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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on my previous thread here, I would like to make a more specific proposal. That is, I propose that we should finally get the Management of autism article cleaned up so that its WP:PROSE would be at least moderately good and based on recent enough WP:MEDRS for sufficient WP:V. Furthermore, we have had issues in regards to WP:SYNC, as I have pointed out previously. An approach I suggest is to make this work long-term by using Template:Excerpt for this purpose. An example I made can be found at User:BlockArranger/sandbox1. Obviously, its quality is clearly rather insufficient, but I think that if we get all the information found in Autism § Management moved to Management of Autism and then combine it with whatever we think should be saved of the content that is already there, we could make this work well. I do not think that section excerpts would be all too bad either, as they are anyhow from the same article and if the Management article were good enough, the sections would make sense next to each other. BlockArranger (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I don't like the excerpt approach, but I think that improving Management of autism would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Please see the following list of arguments, copied from Template:Excerpt (see that page's history for attribution):

The use of {{Excerpt}} has the following advantages:

• Reduces maintenance by avoiding duplicate content that must be updated multiple times
• Improves content quality by encouraging editors to merge related content, rather than having multiple versions in various stages of development (see #Replacing summary section with excerpt of child article)
• Fosters collaboration by channeling contributors into one place, rather than working in parallel
• Promotes rapid development of articles, especially those written in summary style

It also has the following disadvantages:

• Impediment to editing as you have to go to the sub article to make changes to the main article (though excerpts include a hatnote with an [edit] button to edit the excerpted article in one click)
• Reduces accuracy as an excerpt of one article is not always a perfect fit into a new article (but see #Refinement using inclusion control)
• Decreases visibility as changes to the sub article will not appear on the watchlist of editors of the main article (see phab:T55525)
• Risk of linkrot as pages or sections are blanked, moved, or deleted; this may result in the appearance of § error messages on the page (but see § Mitigating side effects of unexpected source file changes above; additionally, broken excerpts are automatically tracked at Category:Articles with broken excerpts and regularly fixed).

Because you did not provide any reasons why you "don't like the excerpt approach", I will assume that you may share opinion with those who have made the listed arguments against excerpts. I list them in the same order as above:

• It is really not very difficult to figure out where to actually put new content. In fact, using excerpts would help us avoid the phenomenon where users gradually dump facts into an article until it is a mess (see our "Society and culture" section for example)
• This is not obviously an issue in the case of Management of autism; for example, its more improved lead will likely be a sensible way to start a section.
• This is actually a valid concern, but once this is implemented, anyone who has previously been interested in editing Management of autism will subsequently get notified of new edits to that specific article.
• This is a valid concern but can be mitigated as describe above, especially since this is a popular article with many interested Wikipedians.

Now, for the advantages that I agree with:

• Yes, and this is needed because, in contrast to what I state above, we apparently do not have sufficient editor resources to maintain the set of autism-related articles in Wikipedia. Currently, Autism is the only one I can think of that is starting to look good. Using excerpts would result in at least the leads of the subtopic articles being good.
• This would be useful now that we do not have enough contribution to autism coverage.
• Obviously.
• I think that the subsections are completely or almost completely supposed to be written in summary style because each subtopic is itself large and they do indeed have big volumes of prose each.

BlockArranger (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Here's my reason: I have significant experience with labeled section transclusion, and I find that the claimed advantages are overblown and the disadvantages are bigger than they look at first glance. For example, "It is really not very difficult" – for you. Most ordinary editors have made fewer than 10 edits, and they find all forms of complex markup difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

First of all, do you think the Template:Excerpt might be easier considering that it is supported by VisualEditor and provides the user with an edit button? Second of all, how else would you like to address my concerns regarding our coverage of Autism beyond this article? BlockArranger (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

1. Yes, the template is somewhat easier, but it is not easier enough to change my answer.
2. I think that Management of autism should be re-written first, and once that's done, I think a good summary should be custom-written for this article. I think the first step in that process should be identifying a handful of core sources (e.g., three to five books), which should be chosen for being high-quality sources about managing autism. Specifically, I think the way to find these sources should be searching for scholarly books with keywords like management of autism and not with keywords like self-advocate neurodiversity ABA torture. The latter is an example of a POV that draws a source (i.e., searching for sources that support the editor's personal POV, rather than finding high-quality sources and following the high-quality sources). I will post a list of promising-looking sources at Talk:Management of autism.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I agree with your opinion on how we should find information. Well then, I would like to notify other potentially interested users who have been at this before in other articles such as Conditions comorbid to autism: @LogicalLens @CFCF BlockArranger (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I want to add the following:

1. Isn't it so some extent better that we do not make it trivial to change the summary, which new users should anyhow not be doing? Them coming to Wikipedia and adding junk to lead and summary sections is undesirable and part of why this article ended up the way it is. Currently, "Society and culture" is in such a rough shape that it seems like "anything goes" for what is seemingly acceptable to include there. For example, it goes into overly specific detail regarding specific implications of diagnosis in regards to driving and military service.
2. See my first response.

