there is a longer section on DSM and ICD further down in the article. I partly understand the concern that it could be interpreted as including more people, but there are peer-reviewed journal articles that write “differences” and even cite the DSM for that. This is not viewed as violating citation integrity, as the purpose is only to cite the diagnostic criteria themselves, regardless of the language used. What do you think about writing “specific differences” instead of just “differences”? This prevents the misunderstanding that any social difference qualifies for an autism diagnosis.

As multiple editors seem to get this wrong: Depathologising autism is not about denying disability (which is distinguished from disorder) or saying “Autism is not that bad because many autistic people function and have low support needs”. That gets the point entirely wrong and leads to the assumption that the talk about people with “social differences” must be about people who do not meet the diagnostic threshold or who do so only by a small margin. The neurodiversity argument is: A set of social tendencies and behaviors is defined as normal, demanded by society, which is then repeated so often that people come to believe this is just natural or follows from common sense. Then, people look at autistic people who do not have these features and say it is objectively observable that these people are “impaired” as autistic people are not able to do what they think humans must be able to do. This paper explains the reification problem: I understand that you think calling something a disorder does not imply that the thing under debate should be “cured”, but this is precisely the reason why people call it a “disorder”. If something is not bad and does not deed correction, it is not a disorder. LogicalLens (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Then I would really urge you (or @Urselius) to show to us that:

• there is consensus in support os "using [...] less pathologising [language]";
• a less pathologizing definition is considered by WP:MAINSTREAM WP:MEDRS to be a "more up-to-date framework";
• and that this new framework does not claim that "impairment" is necessary in the social domain.

Furthermore, if "[d]epathologising autism is not about denying disability", then why would we need to hide that disability is a necessary precondition for ASD? To reiterate what has been said before, neurodiversity is not a consensus view but a significant minority view (but it does not matter here; I am merely talking about whether autism must be as disabling as described in the ICD-11 or DSM-5) and there is no obvious reason why we would "depathologize" autism to the degree that we censor WP:MEDRS content to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think that the amount of self-identified autistic people here makes room for too much bias in favor of their own opinions (i.e., that the definition is a "great wrong") and we listen too much to triggered autistic people who come to this talk page with complaints without suggesting better sources. In general, on Wikipedia, we do not care about how readers feel about facts, as long as they are presented in WP:VOICE with good sources. I say the same to Muslims complaining about nude paintings of women who are of religious significance to them (Talk:Eve#Portraits and Depictions of Religious Figures), as I also do when other types of snowflakes like some MAGA supporters don't like facts. They (as well as autistic people) can all install MediaWiki and create something similar to Conservapedia or ProleWiki. BlockArranger (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a source that we can cite: The Australian National Guideline says: “Autism affects the way a person understands and interacts with other people and the world around them. From a diagnostic perspective, the term Autism Spectrum Disorder (herein referred to as autism) is the collective diagnostic term for a group of neurodevelopmental conditions characterised primarily by differences in social-communication skills, and the presence of repetitive behaviours, intense or focussed interests and/or sensory differences (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).” This cites the DSM and uses an even more neurodiversity-affirming definition as it says just “differences” in the social domain. This source even shows that one can write “neurodevelopmental condition” in a high-level source and still cite the DSM. But because the discussion around “neurodevelopmental disorder” vs. “neurodevelopmental condition” cooled down after we wrote “classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder”, I am not interested in re-opening this debate (unless many other editors want it).

Another source: This NHS page describes autism in less negative terms:. There is another NHS page that recommends non-pathologising language: Additionally, the journal guidelines I cited above clearly indicate how the field has changed:

The current lead paragraph is more pathologizing than neurodiversity-affirming, as it still says “autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”, “condition”, “difficulties”, “repetitive”, and “classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder”. Moreover, it does not mention societal discrimination and ostracism as the main causes of autistic people’s problems. This is not to say that I would, when looking at the sources, consider it appropriate to make it significantly more affirming than it currently is. But it is not that this definition is biased towards the neurodiversity model, since support for less pathologising language than in the DSM has increased in the sources to a significant level that makes it inadequate to base the entire description of autism on the traditional framing. LogicalLens (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Urselius, who or what truly defines autism? How is that answer the same or different from defining, say, Obsessive–compulsive disorder or Intellectual disability? How is that answer the same or different from defining Baby colic or Fibromyalgia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

There is, in my view, no simple definition. Autism is a perceived difference in brain function from the 'majority neurotype'. This difference is perceived by society, by clinicians, educators, researchers and for those autistics capable of doing so (the majority) by autistic people themselves. The 'difference' has some common features, but is very diverse, no two autistic people show exactly the same traits. Autism is a ragbag of communication, behavioural and sensory divergences from what is perceived as being 'normal'. If the history of autism research had proceeded differently to how it did, we could easily be talking about a number of conditions rather than one. If molecular biology techniques had been developed a couple of decades earlier, I suspect we would now have two articles, one on 'de novo autism' the other on 'hereditary autism'. The old classifications of Asperger's and 'classic autism', are, in my opinion, much more accurate at describing autism than the 'spectrum' model. I greatly suspect that 'splitters', supported by recent genetics advances, will come to the fore once again in clinical circles and the autism spectrum will be divided. What clinicians should be asking themselves is how can one condition result in the academic Vernon Smith, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, and someone who does not have the ability to live independently? Urselius (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Urselius said Autism is a perceived difference in brain function from the 'majority neurotype'. Sure, but so's Baby colic. Which people/organization get to decide which "perceived difference" is called autism and which is called colic? All words, including these, are defined by humans. Which humans get to define this word? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Which humans? Every human involved, that is why there is no unchallengeable definition of autism. That is except the most general, such as is found in the NICE guidlines. Urselius (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, you say that "every human involved" gets to define the word autism. Are you an involved human? Am I? How do I figure out which humans get to define the word? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There is obviously an interplay between autistic people in communities, autism societies, government bodies, scientific researchers, sociological researchers, clinical researchers, practising clinicians, supra-national health authorities, the press and media generally (including Wikipedia) etc. etc., concerning how autism is perceived and defined. All these are collections of people. Individuals have more or less influence, you and I are having a modicum of influence on this by editing this page - I am also a member of a steering group in a major autism charity.- but neither of us have the influence of Sir Simon Baron-Cohen or Temple Grandin. Urselius (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you taking a descriptivist linguistic approach, and saying that the article should be about anything that people/reliable sources call autism, even if those things are are not the same subject? That would you think the subject of this article should be handled like any other word in the dictionary: There is nothing different from defining autism as there is from defining, say, chiffon or chocolate, and people can disagree over whether white chocolate is really chocolate (it isn't) or whether hydrogenated soybean fat in a chocolate bar is properly considered an ordinary ingredient or an adulterant (it's the latter, though folks in the UK may disagree). However people use that word, that's what it means, and all the different things that they mean should be in the same article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Addressing your detailed questions: obsessive-compulsive disorder is a mental health condition and autism is a neurodevelopmental condition, intellectual disability directly affects intelligence and autism does not - there is no intellectual dimension to autism diagnosis (the manuals do not mention intellect as a defining feature of autism - it is co-occurring, if present), baby colic is a physical ailment as is fibromyalgia neither directly affect communication style, a basic feature of autism. The basic difference is that autism is complex, diverse and difficult to define, has complex and diverse causes and effects and the other conditions are much simpler and amenable to straightforward definitions. Urselius (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Then, it is up to you to prove that WP:MAINSTREAM authoritative WP:MEDRS describe a consensus that the definition of ASD is not good enough (perhaps as compared to other mental disorders). For another example, it has long been controversial how to define personality disorder. It enables a great comparison, because it manifests in vastly different ways within a broad spectrum of functioning levels. Yet, it does make sense to have a clear definition of where the cutoff is, as very well exemplified in Criterion A of the Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders as well as the distinction from personality difficulty in the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. I think it is necessary and good to have such measures, and I think this would be suitable for autism too, in order to make it even clearer what the scope of ASD is. For now, it is simply a fact that ASD is a defined concept, and I think we deviate too much from its definition in the lead. Furthermore and again, I urge you to consider writing a "Research directions" section in line with WP:MEDSECTIONS where the things you mention can be discussed, because the most significant and accepted of those do seem to deserve coverage in Wikipedia. BlockArranger (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The most obvious approach, it appears to me, is to either make an admission that a definition is a difficult task and settle for a description, or offer a number of definitions. A definition for clinical diagnosis, flagged as being such, and not claimed to be a definitive should be included. Perhaps neurological and sociological definitions could be found and included. In the words of a 2023 paper, "The definition of autism continually changes over time in line with the growth of autism studies and the influences of the neurodiversity movement." I think that we really need to address that a single definition of autism is not a simple task and own up to the difficulties of trying to do so. Even the diagnostic definition of autism is a moving target. it is far from immitable, it has and will change over time. Trying to make a complex subject conform to a hard and fast definition, when one does not exist, should be avoided. Complex subjects require complex written treatments with nuance and balance. Urselius (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I do however find it difficult to imagine that in the near-term, we would get to a new consensus, in accordance with which impairment in the social domain is optional. BlockArranger (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I am looking for balance. Autism is complex and the diagnostic manuals are useful but not definitive as to what autism is overall, they do not address either genetics, neurology or the social/community aspects of autism. I would propose that the introduction should contain the very broadest definition of autism. Possibly along the lines of the NICE, UK, description:

"The term autism describes a pattern of 'qualitative differences and impairments in reciprocal social interaction and social communication, combined with restricted interests and rigid and repetitive behaviours, often with a lifelong impact'. It may be associated with 'a range of cognitive, learning, language, medical, emotional, and behavioural problems including a need for routine... and difficulty understanding other people, including their intentions, feelings and perspectives', and coexisting mental health problems."

The DSM and ICD definitions used for clinical diagnoses should be kept in a clinical diagnosis section. The introduction should describe the breadth of autism topics in general terms, with details being wholly restricted to sections within the body of the text. Urselius (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you claim that "autism is complex" -- well, aren't many mental disorders complex and not yet well-understood? Furthermore, while you claim that "diagnostic manuals [...] do not address either genetics, neurology or the social/community aspects of autism", I wonder: should our introductory paragraph strive to address these aspects? We could probably not reasonably describe autism as follows:

Autism is, depending on conceptualization, either one or several conditions which manifest in behavior which differs from that of the majority, neurotypical population, in social aspects as well as in the form of a greater preference for repetition. Believed to reflect underlying diversity in the brain's structure and functioning, autism is associated with certain genetic configurations. Autistic people are discriminated by the neurotypicals because they assume that the differences are deficits; on the other hand, autistic people can find community among themselves, where their social interaction style is relatively normal. Efforts to make neurotypical people adjust to this are ongoing and gaining prominence. From the medical point of view, autism is a disorder with a definition, but this is controversial because research continuously indicates a need for amendment of the definitions. Many autistic people reject the idea that their condition is a disorder, instead asserting that their social behavior is equally valid and healthy as that of neurotypicals.

In contrast with the example I made up, I think we need to begin the article by defining for the reader what exactly autism is (this in fact being ASD as the article is written based on sources describing aspects of ASD); this can very reasonably be done using the ICD and DSM, especially with the DSM-5 giving a MEDRS overview of important features in the form of prose, where the symptoms are described. BlockArranger (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Just because many other 'conditions of any type' are complex, there is no need to ignore the complexity of autism.We need to have a definition, perhaps a description would be a more apposite term, of autism in the introduction that does not come down firmly on one side or the other of the raging debate in society, clinical practice and academia as to what autism is. To me this is bloody obvious! The description in the introduction needs to fit all currently held reputable interpretations of what autism is. As such, something general like the NICE description of autism would be ideal. I am not arguing for the removal of the DSM and ICD definitions from the article, just that the introduction is not the place to have them, as it gives them too much primacy and authority, when it is quite obvious that they have mutated through time and are currently under some challenge from researchers in the field and the autistic community. Urselius (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not intend to comment on your pastiche, as it is just a strawman argument. Urselius (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Pediatric OCD is probably a neurodevelopmental disorder. Intellectual disability is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Colic is neuro and developmental, but we decline to call it a disorder. Fibromyalgia is neuro and disorder, but probably not developmental.

But my question isn't really "Please tell me the definition". My question is "Which source(s) get to decide what the definition is?"

I'm asking because if the answer is "Well, I'd just use the DSM-5 or the ICD-11 for those, but for autism, those sources are just wrong", then I'll have a lot of sympathy, but that's something we'd have to set aside. Wikipedia has to follow the sources, even when editors believe the sources are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably, for general descriptive purposes, the wording used by such public health entities as NICE and the less controversial autism charities. For details, then relevant books, reviews and papers as per usual. Urselius (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, did you see my reply on my talk page, re the autism IQ graph? Urselius (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Just now, thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

For Infantile Colic, we would look at different sources, including the ICD-11. But Wikipedia does not have a contract with the ICD that requires it to follow word-by-word what the ICD says no matter how old it is. We would especially check whether things in the literature have changed since the ICD-11 was published. That is what we are talking about for autism here. We could hardly have justified less pathologising language in 2019, but this has changed, which means that we cannot base what we write entirely on these manuals. LogicalLens (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

However, so far, what you and @Urselius are saying sounds like, as @WhatamIdoing put it: "for autism, those sources are just wrong". I am starting to suspect something by this point, as neither of you have attempted to actually prove consensus either on this talk page nor in reliable sources for depathologizing (as described here) autism. BlockArranger (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

See my other reply, I have provided sources there: Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20260518145200-BlockArranger-20260517151500 LogicalLens (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you have misunderstood. The scholarly sources for autism are diverse and in some cases contradictory. We need the introduction to avoid coming down on using one very specific definition derived from diagnostic manuals. We need to have a very general definitions in the introduction - like the NICE definition I included above. Thus relegating other definitions (including those in the DSM and ICD) to the body of the text. As to sources for a depathologised view of autism, they are legion, an embarrassment of riches. Just look at Google Scholar or Google books. Here are the results of a simple Google Scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=depathologising+autism&btnG=

From this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gert-Jan-Vanaken/publication/395688141_From_disorder_to_neurotype_Exploring_a_neurodiversity-affirming_take_on_the_autism_diagnostic_label/links/68f4e9f0f3032e2b4bea92bb/From-disorder-to-neurotype-Exploring-a-neurodiversity-affirming-take-on-the-autism-diagnostic-label.pdf

"Important to highlight straightaway is that current diagnostic practices are not only being challenged by autistic self-advocates seeking depathologisation. Many Western countries are currently engaged in heated public and political debates complicating efforts to rethink the role of autism diagnostic labels." Urselius (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If autism comes about by an insult to the brain or a permanent disruption in neuro-metabolics, there's nothing "developmental" about it. Such cases exist. Pediatric cases of brain injury aren't called developmental disabilities either. Confirmatores (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not true. If the brain injury happens at a young enough age, then the brain injury affects the brain's development, and it is considered neurodevelopmental in addition to being a TBI.

This is clearest with loss of memory and cognitive abilities. Regardless of cause, if it happens at a young age, it's intellectual disability, which is defined as an neurodevelopmental disorder. If the same thing happens to an older person, it's dementia (specifically, in the case of a brain injury, it's a secondary dementia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

-One group thinks autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with emphasis on the Medical disorder sense;

Requires etiological grounding for that model to hold true and I'm generally inclined that it will lead to defragmentation rather than consolidation of autism as a genuine medical disorder.

-One group thinks that autism, like all psychiatric conditions, is a collection of behaviors, with an emphasis on the behaviors that are observable to others, and that it doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is.

Yes, but this is the official story. Weirdly enough, if it is the smallest group, there might be something going wrong in our discussion of autism.

-One group thinks autism is a normal human variation.

What is normal, anyway? Isn't abnormal just another term for undesireable. There are lots of things that are undesireabled, but statistically completely normal, e.g. heart disease or tooth ache. Statistically, autism seems to be abnormal because most people don't fulfill the criteria.

-One group thinks autism is a personal identity:

No, I don't think this group is necessarily the most opposed to a cure narrative. Either way, if autism is a medically coherent diagnosis, it may be found that it has no cure at all. If, however, no medical definition is brought forward, a cure translates into nothing other than whatever stops the guy from acting the way we don't him to act which is definitely also a social commentary. ~2026-33031-14 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that WP:PREPRINT to be good evidence of what "scholarly sources" say. Also, it's not as helpful as I hoped, because he promotes the idea of autism being a neurotype, but never says what he believes the word neurotype means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think, overall, that we've got two ideas about how to define the scope of this article:

• This article should be about autism as it is understood and defined by the dominant medical authorities. This is a "narrow" approach to defining autism: it excludes some views as not really being autism, e.g., NHS Scotland's "Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder which can effect a person's ability to interact and communicate effectively with others and the world around them. Autism is also known as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)." and NHS England's "When appropriate, describe autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder or neurodevelopmental disability" (their recommend language, under "Table 1. Language principles guiding this document").
• This article should be about all the (significant) myriad conceptions of autism. This is a "big umbrella" approach to defining autism: whatever you think autism is, you should find your view here.

