Talk:Autism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

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)

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)

Ceterum censeo is Latin for "I think". It was most famously used by Cato when pushing his POV that Carthage should be destroyed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 28 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)