Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 07:25, 23 March 2015 editZhanzhao (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,619 edits →Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:55, 19 January 2025 edit undoSteven Crossin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors39,905 edits →Jehovah's Witnesses: reply, open, will review in 24hrs
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}}
	<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	<!--{{Backlog}}-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}		|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
	|maxarchivesize = 200K		|maxarchivesize = 200K
	|counter = 110		|counter = 252
	|minthreadsleft = 1		|minthreadsleft = 1
	|minthreadstoarchive = 1		|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|algo = old(48h)		|algo = old(72h)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{clear|left}}
	]
	]
	]
	]
	{{Noindex}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. -->
			__TOC__
	=Current disputes=
			{{clear}}
			=Current disputes=
	== Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections" ==
	{{DR case status|open}}<!-- ] 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1426440657}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
	{{drn filing editor|Mackensen|17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			== Autism ==
			{{DRN archive top|The mediation has been moved to ]. ]}}
			{{DR case status|hold}}
			{{drn filing editor|Oolong|15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 30:		Line 27:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections"}}		* {{pagelinks|Autism}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|Mackensen}}		* {{User|Oolong}}
	* {{User| Centpacrr}}		* {{User|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}
	* {{User| Tim Zukas}}		* {{User|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan}}
			* {{User|HarmonyA8}}
			* {{User|TempusTacet}}
			* {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
			* {{User|FactOrOpinion}}
			* {{User|2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0}}
			* {{User|GreenMeansGo}}
			* {{User|Markworthen}}
			* {{User|Urselius}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			{{collapsetop|See ]. ] (]) 17:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.
			On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.
	Tim Zukas has challenged the veracity of the article and claims that it is full of mistakes. He has repeatedly reverted to his preferred version, which also makes numerous stylistic changes. It's difficult to read through these diffs. He adds no sources of his own, has added unsourced content, and sometimes removes sources. I and another editor have asked him to make more incremental edits, flagging inaccurate information, but he has not done so. Zukas also sometimes edits from an IP and not his regular account; I do not think this is deliberate but it has aggravated the situation.
			Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do ''within'' medicine, or ''outside'' of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about ''whether'' something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.
	This has been discussed extensively on the talk page but we seem to be talking past each other.
			A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
	I'd like someone not involved to look over the dispute and give their opinion on it. I'm getting worn out arguing. This article isn't highly-trafficked and some fresh perspective would be helpful.
			]
	==== Summary of dispute by Centpacrr ====
			]
			]
			]
			]]
			Related: ]
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
	Both Mackensen (who created the article last summer) and I have been repeatedly restoring massive deletions of existing detailed, well sourced material and citations that had been originally developed and contributed by us after the material has been repeatedly deleted without explanation by user Tim Zukas under both his registered user account and multiple sockpuppet IP addresses. (All of the IPs geolocate to Oakland, CA, the Berkeley Public Library, and the University of California (Berkeley) of which Zukas is listed as a small financial contributor to the ].) This follows a pattern which Zukas has used to make similar disruptive edits to many other transportation related articles such as ] and ] using multiple IPs, and other articles using his registered account. In all cases (including the "Overland Limited" article), the deletions made by this user have violated WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS. This user has a long demonstrated history over a period of several years of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which is revealed by multiple warnings and complaints posted by many other editors in his talk page. Multiple requests made of him in talk pages of this and other articles that he cooperate with his fellow editors in resolving such issues are virtually always ignored. ] (]) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
			There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the ''route'' to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.
	:As user "Zukas" has chosen to ignore this process and once again massively altered the article without explanation, I have decided to delete all the images, new text, references, sources and citations that I have added over the past several weeks and revert it to the status quo ante rather than waste anymore of my time dealing with a blindly disruptive editor who has no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community. ] (]) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
			====Summary of dispute by involved contributors====
	::The primary issue raised by both Mackensen (who opened this discussion) and myself is that despite repeated requests, user "Zukas" (both under his registered account and anon IP's) both refuses to specify what he claims are "errors", and refuses to provide or cite any sources -- reliable, verifiable, published, or otherwise -- to support any of the changes he makes. This is a well established pattern with this user (i.e. unexplained mass deletions of material, references, and citations and replacing it with new material ''without'' any references or citations) dating back to at least 2010 which is revealed both in postings on his talk page by other editors of similar complaints and warnings, and his activities in articles such as ] and ] to which he has made similar massive edits using only multiple IP sockpuppets without providing any support therefore and leading to those pages having to be protected multiple times to prevent his continued disruptive editing of them. ] (]) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	==== Summary of dispute by Tim Zukas ====		;Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.
	"detailed, well sourced material"
			This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders).
	But nonetheless wrong. Hard to tell whether to blame the source or his misreading of it; his discussion of the 1905 move to the Milwaukee Road is plainly a misreading of Beebe, who seems to have reported the matter carefully.
			This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see ].
			Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.
	"no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community"
			In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.
	I remove errors and he replaces them, saying I haven't explained. Naturally I figure the guy adding the errors is the one who's supposed to explain; anyone who looks the discussion over can see how much "explaining" he has done.
			While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.
	The article's first paragraph is an example. In his version the Overland ran SF Bay Area to Omaha until 1962. Looking at the timetables, we see that in reality the Overland quit running east of Ogden/Green River in 1956; none of its cars continued east to Omaha after that. UP train 27/28 that confused him wasn't the Overland (it had the same number, but nothing else) and ran Laramie-Omaha until 1967-68. Too much detail to go in the article's first paragraph, so it appears later. ] (]) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Yes, as ] says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.
			There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. ] (]) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
			::My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). ] (]) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			;Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			;Summary of dispute by TempusTacet
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			;Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{tl|MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). ] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the ] section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the ] process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use ] if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph.
			:(I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) ] (]) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			;Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by ] below, as well as ], and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the ''Zeroeth statements by editors'' section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
			:Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. ] (]) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			;Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0
			<div style="font-size:smaller"> (Pardon. My mobile IP keeps changing). I completely agree to the viewpoints supported by user @Oolong. I also want the people to know that there is no such division between "pathological symptom" and "non-pathological symptom". They are same features of a communication and socialization "disorder" where more than one neurotype is involved. It is the same, impairing symptom that can be credited to either neurotype, but unfortunately attributed to the cognitive minority solely. Although the article covers some aspects of neurodiversity perspective, still its language is too much negative and pathological, which isn't very helpful or uplifting for Autistic individuals. Too much importance given in biological causes and "epidemiology", while the more useful sress should have been on accommodation, accessibility, and AAC (Alternative Augmentative Communication). Trying to conceal the harmful effects of ABA therapies is misleading and un-encyclopedic. ] (]) 18:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) </div>
			:@] was this your IP? You don't need to say this on your user page or anything, but just for this conversation it might be good to know because you got involved with the IP, not unless that's personal info and you don't gotta respond idk. ] (]) 11:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			{{hat|Comment in your own section. ] (]) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			''Note: Editor is "]" and will not be participating.'' --] (]) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
	=== Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections" discussion ===		=== Autism discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	'''Volunteer's note:''' Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. All parties have now been properly notified, and there appears to be sufficient discussion, so we're waiting for a volunteer to take the case. Please note that if a volunteer does take the case that only content, not conduct, will be discussed; if you wish to deal with conduct matters you need to file at ]. Regards, ] (]) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Unless there are any objections I'd be happy to serve as that volunteer. -] (]) 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
	**In fact, I'll proceed under the expectation that there will be no objections. -] (]) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)
	'''Open for Discussion''' - I am a DRN volunteer moderator and I'll start things out by thanking the three of you for agreeing to engage in a moderated discussion. Clear communication is essential at Misplaced Pages and I ask you all to check in on the discussion regularly in order to ensure its success. With a little luck we should be able to resolve this relatively quickly. Please note that I am not an administrator and that this is not a formal or binding discussion. The hope is that we can arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. I've reviewed the case materials and your opening statements and I would first echo TransporterMan's note regarding the function of DRN. We will only be addressing ''content'' issues in this discussion. To that end I'd ask that all participants avoid personally-directed comments as much as possible.
			I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on ] and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;
			*Be ]. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
			*Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a ] is likely to ignore it.
			*Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
			*Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
			*Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.
			In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the ] of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).
	Let us begin with the specific content claims at the heart of the dispute. Tim Zukas has made it clear that he believes there are numerous errors in the article. Mackensen and Centpacrr seem to be saying that the claims in the article are generally supported by appropriate sources. I suggest that we work on the facts before moving on to aesthetic issues like the length of the lede. We will need concrete claims to work with and I can already see a number of them have been brought up here or on the article talk page, but it seems that some of the disagreements over the claims have been settled so there's no need for us to re-examine these. My first question I direct to Tim Zukas: What are the specific claims that you believe still contain errors? If you could briefly list them then we'll be able to go through them one by one to assess whether they are supported by any of the sources. -] (]) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
			I don't yet know whether ] is the right forum to resolve disputes about ], but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions.
	:Pinging @{{u|Mackensen}}, @{{u|Centpacrr}}, and {{ping|Tim Zukas}} I probably should have pinged you all yesterday to notify you that this dispute resolution has been opened. I apologize for that. Tim Zukas, when you get a free moment please try to address the question I posed in my last post. We need to establish the scope of the problem before we can tackle the individual claims.
			] (]) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:It's essential that we work together to settle this issue collaboratively. Nothing good will come from editing back and forth in articlespace while this discussion is still ongoing. I ask all parties to keep the bigger picture in mind. Of course it's annoying to have the article sitting in a state that doesn't reflect the best version, but remember that no version of an article is ever considered the final version. The contains snapshots of every version of the article that has existed previously so we will always be able to restore any former version after we have come to agree on the content. As I see it the substantive issues are relatively non-complex and if we work through the DRN process together we should be able to resolve the content concerns relatively quickly and painlessly. With this in mind I ask that all participants please resist the temptation to edit the article while this discussion is ongoing even if you believe the edit is an improvement. -] (]) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
	::#Starting with the first paragraph-- their version says "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran from 1887 until 1963." Dunno what their books say, but UP timetables show that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955-56. No train called "Overland" ran east of Ogden/Green River after 1956.
			:I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
	::#Moving down to History, their version says "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs. Lucius Beebe contends ..."<br/>Lucius Beebe didn't contend anything-- he wrote that the train used the Milwaukee for an unknown length of time starting in 1905, and he speculated that perhaps UP was pressuring CNW, but he made clear the latter was only a guess based on no info.
			:Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
	::#Continuing in History, their version is "The train was then called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..." Think it was still "San Francisco Overland" on UP-- I'll check. I guess they mean year-round operation ended in July 1962; far as anyone knows the train was daily in summer 1962, around Christmas 1962, and in summer 1963.
			:I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is (published in the ) and ], posted here and . You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. ] (]) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::#In the Name section, their version is "The Union Pacific officially dropped "Limited" from the name in 1947. Other names used included the San Francisco Overland and San Francisco Overland Limited." My version is "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when "Limited" was dropped" {by UP and SP and CNW, that is]. Assuming my version is correct (dunno if they think it isn't), any reason to like theirs better?
	::#Equipment section-- they say "In 1941–42 the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars..." What they meant to say was "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers along with its heavyweight cars." ] (]) 19:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC) <small>(NOTE: I've numbered the problematic lines so that we can have a point of reference in discussing them -] (]) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC))</small>
			;First statement by possible moderator (Autism)
	:::I'd consider it a gesture of good faith if Tim Zukas stopped removing the {{t1|Reflist}} template in his mass reverts. addresses far more than these two points. Now, to address these individual issues, the lede is written as a summary. In general, this article is about a train which for most of its life operated between Chicago and the Bay. The details described by Zukas are described in the "History" section. As I said on the talk page, and as he knows because he participated in that thread, ''no one thinks the train operated to Chicago after 1955''. I don't understand the complaint regarding Beebe's contention. He reported a fact, and then speculated on its meaning. Contend means "assert something as a position in an argument." ] ] 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			I asked for specific statements of how the ] should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read ]. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of ] describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the ] should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by ], and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by ]. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the ] standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary ].
	:::::Mackensen, ''all'' parties are requested to cease editing the article temporarily as a gesture of good faith. While there hasn't been a violation of 3RR, you and Tim Zukas are both close to edit warring and since this is clearly not a case of reverting obvious vandalism you are both putting yourselves in needless risk of trouble. -] (]) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Beebe states in his book ''Overland Limited'' at page 31: "In any event, by '''1907''' ''The Overland'' had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...".
	:::*The scion daily service (TR27/28) ended scheduled ''year-round'' operation in July, 1962 when the ICC approved its cancellation. Continued seasonal operation that summer and over the Christmas/New Year holidays through January 2, 1963 did not constitute a continuation of "year-round" daily operation, nor did any appearance of 27/28 in employee's (but ''not'' public) timetables for any portion of 1963. (Those 1963 "runs" were also annulled by daily train orders.)
	:::*Again user Zukas still does not provide ANY citation to any sources (author, title, date, publisher, page number(s), etc) to support his version. ] (]) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	====Point #1====
	{{cot|title=Resolved: Agreement on wording of the lead}}
	'''Regarding point #1''': It seems that we are in agreement about the facts (i.e. that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955). If so then it becomes a question of presentation. Tim Zukas seems to be saying that the lede is misleading because it doesn't make it clear that the description of the train as running "between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area" only pertains to the period 1887 through 1955. Mackensen points out that this information is contained in the history section and that the lead is supposed to function as a summary. Indeed according to the MOS, the lead paragraph should be ] in nature. So expanding the lead with further detailed explanation is not necessarily a good thing. Keeping in mind both clarity and concise summary, I wonder if it would be possible to say<br/><u>"The '''''Overland Limited''''', known as the '''''Overland Flyer''''' from 1887–96, and often shortened to '''''Overland''''', was a ] ] on the ]. It ran from 1887 until 1963.</u>"<br/>This would load the geographical description into the term "Overland Route" which is blue-linked and which can serve as a means for readers to discover the full history of the changes on the route over time. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -] (]) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the ]. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the ], and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised ]. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues.
	: It's customary to mention geographic locale with train routes. Our readers won't know what the Overland Route is. Saying that the Overland Limited was a train which ran between Chicago and the Bay Area is an accurate summary and I would prefer to mention the endpoints. How about this:
			I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as '''First statements by editors (Autism)''', because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic ] are met.
	<blockquote>The '''''Overland Limited''''', also known as the '''''Overland Flyer''''' and the '''''Overland''''', was a ] ] on the ]. For most of its history it ran between ] and the ]. It began in 1887 and ended in 1963. The ] handled the train west of Ogden, Utah. It used different routes east of Omaha including the ] (the "Milwaukee Road") and the ].</blockquote>
			After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the ], I will know better whether ] is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? ] (]) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	: This tightens up some of the language about the name and routes east of Omaha. ] ] 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Thanks @]! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years.
	::It might be a good idea to swap the "For most of its history..." sentence with the "It began in 1887 and ended in 1963" sentence. But it seems to me that this does clear up the issue. Thank you for the suggestion, Mackensen. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Would that work for you? -] (]) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			:@] has ] - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there?
			:I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... ] (]) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@]@] I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample):
			:::::: " Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. "
			::] (]) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			;First statements by editors (Autism)
	:::Better: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the ] between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area from 1887 until 1955. For most of its life it ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." ] (]) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			;1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same ====
			The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field.
	::::What do you think, Mackensen? Does anything problematic jump out? -] (]) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			Let's take the opening paragraph.
	:::::Well, I think it's a little confusing to say it was a train until 1955, but that a leg lasted until 1963. A truncated version of a train is still a train. ] ] 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{bq|Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a ''neurodevelopmental disorder'' characterized by ''repetitive, restricted, and inflexible'' patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; ''deficits'' in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that ''symptoms'' cause significant ''impairment'' in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context.}}
	::::::What about something like this: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the ] from 1887 until 1963. For most of its history it ran between ] and the ]. It ran on the ] from Chicago to Omaha, the ] from Omaha to Ogden, and the ] west of Ogden. Although operations between Chicago and the Bay Area were suspended in 1955, the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." -] (]) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted.