Does anyone prefer a third choice (not just some level of compromise between these two)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The term "neurotype" is used by people to refer to autism in a non-pathologising way. But I agree that we cannot cite preprints. LogicalLens (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, from this fully published paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635690/full?fbclid=IwAR21IVxFVi5BYqvq0ninS7309QdqsJufNACnj3NYG5jOe1wCkUExv2RZkyI

"The growth of autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement has brought about new ethical, theoretical and ideological debates within autism theory, research and practice. These debates have had genuine impact within some areas of autism research but their influence is less evident within early intervention research. In this paper, we argue that all autism intervention stakeholders need to understand and actively engage with the views of autistic people and with neurodiversity as a concept and movement." Urselius (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has any claim to be an encyclopedia then all major aspects of any technical subject that have scholarly support need to be addressed. There is no debate to be had about that stricture. In my view a definition of autism that is entirely reliant on the diagnostic manuals is not of sufficient breadth to be useful. This is because the manuals were not conceived to create a definition of autism, they have changed very greatly over time and they are demonstrably behind current research and thought in general. The introduction should limit its definition to the broadest descriptive terms, then briefly run through an overview of autism's clinical, genetics, neurology and societal aspects. Urselius (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes: All major aspects of any subject that have scholarly support need to be addressed.

No: All major aspects that have scholarly support do not need to be addressed in this specific article.

Some major aspects that have scholarly support should be addressed in other articles, e.g., Genetics of autism. The question here is not "Will Wikipedia address this aspect?" The question here is "Will Wikipedia address this aspect at a page whose article title is foo or at a page whose article title is bar?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is a central article for its subject matter and in order to send a reader to a more specific article the more detailed subject has to be mentioned here and be described, at least to some extent.

I think that there is a basic dichotomy affecting autism as a subject at present, the pathologising clinical model and the depathologising neurodiversity model. Both have scholarship behind them and both require addressing. Not to cover both, or give one priority would be like an article on Christology just stating the Chalcedonian view that Christ was simultaneously wholly divine and wholly human and not mentioning that some sects believed that Christ had only one nature, and was either wholly divine (Monophysitism), or was wholly human (Arianism). Urselius (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am in no way doubting the we should include information about "autism's clinical, genetics, neurology and societal aspects". Who wouldn't do that? Obviously, the lead should not be as limited as it is in the ICD-11. However, the inclusion of these aspects has no impact on what autism itself is defined as being. Just imagine how strange it would be to define autism based on summary from the Causes and Society and culture sections. Interestingly, I am beginning to suspect that you and some others would never suggest the management aspect as part of this diversion (why might that be ;)?).

Let's again take a step back and actually look at my proposal. While I think the lead could probably be further improved, I am only talking about part of the first paragraph. As I see it, even under neurodiversity, autism is still necessarily characterized by impairment in the social domain; i.e., autism is not to be described as merely entailing "differences and difficulties". Please prove me wrong instead of going on tangents about whether to include social aspects, as it is obvious that we should cover those, as suggested by the general-purpose WP:MEDSECTIONS. In fact, I think we should cover those for any condition where there are reliable sources describing social aspects.

Now, you @Urselius go on to state that "in order to send a reader to a more specific article the more detailed subject has to be mentioned here and be described, at least to some extent". Well, tell me, will changing the first paragraph to align with how autism is clinically defined for the purposes of diagnosis as well as for the studies described in our sources affect the issue you mentioned whatsoever? I am not saying that we should remove a mention of neurodiversity from the lead, nor am I saying that we need to add more. I am merely stating that we have to be honest here using authoritative sources.

@WhatamIdoing describes what is stated on the NHS websites of Scotland and England. The Scottish one does not seem to have much useful content and seems like it is an attempt to baby its readers while providing a somewhat useful description of autism (not that anyone would cite that in serious research or academia). The English page does, however provide much more information. While WhatamIdoing took note of the following: "When appropriate, describe autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder or neurodevelopmental disability". Well, that't just a guideline for how they should communicate with and about autistic people. The more important thing, in my opinion, is that they state that "[t]he ICD is the only assessment manual that officially applies in the NHS in England. This global assessment standard states that for a person to be diagnosed as autistic, all the [ICD-11] criteria must apply". Furthermore, they go on to write that "ICD-11 criteria should be used for the primary description of autism".

What do we say, did anyone here disprove that the impairments described in the ICD-11 are necessary in the case of autism? I think we didn't. Also, I don't really think it is useful to link to guidelines on how autism should be described in clinical settings, as there they are clearly, as indicated in the NHS guideline, doing it in order not to upset autistic people. I guess I would also not like to deal with agitated clients perseverating in their claims that "autism is not a disorder and any autism traits are just as normal as those of NTs" or that "autism does not cause impairment in the social domain; it is the neurotypicals who are just wrong, unempathic and bigoted". BlockArranger (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The NHS Scotland page for autism that appears first in a search engine is this one. Health authority websites are not usually cited in academia but are accepted sources for Wikipedia, and they serve as models for how to write for the general public, whereas academic papers are directed towards a specific audience.

"ICD-11 criteria should be used for the primary description of autism. [...] As I see it, even under neurodiversity, autism is still necessarily characterized by impairment in the social domain; i.e., autism is not to be described as merely entailing 'differences and difficulties'."

The Australian National Guideline that I cited here (Talk:Autism#c-LogicalLens-20260518145200-BlockArranger-20260517151500) and that you have not yet reacted to says “differences” in the social domain and cites the DSM. The guideline is about what is called ASD, not about a self-identification concept. It is not about expanding the definition of autism, but about using different words for the same thing. The book Is This Autism? by Donna Henderson et al. also shows that it is possible to use relatively neutral terminology to describe autism and still clearly delineate who is autistic and who is not. This requires many pages of text, and the exact definition of who meets the criteria and who does not is so complex that it cannot be done in one sentence anyway, regardless of the disability model chosen.

It is not wrong to say that autistic people do not have certain behaviours or skills other people have (as long as other features of autism are mentioned as well), but the problem is calling this an “impairment” as that word implies a value judgement that the autistic person would and should “normally” be like other people and is only autistic as a deviation from that “norm”. See also these high-quality sources on the double empathy problem:

"Also, I don't really think it is useful to link to guidelines on how autism should be described in clinical settings, as there they are clearly, as indicated in the NHS guideline, doing it in order not to upset autistic people. I guess I would also not like to deal with agitated clients perseverating in their claims that 'autism is not a disorder and any autism traits are just as normal as those of NTs' or that 'autism does not cause impairment in the social domain; it is the neurotypicals who are just wrong, unempathic and bigoted'."

This is unhelpful. The sources do not say that the recommendations are only made in order not to upset autistic people, or that they are not genuine and the creators hold more pathologising viewpoints of autism in reality. The point is also not to call neurotypicals “unempathic” or “bigoted” but to criticise prejudice that is deeply entrenched in society without people being evil or consciously trying to bully autistic people. In addition to that, remember that WP:SUFFER says: “Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate.” This tells us that we do need to take into account what autistic people who read this article feel like. The shift in the sources is be enough of a reason for less pathologising language on its own, but this point adds even more weight to that.

But you are right to point out that some of the discussions here around the use of the term “neurotype” and whether to include genetic or other information is straying away from what we are debating, and that should end. LogicalLens (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

About the problem is calling this an “impairment”:

LogicalLens, do you think that there are actually zero features of autism that are non-impairing? Do you believe that if you evaluated every single autistic person in the world, you would find only neutral or positive features from autism, and any impairments that any autistic people had were actually not part of their autism?

Can you think of any feature of autism that might sometimes (or maybe even usually) be considered by autistic people who have that feature to be both (a) part of their autism and also (b) something that they would think is accurately described as "an impairment", meaning a diminishment or absence of a generally desired function or ability compared to a hypothetical average human? For example, autistic adults are common victims of romance scams, because they have trouble understanding social interactions. Are they "impaired" in the area of identifying other people's intentions and social communications, or is this not an impairment, or is it not related to them being autistic?

Note that I'm not trying to figure out whether everything about autism is an impairment. I'm trying to figure out whether you believe that nothing about autism is an impairment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There are characteristics for which neurodiversity supporters accept interventions, including the inability to communicate at all, as seen in non-speaking autistic people who cannot even use other means of communication.

Being vulnerable to romance scams is not an impairment as the guilt lies entirely on the side of the perpetrator. LogicalLens (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Are "characteristics for which neurodiversity supporters accept interventions" considered "impairments"? Is the inability (or significantly below-average ability) to detect a scam "an impairment"? Or are these impairment-free differences?

(Impairments have nothing to do with assigning guilt or blame.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The Australian National Guideline is not misinforming its readers when it claims that autism entails differences, because obviously autism is different from what is commonly understood as being normal (which is actually complicated to define). However, we do not have to be that vague; the differences that define autism (the construct referred to by the sources we have used for this article) are impairments when it comes to the social domain. The rest is more complicated than that (even "restricted, repetitive behaviors" is not really sufficient in my opinion), but I have opted to start with the first issue as we cannot even seem to agree on that detail. We do not have a duty to beat around the bush or use euphemisms on Wikipedia; indeed, WP:EUPHEMISMS should not be used.

For an example that is familiar to me, the personality disorder concept is often explained in the following manner: "All of us has a personality, that being [definition of personality. Variation is natural and normal across populations, with some being friendlier and/or more introverted than others. However, sometimes, there may be traits present that cause a person to fall outside what is called normal; when this is the case for an extended period of time, they may be eligible for a diagnosis of what is called "personality disorder". Note that this term may appear very stigmatizing, suggesting that someone is bad at a fundamental level. Instead, it should be viewed as a mental health difficulty, manifesting, for example, in the person having difficulty in "getting along" with others or upholding their boundaries".

Well, that's quite a vague description. A better approach is to face it directly: "Personality disorder is manifested in impaired functioning both of the self and interpersonal relationships, accompanied by maladaptive personality traits and beahvioral tendencies." For example, a person with such a disorder may may have no clear sense of who they are, or the self-concept may be clearly unrealistic or illogical. They may struggle to carry out their expected social roles and maintain reciprocal relationships to those around them. Attention-seeking, recklessness, submissiveness, hostility and perfectionism are some examples of maladaptive traits that are prevalent in the clinical picture."

Does this mean that I hate the people who struggle with such psychopathology? Of course not; on the contrary, I wish them all the best. From my point of view, this simply doesn't mean that we need to baby readers. Indeed, we should realistically describe in Personality disorder that many do have friends, jobs, families and the like despite impairments. This goes for autism too. I insist that autistic people have impaired ability to socialize, and yet, many people with it are eminent scholars, caring parents, beloved significant others, and creative children. Others, either with PD or ASD, may not be able to reach the necessary level of functioning for those, but this just goes to show the great variation within the spectrum of functioning levels. Both are, for their respective reasons, heterogeneous clinical categories. Yet, like personality difficulty is different from PD, autism also has a threshold; otherwise, it may be better understood as a broader autism phenotype. BlockArranger (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

“The Australian National Guideline is not misinforming its readers when it claims that autism entails differences, because obviously autism is different from what is commonly understood as being normal (which is actually complicated to define). However, we do not have to be that vague; the differences that define autism (the construct referred to by the sources we have used for this article) are impairments when it comes to the social domain.”

The explanation of this guideline says: ”3. Neurodiversity perspective: A neurodiversity perspective acknowledges that people experience and interact with the world in different ways. Inherent in this view is that there is no one ‘normal’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and therefore differences in behaviours should not be seen as ‘deficits’. Adopting a neurodiversity-affirming approach to practice in no way diminishes acknowledgement of the disability experienced by many autistic people, including those with co-occurring intellectual disabilities and/or complex communication needs. Rather, a neurodiversity-affirming approach values and respects each person for who they are and focuses on identifying and addressing their support needs.” So it is not that they are being vague, but they have actually changed their view of autism.

Writing that autistic people do not have certain behaviours or skills other people have is not a euphemism but a neutral phrasing that clearly describes the thing it is about. “Impairment” on the other hand, implies a value judgement, it is not just an objective description. Note that personality disorder diagnoses are based on societal norms, such as “carry out their expected social roles”. The neurodiversity view is not as widespread for these as it is for autism and therefore cannot be represented as much in the articles on personality disorders, but this is not relevant here.

Autistic people mostly view being autistic as part of their personality (whether they identify with it or not), so separating person and autism is inappropriate (which you did for personality disorders). This is paternalistic as it tries to impose on neurodivergent people what other people think is best for them and what is the right way to counter stigmatisation.

@BlockArranger, would your concerns be addressed if we changed “differences or difficulties” to “differences and difficulties”? @Slothwizard also criticised the "or" but acknowledged that there are autistic social features that are just differences. LogicalLens (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the quoted material in that:

• "people experience and interact with the world in different ways"; that
• "a neurodiversity-affirming approach to practice in no way diminishes acknowledgement of the disability experienced by many autistic people"; and that
• "a neurodiversity-affirming approach values and respects each person for who they are and focuses on identifying and addressing their support needs."

So far, so good. It is obvious that, in fact, autistic people's experience of and interaction with the world is different from that of most others; thus, clearly, the first point is factually accurate. This does, however, not inherently prove that all manners are equally adaptive or that none are impairing. For example, in a given situation, there are often noticeable differences in people's behavior, and it is conventionally understood that some behaviors are better than others.

The social characteristics of autism (if they actually merit a diagnosis) are considered impairing because they make the autistic person less compatible with the real world than others. We can dream up autism-friendly alternative universes all we want, but, in real life, autism is an impairment in the social domain. Of course, impairment is relative rather than absolute; that is also the reason why we look to actual society to see that those with PD are impaired because they are often unsuccessful at participating in society, ending up lonely, unemployed, in jail and so on. The second point makes it clear that neurodiversity can coexist with what I just wrote.

I don't have anything against what the third point has to say; however, on Wikipedia, we simply don't, as a matter of fact, "[value] and [respect] each person for who they are". We also do not do the opposite. What we are supposed to do is to describe autism, leaving it up to the readers to use their moral compass when it comes to how they treat autistic people. I, for one, do not need Wikipedia to tell me that I should value and respect people for who they are. However, we should describe that there is a movement attempting to make people view and treat autistic people better. This is however not related to what autism is.

Finally, I am curious about you stating that you think that I "separat[e] person and [disorder]" in the case of PD. I wonder where I do that. In my opinion, that is hard to do. It is possible for a person to change so that they are no longer eligible for a PD diagnosis, but "change" is the keyword. As a person with PD is at the moment, the PD is inherent to what they are like. That also goes for autism; the non-autistic version of them is purely hypothetical, and the hypothesis is likely to be inaccurate. BlockArranger (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that "valuing and respecting each person for who they are" is incompatible with saying that an individual objectively has an impairment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither do I. This is a cliché, but indeed I have disabled friends and acquaintances and I have never found it difficult to value and respect them, even though I think for example the need of a wheelchair for mobility is an impairment relative to having the ability to walk, in this society.

Also, to add to what I wrote earlier, apart from facts, we can identify two sentences with implicit imperatives:

• "Inherent in this view is that there is no one ‘normal’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and therefore differences in behaviours should not be seen as ‘deficits’."
• "[A] neurodiversity-affirming approach values and respects each person for who they are and focuses on identifying and addressing their support needs."

