Talk:Autism

Neurodevelopmental disorder/disability

Because I have not received any responses on this in a branched discussion above, I start it as a separate topic.

Regarding the lead: WP:WIKIVOICE says that (even majority) viewpoints must not be presented as facts which is the case with a sentence like “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.” One way to solve this would be “neurodevelopmental disability” which is accepted by neurodiversity proponents as well. Another reason is that WP:SUFFER says: “Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate.” LogicalLens (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it must be prominent in the lede. This is not up for discussion. To clarify, and to avoid unnecessary repetition of debate - this was just covered up in the Suggestion section, where it was discussed less than a week ago. CFCF (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure this specific question was adequately covered in previous discussion - could you perhaps link to the relevant part of the discussion?

In case you're not aware, you can get a URL for a specific comment from the datestamp - here's the specific comment @LogicalLens referred to.

It is good that we seem to be moving towards an agreement on respecting the guidelines in WP:SUFFER and using language that different major bodies of opinion agree on where possible, rather than presenting widely contested statements as facts. I am aware that this remains a controversial approach here, though, and we have had many misunderstandings occurring in these discussions where people have misunderstood each other's intentions... Oolong (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I can not summarize the section, and I sincerely suggest you read it again. The discussion took place over 3-4 weeks, and there is consensus that this article should follow the general field - where autism is a medical diagnosis, and specifically a neurodevelopmental disorder. There is consensus that neurodiversity is a significant minority view and should be treated as such. It will be mentioned, but does not dictate the format of this article. Neurodiversity-affirming language, as per some guidelines, is not the same as accepting all tennets of the movement. CFCF (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Which discussion do you mean? @Oolong suggested that you provide a link to it. LogicalLens (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I now think you mean the discussion where we talked about whether the neurodiversity movement actively challenges the classification as a disorder. There, @Oolong wrote that depathologization was always a core tenet and you responded that you did not question that. While we cannot remove the word disorder entirely from a prominent position in the lead section, the current phrasing is outdated.

Options for improvement are:

1) "Autism is [predominantly/primarily/largely/mainly] [viewed/conceptualized] as a neurodevelopmental disorder."

2) "Autism is a neurodevelopmental [difference/condition/disability] characterized by differences and difficulties in social communication and interaction, sensory processing differences, and by [focused/intense] interests and repetitive behaviors such as stimming. In most clinical contexts, including diagnostic systems like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, it is currently classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder under the term autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." LogicalLens (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have time to get into the nitty gritty, but I actually quite like #2 with neurodevelopmental condition. The second sentence there is sufficient for mandatory context. However, if we go for this approach it should be marked out that the inclusion of that sentence is a matter of consensus. CFCF (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

As a procedural point, we do not normally require specific sources to choose between words that are generally considered synonyms. In particular, disease, disorder, medical condition, and illness are normally treated as interchangeable synonyms unless some special circumstance applies. If editors want to chose "neurodevelopmental condition" instead of "neurodevelopmental disorder", then that falls in the category of using our own words.

(That said, it looks like there are hundreds of articles at PubMed using that language.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Since every disorder or condition is also a difference and the context of the classification is given directly after that, "neurodevelopmental difference" could be appropriate. "Neurodevelopmental condition" could be used for the short description. LogicalLens (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me what we would lose by going with 'neurodevelopmental disability'. Its status as a 'condition' is, as discussed, contested, including by authoritative sources - although many would agree that 'condition' is at least a slight improvement on 'disorder'.

I don't think many in psychiatry, autism research or the neurodiversity movement would dispute that it is a disability. Oolong (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

From a quick search:

• "Some autistic people do not see themselves as disabled at all. This is because they can do the things they want to do. They see autism as a set of differences that do not get in the way of them living the life they want to live."[1]
• "Presenting personal truths as universal can invalidate the experiences of others. For instance, if someone insists that "autism is not a disability" based on their positive experiences, it can dismiss the struggles and legitimate needs of those who do experience autism as a disability"[2]
• "Autism is different ability, not a disability"[3]
• "Many people in the autism community argue that their autism is not a disability, that their autistic characteristics are simply core parts of who they are."[4]
• "Although the medical community uses the term autism to refer to a disorder or disability, psychologists consider autistic people to be neurodiverse, meaning autism means otherness, not a disability."[5]

I think that defining autism as a disability conflicts with your prior comments about "autistic thriving". A person who is defined as disabled is a person who is defined as not fully thriving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, neurodiversity advocates would argue that autistic people are disabled but do not in all cases have a disability. I think @Oolong's concern was that if we write "neurodevelopmental difference", that could be seen as too neurodiversity-affirming. Although I still think that it is appropriate because the context of the classification as a disorder is given directly after that and every disorder is a difference, I could also accept "disability" because it is more neutral than disorder. But I also agree with you in the argument that “condition” is nearly synonymous with “disorder” and an explanation of the classification as a disorder is confusing and seems redundant in this case. LogicalLens (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @LogicalLens and @CFCF, for the thoughtful engagement.

I’d like to offer a clarification that may help preserve both encyclopedic neutrality and conceptual accuracy.

Strictly speaking, the classification of autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder reflects the dominant medical model, which is appropriately acknowledged early in the article. However, this classification does not exhaust the range of academic or experiential perspectives informing the discourse—particularly in the fields of disability studies, neurodiversity research, and cognitive science.

The term “neurodevelopmental difference” is not inherently partisan. It reflects a broader conceptual model in which autism is both medically classified and understood by some as a variant neurocognitive architecture. This view is substantiated in peer-reviewed literature and by recognized scholars:

Milton, Damian (2012). “On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Silberman, Steve (2015). NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. Avery Publishing.

Walker, Nick (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Autonomous Press.

Kapp, Steven K. et al. (2013). “Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity.” Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. doi:10.1037/a0028353

Autistic Self Advocacy Network (2020). “What is the Neurodiversity Paradigm?” https://autisticadvocacy.org

That said, I agree with the point that “disability” may offer a useful middle ground: it captures the functional reality of many autistic people’s experiences while not precluding the framing of autism as difference rather than intrinsic defect.

Suggested compromise framing:

“Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability classified within the medical field as a disorder. Some academic and advocacy perspectives additionally frame it as a form of neurocognitive difference that becomes disabling in specific contexts.”

This acknowledges the clinical classification while neutrally referencing documented minority views, in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Recursiva (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

With a quick search, "neurodevelopmental difference" is unusual (just eight papers during the last 10 years at PubMed). When it is used in the context of autism, it tends to have a pro-neurodiversity POV ([6], which rejects "the orthodox scientific approach to autism") and not necessarily the sole description ("Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference and disability").

For comparison, "neurodevelopmental disorder" is 900x as common, "neurodevelopmental condition" is 100x as common, and "neurodevelopmental disability" is 60x as common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the PubMed breakdown; it’s a useful metric for gauging dominant terminology. I agree entirely that neurodevelopmental disorder should remain central in the article, as it reflects the current clinical classification and the prevailing medical model.

That said, I’d gently suggest that citation frequency doesn’t necessarily indicate conceptual superiority. Medical history is full of terms that were once widely used, institutionally reinforced, and later reconsidered—hysteria, moral defect, and the former classification of homosexuality as a disorder, for example. Their prominence in the literature didn’t make them accurate, only entrenched.

Neurodevelopmental difference is certainly less common, but it does appear in verifiable academic and advocacy sources (e.g. Kapp et al., Milton, ASAN), often to reflect an alternative framing grounded in disability studies, cognitive science, and lived experience. It’s not a rejection of science but an expansion of how autism is understood.

Including this view—clearly attributed and proportionately weighted—would be consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. It wouldn’t displace the dominant clinical model, but it would help ensure the article reflects the wider academic and experiential discourse around autism. Recursiva (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Neurodevelopmental difference" is almost three orders of magnitude less common than "neurodevelopmental disorder". What you write about difference being used as an "alternative framing grounded in disability studies, cognitive science, and lived experience" means "according to proponents of the NDM POV". Difference is not neutral; difference belongs to the NDM POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks again for the continued engagement. I’d like to offer a final clarification—not to restate the full thread, but to situate the core principle as clearly as possible.

Yes, “neurodevelopmental disorder” is the dominant clinical term and should remain the central classification in the article. That’s not in dispute. But dominance of usage is not the same as exclusivity of framing.

The argument from volume—the claim that citation frequency equals epistemic authority—is one of the weakest available in conceptual discourse. As history repeatedly shows, it’s also one of the least reliable indicators of accuracy, particularly when dominant views have justified continuing harm. From the widespread medical endorsement of lobotomy to the pathologisation of homosexuality, dominant classifications have often persisted well beyond their ethical or empirical defensibility.

Reliable sources in disability studies, cognitive science, and advocacy literature—including Kapp et al., Milton, and ASAN—use “difference” intentionally to reflect an alternative conceptual model. Including this framing, when done clearly and proportionally, does not undermine neutrality. It reflects it.