	:::::::"The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the ] from 1887 until 1963. Until 1955 it ran between ] and the ] over the ] from Chicago to Omaha, the ] from Omaha to Ogden, and the ] west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." ] (]) 23:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted:
	::::::::What do you think, Mackensen? -] (]) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{bq|The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental ''condition'' (or conditions) characterized by ''difficulties'' in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the ''presence'' of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common ''signs'' include unusual responses to sensory stimuli. }}
	::::::::: I can live with that. ] ] 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{Resolved mark}} OK I think this first point is resolved then. I'll collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -] (]) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
			Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. ''Condition'' is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of ''disorder'',<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/1362361315588200 |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/}}</ref> although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent ''deficits'' in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see ]); the ''difficulties'', however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term ''symptom'' to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics.
	====Point #2====
	{{cot|title=Resolved: Consensus to exclude Beebe's claim which conflicts with the January 1910 Official Guide.}}
	'''Regarding point #2''': I think what we need to see at this point is a copy of the claimed source (i.e. Beebe pg. 31). If you have the Beebe source, Centpacrr, would you mind making a copy available for us? -] (]) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (<small>Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -] (]) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small>)
			I recently simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that ] may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues.
	::The relevant text from Beebe's ''Overland Limited'' reads at page 30: "For a period lasting, as far as can be ascertained, from 1905 to 1907 it made its entry to Chicago as Trains Nos. 1 and 2, ''The Overland Limited'', of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway." and at page 31: "In any event, by 1907 ''The Overland'' had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...". ] (]) 00:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for ]
	:::Thank you Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, can you clarify your concern with this claim? I'm unsure whether you are contesting Beebe's alleged contention (i.e. "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure...") or whether you are contesting the phrase "used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs". -] (]) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			<small>Above entered by {{noping|Oolong}}</small>
	::::The Milwaukee Road still shows a train called the Overland Limited between Chicago and Omaha in its section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides. Beebe didn't claim to know when the train ran on the Milwaukee and didn't claim to know why it did; the article shouldn't say he claimed to know.] (]) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change.
	:::::OK so you are contesting the portion describing Beebe's contention as "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure". In fact I don't see that claim ''directly'' supported in the sections you quoted, Centpacrr. Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim? In the meanwhile Tim Zukas, could you give us a link to your source (i.e. the Milwaukee Road's section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides)? -] (]) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			''Classification'' goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both
	::::"Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim?" No.
			''diagnosis'' and ''signs and symptoms''.
			We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see ] for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals.
	::::Maybe the Guides are online somewhere, but I was just referring to the ones on paper. He has now found it in the 1910 Guide reprint, so that takes care of that?
			''Possible causes'' should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise ''epidemiology''.
	::::Truth to tell, there's no evidence that the "official" Overland Limited ever ran on the Milwaukee with some sort of secondary version on the CNW. Far as we know the Overland always ran on the CNW until 1955, and for some unknown number of years the Milwaukee ran a train called the Overland Limited that carried at least one car that continued west of Omaha on UP's Overland. No indication that the Overland west of Omaha was ever more Milwaukee Road cars than CNW cars. ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			''Management'' is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the ] entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around ''access'': access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on.
			''Prognosis'' probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten.
	:::::::The speculation as to why the Milwaukee Road provided service from 1905 to 1907 was not made by me. The citation I made to Beebe was in support of the period of time (two years starting in 1905) that the service was provided to the ''Overland Limited'' east of Council Bluffs by that road. ] (]) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::It looks like that claim (supported by Beebe p31) was originally added by Mackensen back in August 2014. It would still be courteous of Tim Zukas to provide contrary evidence, but per ] we will need to locate direct support for the claim now that it has been challenged. What are your thoughts on this, Mackensen? Would you object to altering the text covering Beebe's contention "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure"? -] (]) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::: There are two different issues here: when the Overland ran on the Milwaukee and why a second section also ran on the CNW. Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above. However, I've consulted the January 1910 Official Guide and Tim Zukas is correct. Whenever the Milwaukee Road stopped carrying the Overland it wasn't 1907. He is uncertain, and says so, about the reasons for running on the CNW: "Whether this was a result of an effort on the part of the Union Pacific to split its business between two connecting carriers or, as seems equally likely, a temporary feint to secure more advantageous relations with the North Western is not available to solution at this remove." ] ] 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			''History'' and especially ''society and culture'' probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article.
	:::::::::::"Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above."
	:::::::::::Anyone who thinks Beebe was emphatic about the dates only has to read the quote to learn better. ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: Beg pardon, but Beebe saying "by 1907 ''The Overland'' had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard" has a note of finality to it, does it not? In any event he appears to be wrong in this case. ] ] 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Well if Beebe's claims conflict with the January 1910 Official Guide and you both agree that the January 1910 Official Guide source is correct then I see two options. We could either A) leave the claim about Beebe's contention (which is supported by the Beebe source even if the substance of the contention is in fact incorrect) or we could B) come to a consensus to exclude Beebe's contention. If we leave the contention intact then we will need appropriate attribution so that it's not written in Misplaced Pages's voice, and we would need to present the contrary evidence. In fact it seems to be appropriately attributed currently as it says "Lucius Beebe contends...". If the contrary evidence (from the January 1910 Official Guide) was presented, would that solve the problem, Tim Zukas? Alternately, since Beebe appears to be wrong in this case what would you think of omitting this claim, Mackensen? Is it generally helpful to the article? -] (]) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: I think there's some confusion here. Beebe's "contention" (as I paraphrased) is about the ''reason'' for using the CNW. Beebe states as fact, not contention, that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907. He's wrong about that. The reason for the sections on both roads is unknown, hence Beebe published a guess and stated as much. I don't understand the continued conflation of two separate issues. ] ] 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Sorry, you're right. In that case the line "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs." which is written in Misplaced Pages's voice needs proper attribution to Beebe (e.g. "Beebe suggests that between 1905–1907... however entries in the 1909 and 1910 Official Guide show continued Overland Limited runs between Chicago and Omaha for a few years after.") or it should be removed by consensus. Any preference? -] (]) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough?
	A bunch of Official Guides to 1909 http://www.naotc.org/oldguides/index.html
	The Milw section of the January 1905 Guide shows a sleeper Chicago to SF-- nothing else goes thru on the Overland Ltd. ] (]) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)		--] (]) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	:OK. Given that there seems to be agreement over the fact that Beebe is wrong that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, should we retain Beebe's statement with attribution (e.g. "Beebe states that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, however other sources show...") or should we just remove/alter the statement? Do either of you have a preference? -] (]) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
	::Best plan is to quit saying the Overland Ltd switched from CNW to MILW in 1905. The article should mention the train that the Milwaukee Road called "Overland Limited" for a few years (that carried at least one car to/from California) but it shouldn't say the CNW's "Overland Ltd" wasn't the real "Overland Ltd" during that time. The Guides don't say that.
			;Second statement by moderator (Autism)
	::By the way: the 1/04 Guide also shows the Milwaukee's so-called Overland Ltd. ] (]) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
			My explanation about ] is my own interpretation, based on the principle to ]. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion.
			The unregistered editor is strongly advised to ] if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses.
	:::I'll leave this up to Mackensen as the article's OP to decide, but that is not what Beebe says which is the only specific source that anyone has cited so far. On another topic I have today just acquired a copy of Robert Wayner's massive 1972 tome ''Car Names, Numbers and Consists'' which details all the streamlined and light-weight intercity passenger cars and consists built and operated in the US from the 1930's to 1972 and also have on order (which I should receive by this weekend) Mike Schafer's 1997 ''Classic American Streamliners'' both of which may well be useful in resolving other issues. ] (]) 02:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Mackensen}} When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #4). -] (]) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	** I think it would be best to omit any mention of a pre-1955 handling of the train by the Milwaukee Road. ] ] 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	***{{Resolved mark}} OK, sounds good. I think this second point is now resolved. I'll again collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -] (]) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
			The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the ]. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the ].
	====Point #3====
	'''Regarding point #3''': If I understand properly it sounds like Tim Zukas and Centpacrr are essentially in agreement over the claim that July 1962 marked the end of ''year-round'' operations and that temporary runs may have been available at some times during the remainder of 1962 and possibly in 1963. Is that correct? If so then I think we've again reached the point of discussing the presentation of the claims. Perhaps it would work to just insert the phrase "Year-round" like so: "<u>Year-round daily operation ended on July 16, 1962.</u>" Would that be an acceptable compromise? -] (]) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement ].
	*Given Centpacrr's comment below, I reviewed an older version of the article and noticed that this suggested compromise has previously been part of the article. (i.e. in the line: "The death knell ... of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962"). Did you have an objection to that phrasing, Tim Zukas? -] (]) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			Are there any other questions?
	::::Beebe states at page 51 of ''The Overland Limited'': "The end of the proud ''Overland Limited'' as a daily train if not a through train to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at ''seasonal'' traffic peaks in June and December. The St. Louis cars became incorporated in ''The City of San Francisco'' and ''The Overland'' disappeared from ''The Official Railroad Guide'' save between June 22 and Labor Day and December 22 and January 2." ] (]) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I assume that this is what Centpacrr had paraphrased (in ) as "While the train continued to run 'seasonal' service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year,..." This seems to be supported by Beebe. Does the text sound reasonable, Tim Zukas? -] (]) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			:So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::That version is "While the train continued to run "seasonal" service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year, the last remnant of what had begun as The Overland Flyer in 1887 was over and did not appear in the public timetables of the UP or SP again after its last holiday run on January 2, 1963." Apparently none of us has a 1963 SP public timetable, so no one knows where he got that idea; the San Francisco Overland is still shown as a daily train under that name in the April 1963 and September 1963 SP employee timetables.
			:::The provision about responding within 48 hours is in ], which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? ] (]) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. ] (]) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:"The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Which doesn't mean it ran in April 1963-- far as we know Beebe was right that the Overland was to resume on 14 June 1963; the 10/62 Guide says that too. That's what Phelps was talking about when he said the Overland was annulled by train order day by day-- he meant before 14 June and after 2 Sept 1963. Far as anyone knows the train was daily during the summer. ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			:@] Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. ] (]) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::This line is in the main body of the article rather than the lead so summary prose is not needed. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem simply by adding more explanation (e.g. by adding Phelps' comments regarding day-by-day annulment. Would that work? -] (]) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			:@] Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding '''''"at least one user not being familiar"''''' (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side.
			:I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment ] where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic.
			:I know, '''some of my conversation was not nice''', including ] or me '''venting out the stresses''' on several place such as ] , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing ] . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means.
			:I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. ] (]) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available).
			:I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! ] (]) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Try a "hard refresh" ({{keypress|⌘|shift|R}} on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by ] with a link to the section you want to click the button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. ] (]) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{keypress|Ctrl|shift|R}} on everything else. ] (]) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Second statements by editors (Autism)
	I am not sure at this point what to make of the remainder of the paragraph that gets into details about when these smaller "runs" took place, but it seems that Tim Zukas has some source material in mind to bolster this. I notice that in {{Diff2|649750242|this edit}}, for example, Tim Zukas cites "Cooper" and "Signor". Does "Cooper" refer to Bruce Clement Cooper's "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes"? What does "Signor" refer to? If these details are contested then we will have to compare sources, but if there is agreement on the facts then we can talk about the presentational aspects. -] (]) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			;List of Perceived Relevant Discussions
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ] <small>(Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase '']'', which means "and others" - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts).</small>
			::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.] (]) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	*The source "Cooper" is my own massive 2010 book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" which is Volume 1 of a three-volume set I did published between March, 2010 and May, 2011 on the classic 19th and early 20th railroad routes in the United States and Canada (I am ]), and "Signor" is John R. Signor's 1985 book "DONNER PASS: Southern Pacific's Sierra Crossing". I cited these (and several other) sources to support detail that I had added earlier. I later removed them when I deleted all of my contributions (including four illustrations: the cover of an 1869 issue of ], the cover of ] published by the UP in 1897, a ], and a ]) to the article in frustration because user Zukas kept altering or removing my contributions without any explanation (i.e., no or only misleading edit summaries) or providing any citations of his own to other sources to support any of his changes despite continued requests that he do so. ] (]) 09:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::OK well that's encouraging to me because it suggests that there is agreement on reliability of the sources and perhaps even the factual details within. Is that a fair assessment? Regarding the content that Centpacrr removed did Tim Zukas challenge its inclusion or was its removal just a way to restore the article to a neutral state? Is there any plan to restore it at a later point? If that material contains challenged claims then we should address them here before restoring the material. -] (]) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Frankly there is no way of knowing ''what'' user Zukas is "challenging" as his massive revisions were all made either without ''any'' explanation (no edit summary) or an unspecified claim of "correcting errors" without either saying what those alleged "errors" are, or providing citations to any sources supporting his claims. As noted above, this has also been his practice in a large number of other transportation articles (mostly aviation related) that I and others have contributed to in the past. That being the case it became clear to me that no matter what I (or Mackensen, who is also this article's OP) contributed, user Zukas would continue to wipe them out without explanation or providing supporting sources. I therefore decided that under these circumstances it was no longer worth my time to try to improve this article and so removed all my contributions (text, illustrations, sources, and citations) and returned it to its status quo ante. ] (]) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			::: I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::To repeat their version-- "The train was then called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..."
			::::Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of ''et al'' was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! ] (]) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			;Third statement by moderator (Autism)
	::::Turns out it was still the San Francisco Overland on all three RRs in summer 1955. Hopefully everyone's agreed daily operation didn't end in July 1962? The train ran daily around Christmas 1962 and in summer 1963?
			Please read ]. This is the new set of rules for this mediation.
			Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it.
	::::I've never seen Cooper's book. As for when the train finally ended there are three possible sources: the employee timetable, the public timetable, and Al Phelps' info in the appendix of Signor's book ''Donner Pass''. He says it ran thru summer 1963. As for where the train ran at any given time before 1963, my source is the public timetables. ] (]) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			In the proposed ] by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads: {{tqb|Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments.}} That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is ] because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice.
	::::*The train did not run as a ''year-round'' daily train as it had since its inception after the ICC agreed to cancel that requirement on July 16, 1962. The Phelps listing in Signor at page 276 states: "July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the ''City of San Francisco.'' After this date, the ''Overland'' became a ''part-time train'' operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but ''were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders'' except when operated as noted. October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963." Seasonal service which ended in the summer of 1963 is ''not'' year-round service which ended on July 16, 1962. ] (]) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material.
	::::::Does this account that Centpacrr has copied from the Phelps listing in Signor (p276) sound accurate to you in light of the information from your sources, Tim Zukas? -] (]) 01:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			Are there any other questions at this time?
	:::::::"were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted" apparently means annulled each day before 14 June 1963 and each day after 2 Sept 1963.
			] (])
			;Third statements by editors (Autism)
	:::::::"July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco"-- What Phelps meant to say was the separate schedule for trains 27/28 continued to exist-- it's in the empl timetables thru Sept 1963-- and the separate train continued to run Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and summer 1963. ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Misplaced Pages article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted.
			I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Misplaced Pages (]) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. ] (]) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::However on July 16, 1962 it formally discontinued being a "daily, ''year-round''" train (which it had been continuously since its inception) and all future operations until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs. Therefore the service officially ended as a ''daily year-round'' train on July 16, 1962, not in the summer of 1963 which is when 27/28's ''seasonal'' service was discontinued. That is also exactly what Beebe says. ] (]) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			;List of discussions from WhatamIdoing
	:::::::::"future operations until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs"
			I think the present dispute started about two months ago:
	:::::::::We're agreed the non-contiguity started in Sept 1962? Far as we know in 1962 the train ran on 17 July and 18 July and 19 July etc.