The first of them describes an opinion rooted in the neurodiversity framework. It is important to note here that even the source describes this as a "view". It is not entirely straight-forward to define what Normality (behavior) is, but this does not in itself prove that it does not exist in some form. This can for now be disregarded because our article does currently not rely on it being defined. Also, there not being a "one 'normal'" does not mean that imparment does not exist. Regarding the second point I want to add that I think it makes great sense for us to develop encyclopedic information regarding management of autism, while we cannot directly work on "identifying and addressing [the] support needs [of people with autism]". I guess this should have us even more fully covered when it comes to the quoted source. BlockArranger (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Some social characteristics of autism do not necessarily lead to impairment. I also think that the word and is better because impairment is not optional. However, differences are relative and might need elaboration or at least a wikilink to the normality that the differences relate to. I would like you to present a good WP:MEDRS source explaining it that way, however, as it doesn't really matter how much you argue regarding this; if you do not cite a source drawing this conclusion, you are engaging in original research. BlockArranger (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What about ALL the other papers and reviews in the Google Scholar search? There is a lot of scholarship out there concerning a depathologised view autism. Certainly there is enough published scholarly debate on the subject that it needs to be reflected here. Urselius (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

'Neurotype' is a widely used term in autism research. See for example Dr Luke Beardon's many publications. See here: https://profiles.shu.ac.uk/753-luke-beardon/publications Urselius (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's a widely used term. However, I've noticed that sources seem to have different meanings. For example, some sources use neurotype to describe a general category (e.g., he is autistic; she is not). Others use it to describe particular combination of traits in an autistic person (e.g., his neurotype has limited social skills, strong reactions to unexpected sounds, a lack of awareness about dangerously hot and cold weather, and a need for predictable routines). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Many terms can be used both generally and specifically. I don't think that neurotype is unusual in this. It is no different from, "Myopia is increasingly prevalent in the world population. My myopia means I have to wear spectacles all the time, but it makes my hobby of watch repairing easier." Urselius (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Those are not comparable. "My myopia" is an amount of a unidimensional trait, and it would not make sense to say "Neurotypes are increasingly prevalent". With neurotype, the word can be used to differentiate between autistic people and non-autistic people (e.g., he is autistic; she is not), but it can also be used to differentiate between autistic people with different traits. Consider a statement like "Both of our sons are autistic and have high support needs. Unfortunately, the older boy's neurotype means that he's constantly vocalizing and frequently screeching loudly, and his younger brother's neurotype means that he's extremely sensitive to noise, so we have to keep the boys separated as much as possible, of they'll both be melting down all day long." Two autistic people can have different neurotypes in this sense, and when we talk about "spiky" cognitive profiles, we're talking about ways to compare autistic people's heterogenous neurotypes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference you perceive, or its importance. Words, even medical and scientific terms, can have multiple meanings depending on context. In the uses you find problematic the context is different and this affects how the word 'neurotype' should be understood. General terms can be used more specifically to create finer differentiation. As an example, 'Xenophobia can cause intercommunity violence, a history of religiously fuelled xenophobia between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats helped fuel the armed conflict following the dissolution of Yugoslavia.' This is a general and more specific use of the same word. I see no problem with using 'neurotype' to denote both large-scale differences, say between the 'majority neurotype' (neurotypical) and people whose neurotype is bipolar, and saying that a particular individual's neurotype is characterised by bipolar cyclical episodes of mania and depression linked to seasonal changes. General and specific, that is just what I see. That a specific use of a word might be used to differentiate between subgroups characterised by the general use of the same word is neither here nor there. Urselius (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes: "Words, even medical and scientific terms, can have multiple meanings depending on context."

My complaint is that the source mentioned above did not say which of those multiple meanings is the meaning that the author intended. Consequently, different people might guess different answers, and thus understand the source in different ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with what WhatamIdoing wrote right above this comment from me. Furthermore, I don't see why it is very relevant to discuss the term "neurotype" here, unless you think we should also adopt the term, making it even more difficult for our audience to understand what this article is saying. Furthermore, we do not actually have sufficient information in the article to define what exactly an autistic neurotype is and what a supposedly "neurotypical" neurotype is. Before attempting to put pressure on aligning the lead in that direction, please attempt (if reasonable and realistic) to change the specific sections in question so that they explain the autistic neurotype, giving it due weight. Then it should be clear what we should do about the lead (see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY for further explanation of this idea). Moreover, tell me, do we have consensus regarding the autistic neurotype or depathologized autism existing in any cases where impairment is not present? BlockArranger (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the use of terms like "neurotype" etc. is 1. pseudo-scientific and 2. lends itself to argumentation that appears scientific but isn't. Confirmatores (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not relevant here, as he uses the term for a non-pathologizing view of autism, which can be seen in the first sentences of the abstract: "Autism is increasingly claimed to be a neurotype, an expression of human neurodiversity, rather than a disorder. In this Community Perspective, I explore the implications of this paradigm shift for autism as a clinical diagnosis. Can a non-pathologising, yet clinically meaningful alternative to the current diagnostic label be envisioned?" LogicalLens (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this article has been getting increasingly inconfident about what autism is. The lead holds that there are differences or difficulties in social communication. Autism certainly involves differences in communication that are not inherently pathological, but the notion that there may, in some cases, be no pathology at all (given the or used), is something only briefly and vaguely covered in the body. Autism was originally conceived as a diagnostic category, something in psychopathology, and then expanded more broadly outside of that, and correctly so, as our understanding increased. But now, the lead is trying to combine social and medical frameworks in a neutral way, and doing so poorly. The lead continues characterizing autism, as well as a need or strong preference for predictability and routine. Whether this is a need is individual and circumstantial, and a "strong preference for predictability and routine" is a statement that is trying to avoid the potentially negative connotation of the much shorter term, "inflexibility". Maybe inflexibility, however it be phrased, is not appropriate, but its omission takes valuable space to slightly alter the framing, which could be but is likely not necessary. Regardless, this back and forth is causing the lead paragraph to clutter and provide less concrete information. There are other issues I can mention but this is the gist of it. Slothwizard (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether it's a "need" also depends on how one defines "need". If you have a narrow meaning of the word need, such as "humans need oxygen", then most autistic people don't "need" their routines. If you define it as something like "can adjust without melting down", then a lot more people "need" their routines. Also, it's not just "predictability and routine"; it includes things like the world working the way that they think it should: this behavior never gets anyone in trouble, that behavior always gets everyone in trouble, justice (as the individual conceives it) must always prevail, etc. We could link to rigid thinking, but that's kind of an abstract topic, and I think that "predictability and routine" has some practical value in communicating what's going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both, @WhatamIdoing and @Slothwizard for your very good points. I agree. BlockArranger (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

There is, in my eyes, a difference between rigid personal preferences and rigid thinking (as in cognitive inflexibility). You could tenaciously say "I believe this object should be on the left", or you could say "I need this object to be on the left" in distress. It could be argued the former attitude is more common among autistic people than neurotypicals, but the latter is maybe a step closer in defining autistic traits. As for using need in the lead, I used its broader meaning in the quote just now, but this is more so everyday language. When reading an encyclopedia, need can be interpreted strictly (humans need oxygen) or broadly, and it doesn't work as both. Because an article is more formal, I read it strictly. It's not the best word here. Slothwizard (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should use words in their stricter sense so that it also makes sense for the reader to always expect that. However, it is still more than what I interpret a "strong preference" as being. Any well-sourced suggestions are welcomed! BlockArranger (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues with picture

There has been, for whatever particular reason, the issue that people diagnosed with autism are usually much more strongly associated with the diagnosis than they would have if they were diagnosed with some other diagnosis.

Now, frankly, this isn't the place to complain about the issue that once a person has been diagnosed with autism, the person, in essence, disappears and, instead, a kind of golem emerges, one called the person 'with autism' or the 'autistic' person, where the premises seem to revolve around the person doing ordinary things the wrong way, because the person himself is often thought to be "wrong".

I personally feel uncomfortable when the first picture in the autism article is a 2-year-old boy, referenced by name, who's labelled as autistic for stacking cans, at least readers could interpret such behavior as inherently autistic when it is not. I'm aware this picture has been in use for years but it struck me as wrong back then and still does so now.

The picture with the Somali kids in an autism center may not be an ideal choice, given recent controversies over Minnesota autism centers laundering tax money to Somalia.

Arguably, given that the articles o ADHD, learning disabilities, schizophrenia etc. do not have pictures showing people at all, I fail to see its relevance here altogether. And because, in practice, the point boils down to little more than showing people argued to have autism, (does anyone really know whether or not the Somali kids in that stock picture have autism, they may be intellectually disabled and such centers also cater to them), we might as well juxtapose a picture of Einstein with a non-verbal wheelchair-bound case of severe cerebral palsy, in essence the two end points of that "spectrum". Confirmatores (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's begin with the images themselves. The first image does indeed depict an autistic child stacking cans; but, contrary to what you claim, we are at least not saying that he is "labelled autistic for stacking cans [emphasis added]". It serves its purpose well in depicting a symptom of autism manifesting in a child. Regarding him being named, you can blame (if you want) the person who published the image together with that description. Personally, I hope that the subject has not suffered any damage stemming from his name being revealed; regardless, I would indeed not be happy if I had been involuntarily used as an exhibit item, even for scientific and related purposes. However, I remain unconvinced that it is not beneficial to an encyclopedic article in which his identity is even disregarded, mind you.

In regards to the Somali child, I find it interesting that you connect it to the Minnesota issue; I had actually never come to think of that, perhaps because I am European. Anyhow, the issue regarding WP:VERIFIABILITY of what the image is claimed to depict, which I actually raised almost a year ago (check the archives for that discussion and many others worth reading), has been resolved for now because I was informed that images are fine as long as they serve to depict what they supposedly capture, even in situations where it cannot be verified. However, I am a bit unsure about how useful it actually is; I personally think it's just a child engaging with an object that many children have engaged with, especially in the past (I grew up with electronic devices with user-facing arithmetic capabilities, but in poor countries, people might not).

I think one reason for its inclusion is that it explicitly shows a black person in the context of autism, similar to the ice skater being an example of a female person with autism; this is supposed to counteract this article ending up showing only people who are, at the same time, prepubescent, white and male, which is a stereotype associated with autism. I don't mind diversity, and want to inform anyone wondering about this that in practice, we just happen to be limited by the content available in Wikimedia Commons, where the trend ended up manifesting in stereotypical autistic people being uploaded more often than other autistic people. Feel free to upload images not conforming to the stereotype if you want to counteract it.

Lastly, I agree that people indeed often use templates found in their minds in order to interpret the world, such as "autism" when seeing someone known to have autism, instead of actually perceiving the subject at hand. That's unfortunate, but there is little we can do here or elsewhere; people will most likely continue letting their minds be lazy. That's that, I guess... BlockArranger (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I note that writers and editors probably would not have supplied pictures of people in the first place if there wasn't the false assumption that autism somehow defines a race of people as opposed to being a mere diagnostic attribute. So, again. I fail to see the necessity for pictures of people being featured just because they happen to have received an autism diagnosis at some point. I tried to hint at that issue with criticizing the toddler pic because that kid may have potentially, by now, turned out to be not autistic at all. Confirmatores (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Like deafness, autism is not merely a clinical condition. It has important social, sociological and community aspects. As an autistic person, who is very complex and is far from being entirely defined by my autism, I can assure you that autism is not merely a clinical diagnosis. Your viewpoint that there is no dimension to autism beyond the strictly clinical or that there is no autistic community is demonstrably wrong. People are autistic in their entirety, therefore photographs of entire people are relevant, unlike swollen ankles, where a photograph limited to a view of ankles would be sufficient. Urselius (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No, autism is a set of behavioral issues so, really, a proper illustration would not involve a still picture but a video showing a person exhibiting distinctive behavioral issues called "autistic". Static autism doesn't exist. Confirmatores (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not continue on the off-topic ontology of autism beyond this comment. This is about pictures. BlockArranger (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that actions/behaviors can only be illustrated with a video. When I think about whether there could be a video of this same boy stacking cans in his kitchen, I'm not sure that a video would actually be more informative. Additionally, I suspect that the video would draw the same basic complaints (both "I hate having pictures of kids in this article, because I'm an autistic adult, and autistic adults like me get overlooked!" and "I hate having pictures of autistic people doing something stereotypical!") plus a new complaint about how video isn't accessible to people with poor internet connections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, why not have a gallery of the first known WP:NOTABLE deaf person, as well as deaf people who are young, female, colored, and so on, engaging in programming, driving and the like merely with the purpose of showing actual deaf people and examples of things that are able to do? Also, why do we not apply your suggestion to Personality disorder, even though PD is infact central to affected individuals? BlockArranger (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Your reply is so convoluted as to be somewhat unintelligible.

Photographs of deaf people signing would be entirely cogent. A photograph of someone with personality disorder talking to a therapist/psychiatrist would also be relevant. However, givemn appropriate permissions and consent, photographs of whole people with neurodevelopmental, physical and psychological conditions doing things not at all associated directly with their condition, seem unobjectionable to me. There are plenty of photos of people on Wikipedia not doing whatever it is they are famous for, just smiling for the camera. A photo of Stephen Fry just smiling for the camera, included on the page for bipolar disorder would be unobjectionable, as he has that condition. Insisting that the photograph be of him while suffering from a depressive episode would be inane. Urselius (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The toddler photo was taken and uploaded by his mother, who is a professional journalist and who has written about her son's mostly non-speaking autism and published videos such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7kHSOgauhg that talk specifically about him stacking cans and lining up things. He was formally diagnosed with autism about three months after this picture was taken. The same boy is shown another photo, also taken and uploaded by his mother, in Autism#Restricted and repetitive behaviors. In both photos, he's showing restricted/repetitive behaviors. Somehow, we get lots of complaints about him actively stacking cans but no complaints about him being asleep in his bed with all his ducks in a row. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This strengthens, rather than weakens my point, because I don't think it's ethically sound to publish pictures of kids functioning as illustrations of medical conditions without explicit authorization coming from them. Even assuming that this issue is legally solved because the parent explicitly allows for mass distribution, I think, from the perspective of the child, verbal or not, it might come across as insulting and a breech of both autonomity and anonymity. Anyway, I also don't think that lining up toys or stacking up cans is syndrome-specific enough. Such stereotyped patterns also occur in post-encephalitic conditions and cases of hydrocephalia. They also occur in normal kids. Confirmatores (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the ethics of the image, you are unlikely to get it removed even if I also share some of your sentiment. It is debatable how syndrome-specific these phenomena are, but as long as these are recognized symptoms of autism to the extent that they constitute part of meeting official criteria for a diagnosis of ASD, the image is good. This would also be the case with head-banging, for example. Anyway, I think it is good for the factuality aspect that, as @WhatamIdoing points out, the autistic person in question is well-documented, so that this is not merely a case of Wikipedians finding a picture of a generic child stacking cans and using it to illustrate autism (which would be fine); rather, this is specifically an autistic child with a symptom of autism. BlockArranger (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"This would also be the case with head-banging, for example"

A lot of things cover the repetitive and restrictive behavior domain to the point where I personally consider it meaningless because it's simply scientifically meaningless in terms of what behavior is mapped on what assumed disease-entity. Head-banging argumentaly occurs in PTSD, personality disorders, severe intellectual disability and an array of genetic diseases as well, yet, in theory, showing head-banging as an example of "autistic" behavior falsely associates that behavior so that, in the end, it comes solely to stand for autism.

Ignoring here the 'ontological' discussions which you are disinclined to have, the ontology of autism is a legitimate research subject; Again I have to ask what precise task the pictures fulfill in the article? Because most other articles on mental illness or developmental disabilities don't have such pictures. Notably, you seem to justify their inclusion based on just one out of four pictures which arguably does show a symptom, though the behavior is neither specific to autism, nor limited to autism nor even universally present in autism. Ignoring all that, the ethic aspect still remains with featuring pictures of identifiable people who were unable to give their consent to distribution. Confirmatores (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The pictures in this article fulfill the same point as any pictures in any Wikipedia article: They visually illustrate something that is mentioned in the article. For example, the article says "arranging toys in a row", and we have a picture of this boy arranging cans in a stack and sleeping next to a row of toys that he has arranged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not disinclined to have an ontological discussion regarding autism; in fact, I started one, titled "What is Autism?", which was apparently archived recently because our archiving is too quick. I also see the ethical problems, but they are not going to stop Wikipedia from solely being focused on building an optimal encyclopedia for the masses, including, if possible, illustrating autism in one way or another. Furthermore, we do not need to find a symtom that only occurs in autism and only in autism; stacking cans is sufficient because it exemplifies how repetitive behavior can manifest. BlockArranger (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Please prove that "writers and editors probably would not have supplied pictures of people in the first place if there wasn't the false assumption that autism somehow defines a race of people as opposed to being a mere diagnostic attribute". In my opinion, the can stacking picture is good (but not exhaustively sufficient) for an encyclopedic depiction of autism because it clearly shows a symptom of autism manifesting. In this context, I do not really care about the actual child in the picture, and the article should not either. I don't really like the other pictures, as indeed, I think those aim to show examples of a "race of people" merely in order to convey that they can be figure skaters, old, businesspeople, female and black; these pictures do not really help someone understand what autism is. The banker may be an exception, because it's perhaps a fun fact that he's the first person diagnosed by Kanner – but not with ASD, which is perhaps another issue: is this article perhaps not merely about ASD, but also about other diagnoses considered to be "autism"? BlockArranger (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

+1, idk we don’t just follow WP:GALLERY anyway: There is consensus not to use a gallery of group members as the lead image for articles about large groups of people such as ethnicities., an RfC might be worth doing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately, we're not doing that. The infobox shows:

• an autistic boy doing something stereotypically autistic;
• an autistic teen doing something not stereotypically autistic;
• a probably autistic child receiving an appropriate education;
• a historically significant person with autism.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"an autistic teen doing something not stereotypically autistic"

Which precisely shows that the original concept of autism is exchanged for a identity-centered reformulation of autism where the clinical picture becomes irrelevant. If an "autistic" person exhibits no autistic behavior, he's not "autistic" in that situation hence the picture is misleading.