This is exactly why Wikipedia follows due weight, not majority rule. The inclusion of reliably sourced alternative framings—such as “neurodevelopmental difference” in peer-reviewed literature—isn’t fringe or promotional. It’s proportional. It reflects the fact that paradigms evolve, and that encyclopedic neutrality isn’t about suppressing minority views, but representing them clearly, with attribution and context.

Which seems especially relevant, given that we’re discussing a condition explicitly described as a spectrum.

One final note of clarification: there seems to be a recurring conflation between two very different things—point of view and presentation of point of view. Neutrality on Wikipedia doesn’t mean that every concept must originate from a “neutral” worldview. It means that Wikipedia itself must present differing perspectives fairly, proportionally, and with clear attribution.

Otherwise, we’d have to delete major swathes of political, religious, and philosophical content. What matters is whether the perspective is verifiable, reliably sourced, and presented with due balance.

Neutrality isn’t the erasure of perspective. It’s the accurate representation of it.

Recursiva (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with WhatamIdoing, and must state for the record, that any argument from epistemic authority is purely WP:CRYSTALBALL. As was expressed very early on in this discussion, there is consensus: to consider neurodiversity; and to, when appropriate, use neurodiversity-affirming language. There is not consensus to let neurodiversity override all other views (there is frankly consensus against that). No matter how we look at it, neurodiversity is a minority view, but not insignificant. That means that we should give it WP:DUE weight in relation to the majority view. For the question of terminology of disorder vs. difference specifically, due weight is at most a single sentence in a subsection on neurodiversity.

Neurodevelopmental condition is a reasonably neutral middle-ground that is depathologizing, and I agree we can use it despite it being less common. However, neurodevelopmental difference is not neutral and speaks to a view that is not carried by the mainstream. I think ultimately there is a confusion here that we can reason our way to "the right answer", as expressed by using terms like epistemic authority. What I mean when I say that the argument is speculative, is not only that is presupposes that there will in the future be a result that is in line with the arguments that "I" put forward, but that such an argument can reasonably lead to a logical conclusion based on some set of maxims. The terminology isn't logical, it is consensus-based and builds on trade-offs - and for now it is what we must consider. CFCF (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Neurodevelopmental disorder" should stay as is. I do not see how the alternatives are of any improvement, as "disability" or "condition" are all under the same umbrella as "disorder". Neurodevelopmental disorders listed in the ICD or DSM are usually referred to as such on the first sentence in any other article (such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). This is not to say that it is a rule, it absolutely isn’t, but given the significant probability of mild or severe functional impairment, it is appropriate to keep it as it is now. Slothwizard (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

As a general rule, there are two ways to address neutrality concerns about individual words/phrases. One is to be more ambiguous, and the other is to be more concrete. Both let people bring their current beliefs, biases, and background knowledge to the article without feeling like we're contradicting them. For example, if there is a disagreement about whether to call some snake oil "a treatment" (which some people interpret as saying that it is effective for treating a disease), then editors might choose vaguer words like "a product" or even "a product intended to treat a disease". Alternatively, they might get more specific: It's "a chemical solution composed of table salt and food dye". No matter what your belief about that snake oil is, neither approach tells you that you're wrong.

In this case, "condition" is an attempt to go a little bit vaguer. Some people will read it as "Oh, condition. They mean medical condition, and that's just another word for disease or disorder. It's great they're not pretending autism is a harmless or normal thing." Other people will read it as "Ah, condition: like situation or the human condition. How nice that they're not pathologizing autism."

And – the key point from my POV – neither of them, despite holding opposite POVs, will complain about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There would be no clear direction for the article if this is done. For example, what should the short description be? Condition? Difference in human experience? This is not DUE. There is a substantial amount of research done on autism. The neurodiversity perspective should have good coverage, but there is an overall scientific consensus as to what autism is. The first sentence should not be vague in this case. Slothwizard (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Short descriptions often use the language from the first sentence, so if we settled on "Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition", it'd probably say "neurodevelopmental condition", and if we settled on "neurodevelopmental disorder", it'd probably say "neurodevelopmental disorder", etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This is correct, though neurodevelopmental condition is explicitly a medical condition. Only "condition" alone would be vague. Slothwizard (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think disability, condition, and disorder mean a similar thing, would you then object to disability? LogicalLens (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would object to this. Disability is slightly more specific than disorder, since autism causes disability, while autism itself is the disorder. It is an inflexible descriptor of autism. I do not support changing it to "neurodevelopmental condition" or "condition" either since that would create a redirect to neurodevelopmental disorder, which is the name of the article. "Condition" itself—without a wikilink—implies that there is a lack of research and understanding of autism. While we do not understand the pathophysiology of any mental disorder well, autism is substantially researched and we have a better understanding of it. It was fine as "neurodevelopmental disorder" because it establishes the consensus of what it is and reflects common understanding of autism. Slothwizard (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

IMO so long as "we do not understand the pathophysiology", then we don't actually know what autism "is". We just know what appearance it produces. That, in turn, suggests that if you wanted to rely on dictionary definitions instead of the particular word choices by reliable sources, then autism "is" a syndrome, in the sense that it's a collection of associated features whose pathophysiology we don't understand. I doubt that this would be more acceptable than disorder to people holding the anti-pathologizing POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going more for a dictionary definition. We have a poor understanding of pathophysiology for most mental disorders, even more so for autism, so I agree that we do not know what it *is* in a deeper sense. Because most research point towards a pathology, and also the lack of an article representing those on the severe end of the spectrum, having an ambiguous lead would not be appropriate. Disability and condition do not de-pathologize autism anyway; they both suggest a pathology. Slothwizard (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As I explained above, I think that condition can be interpreted as non-pathologizing language. After all, being a genius is also "a neurodevelopmental condition", and nobody thinks that's a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Being a genius is not a pathology. Savant syndrome, if that’s what you’re referring to, is described as a phenomenon in its article, which is ambiguous. In that case, it is absolutely correct. It was observed that some people had a superability that co-occurs with a neurodevelopmental, genetic, or neurological disorder. It is not itself a disorder. People refer to this as a disorder or condition colloquially due to the fact that it co-occurs with one, though no diagnostic manual would designate it as such. It would be like calling imposter syndrome a clinical disorder. Slothwizard (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Being a genius is not a pathology. Being a genius can be fairly described as "a neurodevelopmental condition". After all, being a genius is the condition that the person is in, and it's about that person's neurodevelopmental situation.

Some people are upset when we say that autism is pathological. However, they might not be upset if we say that autism is a "condition" that some people have/are in. After all, being autistic is the condition or state that the person is in, and it's about that person's neurodevelopmental situation.

Other people are upset when we say that autism isn't pathological. However, they might not be upset if we say that autism is a "condition" that some people have/are in. After all, "condition" can also mean medical condition, and it's about that person's neurodevelopmental situation.

This is ambiguous – people can read it to align with their own biases – but I suggest that it's not actually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

When someone refers to "genius" or a certain superability as a neurodevelopmental condition, they are implying that it is a disorder. This does not mean that people believe that it is a medical condition, but it is often referred to as such due to common semantic use. "A person with an ability" or "a genius" would be the more common non-pathological language used. Similarly, if a person was blind, you could say "they are blind" or "he/she has a condition of blindness". The latter, if you interpret it literally, does not have to be seen as pathological. However, it will still imply pathology due to how people interpret words. It is not likely that calling autism a "neurodevelopmental condition" or "condition" would create a more neutral view of autism, especially that it will likely be wikilinked. Outside of this, the amount of evidence validating the neurodiversity framework is not sufficient enough to change the first sentence. De-pathologizing the first sentence, which likely means that disorder and the other suggested terms would have to be done away with, would cause a full alteration of the article. Using the term condition, even alone, would not accomplish this anyways; it provides only semantic ambiguity while still implying pathology, which is something Wikipedia should avoid. Slothwizard (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Which part are you objecting to? The part where "semantic ambiguity" reduces the endless parade of autistic people from saying that we're pathologizing their lives by using words like disorder in the first sentence, or the part where we'd be "implying pathology" because condition could be (but isn't necessarily or automatically) a medical condition (which, in turn, isnt' necessarily or automatically a pathological situation; see also Pregnancy, which is a non-pathological medical condition)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I object changing "neurodevelopmental disorder". I was making the point that if we do end up changing it, condition wouldn’t work. But I ultimately oppose changing it in the first place. Sorry, I probably got too wordy, that is my bad. Slothwizard (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE says that opinions must not be presented as facts (which a sentence like "Autism is ..." does), and this even applies to majority views like considering autism as a disorder. “Condition” is less pathologizing than “disorder”, albeit not neurodiversity-affirming. As “neurodevelopmental condition” (which would also be the short description) is clear enough, the possible confusion about the term "condition" is not a problem here. Another option would be, as I wrote above, to avoid the definition in the first sentence (“Autism is characterized by…”). LogicalLens (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The World Health Organization describes autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Any view that "neurodevelopmental condition" would be a superior term is just POV; this is not what autism is commonly referred to as nor what most sources and diagnostic manuals describe it. Is there are neurodevelopmental disorders that need a similar discussion (i.e., ADHD, Tourette syndrome)? The scientific community has already established autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder.