			* ]
	:::::::::"the service officially ended as a ''daily year-round'' train on July 16, 1962"
			* ]
	:::::::::It quit being a year-round train-- it didn't quit being a daily train. Seasonal trains like the Orange Blossom Special were shown as "Daily" in the Official Guide during the months they ran. "Daily" means seven days a week-- if you say it's no longer daily, the reader wonders: so what was it-- three days a week or what?
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ] <small>(Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase '']'', which means "and others" . It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using ] .)</small>
			::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
	:::::::::No need to say it was daily, but don't say it wasn't. Just say it was no longer a year-round train. ] (]) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)		As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. ] (]) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@] ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800</nowiki> where I explicitly wrote "<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.<nowiki>'''</nowiki>" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase <nowiki>''</nowiki>et al.<nowiki>''</nowiki> which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. ] (]) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::No, the non-congruity started on July 17, 1962 when it became "seasonal", non-year-round service for the first time since the inception of the ''Overland Flyer''. The requirement for maintaining year-round service ceased when the ICC authorized its discontinuation as of July 16, 1962. That is the date on which mandated, contiguous year-round ''Overland'' service ended and optional non-contiguous seasonal service began. ] (]) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication ] (]) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Could we clear up the "daily" issue by saying something like this: "...the death knell for the last scion service of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round train came on July 16, 1962. Daily operations would only continue on a seasonal basis after this date."? -] (]) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			::@], please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::*I would accept "The death knell for the last scion of the original 1887 ''Overland'' as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962 when the ] authorized the discontinuance of that level of service. After that only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." ] (]) 15:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Response and list of discussions from FactOrOpinion
	:::::::::::::The article says ICC allowed seasonal operation starting Sept 1962; it says SP "declined to revive" the train in summer 1964. The reader wonders: the ICC had no power over SP in 1964? What changed betw 1962 and 1964?
			Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list:
			* ]
	:::::::::::::The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962-- the eastward train started running 15 minutes behind the CoSF rather than ahead of it. Makes me wonder: did the ICC coincidentally issue its ruling the same day? None of us knows, except for what Beebe wrote. None of us knows whether the ICC was even the responsible agency.
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ''(edited to add:)'' ]
			] (]) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::If we stick to what we know, we just say "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." ] (]) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)		:I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. ] (]) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	(Outdent) The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created by Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379), approved February 4, 1887, specifically to regulate railroads and its authority was expanded to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. The agency was not abolished until 1995 when its functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.
			;Fourth statement by moderator (Autism)
	The 1887 Act states in its preamble: "That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid." ] (]) 00:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the ] is to describe the different views of different ]. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the ] first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a ] will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the ] if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one.
	:So it seems we're now caught between Centpacrr's "After that only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." and Tim Zukas' "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." It seems to me that the difference between them is purely superficial. The facts are essentially identical and only the wording is different. Are there substantive differences between them that I'm missing? If not, would both of you accept a decision from a neutral third party who we could invite via ]? -] (]) 10:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone).
	::His version makes it sound like the train operated differently in August 1962 than it had in June 1962, which far as we know it didn't.
			If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body.
	::We can hope the neutral third party won't prefer "only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis" to "it ran summer and Christmas". ] (]) 22:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
			A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion.
	:::Would you be OK with a third opinion on the matter, Centpacrr? -] (]) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			Are there any other questions?
	::::The cited issue Beebe addresses is when the last vestige of the original 1887 ''Overland'' make its ''last'' run as a "year-round daily" train, and that was on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved the termination of that service. All operations made by TR27/28 ''after'' that date were strictly ''seasonal'' and even those ended altogether in July, 1963. ] (]) 03:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::As I understand it Tim Zukas is in agreement with that but he wants to use different language to express the same thing in a manner that he believes is clearer to readers. You are entitled to disagree but we're stuck at this point unless you can both agree to abide by the opinion of a neutral third party (WP:3O). I understand Tim Zukas' comment of 22:10, 9 March 2015 as an agreement to this solution. Would you also agree to this solution, Centpacrr? -] (]) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping|Centpacrr}} - We need to move forward with this issue. Two weeks ago (at 10:36 on 8 March 2015), seeing no difference between your preferred version and Tim Zukas' preferred version of the contested line, I asked if there were substantive differences between them. If there are no substantive differences I asked if the two of you would be willing to abide by a neutral third party opinion. Tim Zukas seems to have indicated his willingness to abide by a third party opinion. Is there an actual substantive difference? Would you be willing to abide by a third party opinion? -] (]) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Both Beebe (p. 41) and Signor (p. 276) confirm that the ''San Francisco Overland'' ceased as a year-round daily train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuance and consolidation of service with the ''City of San Francisco''. It only operated then on a seasonal basis for one more year as is also shown by the ]. ] (]) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	**Does that contradict Tim Zukas' preferred version? -] (]) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*Yes it does because his version pablumizes the material by ignoring what the reliable published sources (Beebe, Signor, ''Official Guide'') provide as to the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), the reason therefore (ICC approval of the discontinuance of year-round daily service), and the the consolidation with the ''City of San Francisco's'' service. ] (] 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for explaining your position, Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, would you object to adding some or all of (1) the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), (2) the reason for the change, and (3) the fact of the consolidation with ''The City of San Francisco'''s service if Centpacrr can provide the exact language from Beebe, Signor, and the ''Official Guide'' that backs up that part of the claim? -] (]) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::*Beebe (p. 51}: "The '''end''' of the proud ''Overland Limited'' as a '''daily train''' if not a through run to Chicago '''came on July 16, 1962''' when the '''Interstate Commerce Commission''' finally '''authorized its suspension''' save at '''seasonal''' traffic peaks in June and December."
			;Fourth statements by editors (Autism)
	::::*Signor (p. 276): "May 31, 1931: Numbers changed to 27 and 28 and becomes ''San Francisco Overland Limited.''
			Yes, revising the article to include information about {{tq|autism as a human condition or a neurotype}}, supported by citations to the best ], will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue:
	:::::June 19, 1932: Adds coaches to previously all-Pullman consist.
			:Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. <small></small> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;"> - ] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::July 10, 1947: Name shortened to ''S.F. Overland.''
			::<small>''Note'': In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for ''reliable sources'' from ] to ] because I agree with ] (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
	:::::'''July 16, 1962:''' Nos. 27 and 28 '''discontinued''' and train '''consolidated''' with Nos. 101-102, the''' ''City of San Francisco.'' '''After this date, the ''Overland'' became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted.
			* My answers:
	:::::October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. '''Last run''' occurred during the '''summer of 1963.''' "
			** Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because ], I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first.
			** Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. ] (]) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::*''Official Guide'': See image ] (]) 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
			Thank you for the summary and helpful questions.
	====Point #4====
	'''Regarding point #4''': The question goes to you, Mackensen and Centpacrr. Do you agree that Tim Zukas' version is factually correct? If so, is there any objection to using his phrasing? Tim Zukas, it might also help if you explained your rationale for rephrasing. -] (]) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (<small>Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -] (]) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small>)
	* Not without re-reading Solomon and Welsh. I chose to be vague because the sources were not specific. If the name ''San Francisco Overland'' was used prior to 1947 then Zukas' version would be misleading. By all means if there's a source which states this all straightforwardly I'd gladly accept it. ] ] 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the ] (and, for completeness, ]) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start.
	:::Al Phelps (in Signor's book) mentions the dates when the name changed; he just about agrees with the dates given in the back of Beebe's CP&SP. The timetables agree with them, except the train was never actually called S.F. Overland -- probably Phelps didn't mean to say that. ] (]) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Does anyone have a copy of the Solomon or Welsh to consult? Tim Zukas, can you provide the text of the relevant sections of Phelps in Signor's book and Beebe's CP&SP? -] (]) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of ]. The guideline itself states that "] requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on.
	:::::CP&SP came out circa 1963-- its appendix (written by an SP guy) is a handy summary of the history of lots of SP trains. It gives dates when the Overland Limited became the San Francisco Overland Limited and when it switched back; after 1900 it never had any other name until it lost the "Limited" in 1947. Phelps (in ''Donner Pass'') just about agrees with the dates in CP&SP-- probably he got them from there? ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name ''San Francisco Overland'' was not used prior to 1947, then? If so would Tim Zukas' version work for you, Mackensen? Or would you like to reserve comment until the Solomon and Welsh sources can be consulted? -] (]) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, ''and'' overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article.
	:::::::"Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name ''San Francisco Overland'' was not used prior to 1947, then?" Yes.
			In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Misplaced Pages's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can , but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10.
	:::::::Soloman/Welsh are probably looking at the same sources we are. If they did say something contrary, a look at the timetables would probably overrule them. ] (]) 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			Regarding your question about reversions, , often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare with ; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as ] discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately.
	::::::::From the discussion of point #5 it sounds like you have gained access to Solomon now, Mackensen. Does it agree? And would you be OK with Tim Zukas' version then? -] (]) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Mackensen}} When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #2). -] (]) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	** No objection. ] ] 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	***<s>{{Resolved mark}} The fourth point seems to be resolved as well then. I'll collapse this part of the discussion unless there are further comments in the next 24 hours. -] (]) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)</s>
	I have found an additional source on names to go along with Beebe (pp. 13-14, 28-30) which is which reads:
			--] (]) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''NAMES OF TWO WELL KNOWN S.P. TRAINS CHANGED'''
			:No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. ] (]) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Two changes in the names of well known passenger trains of the Southern Pacific Company have been made within the last few weeks. The world famous '''"Overland Limited"''' has been changed to the '''"San Francisco Overland Limited"''' while the "Statesman" operating between San Francisco and Sacramento, has been re-named the "Sacramento Special".
			::<small>(I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.)</small> ] (]) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. ] (]) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::For the moderator my lie was here:{{diff2|1258336094}}{{diff2|1258372372}} Sorry this last one was rude:{{diff2|1258372372}} but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". ] (]) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. ] (]) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what ] is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions ''of'' your reversions.
			::Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'.
			::The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. ] (]) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:"autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the ], you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are ] (they are just very ]) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but ] aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. ] (]) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	The present "San Francisco Overland Limited" is one of the best known and most modern trains in the world. It is equipped with all-steel cars of the latest design, providing luxuries and conveniences such as a barber-shop, shower bath, valet service, messaging, maid for women passengers, hairdressing, manicuring, stenographer, stock reports and news items by wire, buffet•clubroom, cafe-dining car and library.
			I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. ] (]) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Almost 34 years ago the first limited extra-fare train was put into operation over the present route of the '''"San Francisco Overland Limited,"''' between San Francisco and Chicago. It was known as the and made its first trip on '''December 5. 1888'''. Electric lights provided a big feature for this first de luxe overland train.
			;Fifth statement by moderator (Autism)
	The '''"Overland Limited"''' made its initial trip on '''October 15. 1898''' as the successor to the "Golden Gate Special." Many improvements in the appointments of the train have been made since then. The "Sacramento Spectal is one of the best known trains in the State of California and has been very popular because of its convenience to travelers between San Francisco and the state capital. It makes the trip in three hours and fifteen minutes and carrier the most modern equipment.
			Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by ].
			I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months.
			I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that ]. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time.
	Per the October, 1962 (95th year, No. 5) issue of ''THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS'' at page 654 , TR27/28 (by then seasonal and about to be discontinued) still operated as ''The San Francisco Overland'' to the end. ] (]) 16:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			I will restate the rule of ]. When ] is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of ]. When ] is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of ]. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric.
	:Tim Zukas writes: "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped." Does the The Southern Pacific ''Bulletin'' conflict with Tim Zukas' proposed text? Or is the above offered in order to introduce a further clarification? Could we agree to something like this: "The name was changed from Overland Limited to San Francisco Overland Limited in 1922 and remained that way until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped."? -] (]) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion.
	:*We actually know a good deal more than that from Beebe (2), Solomon, Welsh, the Nov, 1922 SP ''Bulletin'', and the January, 1889 (2) and October, 1962 ''Official Guides''. My text is the following for the Names section (I have shown where the eight specific and distinct refs go in <small>small type</small>)::
			Are there any other questions?
	::*"The ''Overland Limited'' 's formal name varied during its long career but it was generally referred to colloquially as the ''Overland'' regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. <small></small> The Union Pacific introduced its ''Overland Flyer'' on November 13,1887 and renamed it the ''Overland Limited'' on November 17, 1895. <small> New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355]</small> The Southern Pacific began similar "limited" type daily service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden on December 5, 1888 as the ''Golden Gate Special''. <small> January, 1889. p. 355]</small> On October 15, 1898 the SP changed the name of that train to ''Overland Limited'' to match the UP. In the late fall of 1922 the roads again changed the name for the service over the whole route to ''San Francisco Overland Limited''. <small> ; Beebe 1963 pp. 28-30]</small> The designation "Limited" was dropped from the name on September 1, 1947 when the streamliner ''City of San Francisco'' increased its service from thrice weekly to daily thus supplanting the older ''Overland'' as both the premier and fastest seven-day-a-week train running over the C&NW/UP/SP route between Chicago and San Francisco, the name it retained on the SP until the end. <small>] and October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654]</small> ] (]) 22:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::*OK that's a much more thorough accounting of the train's official name and it seems to be well sourced. Does it seem to hit the mark for you, Tim Zukas, or are there problems with it? -] (]) 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			:72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. ] (]) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The Golden Gate Special wasn't daily, was it? And it ran Oakland to Council Bluffs. In any case it only lasted a couple seasons and isn't an Overland ancestor. The Overland Ltd became the San Francisco Overland Ltd three times. It lost the "Limited" in 1946-47, before the CoSF went daily, and we have no idea why it and the Pacific Ltd and the Golden State Ltd lost their "Limiteds" circa 1947, or why other top SP trains were never called "Limited". (Turns out the UP dropped "Limited" in 1946, and no "Limited" in the 18 May 1947 SP public timetable.)
			:Two quick questions:
			:1. Would it be appropriate to post a notification of this discussion/process on ]?
			:2. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the <nowiki>{{unbalanced}}</nowiki> tag on the ] page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. ] (]) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Statement 5.1 by moderator (Autism)
	:::::"The train became the Overland Limited on the UP in 1895 and on the SP in 1898. The name then alternated between that and San Francisco Overland Limited until 1946-47 when "Limited" was dropped." If you want dates for the alternation get them from CP&SP or Phelps' notes in Signor's book; that other sourcing is a useless attempt to impress the reader (as if a raging controversy about when the name changed required scrupulous sourcing). ] (]) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the ] rewrite. After the draft revision of the ] is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a ] to obtain community input and establish community ]. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? ] (]) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement?
	::::::Generally rigorous sourcing shouldn't be regarded as indicative of a controversy, and it's better to think of sources as helpful to reader comprehension instead of simply impressive. But it is true that a higher standard is required when sourced claims are challenged. From WP:V we know that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that ''directly'' supports the material" (emphasis added). So for a challenged set of claims regarding specific dates when the train's name changed we would need reliable sources that directly support the dates and name changes. The timetables are adequate to source a claim regarding the train's name on a certain date (the date of the specific cited timetable), but such a source is not sufficient to support a challenged claim regarding the date of the name's change. For a claim like that to survive a challenge would require a source more like the ''The Southern Pacific Bulletin'' source linked above. If we can't find an agreement on this history then it might be a good idea to consider trimming it down and generalizing it to only those statements that can be directly supported. -] (]) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users.