"a probably autistic child receiving an appropriate education;"

I mean, for starters, this kid may not be autistic at all, and the picture has been likely derived from promo material featured by a educational center targeting a wide array of kids (as has been shown in previous thread discussing that issue.)

Generally, all pictures suffer from issues. Either they illustrate behavior that is common but not limited to autism, or they illustrate behavior that isn't autism or there is some other significant uncertainty. Donald might be the only exception but whether or not we want to include him in the collection is similar to the question whether cases of dementia praecox should be included in the schizophrenia section. And anyway, this maintains that Kanner's definition of autism is autism (as per the DSM-5 which is the only remotely legally binding definition). Now, I personally would not be too unhappy about Kanner's definition because it's more stringent and more clearly differentiates his kids from generic cases of intellectual disability. Confirmatores (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

When something is common in one condition, but is also seen in other conditions, it's called a Nonspecific symptom. Almost all medical signs and symptoms are non-specific, e.g., a fever appears in many infections and also some non-infectious medical conditions. That doesn't mean that it's useless or inappropriate to say that people with the flu have fevers. Similarly, many autistic children like to stack cans or line their toys up in a row. That isn't specific to autism, but the fact that someone with a non-autism condition might also like to stack cans doesn't make it useless or inappropriate for autism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Medical conditions are medical conditions because symptoms are outward signs of an underlying identifiable pathology that is the source of the outward signs. It's obvious this definition doesn't work for autism except for syndromic cases where it is obvious that the autism is caused by chromosomal deletion syndromes, brain damage, encephalitis etc. Fun fact: "Even the DSM-5 specifically state that diagnoses of syndromic autism must include cause if it is identifiable."

Anyway, leaving out the picture of the kid stacking cans (which, for a long time, has been the only picture; infantilizing and showing a vey nonspecific syndrom for that matter) we now include three pictures that actually show nothing autism-specific at all. Just people who've gotten a piece of paper at some point stating that they had autism and for the Somali kid, even that isn't verified. Confirmatores (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "infantilizing" is the usual complaint. As I said earlier, this complaint boils down to "I hate having pictures of kids in this article, because I'm an autistic adult, and autistic adults like me get overlooked!"

We need to include people who don't "look like" they have autism, because most autistic people "look like" non-autistic people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"We need to include people who don't "look like" they have autism"

No, we absolutely don't because autism has nothing to do with physical looks. And since autism is a pattern of behavior, it would be appropriate to feature pictures showing examples of such behavior. Confirmatores (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel like I'm understanding your concerns. For example, first you tell me that you don't want the picture of an autistic boy engaged in an autism-related behavior. Now you tell me that the pictures should show examples of such behavior. Could you perhaps organize your thoughts into a numbered list of statements? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You're evading my questions, instead whatabouting over this and that. Your arguments for keeping the pictures are utterly unconvincing. The picture lacking any verification of a kid using the abacus must be kept according to you because it conveys the idea "that autistic people can learn math" or that "autistic people can do non-autistic things".

These are utterly non-sensical statement because 1. it's not a commonly hold pre-conception and 2. even if it was still had nothing to do with the article's purpose. Judging from what you say so far and the articles you would like to write yourself, it seems obvious that you are deliberately steering the autism article to whatever ideological flavor you would like to see it represent. And since you're failing to give any clear directions, instead just going for summarizations of what somebody says or claims, never mentioning who that is, I simply can't but think that you're not arguing in good faith. You refuse to structure the article around the one thing that actually gives it form which is its official definition, instead allocating a tremendous and disproportional amount of attention to "neurospicy" minority/fringe positions which 1. do not belong in an article on autism proper because they're not medical or psychological and 2. even if they were, should be contrasted against positions held by interest groups representing parents of severely autistic kids. Confirmatores (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The idea that autistic people can't do things is pervasive. Have you seen nothing about what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said about autistic kids? He said that autistic people "will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date."

That's wrong, but it is a common belief.

We show: An autistic kid who stacks cans. An autistic teen who does ice skating. An autistic kid who is learning math. An autistic man who worked in a bank for most of his life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

RFK Jr. claim is taken out of context because he was talking about severely autistic people for whom his characterization isn't really that far-fetched. We probably wouldn't have these discussions more generally if we would differentiate between different presentations currently subsumed under autism but there's resistance towards that so these inconsistencies and misconceptions will remain for the foreseeable time. Confirmatores (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, after RFK became the center of a media firestorm for promoting misinformation, he appeared on Fox News to claim that when he talked about autistic people in a press conference, some of his remarks only apply to some autistic people.

But the stigma is real, and it's not just RFK Jr who holds those views. There wouldn't be so much pressure to "fix" autism or to "mask" symptoms if parents, schools, and others didn't think that being autistic was bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Are 'severely autistic people' just people with intellectual disability and autism?

There is growing evidence for two basal genetic causes of autism, one inherited, an additive effect of small-scale genetic variants found throughout the general population, tending towards a less overt presentation and the other from de novo, large-scale, genetic changes occurring in sperm and ovum production that tend to be more obviously disabling. This also explains the double peaks of intelligence in autistic people, one peak below average intelligence, the other peak above average intelligence, with a saddle around the average. Urselius (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what average IQ is for the entire autism cohort. I know that, for kids younger than 8 years, 40 to 50 % have intellectual disability with an additional 20 % scoring an IQ between 70 and 84. So low IQ seems to be pretty solidly associated with autism. Anyway, since conception-wise, autism and intellectual disability aren't really that different, I agree with the current ICD decision that the co-occurence of autism and intellectual disability isn't just mere co-occurence but actually one syndrome warranting two diagnostic labels. Confirmatores (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent figures show that autistic people with an average or above average IQ outnumber those with below average IQ by a considerable margin. The ratio of high to low IQ autistic people will only increase in the future. Before the mid 1990s people with average to high IQ were rarely diagnosed as autistic, diagnosis has become more accurate in diagnosing high-masking and intelligent people (especially women) over time. This, and no other reason, is why the numbers of people diagnosed as autistic has increased.

Personal observation has led me to conclude that people in scientific research - my direct observation has been mostly of biochemists, molecular and cell biologists, chemists and computer-based theoreticians - show more autistic traits than are found in the general population. Certainly, a published study showed a significantly higher proportion of children enrolled in the schools of the Dutch equivalent of Silicon Valley have autism diagnoses than the Dutch national average.

From the graph below it can be seen that autistic people are over-represented, compared to the general population at both of the extremes of IQ. The relatively higher incidence of autistic people with very high IQs is notable.

Bimodal IQ distribution in autism 2d line chart

General population in green, autistic population in blue. Urselius (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Funny how despite the extreme bi-modal distribution, we're told that an Aspie engineer and a severely non-verbal autistic with clear dysfunction of his nerve system have the same issue and experience the world similarly. Autism is a joke of a diagnosis. Since Simon Cohen's blabla about the male brain and Atwood claiming every historic person to be "autistic", we should have stopped taking it seriously and instead started asking why the avalanche of low-functioning clearly biologically compromised kids is simply written off as "autistic". Confirmatores (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that you are a POV-pusher with zero interest in helping to create a better Wikipedia article on autism.

I have tinnitus - it is continuous and sounds like a dentist's drill - and high-frequency hearing loss. I am not profoundly deaf, but my auditory loss does cause me problems on a daily basis. I tend to mis-hear what people say, especially if I cannot see their mouths. I do not need to be profoundly deaf in order to have a clinically recognised degree of deafness. My deafness was confirmed by audiological testing and diagnosis.

In a similar way, I am not profoundly autistic, but it causes me problems on a daily basis. I believe that I do not need to be non-functional in order to be autistic. My autism was confirmed by my clinical diagnosis by relevantly qualified clinicians.

Autistic people can have co-occurring conditions: hypermobility, gut issues, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, generalised anxiety disorder, OCD, ADHD, epilepsy, depression etc. and also intellectual disability. These can affect people in an additive way with autism. I see no 'avalanche', anyone who is autistic and cannot live independently, due to autism and co-occurring conditions, needs support commensurate with their needs. Whether they are called 'autistic' or 'intellectually disabled', or something else entirely, makes not a jot of difference. They should have their support needs met.

You appear to be living in some sort of conspiracy-theory dystopia of your own device, one with an unhealthy obsession about autism at its core. Urselius (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

None of what you write is relevant to anything that I wrote or that anyone else has written so far.

"They should have their support needs met."

Again, this is not relevant to the point I raised. For that matter, it's also painfully naive that an industrial complex centered around generating profits with disabled people does this only out of some humanitarian mission. There is a very real thing called medicalization and disease-mongering and it involves lobbying to lower the bars for what qualifies as disabilities. I don't think someone with mild Asperger traits or what not is helped by a blanket diagnosis ascertaining him of suffering from the same ailment that elsewhere leaves people unable to speak and making them wear helmets because of the evr present threat of a clonic epileptic seizure.Confirmatores (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an, "industrial complex centered around generating profits with disabled people", outside of your febrile imagination. What happens with autistic people unable to live independently is, firstly they are looked after by their families with minimal, if any, state support. Then they are looked after by badly paid support workers, either in their own homes or in institutional settings. No one is making huge profits out of this. In the US, and some other benighted countries, the medical insurance industry is a sort of institutionalised fraud perpetrated on the whole population, not specifically on disabled people of any type. Urselius (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that this "industrial complex" language is sometimes used to describe Applied behavior analysis treatment programs. While an individual program may or may not be profitable overall, and the lowest-level employees in any large program are probably poorly paid, they are hugely expensive from the POV of the person paying for them. One medical center that provides ABA and other services sued the State of Florida over a change that appears to be cutting into their profits by about a million dollars a week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

A very parochial problem only affecting those US citizens able to afford a very expensive therapy, a therapy has been accused of traumatising its subjects, or victims. This does not affect the rest of the world to any appreciable extent. It can hardly be characterised as an "industrial complex", like the defence industry or pharmaceuticals. Urselius (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please, only write one comment to adress the issues I raised. I've got 14 notifications and I'm unwilling to go through them all.

The term; "industrial complex" is a perfectly appropriate term because it describes any enterprise which has stopped operating on the basis of market principles and instead uses its political power to lobby for its continuous existence and growth. It becomes a purely self-serving enterprise with no positive or even adverse effects for those outside of it. ABA is just one instance, although a pretty good one, because ABA has no scientific evidence that it works, yet thanks to lobbying it's the only treatment option available in most states for autism. Confirmatores (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no treatment for autism. All that ABA does is increase masking abilities by forcing autistic children to conform to the behavioural expectations of society in general. ABA has a very bad press in the autistic community and the parents who inflict it on their children should be educated away from doing so. Your 'industrial complex', which is no such thing, could be effectively destroyed by educating American 'autism moms' away from paying for their children to be abused. Urselius (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub3/full if you're interested in a more scientific approach to the question of what ABA does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the general problem with ABA is that it has been originally developed with severe brain damage in mind. It is obvious that ABA can NOT teach people to develop appropriate social skills because ABA, by definition, operates in a highly artificial and abnormal environment where you're meant to explicitly prompt kids. ABA is only good for conditioning people to stop maiming themselves or hitting their heads etc. or for certain motor movements like going to the toilets. The fact so much ABA is offered to parents of autistic kids either implies that these services are falsely offered to parents and generate no tangible benefits or, if they create benefits, that the number of extremely low-functioning autistic kids must have increased substantially. Confirmatores (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

So... I don't know much about the history of ABA, but what you're saying about teaching social skills to young children is wrong. Young children get that kind of "artificial and abnormal environment where you're meant to explicitly prompt kids" regularly. To give a banal example, most English-speaking kids grow up hearing "What's the magic word?" to prompt them to say please and "What do you say?" to prompt them to say thank you.

ABA is also not necessarily about "social skills" in the sense of (e.g.) how to make friends. It seems to get used mostly for basic functional behaviors and developmental milestones. The ABA-based Picture Exchange Communication System (which has multiple WP:MEDSAY violations), for example, teaches kids to trade a picture of something for the object, which I think most people would say is an improvement on the usual preverbal approach (e.g., the baby cries until the parents guess what the problem is; the toddler screams if you prevent him from doing something dangerous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the point I raised. Confirmatores (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have any consensus here? As it stands now, the image collection is not representive, includes one person who is not autistic, falsely associates a DSM/ICD disorder model as representing the people themselves which is ethically unsound, includes a picture of a now 20-something-year-old kid who is identified by name and the reasons for why these pictures have chosen are ideologically motivated and largely irrelevant to the article. Confirmatores (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Which person is "not autistic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The abacus kid isn't.

Regardless, relevance of the pictures in regards to the article is simply not established. Confirmatores (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you actually know who the student at the Autism Somalia Center is, and what his list of diagnoses are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Whataboutism since the burden of proof lies on the one including the picture. Confirmatores (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say the burden of proof lies on the person writing that he "isn't" autistic. That's an assertion of a fact, and very different from writing something like "I know this is in a special school for kids with autism, but they have some kids with Down syndrome, so what if this kid happens to be one of the few kids that doesn't have autism? I'm assuming, of course, that they take kids with Down syndrome who aren't autistic, because of course I already know that lots of kids with Down syndrome are also autistic". Do you have any basis for making your factual assertion that this kid "isn't" autistic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, whataboutism. It's pretty pedantic and insincere at that point.

In regards to: " That's an assertion of a fact, and very different from writing something like "I know this is in a special school for kids with autism"

1. You keep conflating autism with ID/DD, (intellectual disability), proving that you seem to struggle at understanding these concepts.

2. You fail to reasonably prove that this school is for "autistic" students. Since the discussion so far has shown that the featured picture is NOT from a school tailoured for "autistic" students, it stands to reason that the vast majority of the pupils aren't autistic and the few that likely happen to suffer frmo autism and ID/DD.

In regards to: "I'm assuming, of course, that they take kids with Down syndrome who aren't autistic, because of course I already know that lots of kids with Down syndrome are also autistic"

Insincere whataboutism + the vast majority of Downies aren't autistic. Anyway, irrelevant point.

In regards to: "Do you have any basis for making your factual assertion that this kid "isn't" autistic?"

Whataboutism + the following fallacies: moving the goalpost and begging the question. Confirmatores (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"You're saying something with no factual basis" is not whataboutism. An example of whataboutism would be "You said this boy in this picture in this article isn't autistic, but what about a different picture in a different article?"

As for your "1", I don't conflate autism with Intellectual disability or Developmental disorder (ID and DD are different things). However, you may wish to note that autism is pretty common in Down syndrome:

“ "In the general population, the prevalence of ASD is about 1%; in children with Down syndrome, it has been estimated at 41%."

”

About your "2", I wonder why you might think that a school that literally has the word "Autism" in its name might not be for autistic students? I think that a school:

• whose name is Autism Somalia Center;
• whose website says things like "The center is committed to improving the health and living standers of autistic special needs children", and
• whose vision statement says "The Development and Care for Children with Special Need-Autism Somalia Center (DCCSN-ASC) envisions a world in which individuals and families living with autism are able to maximize their quality of life, are treated with the highest level of dignity, and live in a society in which their talents and skills are appreciated and valued"

is probably a school for kids with autism. What do you think? Does that sound to you like a school for primarily non-autistic kids? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

C.f. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9979529/

Cites 13 %

Elsewhere, I get numbers in the range of 10-18 %. The 40 % seems to be a singularly high estimate. Presenting it as a fact is insincere and manipulative.

See: "Does that sound to you like a school for primarily non-autistic kids?"