The dispute to this is not nearly sufficient enough to warrant integrating this into the article beyond various mentions, which the lead currently does a perfect job of this. Slothwizard (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"Condition" is still on the medical model side. See this survey that finds that the more people support neurodiversity, the less they are willing to accept "condition".[7] The sources supporting neurodiversity would currently not be sufficient to remove the pathologization entirely but they are sufficient to choose a less pathologizing term among medical model terms. I also agree with @WhatamIdoing that "condition" is a useful solution to the dispute here. It is not my personal preference, but we have to find a solution. LogicalLens (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

A survey of people concluding that people may not like the term disorder doesn’t make autism not a disorder. We are not here to appease people's feelings. Also, like I said before, this article is largely referring to autism in the clinical sense. Slothwizard (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that "this article is largely referring to autism in the clinical sense" is one of the things that is being objected to. Some editors think this article should also think about autism in the non-clinical sense. Imagine a world in which the other person is not entirely wrong. Is there something we could write that would be not only fair and true, but also include more than just the clinical POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That would probably require the article to be split. There are people with very severe presentations of autism causing people to be non-speaking, have no theory of mind, etc. I understand it causes confusion regarding people with less severe or mild presentations, but bundling non-clinical autism (a phenotype) would not be compatible. Merging content regarding people with non-complicated characteristics of autism (different personality, perceptions without impairment) with people who are completely unable to speak does not make any sense. Slothwizard (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I was talking about. I am not arguing that this survey is a reason why “disorder” should be removed. “Disorder” should be replaced by “condition” because the latter is less pathologizing (which is appropriate, given the growing support of neurodiversity in the literature), while still being a term of the majority medical model. It is also wrong that neurodiversity only applies to the world outside the clinical realm as neurodiversity advocates for a change in clinical practice. It also does not deny that autism is in many cases a disability, like the ones you mentioned where people are non-speaking. It just argues that a disability is not intrinsically a bad thing, see for example the disability theories by Elizabeth Barnes. LogicalLens (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree in this, as it is a reasonable trade-off to use neurodiversity-affirming language in this article—while also being strict about how this article is about the majority view—of autism as a medical condition.

Whether we want to use the overarching label of disorder, disability, or condition as the main term (e.g. relegating mention of specific classification as a disorder/disability to when it is discussed in context of sections on ICD or DSM) seems to me a minor semantic point, where we have little to lose, including a very limited loss of precision, but much to gain by being more affirming and depathologizing in language use throughout.

I did like the suggestion that one can split out Broader autism phenotype. If I had more time, I would have given that article a start, as I don't think it would be all too difficult to create a viable stub.

It seems that this would cut to the core of any dispute, in that we acknowledge that neurodiversity is a significant minority view that merits in-depth coverage, just not here - and that there is little dispute on the use of neurodiversity affirming language also in covering the medical aspects (without fully endorsing the neurodiversity view as the majority or only view). CFCF (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If we now have a majority here to use "neurodevelopmental condition", we could make the change.

I am not sure why some believe that creating an article on the broader autism phenotype would resolve any part of the current dispute. This discussion centers on autistic people—those who meet the diagnostic criteria for autism. The core principle of the neurodiversity movement is not that autistic traits are acceptable only if someone can function according to neurotypical norms. Rather, it emphasizes that being autistic—even when it involves challenges in a world built around neurotypical expectations (what proponents of the medical model might call "clinically significant impairment")—is not inherently negative or pathological. This is not yet the majority view in the clinical world but this broader autism phenotype article would in no way alleviate the concerns of editors here who argue for greater coverage of the neurodiversity view. LogicalLens (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well because there is no content dispute - because this article is about the majority conceptualization. That vocal editors here do not ascribe to this view is irrelevant. CFCF (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Creating a broader autism phenotype article is in no way meant to "alleviate the concerns of editors here who argue for greater coverage of the neurodiversity view". It is meant to provide information about a concept used in research and recognized in practice by affected families. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood you. LogicalLens (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slothwizard, multiple users here agree on "neurodevelopmental condition" as, while the significant proportion of sources supporting the neurodiversity view does not justify removing the pathologization completely, it is sufficient to choose a less pathologizing term among medical model terms. LogicalLens (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree in part, but condition is not a more neutral term, it just creates a redirect to neurodevelopmental disorder. More than several sources refer to it as a neurodevelopmental disorder as well, many of which were on the lead. Slothwizard (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Condition doesn't have to "be" a more neutral term for this purpose. At some level, it only needs to "seem like" a more neutral term to some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

No it does not. We are not here to appease people; this is an informal way to go about this. Slothwizard (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I agree: Condition does not have to "be" a more neutral word to be a helpful word choice for this article. Or were you saying with "No it does not" that you think it's not sufficient for a word to merely "seem like" it is more neutral, and that we should find one that the medical establishment does not see as a near-synonym for disorder? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

While it is true that the phrase "neurodevelopmental condition" links to the article Neurodevelopmental disorder, that alone does not invalidate its use. Wikipedia often uses different phrasings or synonyms that redirect to the most comprehensive article. Additionally, Wikipedia style guidelines do not mandate rigid adherence to the title of a linked article. It is acceptable and common for Wikipedia to use phrasing that redirects to or links to a more general or technically titled page. LogicalLens (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not arguing this. I am saying that there isn’t a compelling reason to be changing it. I have no idea what changing disorder to condition accomplishes. This is very arbitrary. Slothwizard (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Changing disorder to condition accomplishes the highly desirable, policy-based goal of making the article appear, in the opinions of a significant number of editors, to use a more appropriate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slothwizard, WP:WIKIVOICE says that viewpoints must not be presented as facts and this holds even for majority viewpoints. The proportion of a majority of sources pathologizing autism and a significant minority not doing so justifies using a less pathologizing term among medical model terms. LogicalLens (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slothwizard: As per WP:CONSENSUS, Wikipedia operates by editors reaching agreement through discussion. You have repeatedly reverted content without engaging substantively with the arguments raised on the talk page.

Also, the perception of the edit being "arbitrary" is a weak argument compared to our reference to WP:NPOV, WP:SUFFER ("disorder [...] not always appropriate") and WP:WIKIVOICE. If you consider the edit unnecessary, you can just ignore it. LogicalLens (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me. Neurodevelopment condition is a suggested term by some sources, but the vast majority of sources indicate that autism is a disorder, which is standard terminology. Autism is commonly understood to be a diagnostic category. WP:WIKIVOICE is not relevant here because condition is merely a synonym to disorder under this context; it would be wikilinked to neurodevelopmental disorder anyway. From what I understand, condition is supposed to be a compromise for between autism as a clinical disorder versus autism as neurodivergence, though I have not found many sources here suggesting this change in terminology and it isn’t conclusive. Research regarding autism is not much different comparing to other neurodevelopmental disorders; I find it strange that autism would have special treatment in this regard. Slothwizard (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Since, from the biomedical POV, disorder and condition are merely synonyms in this context, then nobody supporting the biomedical POV should care which one gets used.
• Since, from the neurodiversity POV, disorder and condition have a different emotional impact, then condition is preferred.
• Ergo, we can compromise on using the term that both major POVs support.

(I suspect that other neurodivergent people have a different views. I've never heard a dyslexic person say that they're really proud that they struggled to learn how to read and would be really sorry if they had found it easy. Dyslexia is usually understood as a disability in the social sense, since it is a neurological difference that would be unimportant except for the way society is organized. This isn't special treatment; it's more like "relevant and appropriate" treatment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

We should not be changing terms based on emotional impact, Wikipedia is not for appeasing people. A few sources that aren’t scientific is not sufficient enough to warrant this change. They point out a different perspective of autism and other disorders, but this is more relevant for the article on neurodiversity. This article is about autism as a diagnosis. The neurodiversity perspective is mentioned several times in the article, but it is a different subject and shouldn’t be merged with this article. Slothwizard (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Following the advice from reliable sources about how to be respectful to a minority group is not "appeasing people". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about autism, full stop. Not Diagnosis of autism. Not Autism (biomedical viewpoint). Not Autism (excluding neurodiversity). Autism, as in all of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens @WhatamIdoing @CFCF The vast majority of sources, including the NIH, DSM-5, and ICD-11, refer to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. The amount of sources suggesting this terminology change is minimal. Multiple less-involved editiors have also opposed this terminology change in this talk section. I am not sure where we should go from here because we are not making much ground here and I am not going to revert at this time to prevent this from becoming stonewalling. But I am noticing that involved editors make a suggestion, some less-involved editors chime in, and then lose interest, resulting in the suggestion being implemented. I cannot discuss this until the end of time and waiting until others lose interest is not the way to go. Slothwizard (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

"WP:WIKIVOICE is not relevant here because condition is merely a synonym to disorder under this context"

WP:WIKIVOICE means that a sentence like “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.” (thereby implying that it is a fact) is inappropriate even though it is the majority viewpoint. We suggested using “neurodevelopmental condition” as a compromise because choosing a less pathologizing term among medical model terms (“condition” is not a complete synonym to “disorder”) is appropriate given that a significant portion of sources does not view autism as either a disorder or a condition.