			:And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. ] (]) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	]The ''Overland Limited'' 's formal name varied during its long career although it was generally referred to colloquially as the ''Overland'' regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. <small></small> The Union Pacific introduced the ''Overland Flyer'' on November 13,1887 and renamed it the ''Overland Limited'' on November 17, 1895. <small> New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355]</small> On October 15, 1898 the SP inaugurated its own ''Overland Limited'' (TR1&2) joining of its long standing ''Atlantic Express'' (eastbound) (TR4) and ''Pacific Express'' (westbound) (TR3) San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden trains to connect with the UP's Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs ''Overland Limited'' train. Known variously by that name, ''S.F. Overland Limited'', and ''San Francisco Overland Limited'' for the next 32 years, on May 31, 1931 the service again became the ''San Francisco Overland Limited'' and its train numbers changed from "1 and 2" to "27 and 28". On July 10, 1947 the designation "Limited" was dropped from the name. The designation '''San Francisco Overland'' was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1887 service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 when the ] approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the ''City of San Francisco'' although continued to operate seasonal service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.<small>, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654]</small> ] (]) 20:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::This new version drops mention of the Golden Gate Special per Tim Zukas' objections. It again seems decently sourced. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Could you live with it? -] (]) 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Fifth statements by editors (Autism)
	====Point #5====
			I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Regarding point #5''': Are there disagreements over the factual aspects of Tim Zukas' rewording? The source that is cited for this claim is Joe Welsh's "Union Pacific's Streamliners". Can anybody provide a copy of the relevant text from page 85? -] (]) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (<small>Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -] (]) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small>)
	* I added the original wording but I do not currently have access to Welsh. If heavyweight cars remained in the consist then the addition of the word "partially" is in order. I do not know if that detail is in Welsh. ] ] 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. ] (]) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Any 1940s picture (e.g. http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49895/rec/10 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/50080/rec/30 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49924/rec/15 ) will clarify this one. ] (]) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			I also support your proposal, and (just to be clear) your decision to use Rule G. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hopeful that we can make progress a lot faster once we have overcome some of the roadblocks preventing edits to date.
	:::Yes and no. The question isn't whether it occasionally had heavyweights in the consist; the question is what the standard consist was. ] ] 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			Dmitriy's concern about being the only neurodiversity-opposing participant in this process is understandable - I did try to include at least two others when I initiated this, but they have not joined. This is one reason I suggested notifying ]; historically, other editors broadly sharing his outlook have been much more involved. It might be best if he were not the only participant representing the pro-pathologisation side of this discussion, given our goal is presumably to produce an article which is acceptable to people with a range of personal views on these subjects.
	::::Feel free to hunt for a picture of an all-lightweight Overland on any day in the 1940s. (Or for any other evidence that it was all-lightweight in 1943.) ] (]) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
			--] (]) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapsebottom}}
	::::: It wouldn't prove anything if I ''did'' find such a picture. We need a reliable source stating what the consist was. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we need a source. ] ] 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Sixth statement by moderator (Autism)
			I will again restate, and maybe clarify, about ]. Any contested changes to the article will be made only by community consensus, which is obtained by an RFC, which runs for thirty days and is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. A majority of the editors in this DRN is only a local consensus and will not change the article substantively.
			I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. I think that revision of the lede should precede the revision of the sections of the body of the article, but am ready to consider a plan for a coordinated effort to rewrite the sections of the body first. Editors who want to leave the article more or less as it is may either provide a statement supporting their view, or nothing.
	::::::Pictures are not the best sources to use because they require interpretation (sometimes expert interpretation). Per WP:V, sources should ''directly'' (i.e. explicitly) support challenged claims. The images do ''suggest'' that heavyweights remained in use as part of the train after 1943, but I'm not sure that this is contradicted by the phrase "the train was ''re-equipped'' with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added)... If the word "re-equipped" seems to suggest "entirely replaced" then perhaps something like "equipped" or "outfitted" would produce a suitably ambiguous phrase. Would that work for either of you? -] (]) 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{u|Robert_McClenon}}, I have a few questions:
			:* In DRN Rule G, you said {{tq|Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.}} Would you clarify when it's appropriate to have a back-and-forth discussion with someone in the ''Back-and-forth discussion'' section? For example, is it fine for editors to use this section whenever we want to respond to something another editor wrote, or — given your point that back-and-forth discussion on the Talk page already failed to resolve the content issues — would you like us to reserve the use of this section to limited situations, and if so, would you briefly describe these situations?
			:* You emphasized "Comment on content, not contributors" several times in the DRN rule. If I think an exchange is veering into that territory, is it acceptable to give a gentle reminder, or is that something that I should leave entirely to you?
			:* I lack the knowledge base to "either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article." Is it acceptable for me to contribute in smaller ways when I think I might be helpful, or would you rather that I simply step back from any active participation (perhaps with the thought that such limited participation is as likely to distract as to help)? If it's the latter, I will likely continue to read some of the exchanges for my own learning, but I'm totally fine with it if you'd rather that I no longer comment.
			:Thank you, ] (]) 23:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Here's my summary of the above discussion:
			::From editors who are both dissatisfied with the article ''and'' also have specific ideas about what they want to see changed:
			::* They want the article more prominently reflect a POV that is popular in the neurodiversity movement (e.g., as it appears on social media, but also in some scholarly sources). This POV says that autism is part of each individual's personality and identity. If you could get rid of autism, then you would be getting rid of the autistic person's true character and identity.
			::* This POV also believes that autism is good. Everything about autism is to be presented in as positive a light as possible. For example, we say that someone "prefers eating the same food every day" or "his favorite food is plain pasta" instead of being negative and saying that person is "at risk of ] and other vitamin deficiencies because he refuses to eat anything except plain pasta, rice, and eggs". We should say that someone "has a strong desire to talk about their particular interests" instead of "fails to engage in reciprocal social communication by noticing that the other person is not interested in hearing a long lecture about the exact differences between Lego Mindstorms robots and Lego Education Spike Prime robots, and thus changing the subject to something the other person would enjoy".
			::* By default, if isn't good, then it isn't autism. Any 'bad' things should be called a "co-occurring disorder". If something negative cannot be omitted and cannot credibly be claimed to be a co-occurring disorder instead of autism, then it must be presented sympathetically, and the autistic person should not be blamed or shamed in any way. Most/all distress experienced by autistic people is caused by society's failure to provide sufficient accommodations and to value autistic people's views and perspectives, so "society" can be blamed and shamed.
			::* "Treatment" is not wanted, needed, or effective. ABA in particular is evil. If a parent or caregiver wants an autistic person to quit engaging in a behavior (e.g., removing their clothes in public), then the parent should simply figure out what prompts that behavior (e.g., clothes that are too hot, itchy, stiff, loose, tight, synthetic, smelly, colorful, wet, stained, torn, sewn, peed-in) and proactively remove the prompt, so that the child won't think about doing that.
			::* Overall, autistic people (adults) are to be presented as capable, autonomous, valuable people who can do great things. Towards this end, the article should focus primarily on the type of autistic people who are similar to Misplaced Pages's many autistic editors (e.g., having good verbal skills and having normal-to-high IQ) and less on autistic people who are intellectually disabled, who cannot effectively communicate their needs, who require round-the-clock, lifelong custodial care, or who hit or kick people if they are startled or their routine changes. If we write about autistic people who cannot be left in a room with windows because they will break the glass, then neurotypical people will get bad ideas about their co-workers or the autistic people they meet in the community. If there is going to be a bias in the article, that bias should favor making life better for autistic people who are high achieving (or at least living independently).
			::For editors who are dissatisfied with the article but not proposing specific changes:
			::* I think they see autism as a maladaptive biological situation that is not synonymous with the person's true character and identity. For example: Eating a wide variety of foods/flavors/textures is adaptive; having sensory issues that restrict you from eating whatever food is available is maladaptive and therefore a disorder; you would not stop being "you" if you could eat a wide variety of foods without severe anxiety or physically gagging.
			::* I think they also believe that the article should present a significant amount of information about "profound" or "severe" autism, and that autism be presented as a medical disorder serious enough to result in an average lifetime cost (in the US) of US$2,200,000 per autistic person with intellectual disabilities, and US$1,400,000 per autistic person without an intellectual disability.
			::I do not see any editors who seem satisfied with the current state of the article. ] (]) 02:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The neurodiversity view does not view autism solely as a positive thing but as a neutral way of being that can come along with challenges as well as positive and neutral aspects. This has been pointed out repeatedly in these discussions here. ] (]) 03:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This (Dwyer's) source gives what it calls an {{xt|"interactionist definition of a neurodiversity approach"}}. This might (or might not) be ]. I think it might be a possible compromise model for us, as it is flexible and not extreme in either direction. He describes it as {{xt|a middle ground between biological essentialism and biological denialism}}. It's okay to medically manage or treat features of autism that you dislike, and okay to not treat features that you like. We can predict that editors who hold one POV or the other will want the article to "flex" in the direction of their POV, so this alone will not resolve the dispute.
			::::The main focus on the neurodiversity side appears to be marketing: {{xt|"the disabled individual should not feel they are deficient"}}. We are to use euphemisms, e.g., that a person has {{xt|"areas of challenge"}} rather than {{!xt|"deficits"}}, to achieve this end. We are to have {{xt|"a focus on positive aspects of neural differences"}} and to remember that the goal is {{xt|"promoting well-being"}}. One of the main targets of such marketing is parents caring for the kind of autistic editor who won't be editing Misplaced Pages, or reading it. He says that {{xt|"much opposition to the neurodiversity approaches centers around the idea that the approaches should not be applied to so-called “severe” or “low-functioning” autism"}}, and suggests that these parents would be less likely to want their child to be "normalized" if autism were less stigmatized by society. (Personally, I suspect these parents are looking for well-being for themselves and their child: fewer meltdowns, fewer injuries, better hygiene, something like an ordinary family life – not normal merely to be the same as everyone else, but normal because their everyday experience has low well-being for everyone.) There is an unstated belief that "being normal" is incompatible with well-being.
			::::I do not believe that either euphemisms or a strong focus on the positive is compatible with ], so there are limits on how far we could implement this in a Misplaced Pages article, but I think that some form of this approach is feasible. ] (]) 07:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::] says "Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms." ] (]) 08:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, euphemisms should be avoided but the terms that we are proposing for a more balanced article are not euphemisms. It is euphemistic to use words with positive connotations. Note that all these negative terms like "symptom", "risk", "cure" or "burden" are the exact opposite of euphemisms (words with negative connotations) that should be avoided as well in favor of neutral terms. Two papers explaining that scientific accuracy is fully compatible with anti-ableist language: . ] (]) 08:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] {{agree|strong}} <nowiki>{{support|strong}}</nowiki> ] (]) 08:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] {{agree|strong}} ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That sounds like a way forward to resolving the dispute in part so that we can arrive at a version of the article that is at least roughly acceptable to most of us. I envision including a section explaining the pathology paradigm and a section explaining the neurodiversity paradigm. In the pathology paradigm section, it could be mentioned that autistic characteristics are described as "deficits" by the DSM whereas in the neurodiversity section, positive descriptions like mentioning strengths in detail could be used (although actually the neurodiversity paradigm views autism as a neutral thing instead of something positive). In general (when not referring to either the pathology or the neurodiversity paradigm), I suggest using the following language guides for autism . These sources disagree in some aspects, for example, the US health authority NIH uses the term "autism spectrum disorder" while the UK’s NHS and Bottema-Beutel’s paper (1094 citations) prefer or recommend avoiding it. In many cases, we could just write "autism" or "neurotype" (and where it is inevitable, maybe "condition") instead to avoid the controversy. @] and I have proposed mentioning the fact that public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the second paragraph of the lead section. The Manual of Style of Misplaced Pages also recommends using neutral terms and that “Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate”. So we could try to avoid the term “disorder” outside the pathology paradigm section as much as we can.
			:::::In many other aspects, these sources agree with eath other, for example:
			:::::- avoid “severe” or “disease”/”illness”
			:::::- “characteristics”/“features”/”traits” instead of symptoms
			:::::- not using the terms “cure” or “prevention”
			:::::- “low/high support needs” instead of “low/high functioning”
			:::::- “nonspeaking” instead of “nonverbal”
			:::::- “likelihood”/”chance” instead of “risk”
			:::::- “interventions”/”services”/”therapies”/”adjustments” instead of “treatments”
			:::::- prefer identity-first language or “on the autism spectrum” instead of person-first language
			:::::- avoid using the term “suffering”
			:::::- “distressed behavior”/“stimming”/”meltdown” or other specific and neutral description of behavior instead of “challenging behavior”
			:::::- “focused/intense/passionate interests” instead of “special interests”
			:::::- describing specific needs instead of writing “special needs”
			:::::- “impact”/”effect” instead of “burden”
			:::::- “co-occurring” instead of “co-morbid”
			:::::- “non-autistic”/”neurotypical” instead of “healthy control group”
			:::::- avoid using “psychopathology”
			:::::- avoid talking about autism as a puzzle, an epidemic or an economic burden
			:::::I would like to hear whether we can reach a consensus on these changes.
			:::::Remark: It is far from being a universal viewpoint among parents of autistic children with high support needs (e.g. 24/7 care) to hope for a “cure”. See Shannon des Roches Rosa (author of the well-known blog Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism) for example. ] (]) 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I want to thank @] for asking the above. I think the volume of ] is out of hand, and while some of that has been constructive, much of it is exactly the kind of going-in-circles that <q>Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors" is clearly intended to prevent.</q>
			:I would certainly welcome clearer guidance on this.
			:@] I plan to re-draft my proposed lead section in line with @]'s comments, and paste them in ], as nobody else has proposed an alternative or fed back on my earlier draft, aside from Mark saying "I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with."
			:Would you support moving to a formal RfC at this stage? ] (]) 10:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			Just a heads up that this is the ''Sixth statement by moderator'' section, not the ''Back-and-forth discussion'' section. ] (]) 14:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Sixth statement by editors (Autism)
	::::::: I think "gained" would be an appropriate choice here. Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate. We need a source. ] ] 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources.
			'''Addressing the First Issue'''
	::::::::The text on page 85 of Welsh that seems to address this issue directly reads:
			Due weight and neutrality on Misplaced Pages do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:scientific_consensus.
	::::::::*"Prior to the war, UP's president and his staff had explored the concept of providing daily streamliner service. As a result, '''Union Pacific, SP, C&NW,''' and '''Pullman''' ordered '''148''' new, '''light-weight cars''' to upgrade the ''Los Angeles Limited'', '''''San Francisco Overland'' '''and ''Portland Rose''. The '''timely arrival''' in '''1941-1942''' of the order, including 78 sleepers, 30 baggage cars, 10 RPOs, and 30 coaches, helped the railroad to '''weather the demands of World War II''' and to '''operate extra sections''' of existing trains."
			Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see ]). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Misplaced Pages article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide".
	::::::::It seems clear from this that light-weight cars were in regular use on ''Overland'' service as early as 1941, but with the extremely heavy demand for intercity rail transport during WWII ''all'' available equipment (including older heavy-weight cars) was doubtless used on extra sections of all these services as well. ] (]) 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see ].
	::::::::::Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war. ] (]) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
			In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Misplaced Pages article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course".
	(Outdent) I think we're all agreed on this point. Does anyone object to "gained" as a verb? ] ] 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
			'''Addressing the Second Issue'''
	I now have both Solomon's UP book and his SP book. He says in the UP book (p. 75) that "in 1951 the was given new, streamlined rolling stock." In the SP book (p. 69) he says of a lightweight car order that "some cars...were used to bolster ''San Francisco Overland'' trains.". ] ] 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Thanks, Mackensen. So can we all agree to this: "In 1941-42 the Overland gained American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers." -] (]) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
			The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph:
	::"In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some lightweight sleepers." to make it clear that the lightweights didn't replace all the old sleepers. ] (]) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::What do you think, Mackensen and Centpacrr? Would "started carrying some" be an acceptable replacement for "gained"? -] (]) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
			A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author.