Still no proof that the featured kid is "autistic" nor that the picture is relevant to the article. Confirmatores (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Even 13% proves your claim that "the vast majority of Downies aren't autistic" wrong.
• Still no proof for your claim that "The abacus kid isn't" autistic.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Although you have previously argued for including the picture because autism isn't mental retardation, now it seems that you treat both topics as one and the same thing. Although, and I have repeatedly pointed this out, the fact that various syndromic pictures give rise to often debilitating "autism syndromes" can be regarded as trivial consequences of profound disruptions in neurodevelopment; hence treating them as "autistic" renders the diagnosis of autism meaningless because such cases hold absolutely no relevance for the vast majority of well- or somewhat functioning people now labelled as autistic. Confirmatores (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If your POV that (e.g.,) autistic-like behaviors due to Fragile X syndrome are not the same thing as autism ever develops significant support in MEDRS sources, then I'll cheerfully advocate for that POV to be included in this article. Until then, though, "autism syndromes as a consequence of profound disruptions in neurodevelopment" are still Autism and still within the scope of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It's my point of view and as a significant minority it deserves representation. - WhatamIdoing. Confirmatores (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a "significant" minority. Significant minority views should be easy to source in MEDRS-quality sources. I have found MEDRS-style sources differentiating between "profound" or "severe" and the more common forms of autism, but not ones that say autism with a known medical cause, regardless of severity, is importantly different from autism without a known medical cause. If you can supply a few such sources, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Why exactly would the distinction not be relevant.

For that matter, why do you disregard MEDRS sources when forcing neurodiversity views into the autism article? Confirmatores (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Distinctions that are not published in reliable sources are not relevant, because Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" but none of the "tiny minority" viewpoints, and Wikipedia:No original research bans us from including distinctions that aren't published in any reliable sources. If the distinction between syndromic and non-syndromic autism isn't a "significant" viewpoint in MEDRS sources, then putting it in the article would violate core content policies.

I don't think you will find a single instance of me either "disregarding MEDRS sources" or "forcing neurodiversity views into the autism article". In case you'd like to check, here's a complete list of every edit I've ever made to this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I certainly do not think there is any consensus supporting your position. You have an entrenched viewpoint, which you push tirelessly. It seems not to overlap greatly with the viewpoints of other editors. On a practical level, the article is constrained by what images are available on Wikimedia. No doubt everyone could imagine ideal images for the article, but they are simply not available. Urselius (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Most articles on mental disorders don't feature any pictures of people. Curiously enough, only in the autism article is there a weird consensus FOR disease identification with the featured pictures actually having little relevance. Confirmatores (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In the "Neurological and symptomatic" section of Template:Mental disorders (the section that contains Autism), I found that about half of the articles had images in them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

C.f. previous discussions.

Again, whataboutism since we're specifically dealing with pictures of people, not pictures more generally. Confirmatores (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Huntington's disease#Management and Parkinson's disease#Signs and symptoms have pictures of people diagnosed with those conditions. Asperger syndrome and Savant syndrome have them in the lead. While most articles on neurological disorders don't feature any pictures of people, some clearly do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, or condition, not a 'mental disorder'. Autistic people can be, though this is relatively rare given the high rates of anxiety, entirely free of mental ill health. Urselius (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Neurodevelopmental disorders are, by definition, mental disorders. Confirmatores (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Motor disorder is a category of neurodevelopmental disorders in the DSM-5, but it includes things like Developmental coordination disorder, which is not considered a "mental" disorder. Cerebral palsy is also a neurodevelopmental disorder, and it is not considered a mental disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Cerebral palsy isn't a neurodevelopmental disorder. Neurodevelopmental disorders are specific disorders of mental development as codified in the DSM-5 and now the ICD-11. Cerebral palsy can cause neurodevelopmental disorders, however.

Either way, even if I were to allow motor disorder etc. as neurodevelopmental disorder, this doesn't refute the status of autism being a mental disorder since autism is characterized by mental disturbances in social conduct and behavior. Whether or not these are caused by underlying neurological defects is irrelevant to the diagnosis per se. Confirmatores (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by damage to the immature brain." doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2023.114411
• "Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting from an injury to the developing brain." doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011660.pub2
• "Cerebral palsy is a neurodevelopmental disorder that exerts its impact on motor development and functioning, leading to various abnormalities in movement, coordination, muscle tone, reflexes, posture, and balance." ISBN 9780323984300, p. 342
• "CP is a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed based on clinical signs, not etiology." doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.617813 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link)

Would you mind, whenever you're about to post a "fact", actually doing a quick search to see whether your claim is easily disproven? And maybe read it again just before you post, so you don't come across as being totally arrogant? You just said you might "allow" the DSM to include motor disorders in their definition of neurodevelopmental disorders, but I really don't think anyone cares whether you granted them your permission to do so.

This article doesn't have to take a stand on whether autism is a "mental disorder". That term is not well understood by the general public (i.e., the likely readers of this article), so it's probably best to be a bit more specific (e.g., write "neurodevelopmental" instead of "mental"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't bother pestering me with any low-quality medical paper. Cerebral palsy is NOT a neurodevelopmental disorder and it does not suddenly become one based on idiosyncratic naming conventions. More importantly, cerebral palsy is caused by brain damage. Feel free to redefine autism as brain damage. Confirmatores (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"This article doesn't have to take a stand on whether autism is a "mental disorder".

It should because any medical authority defines it as such.

"That term is not well understood by the general public"

1. Not an argument. 2. Doesn't refute my point autism being a debilitating mental disorder.

"so it's probably best to be a bit more specific (e.g., write "neurodevelopmental" instead of "mental")."

Which, as is clearly shows, means that the user wants to force a large number of clearly neurologically diseases into it. Again, I have whatsoever no problem with autism being defined as a form of brain damage. Autistic people definitely behave as such. But it's not scientifically warranted. Confirmatores (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your comments are insulting to autistic people.

I think you are overlooking the fact that communication is a two-way activity. If we say "____" in a technical sense, but average people (=Wikipedia's readers) don't understand that to be a narrowly defined technical term, then we have failed at the fundamental goal of communicating information to the reader.

For example, MOS:MYTH warns us against using the word myth without communicating the meaning. My statement below about "the myth that all CP is caused by birth asphyxia" should not appear in any article, because it's not a myth in the scholarly sense (i.e., in the sense of the Greek myths); instead, it's a common misconception.

In this case, we shouldn't say "Autism is a form of brain damage", because brain damage is generally understood as physical trauma to the brain. We don't want Wikipedia's readers to think that autism is the result of car wrecks or a babies getting dropped on their heads, and if we say "brain damage", then some of them will think that, and we'll have created misunderstandings.

If we say it's a "mental disorder", they'll think it's like depression or a psychotic disorder. Again, this language will result in some people misunderstanding autism.

What we need to communicate is that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder: autism affects how the nervous system develops as a child grows. That's the term most often used in the medical literature, and it is correctly understood by most readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

C.f. "What we need to communicate is that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder: autism affects how the nervous system develops as a child grows"

Autism can NOT affect nervous system development. This is a deliberately misleading term based on falsely propagating to people with no medical knowledge that "autism" is a physically real thing somewhere located in the brain or in the genes. 1. It's deliberately misleading, 2. scientifically false and 3. meaningless.

C.f "MOS:MYTH warns us against using the word myth without communicating the meaning"

The category doesn't apply here. The notion of brain damage limited to car wrecks is also deliberately misleading and medically false. You are actually lying, and have done so repeatedly. Confirmatores (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
• Neurodevelopmental disorders are "causatively related to atypical development of the nervous system". All neurodevelopmental disorders affect the development of the nervous system.
• But you believe that "Autism can NOT affect nervous system development"?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Autism cannot affect the nervous system because it is argued to be caused by abnormal nervous tissue development, a claim that lacks scientific evidence. Confirmatores (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Also provide an answer to the question why you are lying and why you provide me with incosistent answers. Confirmatores (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Which "low-quality medical paper" were you talking about? The first one is a systematic review in one of the world's leading developmental neuroscience journals. The second is a Cochrane review. The third is a scholarly book on pediatric neurodevelopmental disabilities published by Elsevier. And the fourth specifically addresses the myth that all CP is caused by birth asphyxia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbh, since the entire argumentation so far, in essence, is meaningless busywork and the user seems to have unclear motives + exhibits characteristics of an LLM-based bot, I will simply end the discussion here.

Make from it what you want. I'm whatsoever not surprised that industrial interest groups and other corps would manipulate the internet to force their view onto the public. But i'm big into the dead internet theory anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Confirmatores (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What "most articles" have wrt images isn't supportive evidence of a consensus that editors wish that situation. Or what Wikipedia might look like if the UI was capable of magazine quality layout and we fostered a community of illustrators, rather than just people who can insert plain text and square brackets in a text box. -- Colin°^Talk 08:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that editors have to justify why and what they include in the article. Once again, 1. why is the abacus kid included despite him not being autistic, 2. what exactly is gained from featuring pictures of "autistic" people in the lead? Confirmatores (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This image has been discussed already (e.g. Talk:Autism/Archive 17#Questionable inclusion of image of a child with an abacus) where an editor had a similar complaint. This discussion hasn't added anything new that is likely to shift consensus. Repeatedly arguing about the boy's autism diagnosis wasn't a helpful approach last time, and claiming you know for sure he does not have autism is unlikely to impress anyone here. We are all grown ups and can deal with unknowns and uncertainties.

We would love to have an abundance of images from which we could select and which would represent autism in all its global variety. We don't, unfortunately, and part of contributing to Wikipedia is accepting compromise and accepting others have different opinions and priorities than you. Your last question, about what is gained from "featuring pictures of "autistic" people in the lead" strikes me as a very odd question indeed, and one for which I'm sure you are capable of answering yourself. -- Colin°^Talk 13:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

In regards to: Your last question, about what is gained from "featuring pictures of "autistic" people in the lead" strikes me as a very odd question indeed.

It's not odd at all. Linking a debilitating disorder to a person such that the reader comes to associate the person with his/her disease suggests an ideologically motivated and charged motive. In other words, the Wikipedia autism article so far heavily suggests that autism "is" the person, hence that people constitute a specific neurodevelopmental disease which they are rather than they suffer from.

Anyway, the issues also are that;

1. this contradicts established medical guidelines,

2. it is ethically an unsound decision, you know with the whole "you are your disease" talk.

3. it seems to be a position not pursued in other articles treating disorders affecting mental capabilities. Confirmatores (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Break

People who are unhappy about an infant having autism representing autism can give up by this point; it is clear and obvious that Wikipedia shouldn't do anything at all because of arguments like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"; we are WP:NOTCENSORED. BlockArranger (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Your position is analogous to demanding that all photographs of sportspeople or actors just standing and smiling for the camera should be removed from Wikipedia because they are not actively engaged in their professions. It has no merit. Urselius (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The merit is that the sportspeople and actors represent something, that is; themselves.

The non-autistic Somali kid learning math with an abacus represents nothing relevant to the autism article. Confirmatores (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, we're assuming that the abacus is part of a math lesson. He could just be stimming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Photographs of autistic people represent themselves and, by extension, autistic people in general. Urselius (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

1. It is universally considered ethically unsound to reduce people to their disability and disease. This seems to be something that few people struggle with except in autism spaces.

2. Would you consider it appropriate if profoundly autistic people with minimal self-care skills are represented by employed and independent people and v.v.?

Unfortunately, as it stands now, it might be altogether better to remove pictures instead of having the ever same discussions around the mostly infantilizing or embellishing portrayals of autism here which seemed to have occurred several times the last couple years. Confirmatores (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your #1. A photo of a child engaged in an autism-related behavior is not "reducing people to their disability". A photo of a child engaged in a school activity is not "reducing people to their disability". A photo of a teen engaged in a sport is the opposite of "reducing people to their disability".

I'm not sure how your #2 would be possible. Do you mean taking a photo of two people, and mixing up the captions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But could the argument that the images are of aspects not also be used for galleries on ethnic group articles? Could argue eg. image of a [foo] family, image of a [foo] woman in traditional dress, image of a [foo] man on a fishing boat etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

In an ethnic group article, the goal is to show what people look like. Here, the goal is to show what they're doing/capable of doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Which, at best, only pertains to two of the four pictures, omitting the very real question; Do we really need to show people that an acclaimedly "autistic" child is capable of learning 2+2 with an abacus?

The pictures add nothing of value to the article and it's clear that political identitarianism is largely responsible for why some people think it's appropriate to include them. It goes well with the PC/woke dogma of autism as something inborn, a neurotype that you just have for life, ignoring the very real evidence that some kids can effectively leave it behind etc. Confirmatores (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

With the Somali group, we're illustrating the point that autistic kids can learn. In much of the world, schools won't accept children with special needs.

(Also, in medicalese, symptoms are different from signs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not think we should illustrate any point at all; we should merely illustrate ASD to the extent that it is possible. ASD is abstract, but it manifests in manners like stacking cans, head-banging, having limited ability to speak, and so on. Regrettably, it is difficult to illustrate impairments in social communication (but perhaps measures taken to assist may be used in images for that). Regardless, the ability of someone with autism to be a figure skater or a banker cannot be used to illustrate what autism is, equally to how we do not need such images in order to show that deaf people can skate. In fact, Wikipedia seems to (in theory) accept the teen image as an example of a deaf person being able to be a figure skater, as long as she plausibly appears deaf, as WP:V is not necessary for images. However, there is not a chance that I would get that image to stay for long in the infobox of that article, obviously because her ability to skate has nothing to do with deafness, or ASD, for that matter. BlockArranger (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Stacking cans, head-banging, having limited ability to speak isn't limited to autism nor is it present in all or even most autism cases. Stacking cans, unfortunately, is probably the closest we have to what represents a true "autistic" behavior because it's comparatively rare in any other diagnosis yet I still remain uneasy about this being a referenced photo which allows for identification of the kid. Confirmatores (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If memory serves, someone found a social media post a couple of years ago in which the mother said that the now-grown young man actually thinks it's kind of cool that his picture is in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Whoops! Your rather unpleasant ideological motivation is showing. Urselius (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

"PC/woke dogma of autism as something inborn, a neurotype that you just have for life, ignoring the very real evidence that some kids can effectively leave it behind etc." Is it possible that some children, and adults, merely perfect masking strategies? I was showing distinct autistic traits when starting school at five, which were not picked up on (too long ago, before intelligent autistics were routinely diagnosed). I was diagnosed aged 59, after a lifetime of problems and having no idea what was causing them. I certainly did not 'leave it behind' !

I am autistic (clinically diagnosed), I have a wife and children, I have a PhD in molecular and cell biology. I had a 34 year long career in biomedical research in leading UK universities. My masking/camouflaging is near perfect. However, after giving a conference presentation I would be close to catatonic for the rest of the day. I cannot follow conversations if there is background noise (difficult in a lab with lots of mass spectrometers). An inability to accurately time my interjections in group conversations is hugely frustrating. In crowded situations I have a building desire to lash out at people near me to clear some space - I do not do so, but the impulse exists. Touching synthetic fabrics, especially nylon, makes my brain itch and I feel an enormous physical revulsion and nausea. I have many more manifestations of autism, too numerous to list, but suffice it to say it impacts my daily life and prescribes what I can and cannot do, If you met me you would have no clue that I am autistic. I even make eye-contact, but I time it, I do not do it subconsciously. I know how to make, hold and break it, so that allistic people feel comfortable talking to me.

Brain scans on people doing tasks, neuron/synapse density and the strength of short-scale and large-scale connectivity within the brain have shown reproducible and significant differences between autistic and allistic brains. This includes the brains of autistic people of high intellect capable of seamless masking. Autism, affecting intelligent and capable people, able, often with a high degree of difficulty and exhaustion, of functioning in society, exists. Rather than autism merely stopping people from doing things, autism often just makes doing things orders of magnitude more difficult than they are for allistic people. If you are allistic just be thankful, your life is easy. Try not making it more difficult for autistic people than it already is! Urselius (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In response to: "Is it possible that some children, and adults, merely perfect masking strategies?"

How can people mask a neurodevelopmental disability whose symptoms are argued to be biologically caused? People can't mask Alzheimer's, Parkinson's etc. either. More notably, even if they attempt to hide it, standardized clinical testing which is now routinely carried out on kids, will find relevant impairments. If autism wasn't detected back in school and no other diagnosis or special educational needs are attested, the obvious conclusion is that the kid didn't have autism.

Much of what you describe isn't autism but sensory processing disorder.

In response to: "Brain scans on people doing tasks, neuron/synapse density and the strength of short-scale and large-scale connectivity..."