BlockArranger (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

1. No, we should not put barriers up to discourage new editors from doing their best to help. Sometimes an "undesirable" edit is what alerts experienced editors to the need for an update.
2. I've posted a list of possible sources at Talk:Management of autism#Possible sources.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

1. I suggest first cleaning up the management article, then adding information that is included in this article but is lacking in the management article to the management article and then adding information to this article that is missing here but present in the other article. As we have enough to do, I do not view it as the right choice to rewrite the section here as a new summary.
2. We do not necessarily need to create barriers for new editors to prevent bad edits from entering articles. Instead, we should be bolder in reverting undesirable edits. We should have reverted the addition of the content on discrimination in military.

LogicalLens (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing

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

While the content must be the same as that in the source cited, the precise vocabulary can differ. It is not unusual for journal articles to say "differences in social communication and interaction" and to still cite the DSM. Several academic journals focused specifically on autism recommend or even require anti-ableist language.[1][2][3][4] The prominence of the neurodiversity approach is increasing, and @Urselius is right that the DSM is outdated and lags behind research. It is also heavily influenced by political considerations, as service and support provision often depends on a disorder framing.

Because of the factual correctness, there is no violation of WP:INTEGRITY, but we could cite multiple sources, some of which use neurodiversity-affirming language. A good option is the Australian Guidelines for autism[5]. Using only one source (and then a somewhat outdated one) would anyway be insufficient for a topic like autism. WP:SUFFER says: "Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." This requires us to take the effects of word choices more into account here, and terms that depict autistic features as negative symptoms and objects of study separate from an individual's personality have a negative impact on many autistic people.

The concrete word choices

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

1. "differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction": This is correct as it both includes difficulties (which is supported by the DSM-5) and other social characteristics that are not by themselves difficulties (which is supported by more recent sources on the Double Empathy Problem that shows that not all social differences in autism are difficulties[6][7]).
2. "need or strong preference for predictability and routine": This is correct. Last year, I already argued that writing "preference" alone has the disadvantage that it can be perceived as saying that it is just a wish that can be done without (which is what @Saraanhe is arguing), especially without context that can only be detailed in the specific sub-section. The solution was to include "need" as well and to make "preference" more precise by adding "strong". In my view, this is an adequate phrasing.
3. "sensory processing differences": Here, we could write "higher or lower sensitivity", which would describe the sensory characteristics neutrally. The reason we chose "differences" instead was because these differences also include features like sensory craving.
4. "focused interests": This is the aspect with the broadest support for acceptance. Even many who still view the social features of autism negatively often recognize that intense, focused interests are a part of the autistic individual’s personality and can even have benefits. Some have switched to "special interests", which is also the title of the corresponding Wikipedia article. Many do not agree with this, as it somewhat others autistic people by describing their interests as "special". Another option would be "intense interests".
5. "repetitive behaviors": This is pathologizing, as the word "repetitive" has a negative connotation: it sounds like repeating a boring task, while the benefits and purposes of stimming are not mentioned. We could add "self-regulatory" before it or "including stimming" after it.

To @Saraanhe specifically

• The neurodiversity paradigm is more widespread for autism than for ADHD,[8] therefore it is appropriate to give it more weight here than in the article on ADHD. Some change would be adequate there too, but not to the same extent, and I haven’t yet had the time to do it.
• The neurodiversity approach does not deny disability, and we could make that clearer in the article, as it seems to frequently lead to misunderstandings. It is not about saying autistic people do not have problems in their lives or have less severe problems than the medical model proposes. It is about ascribing these problems to a different source, i.e. largely the environment instead of the individual.[9][10]
• Saying the use of medical language is appropriate because autism "is a medical condition" is not a good argument: Using this kind of language is only appropriate if something is a medical condition and that is precisely the thing that is under debate.
• Neurodiversity proponents argue that it is ableist not to include autistic people with complex support needs under the neurodiversity umbrella because of the assumption that requiring more care and support is equal to suffering.[11] Shannon des Roches Rosa, the mother of an autistic person with 24/7 support needs, is a prominent supporter of the neurodiversity paradigm.[12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Johnjbarton, Awais Aftab, the author of the NYT article you cited, has had an interview with a neurodiversity proponent in which he is sympathetic to the concept:[13] Most of the diagnosis he writes about in the NYT are true disorders, which even neurodiversity advocates do not deny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The usual thing to do in such situations is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not have the time to write multiple pages of text to take apart your arguments around deafness and ASAN one-by-one; they contain many inaccuracies, inadequate comparisons, ad hominem attacks, and anachronistic judgements that measure people’s actions of the past by today’s standards. As for the medical websites you referred to, there are other pages like this by the British NHS that does not pathologize autism:[15] LogicalLens (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