	::::According to Robert Wayner's ''Car Names, Numbers and Consists'', no lounge and/or observation cars were carried on the ''Overland'' and other intercity trains during WWII in compliance with the Office of Defense Transportation directive banning strictly luxury cars without revenue capacity. ] (]) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the further research, Centpacrr. Just to be clear, is the Wayner source being offered in support the idea that all heavyweight cars were replaced by lightweights? And is it intended to support the original "re-equipped" phrasing? -] (]) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::It is to point out that the comment above that ''"Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war."'' seems largely irrelevant as no heavy-weight lounges or observation cars were carried either as, by order to the ODT, all such "non revenue producing" luxury cars were removed from the consists of all intercity trains and stored from the start of the war to 1946. ] (]) 11:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Ah, I understand. Would you be amenable to Tim Zukas' suggestion that we reword "In 1941-42 the Overland was ''re-equipped'' with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added) to "In 1941-42 the Overland ''started carrying'' some lightweight sleepers" (emphasis added)? -] (]) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD.
	:::::::::Wayner states in ''Car Names, Numbers an Consists'' (pp. 156-57) about the new lightweight head-end and sleeper cars delivered in 1942 that: Pullman-Standard built two groups of sleeping cars for ''Overland Route'' service in 1942. The (sixty) AMERICAN series cars, containing 6 roomettes, 6 open sections and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4099, Lot 6669, built in May and June. The (eighteen) IMPERIAL cars, with 4 compartments, 2 drawing rooms and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4069H, Lot 6668, delivered in March and April. The AMERICAN and IMPERIAL series cars were painted two-tone gray as delivered. The AMERICAN-series cars were placed in the ''SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED'' and other trains. Three groups of new lightweight head-end (baggage and RPO) and chair cars for use on the ''SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED'' and other trains were also built and delivered to the UP in late 1941 and early 1942. None of the new cars were initially assigned to any of the ''CITY'' (SF, LA and Portland) streamliners.
			In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder.
	:::::::::I would thus be satisfied with: "In 1942 newly delivered Pullman-Standard built lightweight sleeper, chair, RPO and baggage cars were put in service on the ''San Francisco Overland Limited''. At the same time existing heavyweight lounge and observation cars were removed from the consists and placed in storage to comply with the 1942 General Order of the Office of Defense Transportation (ODT)banning the use of all non-revenue producing luxury cars from intercity routes during WWII. Those cars were not permitted to be returned to service on any US trains until 1946." ] (]) 23:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
			Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in ], other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise.
	::::::::::"In 1941-42 the Overland got its first lightweight sleepers, new Pullman-built 6-6-4s and 4-4-2s." No coaches on the Overland then. ] (]) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
			'''Conclusion'''
	:::::::::::The above suggestion strikes me as being wholly inadequate. First it makes no mention at all of the removal of the luxury cars from 1942 to 1946 at the order of the ODT, nor of the replacement of HW head-end (baggage, RPO) cars with new LW ones. Even though the train was listed as "all-Pullman" at the start of the war, Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in ''Overland's'' consists during the War as well. (Wayner, p. 158 ''supra'') (User Zukas provides no sources to refute that or support his assertion that ''"No coaches on the Overland then."'') The ''SF Overland Limited'' became predominately a military train during WWII routinely running multiple 20-car sections pulled by a pair of UP 800 class steam locomotives. (Beebe, pp. 41, 138) By 1946 an articulated pair of appear in the train's OAK-CHI consist. I am endeavoring to find out when in 1942 (or after) the new LW chair cars were added to the train, but because it was a primary means of transportation for service members heading to the Pacific coast, under order of the War Production Board, no new passenger cars of any kind (including sleepers) were built between mid 1942 and late 1945, civilian train travel was severely restricted by the ODT and yet passenger traffic during the War was more than three times its pre-war level, I suspect that the appearance of chair cars on the ''Overland'' was much earlier rather than later. ] (]) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::"Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in ''Overland's'' consists during the War"
			In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.] (]) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::::He doesn't. Wayner did a terrific job on his books-- far as ignorant folks like us can tell, he doesn't make errors, and he didn't make that one.
			:Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. ] (]) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::::By the way: the pic on page 138 of Beebe's book is postwar-- early 1950s, likely. Ditto the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7. ] (]) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{Divider line}}
	*Read the text in Wayner and Beebe again. Wayner says at page ''iii'' (Introduction) that: "This book is a record of '''''streamlined''''' and '''''lightweight''''' passenger-train cars built and operated in the United States." At page 157 (Wartime Changes and Acquisitions) he writes that: "Three groups of head-end and '''''chair cars''''' were built by Pullman-Standard in '''''1941 and 1942''''' for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray '''''for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED''''' and other trains." To me Wayner's language (as well as the other factors I mentioned) thus ''clearly indicates'' that chair cars were indeed carried on the ''Overland'' '''during the war.''' What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
			Here is a first stab at a lead. I have combined bits from various versions, and rewritten some parts. I have leaned towards ''neutral'' language rather than bifurcating from the start; I think this allows a much more concise treatment, without eliding the major differences of opinion.
	*Beebe writes at page 135: "In the ''' ''early thirties'' ''' ''The Overland'', shown above eastbound with the identifying campanile of Cheyenne depot in the background, acknowledged hard times by '''''including a coach''''' in its otherwise impeccably all-Pullman consist. Public cars, buffet diner and observation, were air conditioned. So was a single through sleeper for San Francisco. Open platform observation cars lasted, of course, ''' ''until the 1941 war.'' ''' No self-respecting train was without one." This is confirmed in the consist listing (see ) from a 1930's SP timetable for ''The San Francisco Overland Limited'' (TR27) included on that page in Beebe showing a Chi-SF chair car on the train. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
			Note that in many ways this is a ''compromise'' lead; there is language that I am not entirely comfortable with, because it still foregrounds a ] perspective, this being the dominant lens still used by wider society as well as most relevant professionals. The direction of travel of both of those has been strongly towards ] in recent years; it is likely that in another few years, anything based on current discourse and research will need updating to reflect this ongoing progress.
	*Beebe writes at page 138: "When ''The San Francisco Overland'', shown here running double headed with seventeen cars , was predominately a military train '''''during the years of the 1941 war''''', it often ran in two sections with maximum tonnage capacity of two of the Union Pacific's powerful 800 class engines. There were more than forty train movements a day across Sherman and train crews didn't bother to change the smokebox numbers on the helper engines as is evident on No. 802 '''''in this picture.''''' " To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies ''this picture'' as being of the ''Overland'' taken '''''during the war years'''''. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise to dispute Beebe and supports your claim that this train "is postwar-- early 1950s"? (I am unclear as to why you mention "the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7" as I made no reference to any of those images.)
			For now, I have entirely omitted the final paragraph, which in the existing version goes into talking about treatments and cures. Producing a ''balanced'' version of this will be a challenge, given the evidence that most autistic people (including those with high support needs) ''would not want'' a cure, if such a thing were ever possible, and that the most popular 'treatment', ] is extremely unpopular with autistic people. I am also not sure we ''need'' a paragraph on this (this draft lead is about the longest I think a lead should be); we certainly shouldn't be devoting as many words to ABA as the current version does.
	*Beebe also writes at page 138: "''' ''During the war years'' ''' some of the trimmings depicted in the promotional montage opposite, notably the barber shop, shower bath, and open platform observation car lounge, ''' ''were temporarily abated'' '''." This, as I mentioned in my version, was because of a 1942 order of the Office of Defense Transportation banning the carriage of non-revenue producing luxury cars on intercity trains, a provision which remained in effect until rescinded in 1946. Wayner also states this fact at page 157. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
			{{Dotted divider}}
	*So again, sir, what ''' ''source(s)'' ''' are you depending upon to dispute Wayner and Beebe and support your claim that "No coaches on the Overland then."? So far you have not provided any. ] (]) 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
	**OK, things are starting to get a little heated and that's not helpful to resolving the issues here. Given the nature of the subject matter we are forced to rely heavily on text sources and these can be more difficult for the editor with the burden of proof to skim through and for the challenging party to verify than with digital sources. It's understandable that this leads to frustration on both sides, but let's take a step back and refocus.<br/>We were discussing whether all heavyweight cars had been entirely replaced by lightweights or whether the train had possibly carried a mix of HWs and LWs. From earlier comments I was under the impression that there weren't any sources that addressed this directly. In light of this the suggestion was made to instead use language that addressed the addition of lightweights (a fact for which there seem to be plenty of sources) without saying that all heavyweights had been removed. Centpacrr would you be OK with leaving the language ambiguous by only addressing lightweights and failing to explicitly say that all heavyweights were removed? Coverage of the ODT ban would suggest that the heavyweight cars had been removed without explicitly saying so. Tim Zukas, would it be ok to mention the ODT ban? -] (]) 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
	::*I have ''never'' said that no HW cars were carried during the war or thereafter. With passenger traffic more than tripling during the war years but no new passenger cars of any kind built between mid 1942 and late 1945, virtually ''every'' existing passenger car (except "luxury" cars), both HW and LW, was in heavy use throughout the war. What I am saying that user Zukas appears to dispute is that Wayner states that the 1941-42 LW chair cars were used on the ''SF Overland Limited'' during the war years, and that Beebe states that the SFOL (TR27/28) carried at least ''one'' chair car over its entire route as early as "the early 1930s". I have provided above the verbatim quotes from the text in both Wayner and Beebe that supports this while user Zukas has not offered any citations or sources to either refute that or to support his position that only sleepers -- but ''not'' chair cars -- where carried on the train prior to 1946. What I have therefore asked is that he provide some reliable source(s) to refute what Wayner and Beebe clearly say on this issue which is that the train included chair cars with the sleepers during the war and earlier. To date he has supplied nothing that does that. As for using "text sources" WP does so all the time and is not -- and never has been -- WP policy to limit citations to only "digital sources". ] (]) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			Autism, officially known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by ], verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a ], autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are ], while others have proficient spoken language.
	::::Presumably his quote from Wayner is correct: "Three groups of head-end and chair cars were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains." As other readers can see, Wayner doesn't say which trains got which cars. The public timetables say the Overland quit carrying coaches from around 1938 until 1946.
			Public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a ].<ref name="World Health Organization" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-08-28 |title=Overview {{!}} Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management {{!}} Guidance |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}</ref><ref name="iacc.hhs.gov" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders |last2=Dalwai |first2=Samir |last3=Ahmed |first3=Shabina |last4=Udani |first4=Vrajesh |last5=Mundkur |first5=Nandini |last6=Kamath |first6=S. S. |last7=C Nair |first7=M. K. |date=2017-05-15 |title=Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ |journal=Indian Pediatrics |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=385–393 |doi=10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4 |issn=0974-7559 |pmid=28368272}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Howes |first1=Oliver D |last2=Rogdaki |first2=Maria |last3=Findon |first3=James L |last4=Wichers |first4=Robert H |last5=Charman |first5=Tony |last6=King |first6=Bryan H |last7=Loth |first7=Eva |last8=McAlonan |first8=Gráinne M |last9=McCracken |first9=James T |last10=Parr |first10=Jeremy R |last11=Povey |first11=Carol |last12=Santosh |first12=Paramala |last13=Wallace |first13=Simon |last14=Simonoff |first14=Emily |last15=Murphy |first15=Declan G |date=2018-01-01 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology |journal=Journal of Psychopharmacology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |doi=10.1177/0269881117741766 |issn=0269-8811 |pmc=5805024 |pmid=29237331}}</ref> An alternative perspective, arising out of ],<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2020 |editor-last=Kapp |editor-first=Steven K. |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 |journal=SpringerLink |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0}}</ref> is ], which positions autism as a healthy part of the ] of humankind, rather than a disorder. This is usually associated with some version of the ],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dwyer |first=Patrick |last2=Gurba |first2=Ava N |last3=Kapp |first3=Steven K |last4=Kilgallon |first4=Elizabeth |last5=Hersh |first5=Lynnette H |last6=Chang |first6=David S |last7=Rivera |first7=Susan M |last8=Gillespie-Lynch |first8=Kristen |date=2024-09-18 |title=Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241273029 |journal=Autism |language=en |pages=13623613241273029 |doi=10.1177/13623613241273029 |issn=1362-3613}}</ref> suggesting that disability arises out of a mismatch between a person and their environment.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |url=http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf |title=The disability studies reader |date=1997 |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-415-91470-3 |editor-last=Davis |editor-first=Lennard J. |location=New York |chapter=The Social Model of Disability}}</ref> Others argue that autism can be inherently disabling.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 | doi=10.1111/japp.12470 | title=A Critique of the Neurodiversity View | date=2021 | journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=335–347 | vauthors = Nelson RH }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Shields |first1=Kenneth |last2=Beversdorf |first2=David |date=1 July 2021 |title=A Dilemma For Neurodiversity |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |journal=Neuroethics |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–141 |doi=10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |issn=1874-5504}}</ref> The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities.<ref>{{cite book |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline |vauthors=Robison JE |date=2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-13-8437-0 |veditors=Kapp SK |place=Singapore |pages=221–232 |chapter=My Time with Autism Speaks |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16 |doi-access=free |s2cid=210496353}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Opar |first=Alisa |date=24 April 2019 |title=In search of truce in the autism wars |url=https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars |url-status=live |journal=Spectrum |publisher=] |doi=10.53053/VRKL4748 |s2cid=249140855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708195918/https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars/ |archive-date=8 July 2022 |access-date=9 July 2022 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
	::::Mackensen said above "Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate." He's right-- that implication is what I'm trying to remove. The Overland got some lightweight sleepers circa 1941-42; none of us has a clue what percentage of its cars were heavyweight after that, except we know it's a good bet it wasn't zero.
			<!-- Causes and prevalence -->The ] are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that the disorder is ] and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hodges |first1=Holly |last2=Fealko |first2=Casey |last3=Soares |first3=Neelkamal |date=February 2020 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation |journal=Translational Pediatrics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=S55–S5S65 |doi=10.21037/tp.2019.09.09 |doi-access=free |pmid=32206584 |pmc=7082249 |issn=2224-4344}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ratajczak |first=Helen V. |date=2011-03-01 |title=Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |journal=Journal of Immunotoxicology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=68–79 |doi=10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |issn=1547-691X |pmid=21299355}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Mandy W, Lai MC |title=Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition |journal=] |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=271–292 |date=March 2016 |pmid=26782158 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.12501 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Autism frequently co-occurs with ] (ADHD), ], and ], and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of ] and feelings than the general population.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bertelli |first1=Marco O. |title=Autism Spectrum Disorder |date=2022 |work=Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder |pages=391 |editor-last=Bertelli |editor-first=Marco O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4mtvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 |access-date=8 June 2022 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-95720-3 |quote=Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have ] identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. |last2=Azeem |first2=Muhammad Waqar |last3=Underwood |first3=Lisa |last4=Scattoni |first4=Maria Luisa |last5=Persico |first5=Antonio M. |last6=Ricciardello |first6=Arianna |last7=Sappok |first7=Tanja |last8=Bergmann |first8=Thomas |last9=Keller |first9=Roberto |editor2-last=Deb |editor2-first=Shoumitro (Shoumi) |editor3-last=Munir |editor3-first=Kerim |editor4-last=Hassiotis |editor4-first=Angela |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="Lord-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Lord |first1=Catherine |last2=Charman |first2=Tony |last3=Havdahl |first3=Alexandra |last4=Carbone |first4=Paul |last5=Anagnostou |first5=Evdokia |last6=Boyd |first6=Brian |last7=Carr |first7=Themba |last8=de Vries |first8=Petrus J |last9=Dissanayake |first9=Cheryl |author-link9=Cheryl Dissanayake |last10=Divan |first10=Gauri |last11=Freitag |first11=Christine M |display-authors=10 |date=2022 |title=The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism |url=https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2975811/Lancet+Commission.pdf?sequence=1 |journal=] |volume=399 |issue=10321 |pages=299–300 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 |pmid=34883054 |s2cid=244917920 |via=] |hdl=11250/2975811}}</ref><ref name="Graham Holmes-2022" />
	::::"Would it be ok to mention the ODT ban?" Sure-- not that it matters.
			Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism,<ref name="The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanne">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR |date=December 2021 |title=The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond |journal=Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |volume=51 |issue=12 |pages=4253–4270 |doi=10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 |pmc=8531066 |pmid=33624215}}</ref> and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J |title=Autism Spectrum Disorders |chapter=The Broad Autism Phenotype |year=2011 |pages=457–476 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-996521-2 |language=en-US |doi=10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Chapman R, Veit W |title=Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact? |journal=] |volume=26 |issue=11 |page=7069 |date=November 2021 |pmid=34697454 |doi=10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6 |s2cid=239771302 |doi-access=free}}</ref>. Estimates of ] have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J |title=The autism epidemic: fact or artifact? |language=English |journal=] |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=721–730 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17513984 |doi=10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b}}</ref><ref name="Russell 2021" /> The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by ] that autism is ].<ref name="Annual Review of Virology">{{cite journal |vauthors=DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT |date=September 2019 |title=The MMR Vaccine and Autism |journal=] |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=585–600 |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515 |pmc=6768751 |pmid=30986133}}</ref> Boys are far ] than girls<ref name="CDC 2020" />, although this gap has been narrowing.{{citationneeded}}
	::::In other news: "To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies ''this picture'' as being of the ''Overland'' taken '''''during the war years'''''..." Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No. ] (]) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{Dotted divider}}
	::::*What exactly do you think that '''''...for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED"''''' -- the ''only'' train that Wayner specifically names as getting the cars -- means ''other'' than that these cars were ''operated'' on the ''SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED''?
			Note: I have , in order to start collecting notes about what ought to change, because I find Misplaced Pages's own interfaces extremely clunky for this sort of thing. Hopefully, keeping the rest of the article in mind while we focus on the lead will help us to navigate the potential issues that ] flags up.
	::::*Once again I have ''never'' claimed that the SFOL was "all LW" so that is not an issue with me. For the reasons I have noted above regarding the level of passenger traffic during the war being more than three times what it was prewar, and Beebe's statement at page 41 that during the War "''The Overland'' ran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train", it is clear that that the consists were made up of both LW and HW cars.
			--] (]) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Divider line}}
	::::*Once again, sir, you continue to make lots of claims (such as "Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No.") but still provide NO SOURCES whatsoever to support them other than your "personal word" or "opinion". That, however, is just ''not'' the way WP operates. ] (]) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			While I, like @], would like the lead section to be significantly more respectful and neurodiversity-affirming, I also agree that we should be aiming to build bridges, but I still want to make some suggestions to make the proposal by @] clearer and more neutral. Feel free to comment on them.
	*OK there seems to be broad agreement now on the original concern here (i.e. we agree that there was a mix of heavyweight and lightweight cars). The locus of the dispute now seems to have become whether the Overland carried coach cars during the war years. Is that accurate? It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches, and Tim Zukas is citing the public timetables. Centparr has provided the text of the Beebe source. It would be helpful if we could get a link to, scan of, or transcription of the public timetables. Could you provide us with that evidence, Tim Zukas? If the two sources in fact disagree then we will have to consider their respective degrees of reliability and if this fails to break the deadlock then we will have to mention both claims with appropriate attribution. There are many ways to provide appropriate attribution if it comes to that. -] (]) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			;First paragraph
	:*I have already ordered hard copies of both Don DeNevi's ''America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History'' (1996) as well as Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page ''Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII'' (2009) which have both been shipped and I should have in hand by the end of the week. The information they contain should go a long way to answering this and any other questions relating to the makeup and operations of the ''SFOL'' and other intercity trains during WWII. ] (]) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			1) Is “officially known as” the best wording? On the one hand, it can encourage readers to just use autism in daily life contexts but on the other hand it can imply a sense of authority that is already conveyed in the second paragraph and doesn’t necessarily need repetition. But it might still be better than just calling it ASD and suggesting it to be a fact of nature.
	:::"It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches"
			2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it).
	:::That the train did carry coaches in the early 1930s, which is true. No disagreement in the sources about 1939-1945.
			3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties.
	:::On second thought: if the article mentions the ODT ban, we're bound to get it wrong-- we don't know what kinds of cars were allowed. In 1943 the Overland carried a "buffet-club car" with barber, valet and shower bath, and a sleeper-observation, and a diner of course. The Challenger had a lounge car and a diner. ] (]) 16:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			4) Change „Being a spectrum disorder“ to „Being a spectrum“: the term disorder has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph makes it clear that diagnostic manuals classify autism as a disorder, using the term „disorder“ out of this context makes it appear more objective than it is.
	:::* I am citing ''both'' Beebe (pp. 41, 135, 138 et al) ''and'' Wayner (pp. 156-157 et al) with regard to the deployment and use by the SP, UP and C&NW of both new (1941-42) LW head-end, sleeper and chair cars on the ''SFOL'' in WWII, and ODT's 1942 General Order re the carriage of non-revenue luxury cars on intercity trains, and will be reviewing both DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly for further consist and operational information on the ''SFOL'' and other ''Overland Route'' trains during the war years when I receive their books on the subject of WWII railroads in the US later this week. ] (]) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
			5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition.
	:::::How did you consult the public timetables, Tim Zukas? Are they available online or only offline? Are they in the form of a book or are they kept in an archives somewhere? At this point we need to be able to use them to verify the claim that the Overland discontinued the use of coaches from 1938 until 1946. -] (]) 13:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Second paragraph
	::::::You'd think they'd be online somewhere-- a few websites have scans of old airline timetables-- but I don't remember seeing a scan of 1940s SP or UP public timetables. I'm looking at paper timetables, and Official Guides would serve as well if a university library near you has them. If you want a paper copy of the relevant timetable page, speak up. But note the article doesn't mention the matter, and doesn't need to-- only reason it came up is he wrongly thought the Overland got lightweight coaches in 1941-42. ] (]) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	*Both Beebe and Wayner indicate that some of the 1941-42 LW chair cars were utilized by the ''SFOL'' during the war years as does ''"Civilian War Transport : A Record of the Control of Domestic Traffic Operations by the Office of Defense Transportation 1941-1946"'' (ODT, 1948). The UP's November 1, 1943 ''Condensed Time Tables'' list only ''six'' CHI-SF cars (three sleepers, a combination sleeper-observation, a diner, and a buffet) on the train. This arrangement would give the train the capacity to carry at most about 70-75 passengers. While Beebe (who lived in Reno, NV, and wrote that he rode this train often both as a passenger and in his own private car attached to its end) says at p. 41 of ''The Overland Limited'' that "During the 1941 war when the theater of operations was shifting to the Pacific and the entire world of military personnel, politics, logistics and allied civilian activity was turning its face westward, ''The Overland'' '''ran in ''two sections'' as a ''regular thing'' with ''twenty cars'' to a train.'''" That being the case, the "equipment listing" in the time table showing only six through cars is clearly '''not complete''' as to what the ''SFOL'' actually carried and thus cannot be used as a ''definitive source.'' The question is therefore still open and unresolved. I'll see what DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly have to say on this when those volumes arrive later this week. ] (]) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
			1) Change „healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder.“ to „healthy part of the diversity of humankind ''to be valued and supported'', rather than a disorder ''to be treated''.“
	:*If Tim Zukas is correct that this fact (i.e. the Overland's use of coach cars during the war years) doesn't appear in either the previous or current version of the article then this would seem to be more of an academic discussion than a content-oriented discussion and thus better suited for a venue like user talk than DRN. Centpacrr, do you anticipate that this fact will eventually work its way into the article? -] (]) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			2) Remove the citation of Shield’s paper as it focuses mainly on the criminal justice system and states that its conclusions need not apply to autistic people who don’t commit crimes, which is the overwhelming majority. It is too marginal of an aspect to be included in the lead section. Maybe Russell (2020) could be cited as an analysis of critiques of the neurodiversity movement. The sentence that others view autism as inherently disabling would then have to be changed. It is also misleading because neurodiversity academics don’t state that autism cannot have inherently disabling features alongside neutral features and strengths . It is a misconception and when deliberately used, a straw man.
	::*I have two more sources to consult -- Don DeNevi's ''America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History'' (1996) and Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page ''Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII'' (2009) -- on order which I will have in hand by Friday. Both books are specifically about US railroads during WWII and I will see what they say about all the extra cars (up to 30 a day on two sections) that are not included in the CTT equipment listings for the ''SFOL'' during the war years. When I am able to document what they were I will be adding that to the article. ] (]) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
			3) Make it clear that the debate is changing and the support for the neurodiversity movement is growing rapidly. Your proposal makes it appear to be a stalemate conflict which it isn’t. Also highlight the growing importance of self-advocacy and of seeing autistic people as the primary experts on the topic . Also cite Bottini et. Al (2024) . It is a secondary source with regard to the terminology being used in autism research. The fact that it is a primary source in its judgement of some of the terms as neurodiversity-affirming and others as not neurodiversity-affirming does not change that because critics would (if they are well-informed) not contend that not calling autism a disorder, for example, is neurodiversity-affirming while doing the opposite is not. Moreover, as @] ], we should only apply the rigid standards for medically reliable sources for sources that are about biomedical information. So even someone who sees it as a primary source cannot reasonably contend its citation anymore. Additional useful sources to cite are: and
	::::As requested, I've been holding off on removing errors from the article while this discussion was going on. Is that request no longer in effect? ] (]) 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
			4) Maybe change „The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy ...“ to „There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among ...“
	::::::You have to state in here what you think may be an error and provide reliable sources to support your claim. As we have already seen with regard to the makeup of consists (especially during the war years), equipment listings in time tables and the monthly Railway Guides are ''not'' definitive as in many instances listed trains carried many ''more'' cars cars than listed there. The ''SFOL'', for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT while Beebe states at page 41 that during WWII this service regularly ran in multiple sections with ''twenty'' cars per train -- 14 ''more'' cars per train than the minimum consists listed in the UP CTT. ] (]) 22:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Tim Zukas is correct that I had asked that all edits to the article cease while we discuss the 5 identified problems. As it is the question on which this point #5 was based has morphed into a substantively different question and further edits to the body of the article may introduce new points of contention. Let us try to find resolution on all of the identified problem issues before forging ahead. We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus on this new point #5, Centpacrr, but while we wait could you turn your attention to questions such as the one I've asked at the end of point #3 above? And Tim Zukas, please turn your attention to point #4 which has recently been re-opened. -] (]) 03:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			;Third paragraph
	::::::::"The ''SFOL'', for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT"
			1) Write „autism is highly heritable“ instead of „the disorder is highly heritable“ (see my remark 4) for the first paragraph). This is completely neutral and even those who view autism as a disorder should be able to agree.
	::::::::The timetable lists the kinds of cars on the train (or maybe the kinds of accommodation) and says nothing about how many of each kind it will carry.
			2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions , ideally with a reference to masking and stigma .
	::::::::But we can hope it will list all the kinds of cars, and that doesn't include coaches in 1943-- right?
			;Fourth paragraph
	::::::::"We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus"
			1) Change „Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis“ to „There is an ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria“ and also cite .
	::::::::They won't help. No source so far says the Overland carried coaches in 1941, and probably they won't either. ] (]) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“
	*Actually the November 1, 1943 UP CTT ''does'' state a ''specific number'' (not "kinds") of CHI-OAK/SF through passenger cars on a standard unaugmented ''SFOL'' consist and that number is "six" (see ). However as Beebe states (p. 41) that during the war years "''The Overland'' ran in '''two sections''' as a regular thing with '''twenty cars''' to a train" and Wayner (p. 157) states that "Three groups of head-end and ''' chair cars''' were built by Pullman-Standard in '''1941 and 1942''' for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray '''for operation on the ''SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED'' ''' and other trains", despite the "All Pullman" label for the train, the specific types and numbers of the 28 (per Beebe) ''extra'' sleeper, head-end and (per Wayner) '''chair''' cars that were added to the consists of the two daily ''SFOL'' augmented sections remain undocumented and thus neither proven or ''dis''proven either way. ] (]) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed.
	== Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement ==
			--] (]) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{DR case status|open}}
	{{drn filing editor|SheriWysong|15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 15:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1427987807}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			:Thanks, I support most of these suggestions. I suggest we wait a day or so to see if any other parties to this dispute have other feedback, before co-producing a draft lead integrating suggestions.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
			:A few of your suggestions, like 'entirely disproven conspiracy theory', may be unnecessarily wordy - important to keep in mind the guidelines ], I think, given how many of the problems with the existing entry relate to its ballooning length.
			:Just to reinforce the overall thrust of what we're trying to do here: accoding to Misplaced Pages guidelines, a ] "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity."
			:So avoiding language that disparages autistic people should be a priority, as long as it doesn't otherwise violate neutrality (or other guidelines).
			:] also explicitly states, in case there was any doubt: "Words like ''disease'', ''disorder'', or ''affliction'' are not always appropriate." ] (]) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This paper mentions the tensions between autistic people and the research community, calling for a paradigm shift in biomedical autism research. The authors are important figures in Europe's largest autism research project, AIMS-2-Trials. It could be cited at the end of the second paragraph where it is about the controversy between the models. ] (]) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Redraft
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
			I have re-drafted the lead below. As you will see, I have adopted many but not all of ]'s suggestions. Brevity has been my biggest consideration where I have not accepted their changes; in a couple of cases, I have left the wording as it was in the name of maximising neutrality. One or two other bits have been tweaked for the sake of clarity or, again, brevity. "Health authorities classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder" is shorter, for example, and, I think, unambiguously accurate; the reason the diagnostic manuals and guidelines are seen as important is ''because'' they are produced and endorsed by medical or public health authorities, after all.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|SheriWysong}}
	* {{User| montanabw}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			I have also tweaked the description of the social model of disability slightly, and the following sentence now reads "It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling" - I take LL's point that this is argued by many of the ''same'' people taking the former position, so saying 'other people' here (let alone 'other scientists'!) was misleading. Few proponents of the medical model are absolutist about it, certainly in the context of the neurodiversity movement.
	The page is confusing, inaccurate and poorly sourced. The other editor does not agree on how it should be fixed.
			{{Dotted divider}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			{{tqb|text=
			Autism, referred to in clinical contexts as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by ], verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a ], autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are ], while others have proficient spoken language.