1. Brain connectivity issues has never been ruled a cause of autism. And I have previously discussed a similar issue with a neurologists who notified me that standard anatomical mapping procedures on the brain cannot actually be used to map the neuron density of the brain or similarly, because it relies on measures of blood flow which are extrapolated from measures of electrical conductivity and impulses.. The one thing they can is identify dead or lost tissue within the brain. Confirmatores (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I can tell you that many scholarly papers and books have been written on autistic masking/camouflaging, Your incredulity as to its existence seems obtuse at best. I have given you an actual example of how I, an autistic person, mask. I make eye-contact by use of intellect rather than by subconscious instinct. There you have it, that is masking. I feel no need to gaze directly into the eyes of other people, though doing so causes me no real distress; therefore I do it because it is expected of me by allistic social norms. Me doing it makes others happy for some strange reason, and doing it helps me to function in social settings, so to do it is a useful for me thing to do. Asking your question is at the same misguided level as asking how profoundly deaf people could possibly communicate, as language is primarily spoken. The answer is the same, the effects of disabilities, physical, sensory or neurodevelopmental can be overcome or mitigated by the application of intellect (sign language, wheelchairs etc. etc.). If an autistic person has a co-occurring intellectual disability their abilities to mask will be compromised. For an autistic person with above average intellect, their intellect takes over from 'social instinct' to a considerable extent. Masking is a lot like acting, another intellectually-mediated activity, the autistic person is scanning and consciously noting what other people do, winnowing out the appropriate from the inappropriate, in different social settings. Then they apply this learned information in the form of having a 'script' and 'stage directions' for use when in public in social situations. This obviously tiring and is the reason that socialising can be exhausting for autistic people and why they need a lot of alone time to recover. Pease see these scholarly papers on masking and autism: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=masking+and+autism&btnG=

As to your second point, please peruse some of these scientific papers concerning brain connectivity and autism: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=brain+connectivity+and+autism&btnG= they contradict your opinion quite comprehensively.

I have no idea who you have been talking to in the neurology field, but perhaps you have either misrepresented their views or they are in dire need of re-education in their subject, or merely educating on the application of neurology to autism. In any of these cases what you have said is demonstrably incorrect. Urselius (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Social instinct is so poorly defined as to be meaningless. Kids have limited or no social instinct, anyone with kids knows that, so this instinct is something acquired. If autism prevents somebody from developing a "social instinct", then this is because of pervasive disruptions in acquiring most or all developmental skills which used to be typical for autism. I'm throwing also this in; theories should have some level of logical coherence that allows them to be tested and to be rejected if real-life results don't align with the model. Current autism theories have become pseudo-scientific since an untestable and hence irrefutable autism experience has been posited as its essence. Everyone can, in essence, claim to be masking their autism, meaning that in principle everyone has autism. Confirmatores (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that you have studiously avoided all comment on the assertions you made in previous comments that I have shown to be false and incorrect. You merely choose other things to raise. You continually, 'just kick the can down the street.' Continued conversation with you is not worth the effort. Urselius (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Going through a selection of biased sources which hold no medical value because they involve no medical sciences is meaningless busywork. For each paper claiming masking to be a real thing, I can provide one which shows it to be problematic, meaningless or fraudulent. Confirmatores (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Pointless blathering. Urselius (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Evading the crucial point of the discussion. Confirmatores (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

For every paper in my Google Scholar searches, please provide one that is of scientific or academic integrity that refutes the concept of masking. Go on do it! Do some real work, rather than just making things up. Urselius (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This: People can't mask Alzheimer's, Parkinson's etc. is not true. In the early stages, it is something that can be masked. People develop strategies that help them look normal (e.g., avoiding long conversations for dementia, not eating soup for Parkinson's). Being able to mask symptoms is why so many middle-aged people think their parents are doing fine, up until the moment that Grandma calls and says the electricity has been shut off, because she hasn't remembered to pay the bills for three months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, people mask but that's not what is implied here. It is one thing saying that people consciously hide problems, knowing fully well that these problems could be independently and easily verified and hence remain. In the case of autism, we're supposed to believe that a diagnosis centered around impairments in social conduct and behavior can be successfully compensated which defeats the point of the diagnosis as a behavioral tool. Without any form of independent verification that does not rely on people saying this or that, it becomes meaningless. Confirmatores (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This is very weak as an argument. A man with one leg amputated can be fitted with a prosthetic limb, he can then walk. However, he is still missing a leg. He still has problems associated with his missing limb. An autistic person can mask, and can appear to be indistinguishable from an allistic person. This is until masking, which is intellectually exhausting, produces a shut-down or melt-down, or even autistic burn-out (this is a medically recognised autistic manifestation). These things do not happen to allistic people, just because of exceeding a capacity to socialise. Being able to function in society does not mean that an autistic person is not autistic, or that they cease to have problems directly caused by their autism. Autism is not always something that categorically stops people from doing certain things, it often just makes doing certain things very, very much more difficult. Urselius (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

What is Autism anyway? And how can an abstract concept make something more difficult? And why is this idea of autistic "burnout" now popping up out of nowhere despite autism being a thing for 80 years or so. And why are you avoiding the question what proof there is of autism independent of its behavioral manifestation? These are just a lot of claims which, to me, look like desperate attempts by a for-profit industry to talk people into wanting autism diagnoses. Surely, you will be aware that even the DSM-5 committee admits that none of its diagnoses actually warrants true medical credibility. Confirmatores (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

We could also ask: Why is shutting down after more social interaction that you can bear a sign of autism, and not a sign of depression? Because depressed people do this, too, as do people who are simply overwhelmed. Catatonia was described thousands of years before autism was, and "catatonia associated with autism spectrum disorder" (the formal name for severe shut downs) is only one of many specifiers. Why is melting down after more than you can bear a sign of autism, and not a sign of anxiety? Because an anxiety-induced panic attack looks a lot like an autistic meltdown. I think non-autistic people display the same behaviors when they're stressed beyond what they can bear.

(Also: autistic burnout is formally recognized by which medical authorities? None that I know of. The ICD-11 recognizes occupational burnout and caregiver burnout, but not autistic burnout. The DSM does not mention autistic burnout.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I probably should have said 'is scientifically recognised' as medical thought is usually years behind scientific progress. See papers on autistic burnout here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=autistic+burnout&btnG= Urselius (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Autistic shutdowns are specific responses to overwhelming sensory input or emotional stress, leading to withdrawal and reduced communication, while allistic shutdowns (non-autistic individuals) may not have the same sensory sensitivities and can manifest differently, often related to general stress or fatigue. The key difference lies in the unique sensory processing challenges faced by autistic individuals. Urselius (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "responses to...emotional stress, leading to withdrawal and reduced communication" is "specific" to autism or has any particular association with sensory processing. What would convince me otherwise is a well-designed research study that compares autistic and non-autistic people both shutting down due to emotional stress, and somehow demonstrating that the one is caused by sensory processing problems and the other is caused by something else. If you find such a study, please feel free to leave a link on my talk page. (For people shutting down under emotional stress, see approximately every textbook on psychotherapy; it's a very common human response to severe emotional stress.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Without any form of independent verification that does not rely on people saying this or that, it is a psychiatric diagnosis, apparently. Consider how difficult it would be to diagnose most of the conditions listed in the DSM (e.g., depression or anxiety) without self-reported symptoms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The picture does not show "Somali kids in an autism center". The picture shows kids in a therapy center that is physically located in Garoowe,Somalia, on the tip of the Horn of Africa. The name of the therapy center is "Autism Somali Center"; their website is https://autismsomaliacenter.org/about/ if you want to know more about them. Since the photo did not come with a statement certifying that the child (whose face is mostly obscured) was definitely and officially diagnosed with autism, other editors have objected to captions saying something like "an autistic child uses an abacus", because what if that unidentifiable child doesn't actually have autism, even though he's attending a therapy center that specializes in autism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion on child with abacus at Autism Somalia Cente: Talk:Autism/Archive 17 § Questionable inclusion of image of a child with an abacus. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Savant picture

What do you think of replacing the collage in the infobox with a single picture? Proposal (see image to the right):

Stephen Wiltshire, an autistic savant, drawing a landscape from memory

Some1 (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I like the picture, but I don't think that a savant is a fair representation of autism because savants are so rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

An autistic savant lead image would be the worst and most myth-perpetuating choice we could make.

Wrt a video, the lead image of ironing is a still image of an activity. A video of someone ironing clothes would be useful within the article body, but a lead image has to convey information and be visually meaningful at at glance, whereas a video generally needs commitment to view for a period.

I do think the discussion has diverged somewhat and a WP:NOTFORUM reminder is due. There also comes a point where it seems people are just arguing on the internet because they can, which I suspect was crossed a while back. Points have been made. Colin°^Talk 08:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

At this point, since people can't seem to agree on which images best represent autism, it might be better and less controversial to just have no lead image(s)/infobox image(s) at all. I agree with Kowal2701 above that an RfC is worth doing, but I'll leave that to others who feel strongly about the lead images. Some1 (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Might be better to have nothing is about the most non-Wikipedia response I can imagine. People turn up at all sorts of articles to complain about something and our response isn't "let's not bother, then". Autism is controversial and unfortunately discussions often deviate (as the above has) from dispassionate sourced based article proposals and attempts to covering the whole topic and represent the entire spectrum of autism, to activism and personal opinion/experience. And also from people who've seen a TV program. Much of the discussion above does not belong on Wikipedia and IMO should be shut down quicker, not encouraged further.

One of the points of WP:NOTCENSORED is that were are not obliged to satisfy "you" (whoever "you" may be) if you are unhappy about the content of our encyclopaedia. There are plenty people who don't like our coverage that vaccines save lives, and we don't remove that information just to deal with "controversial".

Our purpose is to create an free content encyclopaedia, which includes text and images. I encourage editors to read the archives of this talk page, which includes many discussions about the images. We shouldn't rush to "let's have an RFC" just because someone turned up who disagreed with the last discussion, which they plainly haven't even read. -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

See Q6 from (Top). Savantism may be correlated with autism, but these describe two different things. Savantism describes conserved fields of competence or ability in people who are otherwise severely limited in most if not all developmental domains. Confirmatores (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Autism → Autism Spectrum DisorderAutism Spectrum Disorder – According to WP:COMMONNAME, “Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)”. Majority of the reliable sources, especially medical ones, refer to this as Autism Spectrum Disorder. TyphoonHurricaneCyclone 16:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles, which is more relevant. (Also, a lot of editors don't realize this, but WP:COMMONNAME is only one of several recommendations that are made in the Wikipedia:Article titles policy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica and WP:CONCISE. To my awareness just the simple name is most commmon without the additional words. Also many people don't consider it to be a disorder. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to note, Britannica has different naming conventions than Wikipedia. Slothwizard (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose – The current title is more WP:CONCISE. There is much debate on how much weight should be put on the medical model, neurodiversity perspective, and other frameworks, and this move would add further complications. Additionally, if a move would take place, "Autism Spectrum Disorder" is miscapitalized—rather, it should be moved to "Autism spectrum disorder". Slothwizard (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Supportive - Autism was for 60 years the abbreviation for infantile autism, a debilitating disorder that routinely leaves children unable to care for themselves, see ICD 10 or DSM-IV. Autism or Autistic spectrum disorder is the official term popularized by the DSM-5 which is used by insurance to cover bills. We're not at the point where we can justify conflating a diagnostic umbrella with its most severe manifestation. Confirmatores (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Outdated terminology should be left in the past, along with 'refrigerator mothers, and, indeed, Nazi ideology supporting the murder of disabled children. Urselius (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Autism spectrum disorder isn't the outdated term as it is currently in use and the primary official designation.

2. If you're concerned about nazism, you might ask the DSM board why they restructured the autism diagnosis around Asperger's rather than Kanner autism.

3. Refrigerator mothers has nothing to do with the topic, anyway. Confirmatores (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to 'infantile autism'. Infantile autism, like 'childhood schizophrenia' and the 'refrigerator mother' theory, are all outdated and discarded views on autism. They should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where they belong. I am concerned about Right Wing extremism wherever it raises its ugly head. Urselius (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Infantile autism isn't right wing extremism. It's a pretty solid diagnostic unit where autistic features set in before the age of 3, resulting in 90-95 % of the kids requiring round-the-clock help for life. Confirmatores (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Infantile autism is no longer a recognised diagnosis - it is a thing of the past. Just check the DSM 5 and ICD 10 or 11 manuals. You are just wasting my time - can kicking again. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

c.f. ICD-10, infantile autism or classic autism. Confirmatores (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The ICD-10 is superseded by the ICD-11. "Infantile autism" and "classic autism" are no longer considered as diagnostic categories—they are outdated. Slothwizard (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but then we're bound to discuss whether or not the autism article should only be about the DSM-5/ICD 11 construct which is likely bound to become obsolete again at some point. And whether or not the initial distinction between infantile autism and Asperger's warrants attention or is scientifically legitimized is different from the discussion being forcibly shut down simply because a diagnostic manual with no genuine scientific authority says so (since even the NIH moved away from the DSM-5). The problem is whether or not an article combining Elon Musk with somebody biting and mutilating his own hands can ever be consistent. If we abide by the DSM-5, we would have to treat both as equal manifestations despite, as Urselius already pointed out, good reasons that they're not equal after all. Confirmatores (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I do understand the issue, but all the PDDs were merged into a "spectrum disorder" because it was difficult to objectively measure the differences between them all. You could measure how impaired someone is, but their level of impairment can change and is caused by many different factors. One could be diagnosed with classic autism in early childhood, be severely impaired, but then be eligible for the less severe Asperger's syndrome in their 20s. Having just ASD and support needs specifiers works better. Eventually, today's manuals will become obsolete and be succeeded by newer ones, ideally in light of new data and research. Slothwizard (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You say "We're not at the point where we can justify conflating a diagnostic umbrella with its most severe manifestation." What difference would changing "Autism" to "Autism spectrum disorder" make? Slothwizard (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

These discussions end up being too long. I approve of the change simply because ASD has nowadays been defined as an umbrella term which, per the WHO, means that these are different conditions subsumed under one term. The spectrum metaphore is just another way of saying that different diagnoses are now subsumed under and called by a single label. I reckon, in common parlance, people don't make this distinction but much of the sources, including those cited here, still mean infantile autism when they talk about autism. ~2026-37379-34 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia forcibly logged me out. Confirmatores (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you prove that any respected source is using the word autism and meaning infantile autism? Urselius (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Pre 2005, most studies on autism were on infantile autism.

Nowadays, on the other hand, when a study is carried out on autism, it is pretty much guarantueed that it does not deal with the kind of intellectually disabled functionally impaired people who are also given autism diagnoses which is a well-known issue. There is a study blindspot in regards to severe autism. Confirmatores (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide numbers, or proportions, so that 'most studies' is a supported statement? Urselius (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's a couple to get you started:

• "94% of all participants identified as being on the autism spectrum in the studies reviewed did not have ID (95% CI 0.91–0.97). Eight out of ten studies demonstrated selection bias against participants with ID."
• "Approximately, 30% of children with autism are non-verbal or minimally verbal and 33% have an ID. Historically, this group has been largely excluded from autism research"
• " "Individuals ‌with ⁠the greatest medical complexity and functional support needs are the most excluded from the research designed to help them," said IACC Chair Dr. Sylvia Fogel, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and parent of a child with autism."
• "While around 40% of autistic children have an intellectual disability, they make up only about 6% of research participants."