"Research regarding autism is not much different comparing to other neurodevelopmental disorders; I find it strange that autism would have special treatment in this regard."

We could make the same change in the articles on ADHD and dyslexia for consistency or just acknowledge that there is a much higher percentage of pro-neurodiversity sources for autism than for ADHD or dyslexia.

"We should not be changing terms based on emotional impact, Wikipedia is not for appeasing people. A few sources that aren’t scientific is not sufficient enough to warrant this change."

This is not about appeasement. Per WP:SUFFER, we should “Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate.” Many sources supporting the neurodiversity perspective are scholarly and peer-reviewed. Dismissing them as “not scientific” misrepresents their legitimacy and undermines Wikipedia’s requirement to reflect the breadth of reliable views fairly.

"This article is about autism as a diagnosis. The neurodiversity perspective is mentioned several times in the article, but it is a different subject and shouldn’t be merged with this article."

@WhatamIdoing is right. Relegating a viewpoint one does not like to a less relevant article is not an acceptable approach. LogicalLens (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems as though we both give the same points and same answers over and over again. I am unsubscribing from this thread, this is not interesting anymore. Slothwizard (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I never rejected that we should call it a neurodevelomental disorder, just that we might not need to do so in the first sentence? It certainly has to be spelled out where appropriate - and yeah that might mean later in the lede. I don’t think we have discussed that. CFCF (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The classification as a neurodevelopmental disorder is currently mentioned in the first sentence in the classification section that is directly below the lead. Another option would be to introduce it before the neurodiversity challenge to this view is mentioned (in the second paragraph of the lead). But this looks a bit repetitive to me because, even though "condition" has a different connotation, it is still widely conceived as a synonym to "disorder". LogicalLens (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course, the purpose of invoking WP:WIKIVOICE is not obvious if we change it from “neurodevelopmental disorder” to “neurodevelopmental condition”. But the thing is that because WP:WIKIVOICE says that we must not present viewpoints (even majority viewpoints) as facts, therefore we cannot write “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder”. I made several suggestions, but only the phrasing as “neurodevelopmental condition” (which was a compromise solution, using a medical but less pathologizing term) has been responded to. LogicalLens (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

While I lean towards changing the wording to condition, I don't think this is an argument we can plausibly make in support of that.

Frankly, the argument is nonsensical - because it attacks the core of what a "fact" is, which is not what the policy intends to regulate. Calling it a viewpoint can equally be extended to call "autism as a condition" a "viewpoint". In the end all definitions are viewpoints, and autism is inherently nothing if we accept that there is an extreme minority that entertains that it doesn't exist. This type of epistemological perfection is plaguing the discussion here and is frankly not relevant or productive.

This is not what WP:WIKIVOICE intends to regulate - and is frankly a misinterpretation of policy, quite aptly described in WP:REFERS.

CFCF (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE is about attributing viewpoints to sources and is indeed not an argument for the change from “disorder” to “condition”; thus, it is confusing that I cite it here.

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.” Another user replaced “spectrum” in the first paragraph by “spectrum disorder”. The mention of “disorder” in this other sentence is another argument to remove it from the first sentence because this guideline instructs us to reduce the number of mentions of such words and a second mention is not even necessary. LogicalLens (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that is an appropriate argument, but it also needs to be whittled down and reasoned around. The guidelines dictate that we should be considerate. They do not advocate a blanket ban. I for one think the mention of spectrum disorder is WP:DUE, because the lay interpretation (and frankly most professional interpretations) of spectrum implies a unidimensional score. This was also what was meant by the early conceptualization of autism spectrum disorder, which has since expanded. CFCF (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So autism is a spectrum because it's not a multi-axial system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@CFCF I'm not sure what you mean by 'This was also what was meant by the early conceptualization of autism spectrum disorder'? Lorna Wing never intended it to be seen as a unidimensional thing. her writing is fairly clear about this.

(maybe that's what you meant though, your statement was ambiguous!) Oolong (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph mentions "disorder" three times, which is too many times. I would also add that "condition" is even used by opponents of the neurodiversity viewpoint because it is largely a synonym for "disorder". So I do not understand the reservations of some editors here. LogicalLens (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Maintaining "neurodevelopmental disorder" is necessary because that is factually what ASD is classified as. It is already mentioned quite prominently under "Classification", but it should be retained in its exact form in the lead as well, because it refers to the classification. This is a fact regardless of whether or not it should be considered to be true that autism is a "disorder". However, I do think it could perhaps be reworded to reflect what fact is being conveyed. BlockArranger (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

break

Thanks for your continued input.

Consensus isn’t the omission of perspectives just because they’re inconvenient.

Unfortunately, the most recent position mooted:

• Misapplies WP:CRYSTALBALL to dismiss live, sourced epistemic shifts
• Frames proportional inclusion as domination
• Claims consensus where none exists
• Positions “disorder” as neutral and “difference” as political—while denying that “disorder” is itself value-laden
• Undermines policy-grounded reasoning with rhetorical appeals to vague trade-offs

As outlined in WP:CONSENSUS, it’s not a comfort mechanism. It’s a policy framework for surfacing plural, sourced perspectives—especially when they challenge legacy defaults.

This argument has already been substantially dismantled—both in terms of sourcing and policy alignment—but instead of engaging the core points, responses have shifted sideways.

WP:CRYSTALBALL is misapplied—and inverted.

“Neurodevelopmental difference” isn’t a prediction. It already appears across academic literature, APA Style, advocacy discourse. Including it in the lead—attributed, proportionate—is documentation, not speculation.

CRYSTALBALL warns against rejecting sourced content because of projected future shifts. That’s what’s happening here. This isn’t about what might happen. The shift is already underway.

Volume is not policy—and it’s not epistemic rigor.

Frequency in outdated corpora ≠ weight. WP:DUE asks for proportionality now, not word count across diagnostic manuals from the 90s.

Volume tracks inertia—not validity. If you want epistemic currency, look at rate of adoption, disciplinary spread, diversity of sources—not just raw mentions.

“Difference” is no more ideological than “disorder.”

Both carry worldview. Neither is “neutral.” The question is: which are verifiable, in use, and appropriate to context? The answer is both.

WP:NPOV doesn’t mean suppressing one framing. It means reflecting them all—accurately and in proportion.

Consensus isn’t a veto.

There’s no consensus to exclude neurodiversity framing from the lead. In fact, it’s already present in the article. This isn’t an overhaul—it’s a structural alignment.

Calling “consensus” midway through a live, policy-based proposal isn’t a policy argument. It’s a rhetorical move.

Evasion is not a rebuttal.

There’s been repeated engagement with weaker arguments while the central policy-based ones go unaddressed. That’s not good faith editing. That’s selective avoidance.

Let’s name the discomfort under this resistance:

Including language like “difference” challenges a worldview where autism and ADHD are framed only as dysfunction. It opens the possibility that these may be forms of cognition that exceed normative capacity—and that the system isn’t designed for them.

This isn’t about abolishing clinical terms.

It’s about whether Wikipedia reflects sourced, evolving plurality—or keeps reinforcing a single frame despite evidence of shift.

If the article already underrepresents the neurodiversity paradigm, excluding it from the lead doubles the distortion.

A single, proportionate sentence doesn’t overreach.

It begins to correct the imbalance.

1. WP:CRYSTALBALL is misapplied—and inverted.

   “Neurodevelopmental difference” is not a speculative term. It is already present in peer-reviewed literature, APA Style guidance, and multiple advocacy and academic contexts. Its inclusion in the lead—clearly contextualized, proportionate, and attributed—is documentation, not prediction. CRYSTALBALL prohibits suppressing sourced content because of projected consensus shifts. That’s precisely what this argument has attempted to do.

   More to the point, the framing of autism and ADHD is already evolving. We are not arguing for a future hypothetical—we are pointing out that the dominant framing being defended here is being revised in real time across multiple disciplines.

   The future that feels uncomfortable to you has already arrived.

2. Volume isn’t policy—and it’s the wrong epistemic tool.

   Appealing to historical frequency as a measure of weight is not just weak—it’s conceptually incorrect. WP:DUE asks for proportionality within current contexts, not total word counts across outdated corpora. Volume tracks inertia, not epistemic accuracy.

   If you’re committed to tracking actual language evolution, you’d be examining rate of adoption, contextual presence, and source diversity—not which term appeared most in diagnostic manuals from decades ago.

   Continuing to cite volume as policy is not due diligence. Delay does not equal authority.

3. “Difference” isn’t more ideological than “disorder.”

   The claim that “difference” is politically loaded while “disorder” is neutral doesn’t hold up. Both terms encode worldview. The question is not which is neutral—neither is—but which are verifiable, current, and contextually relevant.