			Health authorities classify autism as a ].<ref name="World Health Organization" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-08-28 |title=Overview {{!}} Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management {{!}} Guidance |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170 |access-date=2024-11-02 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}</ref><ref name="iacc.hhs.gov" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders |last2=Dalwai |first2=Samir |last3=Ahmed |first3=Shabina |last4=Udani |first4=Vrajesh |last5=Mundkur |first5=Nandini |last6=Kamath |first6=S. S. |last7=C Nair |first7=M. K. |date=2017-05-15 |title=Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28368272/ |journal=Indian Pediatrics |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=385–393 |doi=10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4 |issn=0974-7559 |pmid=28368272}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Howes |first1=Oliver D |last2=Rogdaki |first2=Maria |last3=Findon |first3=James L |last4=Wichers |first4=Robert H |last5=Charman |first5=Tony |last6=King |first6=Bryan H |last7=Loth |first7=Eva |last8=McAlonan |first8=Gráinne M |last9=McCracken |first9=James T |last10=Parr |first10=Jeremy R |last11=Povey |first11=Carol |last12=Santosh |first12=Paramala |last13=Wallace |first13=Simon |last14=Simonoff |first14=Emily |last15=Murphy |first15=Declan G |date=2018-01-01 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology |journal=Journal of Psychopharmacology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |doi=10.1177/0269881117741766 |issn=0269-8811 |pmc=5805024 |pmid=29237331}}</ref> An alternative perspective, arising out of ],<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2020 |editor-last=Kapp |editor-first=Steven K. |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0 |journal=SpringerLink |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0}}</ref> is ], which positions autism as a healthy part of the ] of humankind, rather than a disorder - with advantages, as well as disadvantages. This is usually associated with some version of the ],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dwyer |first=Patrick |last2=Gurba |first2=Ava N |last3=Kapp |first3=Steven K |last4=Kilgallon |first4=Elizabeth |last5=Hersh |first5=Lynnette H |last6=Chang |first6=David S |last7=Rivera |first7=Susan M |last8=Gillespie-Lynch |first8=Kristen |date=2024-09-18 |title=Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613241273029 |journal=Autism |language=en |pages=13623613241273029 |doi=10.1177/13623613241273029 |issn=1362-3613}}</ref> suggesting that disability generally arises when a person's environment does not accommodate their needs.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shakespeare |first=Tom |url=http://thedigitalcommons.org/docs/shakespeare_social-model-of-disability.pdf |title=The disability studies reader |date=1997 |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-415-91470-3 |editor-last=Davis |editor-first=Lennard J. |location=New York |chapter=The Social Model of Disability}}</ref> It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/japp.12470 | doi=10.1111/japp.12470 | title=A Critique of the Neurodiversity View | date=2021 | journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=335–347 | vauthors = Nelson RH }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Shields |first1=Kenneth |last2=Beversdorf |first2=David |date=1 July 2021 |title=A Dilemma For Neurodiversity |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |journal=Neuroethics |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–141 |doi=10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x |issn=1874-5504}}</ref> There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among autistic people, practitioners, researchers and charities.<ref>{{cite book |title=Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline |vauthors=Robison JE |date=2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-13-8437-0 |veditors=Kapp SK |place=Singapore |pages=221–232 |chapter=My Time with Autism Speaks |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16 |doi-access=free |s2cid=210496353}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Opar |first=Alisa |date=24 April 2019 |title=In search of truce in the autism wars |url=https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars |url-status=live |journal=Spectrum |publisher=] |doi=10.53053/VRKL4748 |s2cid=249140855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220708195918/https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/search-truce-autism-wars/ |archive-date=8 July 2022 |access-date=9 July 2022 |doi-access=free}}{{cite journal |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x}}</ref> Support for the neurodiversity approach has greatly increased in recent years among all of these groups.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Moving from Disorder to Difference: A Systematic Review of Recent Language Use in Autism Research |journal=Autism in Adulthood |url=https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2023.0030}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |url=https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp.13534}}</ref>
	none
			<!-- Causes and prevalence -->The ] are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that autism is ] and ]. Environmental factors are also relevant.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hodges |first1=Holly |last2=Fealko |first2=Casey |last3=Soares |first3=Neelkamal |date=February 2020 |title=Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation |journal=Translational Pediatrics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=S55–S5S65 |doi=10.21037/tp.2019.09.09 |doi-access=free |pmid=32206584 |pmc=7082249 |issn=2224-4344}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ratajczak |first=Helen V. |date=2011-03-01 |title=Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |journal=Journal of Immunotoxicology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=68–79 |doi=10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086 |issn=1547-691X |pmid=21299355}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Mandy W, Lai MC |title=Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition |journal=] |issn=0021-9630 |eissn=1469-7610 |oclc=01307942 |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=271–292 |date=March 2016 |pmid=26782158 |doi=10.1111/jcpp.12501 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Autism frequently co-occurs with ] (ADHD), ], and ], and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of ] and feelings than the general population.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bertelli |first1=Marco O. |title=Autism Spectrum Disorder |date=2022 |work=Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder |pages=391 |editor-last=Bertelli |editor-first=Marco O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4mtvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA391 |access-date=8 June 2022 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16 |isbn=978-3-319-95720-3 |quote=Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have ] identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. |last2=Azeem |first2=Muhammad Waqar |last3=Underwood |first3=Lisa |last4=Scattoni |first4=Maria Luisa |last5=Persico |first5=Antonio M. |last6=Ricciardello |first6=Arianna |last7=Sappok |first7=Tanja |last8=Bergmann |first8=Thomas |last9=Keller |first9=Roberto |editor2-last=Deb |editor2-first=Shoumitro (Shoumi) |editor3-last=Munir |editor3-first=Kerim |editor4-last=Hassiotis |editor4-first=Angela |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="Lord-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Lord |first1=Catherine |last2=Charman |first2=Tony |last3=Havdahl |first3=Alexandra |last4=Carbone |first4=Paul |last5=Anagnostou |first5=Evdokia |last6=Boyd |first6=Brian |last7=Carr |first7=Themba |last8=de Vries |first8=Petrus J |last9=Dissanayake |first9=Cheryl |author-link9=Cheryl Dissanayake |last10=Divan |first10=Gauri |last11=Freitag |first11=Christine M |display-authors=10 |date=2022 |title=The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism |url=https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2975811/Lancet+Commission.pdf?sequence=1 |journal=] |volume=399 |issue=10321 |pages=299–300 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 |pmid=34883054 |s2cid=244917920 |via=] |hdl=11250/2975811}}</ref><ref name="Graham Holmes-2022" /> Autistic people are also significantly more likely to experience ] and ], especially if they try to ].<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review |journal=Clinical Psychology Review |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735821001239}}</ref>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			There is ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism,<ref name="The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR |date=December 2021 |title=The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond |journal=Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |volume=51 |issue=12 |pages=4253–4270 |doi=10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1 |pmc=8531066 |pmid=33624215}}</ref> and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J |title=Autism Spectrum Disorders |chapter=The Broad Autism Phenotype |year=2011 |pages=457–476 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-996521-2 |language=en-US |doi=10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Chapman R, Veit W |title=Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact? |journal=] |volume=26 |issue=11 |page=7069 |date=November 2021 |pmid=34697454 |doi=10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6 |s2cid=239771302 |doi-access=free}}</ref>. Estimates of ] have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J |title=The autism epidemic: fact or artifact? |language=English |journal=] |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=721–730 |date=June 2007 |pmid=17513984 |doi=10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b}}</ref><ref name="Russell 2021" /> <ref>{{Cite journal |title=Autism phenotype versus registered diagnosis in Swedish children: prevalence trends over 10 years in general population samples |journal=The BMJ |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1961}}</ref> The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by ] that autism is ].<ref name="Annual Review of Virology">{{cite journal |vauthors=DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT |date=September 2019 |title=The MMR Vaccine and Autism |journal=] |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=585–600 |doi=10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515 |pmc=6768751 |pmid=30986133}}</ref> Boys are ] than girls<ref name="CDC 2020" />, although this gap has been narrowing.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |journal=Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |url=https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(17)30152-1/abstract}}</ref>}}
	Moderate Discussion to keep it focused on the content.
			{{Dotted divider}}
	==== Summary of dispute by montanabw ====
			I await guidance from @] on how to proceed with feeding back on and refining this draft.
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			--] (]) 11:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	*This article passed GA a year ago under the leadership of User:Dana boomer. While all articles can always be improved, and the editor above rightly noted some statistical information that was not well-stated - and has since been adjusted, her remaining "suggestions" on "improving" the article largely consist of inserting ] and ], sourced - poorly - to obsolete materials. She also appears to not understand ]. Any attempts to discuss quickly devolves into a massive waste of bandwidth to the point that it becomes impossible to even track what this editor wants; she contradicts herself, changes her position frequently, and the edit history of the talk page shows her editing pattern of making dozens of edits to produce just a few paragraphs - it's a horribly confusing method. Her behavior has resulted in two articles being fully protected. I am not opposed to compromise and collaboration, but it appears that it is impossible with this editor. Note: This editor has only edited substantially since last fall, and though she created this account in 2010, there were only two edits made at the time. This is a remarkably precocious editor or else we have a yet-undetermined sockpuppet account. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
			:], I sometimes find it hard to find/re-find draft text amidst the wall of other text on the page. Would you mind using something like the <nowiki>{{tq2}}</nowiki> ] to set the draft text off? (That's the template I'm familiar with, but perhaps there's another that has a similar effect.) Thanks! ] (]) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement discussion ===
			::FYI (''for everyone''):
			::<nowiki>{{tq2}}</nowiki> = <nowiki>{{tqb}}</nowiki> =
			:: -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ah, I wondered what markup you were using for that! Yes, I'm happy to - but note that this one has the heading ] so you should be able to find it that way! ] (]) 08:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] - I like your "redraft" too. I have a couple of (relatively minor) questions or comments, but I will wait to post them on the Rfc when that is set up. - <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 00:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks Mark! ] (]) 08:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Note that the main part of the process is now ].
			::@], would it make sense to collapse this whole section if people are meant to be replying elsewhere now? Thanks! ] (]) 08:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Seventh Statement by Moderator (Autism)
	====First statement by volunteer moderator====
			I thank the editors who are developing a proposed revised draft of the ]. I have one question, and that is: Do you think that you will be able to develop a draft that has the support of those editors who want to rework the article to reflect the neurodiversity viewpoint? My plan, as I have noted above, is to prepare an RFC for the ], knowing that it may have to be revised again after the body of the article is revised.
	Hello! Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm ], and I'm a volunteer moderator around here and I will be taking this case. Before we begin I'd like to remind you that you ''must remain and civil'' and absolutely ''may not make personal comments or comments on conduct''. I'd also like to note that I am an unbiased third party, and I ''will not'' be giving opinions on article content, but rather helping the two of you to form an agreement together. Finally, I'd ask you to keep your statements short and concise, it'll be easier for everybody to understand and will help us resolve this conflict as soon as possible.
			I am responding to the comments about the walls of text that have been posted by moving this dispute. I have created two DRN subpages for the discussion of the article on ]. I am copying all of the material except the back-and-forth discussion to ], and am requesting that future work be in that subpages. I have copied the back-and-forth discussion to a separate subpage, ]. In the near future, I will be collapsing the previous dispute resolution on ] in the main ] page so that it does not overwhelm other cases.
	From what I understand there are quite a few content disputes going on here, and I think the best way to go about this is solving a few and then getting you on the path to having a good dialogue. So, at least to begin with, SheriWysong why don't you give me ''two or three'' additions/revisions you'd like to make, and then montanabw I'd like to hear, ''kindly and citing Misplaced Pages policy'', what you think the problems are with these changes.
			Are there any questions at this point either about future procedures for this task, or about the ] dispute in general?
	Once again I remind you that you two '''must''' remain civil at all times.
			] (]) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hi, I'd still appreciate a brief answer to the ] I posted in your Sixth statement section,. Thank you, ] (]) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	''''']]''''' 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
			::For the benefit of anyone else seeing this: questions have now been answered on the separate subpage.
			::Thanks to both of you! ] (]) 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Back-and-forth discussion (Autism)
	:Thank you, Kharkiv07. I will put up my proposed revisions shortly.] (]) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{collapsetop|See ]. ] (]) 17:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}, my understanding is that by "community consensus," Robert McClenon means consensus via an RfC advertised to the community at large; elsewhere, he contrasted that with "local consensus here" (i.e., consensus only among the editors participating in this DRN). Re: "Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN," at least one of them was invited to participate here but declined (as did some editors who don't support the current framing); participation here is entirely voluntary. My understanding is that you can invite wider participation as long as the invitation is consistent with the guidelines in ]; however, since the existence of this DRN has already been advertised on the Autism talk page, I don't know that there are any other venues that would make sense to advertise it. ] (]) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm baffled as to why my comment has that visual appearance. I don't see anything in the source editor that would result in that. Apologies, ] (]) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	====First statement by SheriWysong====
			::You have a space before the first curly bracket, that produces the 'box effect'. Feel free to remove this pointer once you have edited your text. ] (])
			:::Fixed. Thank you! ] (]) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I see, thank you for clarifying this! I will see if I can promote the DRN elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as well ] (]) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''"No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West, according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a 'guess.' However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and any estimate is speculative."'''
			{{u|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}} wrote (above):
	I would like for the statement to either be replaced or more accurately reflect what Dobie said, which was: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." It is important to put Dobie's words in context as to time (1848-NOT the late 1800s or early 1900s,) and place, because the article deals with horses and numbers that are in a different geographic area, so Dobie's statement really is not relevant.
			{{tq|... standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned.}}
	'''"However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources."'''
			(a) Correction: The American ''Psychiatric'' Association publishes the DSM.
	This statement is sourced to a reference that is also talking about horses in a different geographic location, not the horses subject to the Act of the article. It has not been established that the numbers of the horses subject to the Act declined at all, much less because they were competing with cattle and sheep for resources.
			(b) "... it is not even mentioned." - What is not mentioned?
	'''"After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land."'''
			(c) "they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD" - I encourage you to consider the history of mental disorders listed in the DSM. For example, until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and therefore a medical disorder, since the DSM is published by an organization of physicians. For many years, including for many years after 1973, children, adolescents, and adults were told that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a psychopathology that requires long-term treatment to (possibly) eliminate the mental illness—such as the medical treatment provided to ].
	Since no number is provided for the mid-1930s, and there's not source that said they declined, this is unverified.] (]) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			Simply listing an alleged disorder in the DSM medicalizes it. I hope you understand this important point.
	:{{replyto|montanabw}} Sorry for not pining you when I opened this, please tell us if you disagree with any of the changes here, and if so why. ''''']]''''' 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			At the same time, there are some important differences between homosexuality and autism spectrum disorders, so I should make clear that I am not comparing them in most aspects. I actually agree with you that autism spectrum disorders are neurodevelopmental disorders. However, this article is about autism, not just autism spectrum disorders. Also, we are an encyclopedia, not a professional treatment guideline or diagnostic manual, so it is important for us to discuss political, sociological, phenomenological, and many other aspects of autism. The article will still be about, mostly, a neurodevelopmental disorder. But it will also include an enriched understanding, grounded in reliable sources, that reviews the many facets of this condition, including the lived experience of people diagnosed with it. What we're trying to do is get away from narrow, rigid editing that creates articles that sound like a psychiatric treatment textbook. -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 04:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	====First statement by montanabw====
	I have an openness to improving the article, but do not agree with many of Wysong's suggestions for improvement (I actually DO agree with a few) but these issues are being discussed exhaustively at ] and again at ] with little consensus because the debate gets so long that no one can even follow it any longer. It seems to become about who is right, not about consensus. I made a few changes in response to Wysong's criticism, but I didn't agree with all or her suggestions, and I tried to explain why, but ... well, here we are. This is an article about a piece of legislation with a summary of the history leading up to the act; this article is not the ] article, nor is it the ] article. We don't need endless detail. I will try to summarize my answers as concisely as possible. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			:a) By that statement, I meant the DSM criteria for ASD does not mention medical treatments.
	* The two million figure needs to stay for the following reasons: It is sourced originally to ] and is explained and analyzed (See "Myth #13"). The reason we include Dobie at all is explained by the BLM page; that the figure has "...been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." In other words, the article "teaches the controversy" by explaining the source of one of the most common numbers that is bandied about. (read the History section of the article for full context). Wysong's insistence on the "mournful to history" direct quote is unencyclopedic writing and unneeded; we are NOT claiming that there were - or were not - two million Mustangs in the Old West; we are addressing a common misunderstood statistic and then moving on. No, I do not agree with her suggested changes or her reasoning; if the two million concept can be phrased better or explained better, WITHOUT close paraphrasing, long quotes without analysis, OR or SYNTH, then I'm open to improvement of the phrasing to get that point across. I have not been open to Wysong's suggestion, nor her reasoning behind it. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			:b) Sorry, I made a typo there, indeed the American ''Psychiatric,'' and not ''Psychological'', Association publishes the DSM. Note that while they are not the direct publishers, the ''American Psychological Association'' among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
			:c) I understand your concern but you are specifically referencing borderline pre-scientific conceptions of disorders that have no bearing on our modern outlook. In the early DSM iterations, homosexuality was indeed implicitly included as a disorder. This was largely because of political reasons and an idiosyncratic interpretation of what qualifies as a disorder. For decades since then, there has been a global scientific consensus (Barkley et al., 2002; Faraone et al., 2021) that for something to qualify as a disorder it must meet '''two''' criteria. First, there must be scientifically established evidence of a dysfunction or deviation in a trait universal to humans. One may argue homosexuality meets this first criteria as it deviates from the more typical heterosexuality in the underlying spectrum of sexuality universal to humans.