This has been in the news a lot, so I'm surprised that you haven't heard this before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The standard autism diagnostic manuals do not include any criteria on measuring intelligence. Autism is not regarded as causative of intellectual disability, where autistic people have intellectual disability it is co-occurring. A proportional increase in studies aimed at autistic people without ID would be the expected result of the expansion and refinement of autism diagnosis, which now embraces far more people without intellectual disability. Before the mid 1990s essentially all studies were on autistic children with intellectual disability. This hardly constitutes constructive bias, just that there are now more autistic people without co-occurring intellectual disability than with. The proportion of autistic people with ID has steadily dropped as diagnostic criteria have been refined, it was about 75% in the early 1990s and is now somewhere below 40% and will continue to fall. It should be factored in that a considerable proportion of research on the generality of people with ID, which specifically studies aspects of ID, may be just as relevant to autistic people with ID. Urselius (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the POV that autism is completely separate from intellectual ability. I'm also aware of another POV, which says that whatever neurological change causes autism also causes differences in intellectual ability, autonomic nervous dysfunction, and other "co-occurring disorders". I'm even aware of the POV that says that psychiatric disorders are 100% about the expression of behaviors, and consequently when a person is unconscious, asleep, or otherwise not showing signs/experiencing symptoms at a given point in time, they actually don't have that disorder in that moment. In that model, a person can have autism (or anxiety, or most other non-sleep-related psychiatric disorders) all day long, and stop having autism while sleeping, and start having autism again when they wake up. I have my own beliefs, but I don't think that this article should declare any of these POVs to be correct/incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Autism is not a psychiatric disorder. Autistic people can have no mental health problems, though the majority do - especially anxiety - but this is largely caused by the effect of society and the the environment being designed for allistics and not for autistic people. French medical thought, very wedded to psychoanalysis, has historically had problems with this concept, resulting in a very low level of autism diagnosis and France was taken to task over it by the medical organs of the EU. The DSM and ICD do not recognise an intellectual dimension to autism , so diagnosis is independent of IQ testing. Obviously, observation takes a much bigger place in diagnosing people with people who have severe ID, than with those who can describe their traits and history themselves. Urselius (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Autism is a psychiatric disorder. If it is caused by neurological insults or damage, doesn't make it neurological but simply a symptom of a neurological disease. Confirmatores (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It depends how broadly you define psychiatric disorder. Broadly, yes, since its symptoms only involve cognition and behavior. In a narrow definition, no; neurodevelopmental disorders are often not categorized under psychiatric disorders. Since all its symptoms are only relevant in a field of psychiatry, it is treated by psychiatrists instead of other specialists like neurologists. However, symptoms are caused by a difference in brain development. In disorders like OCD, neurodevelopmental differences may create a vulnerability for it to onset, but the condition only technically begins on symptom-onset, which can happen at any age and often depend on environmental factors. With autism and ADHD, you either have it or you don't, depending on the diagnostic criteria. Looking at the DSM-5, it lists several conditions that are sometimes not considered purely psychiatric disorders such as Tourette syndrome and major neurocognitive disorder (dementia). Slothwizard (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "If it is caused by neurological insults or damage, doesn't make it neurological but simply a symptom of a neurological disease.", I do not understand what you are trying to convey here. That autism itself is a symptom of a disorder and not a primary condition? Also, neurodevelopmental disorders like autism do not involve damage; it involves atypical development in certain brain areas that result in some pathology. Some syndromic cases may involve damage, but all this is still under research. It's a minor note but I think it is good to mention. Slothwizard (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The research bias wouldn't be there if money allocated to research groups didn't simply go by DSM-5 codes.

Pertaining to Urselius: "It should be factored in that a considerable proportion of research on the generality of people with ID, which specifically studies aspects of ID, may be just as relevant to autistic people with ID."

ID is a very broad diagnosis and it's usually not taken particularly serious on its own. It only becomes a stipulant in connection with cerebral palsy, with Down's etc. where it denotes moderate to severe limitations in learning or acquiring self-care skills. IQ tests aren't that important anymore for defining ID either. Confirmatores (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The article was relatively recently moved in the opposite direction, from ASD to 'autism', we cannot keep messing around with titles every few months. The suggestion has no merit anyway as autism is the more commonly used term and ASD is just a diagnostic flavour of the month. Urselius (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe the move was discussed Talk:Autism/Archive 6#Requested move 17 May 2024 -- Colin°^Talk 08:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The move two years ago (see above) from "autistic spectrum" to "autism" had consensus support citing both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. So I don't think a proposal to go backwards citing exactly the same policy is going to fly. And I don't think the OP claim that "Autism Spectrum Disorder" is the common name even in medical sources is actually true. -- Colin°^Talk 08:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Apart from the proposed name being neither concise, nor the common name for most people:

1. Significant parts of the spectrum are debatable as to whether they rise to disorder status. A condition making your life more difficult due to society being bad to you because of your phenotype is not automatically a disorder (otherwise racism makes a lot of normal things a disorder).
2. There is no confusion calling the article just autism. There is significant cultural exposure to the notion that autism can refer to both a disability and the thing some high functioning people have. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure that your 'autism and racism' equivalence holds water. Being a member of a physically identifiable ethnic minority, the precondition for racism, does not directly affect brain function, which autism does. Being a potential target of racism is not the same as being unable to function in society, or finding trying to do so is so difficult that it severely impacts your mental health. Being a potential target of racism does not result in experiencing physical distress and pain due to some common aspect of the environment, such as fluorescent lighting, the babble of voices in crowds or the feel of certain fabrics. Urselius (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The "spectrum disorder" in autism is partially incorrect, because the "spectrum" part is mainly because a large majority of autistic people have a co-occurring disability that fluctuates based on person. Examples: A person with only autism (has different social tactics, develops unique hyperfixations, processes the world around them and information differently, etc). A person with autism and dyspraxia (has motor planning difficulties, fidgets, is socially "awkward," reads social cues differently, honest and creative, etc.) A person with autism and ADHD prefers routine and predictability, gets easily distracted, is disorganized, interest-based attention, hyperactive yet socially isolated, etc. The media has consistently framed it as "autism." There has been a big push to call Autism not a disorder, disabled/disability, intellectual disability, high-functioning, low-functioning, etc. As it is highly dehumanizing and portrays autism in a negative way, terms such as "neurodivergent," "neurodevelopmental," or just "autism" are more widely accepted now. Just keep the name as it is now. CostalCal (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @BlockArranger. You are knowledgeable and active on this subject, curious if you have any opinion regarding this. If you don't, no problem. Slothwizard (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me; I appreciate that you cared to specifically invite me. I haven't been as active here at the moment because of the time I allocate towards Wikipedia, I currently spend the vast majority on improving the article on NPD. BlockArranger (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Partial support Indeed, Autism is today a common name for ASD, but it is not entirely precise and may be considered ambiguous. This is because it can also refer to classical (or Kanner's, or infantile) autism as well as, traditionally, to a symtom of schizophrenia. The previous article title, "Autism spectrum" was in my opinion really bad and confusing, because it seemed to be not about the ASD construct or condition, but rather about the understanding of autism as a spectrum. ASD, however, clearly refers to a clinical diagnosis encompassing all disorders within this spectrum, an inclusion which is defined in the ICD-11 and DSM-5 (-TR). @Urselius claims that previous classification systems before ICD-11 and DSM-5 do not matter, but I disagree; notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and it is just very recently that ASD has been rolled out globally in the ICD-11; ICD-10 has not included ASD. Also, we can simply redirect Autism to Autism spectrum disorder and use Template:Redirect for disambiguation.

BlockArranger (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Does the centuries-held belief that miasma from marshland caused malaria (mal-aria - bad air) matter? Probably not to the half a million people, most being children under five years old, who die of malaria annually. Diagnoses are superseded and older versions are discarded into the realms of historical curiosities all the time. Autism spectrum disorder was classed as an 'inclusion term' within ICD-10. Personally speaking, I was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and this wording appears on the printed diagnosis, using the ICD-10 criteria. Urselius (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think it is musch more likely that classical autism might still be referred to as "autism" than the miasma from marshland being referred to as "malaria". Furthermore, classical autism is a defined, documented and arguably still extant construct, which ought to be forever documented in Wikipedia, as also in the case of asperger syndrome. ASD and AS are rather different names, but ASD got its name from classical autism. This does not mean that classical autism evolved into ASD; rather, the latter is a more recent construct; hence, we have separate articles for the two. I think it would absolutely make sense to have a hatnote stating that: "Autism redirects here. For [whatever we decide to describe it as], see classic autism." In addition, other disorders are in general referred to here using the official name of the diagnosis; the fact that the tile was ever "autism spectrum" goes to show that it was merely an ideological stance taken in order to comply with demands from activists. BlockArranger (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. In many countries ASD is indeed what the piece of paper the doctor gives you says, but it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. On another note, the term "disorder" is obviously a sensitive issue, and in fact not used in official diagnostics in some countries; for example, in Sweden the Swedish word for "disorder" is avoided in favour of calling it the equivalent of "Autism spectrum condition" or simply "Autism". It is a debated topic, and by using "Autism", which I'd also argue is the common name, we nicely maintain NPOV. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article deletion?

Many great points have been made by numerous Wikipedia users and editors on each and every side of the aisle, which is what forms the basis of my argument. We have discussed that pretty much everybody - researchers, doctors, society, even autistic people themselves - lack an agreement on what autism really is. My argument is that we should delete this article, forgo attempts to define concisely what autism is in just one article, and write about the topic under the outline of autism based on which model the article is using (ex. an article titled "Autism (Medical Model)" and "Autism (Social Model)" and so on and so forth to describe what autism is, rather than relying on one article).

This lack of agreement isn't entirely unheard of in the field of psychiatry, and is often used as an argument in the anti-psych realm. I am not arguing the condition(s) we call autism do/es not exist in some form. We know that there are millions of people with behaviors we call autistic, who benefit from different forms of intervention. We know that something genetic is occurring that is causing these behaviors to exist in people with forms of syndromic autism, and we also assume something genetic is occurring in those who have idiopathic autism, although we have no definitive proof of what genes are implicated in this population (we do have a pretty large database, though). This is mostly besides my point; I am just stating here that this is not some autism-denial conspiracy.

However, back to the previous topic, @WhatamIdoing had brought up a few interesting points - we do not know if autism is a collection of behaviors, a genetic situation, a difference in nerve density, a way of experiencing a world, a personal identity, and so on. To single out and focus on exclusively one of these explanations would exclude a lot of people that we consider autistic and/or undermine how many professionals and the community define what autism is - for example, OP points out that if we explain autism solely through genetics, most adults diagnosed today don't really have autism, but if we explain it solely through a collection of behaviors, one could develop autism as a result of a brain injury, despite medical consensus being that autism is a condition that you are born with (and this would also certainly undermine the argument of many neurodiversity advocates who agree that autism is something innate within a person, not "caused" or "brought about"). This would, however, explain somewhat how some children "recover" from autism. To further complicate things, many of these explanations are mutually exclusive with one another. If autism is a collection of behaviors, how could it also be a result of genetics? If it's merely just a different way of experiencing the world, then why would nerve density matter? If it's a personal identity, wouldn't it be wrong to water it down to a collection of behaviors? These explanations also all have astonishingly little research to back them as the explanation for autism (much like the Theory of Mind or mirror neurons, which was seen as the explanation for a short time), and if they're not explanations that would necessitate research, they're highly controversial. For example, an autistic person might argue quite extensively that autism is a personal identity and a way of experiencing the world, yet another autistic person who apparently has the exact same condition (more on this later) might vehemently disagree.

@Urselius, I believe, also brought up an interesting point regarding research on autism, IQ, and genetic variations - namely, the hypothesis that two main genetic causes that are different from one another (nearly exact "opposites"), that cause different outcomes, and that cause entirely different phenotypes, cause what we know as autism. But are these even the same condition at all? Other researchers have claimed similar hypotheses, such as the Princeton study discovering 4 biological subtypes of autism, each with different causes and different outcomes. Back in the DSM-IV, we had several diagnoses under the "pervasive developmental disorder" construct that described something similar to this, though the DSM had apparently missed the mark by labelling these as separate conditions (although this is a matter of how you interpret the research - some research had concluded Asperger's and autistic disorder were separate conditions, while others did not. Furthermore, ASAN got involved in the development of the DSM-5, which complicates the matter). We also have experts like Dr. Catherine Lord (creator of the ADOS and ADI-R) stating that the autism spectrum is "too broad" and Dr. Allen Frances (who led the task force that created the DSM-IV) stating that autism is overdiagnosed. Urselius also brought up a good point about the two distinct IQ peaks in autistic individuals - one around the range of 115, and the other around the range of 50, which would seemingly lend to autism having two different causes, if not being two different conditions altogether.

Furthermore, the inclusion of childhood disintegrative disorder under ASD has also complicated matters, given that some researchers believe that it is distinct from autism and should have remained separate, especially when considering the research on eye contact, showing that eye contact in people with CDD more closely resembles a neurotypical infants eye contact, not autistic eye contact, or lack thereof. I can't help but feel the modern push for the term "profound autism" closely mirrors the historic diagnosis of CDD.

Yet even further - this article is hotly debated, and not in ways that other political or controversial topics have been. Both we, and the professionals, and the community, argue about what autism even is. The basis behind the whole debate on terminology, over "condition" over "disorder," over "impairment" over "difference," is not just due to political correctness, but a fundamental disagreement on what the concept we're talking about even is. Nobody seems to have an answer. If it's not a medical condition, but it's also not an identity, but we also can't agree that it isn't either of these things, then what is it? We can't even agree on whether or not it's a disability. Some will say yes, and use the texts of the DSM/ICD to support this, while others will say no, citing personal experience and articles written by advocates to support their claim, and we can't say which citation is "better" and "more accurate" than the other, because someone will end up unhappy and point out the issues with solely relying on either of these sources.

How are we supposed to define something, in just one article, in which the causes for that thing are unknown and highly debated, for which the people subject to that thing seem to differ so wildly that if you meet someone who has/is that thing (because "has" vs. "is," is also widely debated), you've only met one and you can't generalize what the thing might be based on who you've met, in which the researchers who have dedicated decades of their lives studying this thing also don't seem to have a single clue on what the thing actually is, and in which the community of people who have/are that thing also do not have a consensus on what the thing actually is and attempt to define it in varying, often opposing ways? You can't point to things that are similar to it, because there really isn't anything similar to it at all, and there are no other precedents for this discussion to base how to settle the discussion of what the thing is. It's almost like a slit experiment, where the thing changes based on who is perceiving it.

TL;DR: Autism is undefinable (both by researchers and the community), having one article to attempt to define it causes more heated debates than what it's worth, it seems the best way to describe autism is to not have a single article, but many, where autism is defined based on which model the article is using, and these articles would go under the outline of autism rather than being the article on autism. Saraanhe (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No. --Onorem (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Also no. It is hard but the fundamentals require we have an article on the topic and a page other articles can link to. There may be a few competing ideas of how we should define that topic and the scope to be covered by a single article. We pick one. Write the best article we can on that. Accept we can't please everyone at the same time. Accept the article may not be how you want it. Accept that how Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, writes about subjects will constrain how we write about autism in ways that you'd rather not have if given freedom.

If the topic/scope of this article isn't clear, then I suggest following whatever advice WhatamIdoing gives about how we should determine that. It is entirely possible, though, that the topic/scope of this current article is clear and has been largely settled for years, and we just have people turning up regularly wanting things to be different. Either way, we should determine this and move on. We can't keep spending thousands of words debating the scope, the lead image, the name every time someone turns up on the talk page with a lot of free time on their hands and an argumentative mood. Our readers do not read this page, so debate that does not lead to change on the article tab is costly. Read the archives. -- Colin°^Talk 06:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm a reader, not an editor, and I do read this page (evidently), though I'm sure that's besides the point. I argue it is more costly to constantly debate on this article, and that this article can't possibly be accurate or informing - two things it should be - if nobody can say what autism is or how we should go about describing it. It's not about me or my opinion, or how I want the article; I am perfectly fine conceding that autism is a condition and not a disorder, or whatever the argument of the day is, even if my personal opinion is different from the majority rule. This is not about that. This is about the integrity of the article. And while I do admire @WhatamIdoing's work, to rely solely on one person and their opinion (however much I agree with it) on such a hotly debated article is deeply unwise. Best case scenario is that there will be an argument in the Talk section that goes nowhere, worst case is we get an endless editing war. We have plenty of stubs for various conditions, and conditions that are referenced in numerous articles but do not have an article of their own. Childhood-onset pervasive developmental disorder does not have an article of its own, despite autistic disorder/classic autism and Asperger's disorder/syndrome having one, yet that has not been an issue so far. Many rarer genetic syndromes are referenced in other articles, but do not have one of their own. Obviously, if someone sees a need, they can make their own article, which is why I also argued for creating separate articles for different models (only a suggestion) rather than deleting this article and leaving a massive gap in the Wiki. Saraanhe (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion to follow WhatamIdoing's advice refers to process, such as how to determine the scope of an article. Their views on the topic are one of many, but their views on how Wikipedia works should be listened to imo. Colin°^Talk 07:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your proposal makes sense in an intuitive way, but it would end up creating a series of WP:POVFORK articles, which is against Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Interminable, repetitive debates aren't a bug, it's a feature of Wikipedia, and talk pages are the platforms for said feature. That said autism is unique in the Wikipedia-space; I can't think of any other subject comparable, so protean and impossible to parse. To my mind The Autism Debate® is sui generis, and the article can't not be a big tent. kencf0618 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not quite unique. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome has been somewhat similar, especially before long COVID appeared. Multiple chemical sensitivity is unusual in the medical world for having both "identity" characteristics and having people pick and choose which symptoms they attribute to it vs declare to be separate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia HAS to reflect the world as it is. It most definitely cannot create precedents; it has to follow and reflect the state of scholarship on any subject. If a new hypothesis came up in the field of autism research and it was accepted by the vast majority of researchers in the subject, then inclusion, and even the reorientation of the article, would be permissible, not otherwise. Urselius (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is much or any clear difficulty when it comes to defining what the article 'autism' should be about because we're largely talking about a psychiatric code meant for diagnostic procedures and insurance companies which, and only then, gains application in other fields, e.g. psychological research, biology, social theory etc.