   The answer is both. And WP:NPOV and WP:DUE require us to reflect both—with balance, not erasure.

4. Consensus is not a veto.

   There is no consensus to suppress the neurodiversity framing from the lead. The existing consensus supports proportional inclusion of the neurodiversity paradigm. This proposal reflects that balance and simply extends it to the lead. Declaring consensus against a live, policy-aligned proposal mid-discussion is not a policy move. It’s a rhetorical one.

   So is consistently responding to lesser arguments while ignoring the stronger ones.

5. Avoiding the argument weakens the position.

   You’ve repeatedly replied to adjacent or easier comments while leaving the policy-grounded points here unaddressed. That’s not collaborative editing—it’s selective engagement. And it undermines your position more than it defends it.

Let’s also acknowledge the discomfort beneath this resistance:

The inclusion of language like “difference” threatens certain worldviews because it implies that autism and ADHD may not be dysfunctions—but forms of cognition that could exceed normative capacity in ways the current system isn’t designed to accommodate.

This isn’t about rejecting clinical language.

It’s about whether Wikipedia reflects sourced, policy-aligned plurality—i.e., the increasing usage in academia, policy, and public discourse of alternative framings—or whether it continues to limit the lead to a single model, despite clear consensus for proportional representation.

If the body already underrepresents the neurodiversity paradigm, then excluding it from the lead compounds the distortion. A single, proportionate sentence does not overreach—it begins to correct the imbalance.Recursiva (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• It is a disorder. It is a diagnosis. If it doesn't cause "clinically significant impairment" then it isn't autism; it's within the range of normal human variation. It's not a philosophical debate. It's definitional. GMG^talk 12:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  GMG^talk Ecactly! Lova Falk (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  This reminds me that I've wanted to see whether Broader autism phenotype could be a viable article. (That's apparently the term for people who have autistic traits without clinically significant impairment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think that is a good idea! Lova Falk (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I support this! Significant amounts of research has been made regarding this. Slothwizard (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  While the definition may be oversimplified here, I support this. Developing dedicated subarticles—like one on the Broader Autism Phenotype (BAP)—would enhance the structural integrity of the Autism article. As the central node, the main article can link to subarticles that explore diagnostic, trait-based, and conceptual frameworks. This structure aligns with WP:DUE by giving proportionate space to each perspective, including the clinical, without overburdening the lead.

  
  

  Moreover, this architectural strategy reinforces the rationale for a lead that reflects autism’s evolving conceptualization. @LogicalLens’s proposed wording, which integrates both clinical classification and identity-based framing, exemplifies this balance. And it does so in a way that remains squarely within MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE and WP:NPOV.

  Recursiva (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @GMG – Your response repeats a definition but doesn’t address the policy‑based concerns actually raised.

  • Non‑engagement: The earlier post set out five policy points (WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, selective engagement). None of those are answered here.
  • Definitions evolve: Even the DSM‑5 says impairment is measured “in context.” ICD‑11 calls autism a “neurodevelopmental condition,” not merely a disorder. Peer‑reviewed literature (e.g., Bury 2020; Kapp 2021) and APA Style guidance routinely use “neurodevelopmental difference.” So the claim that there is a single, settled definition is not supported by current sources.
  • WP:NPOV / WP:DUE: Wikipedia summarizes all significant, sourced viewpoints in proportion. That includes the clinical model and the neurodiversity framing. Declaring one perspective “not a philosophical debate” doesn’t negate the policy requirement to represent the other.

  In short, re‑asserting a traditional definition without engaging the sourcing and policy issues already on the table doesn’t resolve the dispute—it restates it. Please address the policy concerns directly if you wish to move the discussion forward. Recursiva (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTALBALL has nothing nothing to do with this article whatsoever. The ICD calls autism a disorder about a million times. DUE doesn't mean rewriting things agreed upon by the majority of relevant experts to avoid hurt feelings. Diverging views regarding neurodiversity can go on the main article for the topic and not on the topic covering the diagnosis. GMG^talk 15:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I am going to adress you policy-based concerns in full Recursiva, with a brief comment:

  • Each point you bring up is touched upon in my prior comment. That you disagree, is mostly you being wrong, and partially us disagreeing - which is fine. Your assertion that a shift has happened already, when it hasn't, is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. Reiterating the same argument 10 times over, in extremely voluminous posts, then demanding repetition of answers, does not make your points more valid.

  CFCF (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  One option would be to use "neurodevelopmental disability" as a compromise, the other would be to avoid the definition in the first sentence altogether: "Autism is characterized by differences and difficulties in social communication and interaction, sensory processing differences, focused interests and repeated behaviors such as stimming. In most clinical contexts, including diagnostic systems like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, it is currently classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder under the term autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." LogicalLens (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think your suggested first sentence aligns with MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, and the "currently" in your suggested second sentence implies a change that nobody believes is forthcoming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to hear other editors' opinions on whether my suggestion is compatible with MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE.

  The "currently" does not mean that a change is automatically going to happen but that a change in the future is possible (and a growing number of sources advocate for it). Second, these definitions have always been changing. The DSM-IV classified autism as a “pervasive developmental disorder” and distinguished between Asperger syndrome and childhood autism, in the future there might be a "profound autism" category (whether anyone likes it or not), and it is possible that multiple subtypes of autism are identified. The classification as a neurodevelopmental disorder is likely to be temporary. LogicalLens (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  @LogicalLens I agree—highlighting how classifications have shifted over time (e.g., DSM-IV vs DSM-5, the emerging category of “profound autism”) helps position currently not as speculative, but as grounded context. That choice strengthens the encyclopedic tone.

  It also reinforces a key point: autism’s framing isn’t epistemically static. The lead should reflect both the prevailing classification and the range of perspectives in reliable sources—clinical, academic, and advocacy-based.

  Your proposed structure, with clear attribution and proportionality, aligns well with both MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE and WP:NPOV.

  Recursiva (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Stating “you’re just wrong” is your personal opinion. It is not a rebuttal but rhetorical deflection.

  WP:CRYSTALBALL prohibits rejecting sourced present-day shifts because they challenge legacy norms. That’s exactly what’s happening here. The sources cited (Milton, Kapp, Bury, ASAN, APA) are real-time documentation, not prediction.

  Volume ≠ validity. Repetition only exists because the argument hasn’t been addressed directly.

  If there's a policy-grounded rebuttal to the proposal’s sourcing and framing, I’m open to it. To date, none has been offered.

  Recursiva (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  While I understand and share many (not all) of your positions, your walls of text with lots of repetitions are a problem. I was criticized for a similar thing a few months ago and would recommend you to read this essay[8] and also WP:REHASH. It weakens your position and makes solutions to the conflict less likely. LogicalLens (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your continued engagement. “Neurodevelopmental disability” seems like a workable middle ground, especially when paired with attribution that aligns with WP:NPOV.

  Your earlier phrasing, which acknowledged both the clinical classification and the identity-based framing, stood out for its clarity and balance. It’s one of the few responses in this thread that feels grounded in both policy and lived experience.

  If you’re open to naming specific points of agreement or disagreement, or pointing me to anything I’ve missed, I’d genuinely welcome the exchange.

  Recursiva (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Arguments that autism must exclusively be framed through the medical model—or that this framing is the only objective or valid one—overlook the legitimacy of alternative perspectives. These views are not attempts to deny reality as the existence of disability is acknowledged by neurodiversity proponents. This is viewed mostly through a social model of disability lens and in cases of inherently disabling features, through a model similar to that proposed by Elizabeth Barnes that views disability as neutral.

  In practical terms, it is also worth noting that several incremental edits to the article have already been made, and what is under discussion now is not a wholesale reworking of its focus. When some editors refer to “shifting the focus,” this is not about removing information on diagnostic criteria or overwhelming them with cultural content. Rather, it is about presenting autism in ways that reduce stigma while maintaining accuracy—an approach that many contributors support, even if they do not fully align with all aspects of the neurodiversity paradigm. LogicalLens (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

At this point, the core policy-aligned argument—that autism should not be defined solely through the clinical lens of ASD—has been mooted, sourced, and remains unrefuted.

Objections have either misapplied policy (e.g., WP:CRYSTALBALL), deflected to tone, or selectively responded to easier points while avoiding the sourcing and DUE/NPOV alignment at the center.

Unless a clear policy-grounded counterargument is presented, WP:CONSENSUS can reasonably be inferred from the unresolved clarity of the proposal.

Proportionate mention of the neurodiversity framing in the lead reflects Wikipedia policy (not ideology). Recursiva (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus means "agreement". When there is an open dispute, with multiple editors on different sides, then we don't have consensus. Your conviction that your view is the correct one is not evidence that others have agreed with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. A considerable number of editors have been working quite collaboratively, eking out consensus over many months and quite consistently avoiding conflict over the past two months. I hope we can keep that up.