As a simple example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social skills and communication

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

Restricted and repetitive...

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As multiple editors seem to get this wrong: Depathologising autism is not about denying disability (which is distinguished from disorder) or saying “Autism is not that bad because many autistic people function and have low support needs”. That gets the point entirely wrong and leads to the assumption that the talk about people with “social differences” must be about people who do not meet the diagnostic threshold or who do so only by a small margin. The neurodiversity argument is: A set of social tendencies and behaviors is defined as normal, demanded by society, which is then repeated so often that people come to believe this is just natural or follows from common sense. Then, people look at autistic people who do not have these features and say it is objectively observable that these people are “impaired” as autistic people are not able to do what they think humans must be able to do. This paper explains the reification problem:[16] I understand that you think calling something a disorder does not imply that the thing under debate should be “cured”, but this is precisely the reason why people call it a “disorder”. If something is not bad and does not deed correction, it is not a disorder. LogicalLens (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

This is a source that we can cite: The Australian National Guideline[17] says: “Autism affects the way a person understands and interacts with other people and the world around them. From a diagnostic perspective, the term Autism Spectrum Disorder (herein referred to as autism) is the collective diagnostic term for a group of neurodevelopmental conditions characterised primarily by differences in social-communication skills, and the presence of repetitive behaviours, intense or focussed interests and/or sensory differences (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).” This cites the DSM and uses an even more neurodiversity-affirming definition as it says just “differences” in the social domain. This source even shows that one can write “neurodevelopmental condition” in a high-level source and still cite the DSM. But because the discussion around “neurodevelopmental disorder” vs. “neurodevelopmental condition” cooled down after we wrote “classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder”, I am not interested in re-opening this debate (unless many other editors want it).

Another source: This NHS page describes autism in less negative terms:[18]. There is another NHS page that recommends non-pathologising language:[19] Additionally, the journal guidelines I cited above clearly indicate how the field has changed:[20][21][22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pediatric OCD is probably a neurodevelopmental disorder.[23] Intellectual disability is a neurodevelopmental disorder.[24][25] Colic is neuro and developmental, but we decline to call it a disorder.[26] Fibromyalgia is neuro and disorder, but probably not developmental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-One group thinks autism is a normal human variation.

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

-One group thinks autism is a personal identity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NHS Scotland page for autism that appears first in a search engine is this one.[27] Health authority websites are not usually cited in academia but are accepted sources for Wikipedia, and they serve as models for how to write for the general public, whereas academic papers are directed towards a specific audience.

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

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

It is not wrong to say that autistic people do not have certain behaviours or skills other people have (as long as other features of autism are mentioned as well), but the problem is calling this an “impairment” as that word implies a value judgement that the autistic person would and should “normally” be like other people and is only autistic as a deviation from that “norm”. See also these high-quality sources on the double empathy problem:[28][29]

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

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

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

About the problem is calling this an “impairment”:

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

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

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

There are characteristics for which neurodiversity supporters accept interventions, including the inability to communicate at all, as seen in non-speaking autistic people who cannot even use other means of communication.[30]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanation of this guideline[31] says: ”3. Neurodiversity perspective: A neurodiversity perspective acknowledges that people experience and interact with the world in different ways. Inherent in this view is that there is no one ‘normal’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and therefore differences in behaviours should not be seen as ‘deficits’. Adopting a neurodiversity-affirming approach to practice in no way diminishes acknowledgement of the disability experienced by many autistic people, including those with co-occurring intellectual disabilities and/or complex communication needs. Rather, a neurodiversity-affirming approach values and respects each person for who they are and focuses on identifying and addressing their support needs.” So it is not that they are being vague, but they have actually changed their view of autism.

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

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

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

I agree with the quoted material in that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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