Obviously, the failure to come up with any coherent or even somewhat useful framework in regards to autism should be mentioned but this is not, in itself, good reason as to why we should discontinue the article. Even if, at some point, the diagnostic label becomes obsolete, the history and its socio-political dimension within the first quarter or half of the 21th century would still remain relevant, even if it was ultimately relegated to a more historical than medicinal/psychological section together with Dementia praecox or the many acclaimed harmful effects of masturbation.

Anyway, a many issues could be solved if we simply formulated stuff correctly. Citing: "We also have experts like Dr. Catherine Lord (creator of the ADOS and ADI-R)..." Matter of fact is that the ADOS and ADI-R were never meant as stand-alone tools to diagnose autism. They were meant as tools allowing scientists to (re-)affirm autism in participants and subjects for purely statistical reasons, e.g. making sure that the participants actually exhibit the behavioral abnormalities that you want to study.

Citing: "OP points out that if we explain autism solely through genetics, most adults diagnosed today don't really have autism, but if we explain it solely through a collection of behaviors, one could develop autism as a result of a brain injury".

Again, there is absolutely no difficulty reconciling both notions once we realize that both brain damage and genetic disorders can result in behavioral patterns fulfilling the criteria needed for something to constitue 'autism'. Whether or not the medical experts want these things to be 'autism' is another question, currently it seems like even the 'experts' don't know whether to say yes or no to such cases.

Citing: "the inclusion of childhood disintegrative disorder under ASD has also complicated matters"

I know too little about CDD but CDD, similarly to Rett's syndrome, often results in dementia and then death. E.g. No one, nowadays, seriosuly considers Rett's syndrome to be a form of autism despite it being listed as an autism type for 30 years or so.

Citing: "though the DSM had apparently missed the mark by labelling these as separate conditions (although this is a matter of how you interpret the research"

Technically, a spectrum means that these are various different issues and disorders subsumed under one diagnostic unit for insurance purposes. No medical authority genuinely argues that there is 'one' autism. Confirmatores (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Apparently, there's No Such Thing as a Fish, according to Stephen Jay Gould. Yet we still manage to write an article, Fish, about a mistaken category, because so many people use it. I think there is a lesson there for Autism. The definition does evolve and people in certain fields may wish to use a more precise term, and they may find that term doesn't last and so is regarded as last year's "fashion", etc. But that doesn't stop millions of people using this word, autism, and wanting to know more about it. Just like fish.

I get that Wikipedia is never settled. But we need to find a balance between being open minded about changes and only discussing changes for changes sake, and at great length every time they pop up. We have archives so that people can see if a topic has previously been discussed and why the community came to a decision. An RFC can be a way of turning a disagreement among a few editors into a major storm. Deleting an article like this is an easy thing to suggest but a very costly thing to do. Colin°^Talk 07:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the appropriate answer, and seemingly one that keeps being ignored is, that the article should be about the official construct which has legal and political relevance, not autism conceptions emanating from Tumblr blogs and similarly which then happen to spectacularly fail the most vulnerable groups, e.g. the severely autistic and those with a dual diagnosis of autism and intellectual disability.

We aren't, for similar reasons, hosting anti-vax material either despite 1. a relevant minority believing that vaccines cause autism, 2. a lot of material having been published both for and against the acclaimed association and 3. a fairly long history on the subject extending back all the way to the early '80s the latest. We can write on neurodiveristy conceptions of autism similarly to how we already write on the vaccine-autism controversy, e.g. in separate articles.

Currently, as it stands now, and I haven't been the first one to point that one out here, is that we can choose to write on disorders and disabilities instead of diseases and "is autistic" or "has an autism diagnosis" instead of the morally laden "suffering from autism" but we're really not in any position to argue that autism isn't a disorder/disability without deliberately ignoring the opinion of everyone dealing with any form of more severe autism. Confirmatores (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's what you want this page to be about.

Does anyone else agree with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Comfirmatores in that we should focus on reliable sources, and Tumblr blogs are inherently self-published blogs. I strongly oppose article deletion and would say the same if a foolish AfD (which would be a waste of everyone's time by the way) was ever proposed. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course we aren't citing self-published blogs. However, that's not actually been suggested. The question is how much we should incorporate ideas about autism that (a) originated in the online autistic community and (b) have since been published in proper reliable sources. These ideas disagree with "the official construct which has legal and political relevance"; they have a quite different idea of what it means to be autistic. For example, "the official construct which has legal and political relevance" says that you can't have autism if you don't have impairments affecting your life, and these alternative ideas say that you can. If we were to incorporate these ideas into any Wikipedia article, then we would have to cite the proper reliable sources (and not cite the old blogs, tweets, or internet discussion rooms where the ideas first originated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, @WhatamIdoing, if there is merit to your hesitance to agree with @Confirmatores and @Historyday01, could you tell me which significant sources actually claim that one can have autism without (1) impairment in the social domain and (2) restrictive and repetitive behaviors and interests? On Wikipedia, we generally lean towards authoritative mainstream sources and respect them unless they are challenged by authoritative sources. For example, we won't build an article on autism by cherry-picking citations to individual claims in various lesser sources in order to make it seem like that's the whole picture. The recognized construct is that which is described in, and operationalized in accordance with, the ICD-11 and DSM-5 (-TR). I do not doubt that you are very familiar with practices on Wikipedia, but I still want to reiterate this point in order to bring everyone's focus back to what this is all about. See WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:MEDPRI BlockArranger (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the POV of the autism-as-an-identity and neurodiversity movement. If they're around, I think that Oolong would be better positioned to provide sources talking about the conception of autistic people being able to thrive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these MEDPS-sources however? And anyway, what does "to thrive" mean and how would neurodiversity achieve that anyway.Confirmatores (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing sure. I'm generally staying away from Wikipedia discussions for my mental, but I can always provide some autism citations.

First, it's worth emphasising (again) how mainstream the idea is that autism is not inherently disordered. A look at the autism books being published by reputable publishers makes this clear, as does any familiarity with public discussions among autistic people.

I see that the lead of this article has once again been rewritten to obscure this fact. This is very disappointing, and represents Wikipedia failing in its mission to give a balanced account of mainstream knowledge, without presenting seriously contested statements as fact. If we still have this problem with editors determined to present only one side of an extremely lively debate as if it was universally agreed on, I support splitting this article into two.

As for the possibility of autistic thriving, I'd start with 'Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life' by Robert Chapman and Havi Carel. Also refer to handbooks such as 'Is This Autism?' and 'The Adult Autism Assessment Handbook'.

Some further references:

You might find my piece Autistics on Autism helpful, giving a fairly concise account of a third of a century of autistic theorising about autism and life. There are many further references linked in the text. Oolong (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding. it's worth emphasising (again) how mainstream the idea is that autism is not inherently disordered.

Compare with "autism spectrum DISORDER" Confirmatores (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Confirmatores, that name may represent one of the POVs about autism, rather than being a source of objective truth. Have you read any of the provided sources yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Autism not being a disorder is an oxymoronic statement. I will enquire Wikipedia on the bot problem since LLM-based bots are now clearly trying to push ideology into the article here. If so, I will look into whether the article can be locked down and if so, restituted to a version previous to when bots started editing it. Confirmatores (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be an oxymoron to say that the concept described in the DSM-V under the name "autism spectrum disorder" is not a disorder.

It is not an oxymoron to say that the concept that is related to but not the same as the concept described in the DSM-V, which is not called "autism spectrum disorder" (it is instead called "autism") is not necessarily a disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

DSM-V calls autism "autism spectrum disorder". Case closed. Discussion ended. Confirmatores (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, note that you disagreeing with the article's contents is not the same thing as the contents being written by bots. The changes made over the last couple of years have been extensively discussed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is poorly supported and clearly doesn't fulfill the quality requirements of a Wikipedia article. It is likely that industrially-linked bots like WhatamIdoing are deliberately editing this article and forestalling discussions to force ideological crap into it. Confirmatores (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that @WhatamIdoing is an "industrially-linked bot" who is "deliberately editing this article (is that not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do?) to force ideological crap in it," or have we yet again regressed back to personal insults in the Talk page of this article because you have a disagreement? I swear, this Talk page has to be the most draining, depressing place on Wikipedia... Saraanhe (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with you, by the way. But I think this whole debate kind of proves my original point. If we can't even decide how to move forward, and if there truly is a bot problem that is hindering the integrity of this article, what is the point in keeping this one article around? It is interesting that the replies I have gotten in response seem to argue that we need to keep the article around because of "precedence" or "not offending the editors who worked on this page." Just a thought... Saraanhe (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, as it stands now, we are faced with a number of problems most of which, really, aren't in the scope of editors.

Primarily, thhere are competing interpretations of the 'autism' construct even when limiting it to strictly medical sources.

-Simon Baron-Cohen's idea of autism differs from the DSM/ICD interpretation in that he specifically postulates a cognitive mechanism which, Simon, himself said is unlikely to apply to severely autistic people.

-The DSM/ICD construct makes whatsoever no comments on causality and it doesn't appear that the definition given there is clinically coherent nor that it allows for much prediction in regards to prognosis other than that a combination of autism + ID/DD is strongly associated with poor prognosis.

-There is the significant issue of diagnostic overlap whereby a variety of syndromes, issues and disorders can cause autism-like behavior or at least increase the number of "autistic" traits in people. This includes any of the major psychiatric disorders, pretty much all intellectual disability syndromes, adult Herpes infection, encephalitis etc. E.g. the question hasn't been solved in any meaningful way whether or not a Down's patient exhibiting autistic behavior is "autistic". Since the cause is likely Down's related, it would unlikely constitute autism "proper".

Now having limited the article's scope to the DSM/ICD construct which I deliberately call a construct and which is my preferred answer to the issue here, the relatively low quality of the available sources + the numerous contradicting accounts makes it difficult to write an article that would result in anything other than a long list of maybe answers, most of which also technically imply that autism, once again, is not a clinically coherent diagnosis. Having read much about autism etc.

I always come across the following three issues in autism 'research'.

1. That research being passed off as new and innovative has already been carried out 10 or 20 years ago with inconclusive answers.

2. That much research is passed off as having found an answer when, in fact, it did not find it. In example, high heritability quotients in autism do not prove a genetic architecture of the diagnosis nor do genes associated with autism actually 'cause' autism.

3. Research is notably sloppy in that confounding variables are rarely accounted for in autism. The presence of significant ID in an 'autistic' subject, in example, has not been regarded as a relevant causal element to the subject's 'autism'. Instead, research is largely based on severity scales and then naive extrapolation from there. Confirmatores (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

CDD is not similar to Rett syndrome. It does not cause death. Like other severe cognitive disorders, including conditions like profound autism, the life expectancy of people with CDD is drastically reduced, but this is not because CDD causes death. We have an article on here about CDD that I believe is decently informative on the subject, I would recommend you take a look at that article. Saraanhe (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

CDD is similar to Rett syndrome in that significant regression occurs and/or still occurs years after which is typically observed in childhood autism cases. It also lacks clear similarities to autism outside commonalities shared by cognitive disability and low verbal ability.

Ceterum censeo autism isn't a scientifically valid entity but an insurance construct with little basis in actual evidence-based science. Confirmatores (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I totally misread what your original comment said. This is true. What is ceterum censeo autism? Saraanhe (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong opposition to this proposal. Deleting an article like this, which not only uses many reliable sources would be a headache for editors, but for readers as well. I will say that having articles like the current article, is not only rooted in reliable sources, but in connecting with existing ones. Your foolish proposal would not help anyone and would undoubtedly lead to chaos. Please work through discussions on this talk page than wasting everyone's time with yet another unnecessary article deletion proposal. So many times people propose deleting articles without putting in the work to actually improve them, which is a major insult to all the editors on here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You can't improve the article without this involving ten pages of people discussing the issue here. For that matter, the article is much more well-balanced than articles on psychiatric/psychological issues on Wikipedia generally are. Confirmatores (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is good to hear about this article being well-balanced. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this article is "well balanced" when every single week there's a different debate on some miniscule detail of this article. Furthermore, your comment seems to be "your proposal is foolish because you haven't taken effort to edit it yourself, so it's offensive to the people who have edited this article" - for one, starting an edit war is not something I am willing to cause, so I am not editing this article. It would be a waste of my time to even touch this mess of an article because, inevitably, someone will be offended and revert the edit, and then someone else will argue with them to keep the edit, and then it'll devolve into a long debate. We already saw this with the "disorder/condition/disability" debate, despite this article "supposedly" operating off of the DSM definition of autism. Secondly, the fact that you are willing to risk the integrity of this article and dismiss any unique proposals to solve the issues surrounding it because "the editors would be offended" is the truly foolish notion here. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia seeks to maintain articles at all costs in order to not offend editors who spent time on them. I thought this was an Internet encyclopedia, which is naturally subject to change over time. Good to know that's not the case. Saraanhe (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying infobox “Risk factors” and "Causes" text

I’d like to recommend two text adjustments to improve the accuracy and clarity of this article, and address how certain information can be easily misinterpreted by the public.

1. Infobox: "Certain prescribed drugs"

The main infobox currently lists "certain prescribed drugs" under "Risk factors". Per WP:LEAD, introductory summaries must be precise enough to stand alone without misleading readers. Leaving this phrase completely open-ended is highly problematic. It creates an information vacuum that is actively weaponized to fuel anti-vaccine and anti-medicine rhetoric, which causes direct harm to a community that is already deeply misunderstood. It also poses a potential safety hazard—pregnant readers who believe in said rhetoric could see that and, in panic, abruptly stop taking necessary, completely safe maintenance medications.

Since sodium valproate is the primary prescription teratogen with an undisputed, globally recognized correlation to increased ASD risk, we should specify it. I suggest changing the text to "valproate use during pregnancy" or "certain prescribed drugs (e.g., valproate)".

2. Causes section: Conflating etiology with diagnosis

The summary sentence of the "Causes" section currently states: "...including genetics, prenatal and perinatal... history, neuroanatomical anomalies, changing social demands in the workplace or in school, and environmental influences."

This phrasing contains a fundamental logical contradiction: it conflates what causes autism with what triggers a diagnosis. Autism is an innate neurodevelopmental condition present from birth. A person does not physically develop autism later in life due to a difficult school year or a stressful workplace. Rather, these mounting social demands deplete an individual's coping and masking mechanisms, making their lifelong, pre-existing traits clinically visible.

Placing school and work demands in the same list as genetics and neuroanatomy falsely implies that environmental stress physically creates the condition. This is misleading to layreaders and feeds the harmful public misconception that autism is an acquired psychological reaction to stress rather than an innate neurological reality.

To maintain scientific accuracy and adhere to WP:NEUTRAL, I suggest separating innate causes from diagnostic visibility with the following phrasing:

"...including genetics, prenatal and perinatal history, neuroanatomical anomalies, and environmental influences. Additionally, changing social demands in education and the workplace can increase the visibility of lifelong autistic traits, leading to higher rates of diagnosis." TumblinMuffin (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't even notice that issue in the causes section. Saraanhe (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Sharktube2000 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is pretty much just a long list of claims which lack sourcing or, for that matter, scientific evidence.

c.f. "Autism is an innate neurodevelopmental condition present from birth"

No, it isn't and I will undo the responsible change. Clearly, political garbage is now being aggressively pushed into the article with no basis in science.

c.f "This is misleading to layreaders and feeds the harmful public misconception that autism is an acquired psychological reaction to stress rather than an innate neurological reality."

So, this is apparently supposed to be WP:Neutral, yet this user introduces clearly political content into the article. Confirmatores (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: The added sentence is weirdly formulated, vague and lacks sorucing.

"visibility of lifelong autistic traits". Wtf is that? and why would autistic traits be life-long? Confirmatores (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)