However, I must maintain that, yes WP:CRYSTALBALL is exactly the correct policy to apply in relation to your propositions Recursiva. Wikipedia does not determine what to include, or what language to use by logic or epistemic validity, but by what is present in reliable sources. I would implore you to read WP:WEIGHT, which mentions that text should be in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources - not in proportion to what editors think is logically consistent (over which we also seem to fundamentally disagree). CFCF (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

@Slothwizard, regarding your revert: I made many changes to this infobox and would like to know what exactly you perceive as depathologizing autism too much so that we can discuss the changes in detail. Also, if you think it makes less room for autistic people with high support needs, do you have ideas how these people could be included better?

For other editors: this is the page with the current infobox[9] and this is the one that I wanted to insert.[10] LogicalLens (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The proposed infobox should be strictly medical and not mix with other info that could be explained elsewhere. "Societal barriers" is an unnecessary addition that could be easily explained in the article. "Co-occurring conditions and challenges" is very wordy; it is merely a euphemism for "Complications". About its inclusion of meltdowns; these are very real, but they are not well-defined—I’m not too concerned about this, it’s more of a formality issue. "Supports" is just a euphemism for "Management". Its inclusion of Autism-friendly workplaces could be simplified as "changes in the environment", which is similar to Visual impairment. This way, it could be applied more broadly. It can still be wikilinked.

I do agree with setting "Usual onset" to always, so I will do that.

About my edit summary – I could not fit all my problems with it there. The use of euphemisms were my issue in how it was "de-pathologizing". It also included non-medical information, which is atypical. Moving from an established Infobox template to a generic one is just excessive and unnecessary. This page is largely about the clinical presentation of autism, so it wouldn’t make sense to do this. Slothwizard (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"Autism" is a broad article intended to cover all aspects of the topic, not just those framed within the medical model. It would be arbitrary and limiting to include only medicalized content in the infobox. Autism is different from other things that are classified as medical conditions because a significant proportion of the literature does not view it as pathological.

The term "complications" suggests that outcomes like bullying or unemployment are direct biological consequences of autism, which even proponents of the medical model must acknowledge is not always the case. Many of these outcomes arise from external factors, such as lack of accommodations, social exclusion, or systemic barriers. That is why I included "societal barriers" and adjusted the description accordingly. That said, I agree the revised wording was a bit long — perhaps "common challenges" would be a more concise and neutral alternative.

Regarding "autism-friendly workplaces," I agree that a broader term like "autism-friendly environments" would be better. LogicalLens (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is that most of the information in the infobox currently is pathological. The "common challenges" listed are anxiety, depression, etc. These are all complications. The only one I can understand is bullying, since that isn’t really a complication as that’s external. The "specialty" section is psychiatry, clinical psychology, and pediatrics. The "societal barriers" section is extra information that I would not put on an infobox in general, causes clutter. Also, sensory overload is definitely not just a societal barrier, it can occur without other people being involved. This whole template has a clinical theme to it, yet it terminologically presents itself as a neutral information section that happens to list mostly clinical issues. It does not really make much sense.

—

I apologize for getting back late. I am doing finals right now and editing is usually something I do for leisure, though this has become stressful for me since this is personal (for most of us here too) and I am still busy. Thanks Slothwizard (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

1) The things in the "common challenges" section exist because a person with the autistic features listed in the "characteristics" section lives in a world with the barriers listed in the "societal barriers" section. This is therefore a logical presentation. Maybe for parts of the increased rate of anxiety, inherent autistic features have a direct link, but not most of the other things listed there. It is definitely arbitrary to remove information on societal barriers.

2) I wrote "sensory overwhelm", not "sensory overload". Of course, there can be situations where an autistic person gets an overload from sensory inputs of nature, but in most cases, these are caused by noises etc. by humans.

3) I also do not see why “common challenges” is a euphemism. The things listed there are negative (neurodiversity proponents do not deny this) and “challenges” is a negative term but avoids the implication of “complications” that the things are a direct result of autism. LogicalLens (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anthony2106 is also in favor of the new infobox, as he thanked me for my edit.

These words are not euphemisms as many people actually mean these neutral words to describe neutral things. A word is only a euphemism if the user of the word still considers the described thing to be negative. LogicalLens (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

My revert was thanked by @Димитрий Улянов Иванов. I am not saying to exclude information regarding neurodiversity, but this article is for autism as a diagnosis. Slothwizard (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is about autism in general. LogicalLens (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That is only partly true. The common name for autism spectrum disorder is autism. This is the main article regarding autism, yes, but this article is formatted as a medicine-related article because that is the scientific consensus as of now and it is a major diagnostic category. Disorders listed in major diagnostic manuals have their own specific article. Slothwizard (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Several years ago, the medical model view was nearly the only one. Back then, it was correct to format it strictly as a medical article. But now, a significant minority of the literature does not view autism through a medical model lens. The article thus falls into a category of things that are predominantly viewed as a disorder but not universally. Insisting that it is simply a medical article is circular reasoning. LogicalLens (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Slothwizard, I could imagine suggesting the creation of a new infobox template “disability” that would include societal barriers as well. But in order to find a solution here, I suggest not inserting the barriers but implementing the terminology changes. These have been accepted for other parts of the article. One thing that could really be seen as a euphemism is writing "preference for sameness" instead of "need for predictability", especially regarding autistic people who are really distressed by change. Therefore, I did not choose this phrasing. LogicalLens (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

"Societal barriers" adds too much information to the infobox; it would be more appropriate in the lead or body. I don’t see how a new disability template would solve anything, it’s not any less pathological and has little differentiation from infobox medical condition. Visual impairment uses the medical condition infobox just fine, along with other disabilities. The term changes in your proposed infobox is not WP:DUE and currently would also detract from how the article presents autism at this point. Slothwizard (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning societal barriers in the lede instead of the infobox is an acceptable solution.

The word changes I proposed are mostly consistent with the rest of the article. LogicalLens (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens I think I thanked you because you removed the word "symptoms" like I'm sorry my autism deszise is gonna get you! "Oh no the autism pandemic! ITS GONNA KILL US!!1" "IT RUIEND MY DREAM JOURNAL!!!!!!!1" Anthony2106 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a very naive view of symptoms, and disagree that we should avoid mentioning symptoms because of link to contagion. CFCF (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@CFCF no everyone knows "symptoms" are for bad things like COVID for example. Anthony2106 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop it, you’re not being funny. CFCF (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@CFCF I'm being more serious now. Anthony2106 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead section already says that for a formal diagnosis, significant challenges must be present and the DSM/ICD sections use the word "symptoms". The style guidelines mentioned in the classification section recommend using "characteristics" instead. LogicalLens (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no qualms with sticking to whatever is recommended, but when someone ignorantly equates the word symptom with a stigmatizing view of disease as contagion I will call it out. Autism is not the only condition to face stigma, and promoting stigma towards other conditions, and being on this page does not give a free pass from promoting stigma towards others. CFCF (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@CFCF sorry I wasn't trying to stigmatize disease. I trying make a Hyperbole. But I still think the word symptoms is inappropriate for autism, and I think this has been spoken about on the on going (probably never ending) dispute resolution for autism. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverts

@GreenMeansGo, please see this essay that explains that there being "no consensus" in itself is not a reason to revert: WP:DRNC. LogicalLens (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The objections to your changes have been discussed repeatedly and at length. That essay has nothing to do with this situation. GMG^talk 11:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As I have explained, this article addresses autism as a whole, not solely the clinical diagnosis — a point also supported by @WhatamIdoing. So far, you have not provided compelling arguments to support a different framing. LogicalLens (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. There are those who agree and those who do not. Thus no consensus. You say as much in your own edit summary, before turning around and deciding to change it anyway. Don't engage in discussion if your intention is to ultimately ignore it. GMG^talk 12:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I made that change because the other editor who had been disputing it left the discussion, which was one day after I noted in the edit summary that the matter was still under debate. Just to clarify, this change only applies to the wording from "disorder" to "condition"—not to the infobox. Also, it is important to remember that lack of consensus does not mean the status quo must be maintained, which is why I cited WP:DRNC. LogicalLens (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens The disorder/condition discussion is more than a month old and has been discussed heavily. I am not going to discuss it for an entire year just for you to make the change when I and many others who disputed it move on. Slothwizard (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

While I am generally okay with the change, I do think Slothwizard is right here. It is not okay to say "those opposing the change have not engaged the discussion for a week, let us ignore their views". I will also note that the linked essay expresses a view that reverts should be thoroughly explained, but is not policy or guideline - and puts an undue onus on edit summaries that is not dictated in policy/guideline. The rationale for the revert is given, and we can not say that the essay even applies at all, because the rationale is given in talk. The essay is more about reverting without even engaging at talk, or of putting to onus of starting a discussion on talk on the one being reverted. CFCF (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

While not answering can sometimes be understood as acquiescence, you are right because people can forget to answer or not have time and it is generally better to ping the user and tell them that their silence will be interpreted as consensus. LogicalLens (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

What I take issue with in the disorder vs. condition debate is that, despite stating you were stepping away from the discussion, you continue to assert that your perspective should prevail.

As a constructive alternative, I proposed introducing the classification of autism as a disorder in the second paragraph—before addressing how this classification is critiqued from a neurodiversity perspective—which would mean moving that paragraph up again. Another option could be phrasing the first sentence of the article as: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental difference that is classified as a disorder in most clinical contexts, under the term autism spectrum disorder (ASD)."

Regarding the claim that the sections are clearly framed within the medical model: I disagree—it is not evident from the context. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we cannot state in Wikipedia’s voice that "Autistic people experience impairments" as if this is an uncontested fact.

There appears to be an underlying assumption—shared by you and another editor—that this article is, by definition, written from the medical model perspective. I have pointed out that this framing is not neutral, and positioning it as the default risks advancing a particular point of view. LogicalLens (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There were numerous editors that opposed the change. It was discussed for more than a month. When I left that discussion, I explicitly said I would not personally revert a revision that changes disorder to condition, but other editors have chosen to do so. There clearly is no consensus for this change. We could discuss how much weight should be given to the neurodiversity perspective, but preferably not in this discussion thread. Slothwizard (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In the second case, the clarification that it is about the medical model could indeed be seen as unnecessary but in the first case it is necessary per WP:WIKIVOICE. Therefore, I inserted that again and hope that you agree. LogicalLens (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Slothwizard, on top of my response from yesterday:

The sources support the phrasing "many autistic people oppose the pursuit of a cure", whereas "some" downplays this opposition. Additionally, the verb "dispute" has a connotation of denying something that is seen as true.

The NIH style guide on autism has disappeared because all NIH style guides have been taken offline. Finally, your statement that autism is not something one would wish upon someone is a subjective judgment and not in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). It can indeed be confusing to list the contributing factors in the same row as the causes but the medical infobox does not offer a better option for "risk factors". "Likelihood" would be a neutral term. Why are you so staunchly against using a custom infobox? LogicalLens (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"Many" has the opposite problem as "some" because it puts more weight. "Some" is definitionally neutral but I agree does have a connotation. What do you suggest instead? About the infobox, I already said why it’s a problem and am not going to discuss that here in this thread. Slothwizard (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I would go with "there are"... CFCF (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens @CFCF @GigaMigaDigaChad

Right now, it says:

"There is no known cure for autism, and some advocates dispute the need to find one."

What do you think of:

"There is no cure for autism, and there are advocates that oppose the pursuit of one."

I am hoping to find something that flows well while being more neutral. Slothwizard (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

"... there are advocates that who oppose ..." Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I am cool with that, it certainly seems far less monolithic of autistic people than what was previously written, and more appropriate for the given citations. while certainly giving a greater 'punch'.

Now, perhaps LogicalLens might feel differently since it might appear to not mention the presence of autistic people not being made explicit in the movement to be problematic but I think the strong implication that there's already a fair portion of autistic people within such advocacy groups, with it being outright state elsewhere as justified enough.

Not to mention it is far more to the point than "many autistic people oppose the pursuit of a cure" because it fails to separate autistic people from the neurodiversity movement despite the citations referring to the opposition coming from the ND movement specifically, where many people in the ND movement are not autistic, a pretty sizable autistic population are not within the ND movement, and the stance of a specific activist group can't just be written into "many autistic people" without some degree of distortion of the information. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 3:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it is both more neutral and actually speaks to the message the activists want to convey. These things do take some mulling over. CFCF (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether I misunderstand WP:WIKIVOICE because every time I cite it, other editors do not really react to it. @CFCF, it is the majority viewpoint in the literature to view autistic people’s social interaction as impaired but this is challenged by a significant minority of sources. WP:WIKIVOICE says: "For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." To me, this shows that even majority viewpoints should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. LogicalLens (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstand it. CFCF (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The NHS source[11] actually says: "Words like 'treat' mean that people might think that autism is a disease that can be removed or cured. This upsets many autistic people and families." This says "many", does not refer to neurodiversity at all and "many" does not automatically mean a specific number or even necessarily the majority.

But if other editors still consider this version less neutral, I have another suggestion: "There is no cure for autism, and there are advocates, particularly among autistic people, who oppose the pursuit of one." LogicalLens (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think just mentioning advocates makes it more neutral and uncontroversial. Your point about "many" is the exact same point I made about "some" originally. "Many" implies a large number of, which wouldn’t be appropriate here. "Some" implies a small number of, so that has been scrapped. I added "there are" and replaced "dispute" with "oppose" in my most recent edit. Slothwizard (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think our misunderstanding is that in your view, "many" means "a large number overall" (which is a value judgement), whereas I mean "a large proportion of" (which is supported by the sources). LogicalLens (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Readers may not understand this context, however. Slothwizard (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@AlsoWukai There was a rationale for changing this wording. Why should we should use "some" instead of "there are"? Slothwizard (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

To me they seem synonymous, but in view of this discussion I will change it back. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the burden is generally on those who want to make changes to an article to gain consensus if there is a disagreement, certainly on an article as active as this one. GMG^talk 11:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I know of no policy or guideline that says the onus for reaching consensus is on the editors who want to make a change, can you cite one? LogicalLens (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOCON GMG^talk 11:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

RFC

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

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

--GRuban (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Question about the dispute

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

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

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

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

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

Risk of suicide

"The suicide risk is lower among cisgender autistic males and autistic people with intellectual disabilities." and "The risk is higher for older autistic people and those with intellectual disability." ??????????? Anthony2106 (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The risk is lower for autistic people who are cisgender or have intellectual disability than for autistic people without these characteristics. The risk is higher for both autistic and intellectually disabled people when they are older. This is the way I understand this. LogicalLens (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I thought it made no sense. Anthony2106 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Anthony, this is poorly worded. CFCF (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Anthony2106, the sentence "The risk is higher for older autistic people and those with intellectual disability." occurs in the bullet point on epilepsy in the section "Co-occurring conditions". LogicalLens (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that autistic people with Intellectual disability are more likely to kill themselves. See "The risk of...dying by suicide is the highest for autistic adults without intellectual disabilities".[12]

Within ID populations (i.e., not specific to autistic people with ID), the general understanding is that people with mild ID, and especially mild ID + communication problems, have a higher risk than the general population, and that people with severe or profound ID have a lower risk than the general population. I've not yet seen a paper that addresses for the Excess mortality of poorly treated depression (which is very common in people with mild ID, and which might explain all/most/some of the higher risk). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There are layers in this, where those with ID may still have suicidal attempts, but are less likely to complete suicide - and I think perhaps some more nuance would be helpful here. CFCF (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Who said that autistic people with intellectual disability have a higher suicide risk than autistic people without intellectual disability? LogicalLens (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean "who said"? Do you contest that the current source used in the article supports that statement? Then read it and say so. Just throwing out "Who said" - without any context is not helpful, and no one is obliged to read the sources for you. CFCF (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This was an answer to @WhatamIdoing who said: "I'm not sure that autistic people with Intellectual disability are more likely to kill themselves.", which confused me. Then it turned out that the statement that those with intellectual disability have a higher risk refers to epilepsy risk, not to suicide risk. LogicalLens (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The suicide risk is higher in autistics both with and without LD than in the general population. The risk is trebled in those with LD and x9 for those without (see hirvikoski, 2018) 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:4D0D:FE5A:C7C3:5770 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help:

• Autism#Mental health, self-injury, and suicide says "The suicide risk is higher for autistic people who are not cisgender males and do not have intellectual disabilities." This is cited to PMID 36922899 and PMID 39197224.
• Autism#Co-occurring conditions says "The risk is higher for older autistic people and those with intellectual disability." This is cited to PMID 19454962.

However, the latter is about the risk of epilepsy, not the risk of suicide or self-harming behaviors. These sentences are not self-contradictory, as I originally thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Autism can be cured through MNT technology

This is not the place to explore science fiction. GMGtalk 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone claiming that autism cannot be cured is only basing their opinion on the primitive technology available at the dawn of the 21st century. But if MNT (Molecular Nanotechnology) becomes available, it will clearly be possible to introduce assemblers into people's brains to directly manipulate the brain — and by extension, people’s thoughts — at the molecular or even atomic scale. Such a capability does not violate the laws of physics and would inevitably make it possible to transform autistic brains into neurotypical ones, effectively eradicating this disability from the human population. It is evident that this is a curable condition. Syd Lonreiro (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP: CrystalBall; WP:EDITXY. kencf0618 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

Under the section "Co-occurring conditions," specifically in the fourth last line, it might be helpful to do a hyperlink to the "Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS)" article to clarify the syndrome. Thank you. Keinlied (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

"Pre-diagnosis" subsection overlaps with general signs

The section currently contains subsections "In the social domain" and "Restricted, repetitive behaviors". I created them by converting a preexisting bullet-point list into prose. I did it because I felt Wikipedia:BOLD, but if I recall correctly, this had unbeknownst to me been suggested or requested over here. Anyway, in retrospect, I think it overlaps somewhat with the rest of "Signs and characteristics". Really, this seems to be because these are merely the manifestations of autism in early childhood; this seems to only logically connect to "Pre-diagnosis" through the implicit assumption that autism is diagnosed sometime close to the end of early childhood, which is not an universal truth.

I believe it would be better to either scrap this part of the article entirely and salvage useful parts from it, or that it could be merged into the general subsections for characteristics of autism, explaining chronologically how manifestations of the characteristics across the lifespan. I do however not believe that it is reasonable to have a subsection with childhood characteristics with the title "Pre-diagnosis"; this ought to be changed at least in some manner. BlockArranger (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I merged the sections. LogicalLens (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I did some more work, in the form that I moved some stuff from pre-diagnosis to the very beginning of the main section, because the text is general and not merely limited to "Pre-diagnosis". I think it's good to have a general introduction there. BlockArranger (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly think the entire framing of pre-diagnosis is quite misleading. It implies that there is a qualitative difference in symptoms between the period prior to diagnosis and the period after. Even in high income settings (i.e. the developed world) autism diagnosis may be missed or overlooked, while in most of the world many people lack resources for formal diagnosis. It’s not as if they are pre-diagnosed, but rather undiagnosed. I would prefer ”early symptoms”, which would also help frame the section better. CFCF (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That subsection has been removed and integrated into the respective subsections for the social and repetitive behavior domains. LogicalLens (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's deal with non-MEDRS claims and sources

Since April, we have prominently displayed a banner pointing out inadequacies in the sourcing of medical claims made in this article. Yet, there seems to be very little going on in that regard. Now that the RfC is over, I think it would be a good idea to focus our efforts towards finding sources, changing claims to conform to what is stated in the sources, and possibly removing some claims which are not crucial. I strongly believe that verifiability is very important, and I do not think this article should aim to be at the forefront of displaying fringe claims, which they seem to be if they cannot be supported by WP:MEDRS compliant sources. BlockArranger (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem centres around autism not being a purely medical subject - unlike malaria - it has educational, social, sociological and identity aspects. All of these aspects have bona fide supporting scientific and academic sources, that are neither medical nor 'fringe'. To treat the subject of autism as if it were malaria is just plain wrong.I am a former academic biomedical researcher who is also autistic. Urselius (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Urselius Yes, I agree that autism is not malaria. However, there are several claims which have been marked as needed reliable medical sources. Either these tags are wrong as well as the banner on top of the article, or we need to do something about it. In case these tags exist for wrong reasons, we should remove them, if I am not mistaken. I may have been a bit extreme in calling them "fringe", but I still think that if we make medical claims (which is what is stated in the banner), we should stick to what can be sourced without issue from compliant sources. Again, I do not think our purpose is to be at the forefront of medical claims yet having to be validated in the medical literature. However, even I am not a big fan of medical models of psychiatry, but this is the current reality and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia as stated in the guidelines. BlockArranger (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it only the four instances with the tags, or are there more cases of non-MEDRS sources? LogicalLens (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There are more cases, those tags are probably only placed on those sources where the source article is obviously not a proper source. There are many more instances of primary sources being used to support statements that require MEDRS.

Further, the characterization by Urselius is unfortunately not only weak, but entirely false. There are many social and sociological aspects that come into play in malaria. I will not go into them all, but rest assured that malaria transmission and resultant outcomes (including morbidity and mortality) very much depend on social factors. The fact that most other fevers remain underdiagnosed in sub-Saharan Africa because they are thought to be malaria is most certainly a social phenomenon.

So, the issue has very little to do with autism in any sense being unique here - rather the issue arises precisely because it is seen to be unique when it isn't - meaning people think it is okay to use sub-standard sourcing when it is not. There is ample information on Wikipiedia about what constitutes medical information, and it should be very simple to abide by it if we just drop the false idea that autism is unique in this regard.

If we want to get rid of the banner we will need to go through each section and ensure that it accurately abides by MEDRS, and then policy heavily against those that introduce primary studies to support new statements. CFCF (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

While it is always a good idea to check up on sources in a Wikipedia article, I think it would make sense to tackle the problems which have already been identified, instead of letting them be while we look for additional problematic citations. Now that these problems have been identified, I think we should first discuss what is wrong about them and what good next steps we could find. BlockArranger (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I list the quotes here as numbered for ease of discussion regarding them:

1. The spectrum model should not be understood as a continuum running from mild to severe, but instead means that autism can present very differently in each person,[other citation] with support needs depending on context and changing over time.^{[medical citation needed]}
2. Pathological demand avoidance can occur. People with this set of autistic characteristics are more likely to refuse to do what is asked or expected of them, even to activities they enjoy.^{[medical citation needed]}
3. Because natural selection favors reproduction over health and longevity, the lack of this impetus to adapt to certain harmful circumstances creates a tendency for genes in descendant populations to over-express themselves, which may contribute to mental conditions and autoimmune diseases, for example.^{[medical citation needed]}
4. In the 1920s, Grunya Sukhareva adopted the term to describe subjects who are autistic in the modern sense.^{[citation needed]}

I want to immediately point out the issue of number four seeming like original research, as Sukhareva did in fact not have access to the modern conceptualization of autism, and thus to list this as a fact it would instead need to be formulated as research having found that the condition she described in the way she described it was very similar to modern ASD. BlockArranger (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

5) They may make infrequent eye contact, even when called by name, or avoid it altogether. This is because they find it uncomfortable, distracting, or disturbing, and may also be due to the high amount of sensory input received when making eye contact. LogicalLens (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

In this case, do we actually need the hypothesized reason for avoidance of eye contact at all? We could include it if we state that it is a hypothesis, but then notability would have to be established through a secondary source. If such a source cannot be found, I suggest deleting this claim entirely. BlockArranger (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I have now added a citation to number one, but it could be improved: the original source does not explicitly say that this is what the spectrum model means, although it is referring to the dimensional severity ratings. Also, it does not say that the changes necessarily happen, but that they "may" occur. Anyway, moving on, we need to discuss pathological demand avoidance (PDA). It seems to me that the consensus regarding it is a bit lacking, and perhaps we should reformulate this claim a bit, perhaps even moving it over to See also until it is more recognized. BlockArranger (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of discussion surrounding it, I have gone the WP:BOLD route by removing the unsourced PDA claim from the list. I strongly believe that PDA should be thoroughly discussed if it is to be included once more. BlockArranger (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the only feasible way to fix these issues. I've done a bit of work today to clean up some non-compliant sources - and have done my best to replace them with other sources. However, if it takes an inordinate amount of time to fix, or there just aren't any sources that are up to snuff, those sections should be cut. CFCF (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree; I think that this article is very good even without some of its contents. Besides, I think that if something is of great importance to include, there should be good sources available. Thank you for your efforts, BTW! BlockArranger (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This article[13] that you recently removed[14] is a secondary source because it does not present original empirical data but analyzes ethical arguments. The 'survey' in the title is confusing because it is an overview, not what is most often meant by the word. On the other hand, it can also be argued that this paper is outdated and that views have evolved since its publication. LogicalLens (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That was an oversight, but as you point out, it should probably be removed anyway. The problem is that so many primary sources are cited in this article that it is very time-consuming to go through them all. CFCF (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need medical citations for the following?

People in the autistic community have expressed support for the neurodiversity perspective's opposition to seeking a cure.^{[medical citation needed]}

I feel like this is just a social statement, if I am not mistaken. BlockArranger (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is a social claim, and the next sentence even has an NHS page as a source for that. LogicalLens (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it, and changed the sentence order as explained in my edit summary. BlockArranger (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Trying to verify

@CFCF, I was curious so I read over Anderson-Chavarria (2020), and I have a question if you don't mind. I worked through a few times, but I didn't see where it verifies the following? ... it is possible that increasing demands for flexibility and social interaction in education, or one's personal and professional life, may cause individuals to exhibit pronounced difficulties that would not have led to diagnosis in a different setting. Sorry for bugging you further, and thanks for working on the article in any case. Remsense 🌈 论 19:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

On page 1331 it discusses at the very least social demands and workplace demands, I think in a quite eloquent way, refencing earlier work. It probably does not hold for education, but I know there is literature on that. I will get back. CFCF (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. CFCF (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Removing ABA from lead

Can we remove ABA from the lead? I don't want somebody reading the lead and taking away that ABA is okay. If it is in the lead can there be a paragraph about how bad it is?[15] Anthony2106 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

While you do not claim that the article "recommends" ABA, I suggest taking a look at a recent discussion as well: Talk:Autism/Archive 12#ABA therapy can be dangerous. Also, you can search the archives for mentions of ABA. Wikipedia shall reflect reality, and ABA is bot real and de facto in use, while giving one of five paragraphs in the lead specifically to criticism of ABA would give it undue weight. Further down in the article, there is already information about the criticism of ABA. You can also go directly to the Applied behavior analysis and see if you can improve it, while being respectful; thus, you should perhaps also check out its Talk page. You should also check out Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as that is not something we do on Wikipedia. BlockArranger (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)