			:However, the second criteria requires this deviation or dysfunction causes significant impairment or distress in major life domains and/or predisposes to increased morbidity and early mortality. Homosexuality does not meet this criteria and is therefore not a disorder; whilst ''some'' homosexual people may experience problems due to societal oppression and discrimination, this is not attributable to the condition itself.
			:This is ultimately why we can't compare things like homosexuality and transgender (which are not impairing or disabling) to neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD (which are). I'm know you agree with this differentiation and are aware of the criterion for establishing disorders, but it seems I need to describe it so we can avoid these sort of comparisons.
			:It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to prescribe medical treatment. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP). No guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD.
			:I'm aware and have personally dealt with the fact that DSM committees are far from perfect and make egregious errors at times, including for political reasons, which is why I have not relied on the DSM at all. This was much worse back in its early versions indeed, but has improved substantially since. It was one reputable reference of many I have provided. I'd like to ask you please consider re-reading my statement, the citations, and the contexts of the aforementioned scientific literature which go far beyond medicine.
			:The article is about autism which ''is a neurodevelopmental disorder''. If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the ''autism spectrum'' is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know. ] (]) 13:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm puzzled by your comment that "It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." It seems that your assessment of whether something is medicalized is a function of whether it's treated/treatable with medication. Have I misunderstood how you assess whether something has been medicalized? There are many medical concerns that are addressed through behavioral or other adaptations rather than medication (e.g., through physical therapy, condom use, hand washing, use of mosquito nets, exercise, water treatment). When I look at the terminology used for many of the main headings in the article (e.g., symptoms, diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, interventions, prevention, prognosis, epidemiology), these strike me as mostly medical terms, and certainly the combination strikes me as a medical perspective (e.g., if you do an internet search for that set of words, the results are medical conditions). Would you mind clarifying how you assess whether something has been medicalized? Thanks, ] (]) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't like it when neurotypical people say "every one is on the spectrum" but luckily you only ''almost'' said that:
			::"From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism." So everyone has everything then? You didn't say that but this idea of people-having-something-but-it-not-being-bad-enough-to-count could be used on any condition or disability, at least in a social way like when talking to people, you could use it to offend and devaluatie someone.
			::"starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder."
			::But only a little bit so it doesn't count. I understand, but personally I only think the autistic ones are autistic, but that's off topic. ] (]) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Anthony, I believe there are two different ways to understand the "ASD" spectrum.
			:::One works like this: All the neurotypical people get put in this big neurotypical bubble over here: ⭕️. They are not on the spectrum because they are not autistic. All the autistic people are excluded from the neurotypical bubble, and they line up along the autistic spectrum, ranging from ]. The spectrum runs <small>(more or less, because being autistic is a multidimensional experience, and this is an over-simplifed two-dimensional spectrum)</small> from "barely qualifies as autistic" to "extremely autistic".
			:::The other works like this: All humans have a place on the spectrum of human variation. Everyone is somewhere in the ] colors. The extremely neurotypical people are at one end, and the extremely autistic people are at the other end. People who are not at the extremes line up somewhere in the middle. This is "everyone is on the spectrum"; that spectrum runs from "extremely non-autistic" to "extremely autistic".
			:::I have my own preferences, and I think it's confusing to use the word "spectrum" to describe both the spectrum of autistic people and the spectrum of all humans, but neither of these is bad or wrong. It may help if people are clear about which meaning they're using. ] (]) 07:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Way #1 is better, also some people believe you can't be more or less autistic I think I mostly agree with this unless the person is intellectually impaired, or maybe that just means their intellectually impaired. Anyway yt is bad for Misplaced Pages but if there are any other sources that fell this way it should probably be mentioned on the page: "some autism advocates say you can't compare who's more or less autistic". ] (]) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that moving away from the psychoanalytic diagnostic model to a research based model with DSM-III was a major improvement. However, my point is that including a condition in a medical diagnostic manual has the potential for both positive and negative impacts on people in a variety of ways. By itself, this is of course not a reason to exclude or include a condition in a medical diagnostic manual, it's simply one of many considerations.
			::Note that I am intentionally calling the DSM a "medical diagnostic manual", because psychiatry is a branch of medicine. With regard to the American Psychological Association, while some psychologists and other non-physician professionals serve on DSM committees, there is no doubt that this is an American psychiatric Association publication and that psychiatrists run the show. A useful way to highlight this distinction is to note that the American psychological association is not listed as an author or copyright holder for the DSM, and does not earn any income from the sale of the DSM and all that related products associated with it. On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association makes a ton of money with their copyright and trademark of the DSM name and contents. Since we, in the United States, live in a country with a free market economy (capitalism), all I can say is more power to them. But my point here is that while some psychologists are involved, it is the psychiatrists who are in charge and make the final decisions. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I feel puzzled by the statements <quote> ''If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know'' </quote> at many levels.
			::* Firstly, somebody can show less extent of Autistic traits yet be more stressed/ impaired due to mismatch with environment or bad consequences. A person with more significantly severe symptoms might be less stressed / do better with better support and understanding. School or workplace problems, self ha*rm, agressions meltdowns etc are often caused by stressful situations the person is unable to handle.
			::* When an Autistic (or non-Autistic) person cannot cope up and end up with traumatic complication (according to their own nervous system), it is called PTSD/ CPTSD. When a person shows '''significant level of Autistic traits''' then the person is called '''Autistic'''. When the person cannot function due to these (better to say a more sensitive nervous system that gets messed up in the same stimuli that neurotypicals comfortably digest) and enters into a state of shutdown or paralysis or bad condition, it is called '''PTSD/ CPTSD co-occuring with Autism.'''
			::* Autism is primarily defined as a social and communication disorder, and '''it takes at least 2 people to establish communication.''' Telling only one of them having communication disorder just because this group is less understood and less in number, is ridiculous. The mismatch between interaction is the key factor that make us appear functionally impaired.
			::* People do not fluctuate in and out impairment: '''Autistic people remain same level of Autistic.''' The stress level, mental stability, cope-up power fluctuates depending upon incidences and environment.
			::* No, everyone is DAMN not little bit Autistic. If everyone was somewhere on the Autism spectrum, then understanding and accommodation would NOT be this hard, we would NOT be so much misunderstood and judged. It is true that many people are misdiagnosed with a secondary mental health condition only. Or miss a diagnosis, never come to know they were Autistic, or access a diagnosis late in life... as a surprise discovery or accidental medical finding on some weird or traumatic life phase. STILL, no, NOT everyone in the planet is anywhere on the spectrum.
			::* The Autism spectrum is multidimensional, and the severity level is an unhelpful linear oversimplification of Autism spectrum. Because different Autistics have their needs and strengths in very different cognitive and sensori-motor domains. So called mild Autistics can have a different set of more severe problems, so called severe Autistics can have less problem in those domains. Each Auyistics go through different life situations. ] (]) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The goal should be reducing or minimizing the traumatic state. We can also prevent traumatic situation to some degree if diagnosis, support, and information are more accessible. ] (]) 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			To quote Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test: "Regarding scientific evidence, '''there is evidence for both neurodiversity and disorder'''. For example, at the genetic level, about 5 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to
	*I'm not precisely sure what Wysong's concerns are here. Actually, the Fran Lynghaug source at page 104 is contained in an article on the Pryor Mountain Mustangs of Montana, one of the groups of Mustangs that does live in the American west and are now protected by the Act. So while it addressed one specific group, the source verifies the general statement that there was a general decline of Mustang numbers across the western United States and that competition with livestock was a reason for this decline (put bluntly, ranchers rounded up feral horses and generally shipped them off for slaughter as horsemeat). Wysong herself proposed (at the talk page) something like: "Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle." with a different sourcing (diff shown has been subsequently edited). I'm open to a rephrase of that sentence. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			rare genetic variants/mutations, many of which cause not just autism but also severe developmental delays (disorder), whilst about 50 percent of the variance in autism can be
			attributed to common genetic variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation. At the neural level, some regions of the autistic brain (such as the amygdala, in childhood) are larger, and others (such as the posterior section of the corpus callosum) are smaller. These are evidence of difference but not necessarily disorder. Early brain overgrowth is another sign of difference but not necessarily disorder." See: https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2019_Baron-Cohen_Concept-of-neurodiversity.pdf
			I think that in and of itself, this single quotation destroys the idea that the scientific consensus is only supportive of the 'medical model' of autism. It also effectively discredits its corollary, that scientists reject the 'neurodiverity model' of autism, or consign it to the realms of 'fringe theory'. I suggest that Baron-Cohen's ideas on the equal and complimentary nature of the two models is a useful paradigm for the treatment of autism on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Actually, there IS a number; For an estimate, I'd be open to noting the numbers in the 1930s that are mentioned at , which states that in 1934, (i.e "the 1930s") there were "an estimated 150,000 wild horses on public land in 11 western states" I would be open to further refinement of that section to clarify matters further if language could be agreed upon. When the 1971 Act was passed in that period of time a reasonably accurate census of mustang numbers was done; using those numbers, it is blatently obvious that by 1971 there was a clear and dramatic drop from what they once were. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I hope that Baron-Cohen isn't actually claiming, as it sounds from this quotation, that anything resulting from SNP mutations is "natural variation", because some SNP mutations result in deadly diseases (e.g., some forms of cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Premature death could be described as "]" but it's not what most people think of as "natural variation". ] (]) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	I hope this makes my position clear. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			::That is exactly what he is claiming. The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial. He is contrasting SNPs with larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications, which are almost always highly deleterious. The major determinant of blue eyes in humans is a SNP in the OCA2 gene, known as rs12913832, I doubt that possessing blue eyes can be called a 'deadly disease'. Even if Baron-Cohen is not a molecular biologist by training, I am. ] (]) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think it is easier to interpret Baron-Cohen's sense here if you omit SNPs, which are given as an example: '50 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation'.
			:::There's no implication that ''all'' SNPs 'simply reflect natural variation', on my reading... but either way, it's worth bearing in mind that the term ']' is notoriously slippery. Sounds positive; actually includes all sorts of value-neutral or feared phenomena. ] (]) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Baron-Cohen is saying that many of the SNPs involved in autism are part of the natural variation within humanity as a whole. That is, he is pointing to these SNPs as being part of neurodiversity. A simplified corollary would be, again, the major blue eye colour SNP. Blue eye SNPs are found throughout populations of European descent, but an individual only displays blue eyes when they have two copies of the OCA2 gene with the SNP. With autism-associated SNPs, the individual will only display autism when they have above a certain threshold number of the alleles containing the 'autism SNPs'. It is a simple concept. For the majority of the population with lower numbers of autism-associated SNPs, they are not autistic and the individual SNPs may be neutral or even beneficial in their effects. Some autism-associated SNPs are connected to higher than average academic attainment. SNP variants as such can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. I have a number of Neanderthal-derived SNPs, one that affects my muscles - makes me a better sprinter than distance runner, two that make me less fearful of heights and one that means I do not get agitated or moody when hungry. SNPs are variable in their effects they are just changes to one nucleotide, it is where and how that change occurs that determines its phenotypic outcome. The concept of SNPs is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself. ] (]) 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yup! Thanks for that authoritative summary. :) ] (]) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Urselius, if Baron-Cohen is actually using the molecular mechanism as a way to ''define'' "normal human variation", then that's quite ]. He'd be defining ] – which is mostly harmless – as a "disorder" and most cases of ] – which can be deadly – as normal variation. Let's find better sources for determining what "normal human variation" is. I suspect (but would be happy to be proven wrong) that those better sources are going to rely more on the phenotype, e.g., "It is not 'normal' for children to scream for multiple hours a day." ] (]) 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::WhatamIdoing, I think the difference between "natural" and "normal" might be meaningful here. Among the meanings of "natural" (the word in the Baron-Cohen quote) is "typical" or "normal," but another is "found in nature." When I read Urselius's comment that "The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial," my sense is that "natural" is being used in the second sense, not the first. My interpretation of Urselius's comment is that most human variation found in nature "consists for SNPs," where that variation might result in disease, or have a neutral effect, or be a beneficial change.
			::::::Elsewhere in the short article, Baron-Cohen explains some of the terms he's using:
			::::::{{tq2|The term “disorder” is used when an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown, whilst the term “disease” is used when a disorder can be ascribed to a specific causal mechanism. The term “disability” is used when an individual is below average on a standardized measure of functioning and when this causes suffering in a particular environment. In contrast, the term “difference” simply refers to variation in a trait, like having blue or brown eyes.}} So I don't think he'd say that XYY syndrome is a disorder, and he might say that phenylketonuria is natural in the sense of "found in nature," but not natural in the sense of "normal." He doesn't define how he's using either "natural" or "normal" and only uses each one time in the article, and even then, he only uses "normal" inside quotation marks:
			::::::{{tq2|Many autistic people—especially those who have intact language and no learning difficulties such that they can self-advocate—have adopted the neurodiversity framework, coining the term “neurotypical” to describe the majority brain and seeing autism as an example of diversity in the set of all possible diverse brains, none of which is “normal” and all of which are simply different.}}
			:::::: ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::If the relevant definition is "found in nature", then "larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications" are equally "natural".
			:::::::It sounds like we need a definition of "dysfunction". (We leave aside the fact that asymptomatic dysfunction is also a medical disorder, since his focus is on behavioral health.) Is it a "dysfunction" if you are "below average on a standardized measure of functioning"? In a less politicized area, such as ], we would say that you have a "dysfunction" or a "disorder" if you are significantly worse than average on standardized measures of functioning, such as the ability to lean forward without pain. If an autistic person is significantly below average on a standardized measure of functioning, e.g., social communication, then would that not be "a disorder"? ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I think which definition is relevant depends on the context. Yes, if the intended meaning is "'found in nature', then 'larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications' are equally 'natural'". But Urselius indicated that the human variation that results from larger scale changes to DNA is less common than the variation that results from SNPs, and that SNPs and larger scale changes to DNA have different distributions of deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects. I'm guessing that "dysfunction" is meant as something like "impaired function relative to what's typical for a healthy person." I wouldn't think that simply being below average necessarily means that you're atypical, since "typical for a healthy person" is often a range, and someone can be below average but still in that healthy range. However, significantly below would indicate dysfunction. I don't understand your last question: why would it not be a disorder? Seems to me that it falls in his description of disorder: "an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown." ] (]) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::To a first approximation, all mutations are lethal. For the uncommon subset of mutations that both produce a practical effect and aren't immediately lethal, then on average, bigger changes are more damaging than smaller changes. However, that's about the average, and as a simple example, a single SNP mutation can change the three-letter code for a Tyr or Cys amino acid into a ], which has the same practical effect as a deletion of the rest of that gene. It would be silly to say that cystic fibrosis caused by a deletion is a "disease" but cystic fibrosis caused by an unfortunately located stop codon "simply reflect individual differences or natural variation" when both cases are producing the same partial and equally ineffective protein. ] (]) 02:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yeah, I'm assuming that the discussion isn't about mutations that are immediately lethal and is instead about human variation among those who are born. Re: your example, aren't they both examples of "variation found in nature," with both cases resulting in disease? Somehow I'm missing the point of your example. ] (]) 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The point is that declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation' is nonsense. The genetic mechanism is less important than the practical result. ] (]) 22:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::But I don't think anyone is {{tq|declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation'}}. As I understand it, both deletions ''and'' SNPs are "natural variation" (''not'' in the sense of "normal"), and either can produce disorder, but disorder is a more common result with the former than the latter (excluding all of the mutations that are immediately lethal). ] (]) 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::This is an awful lot of discussion of what I'm fairly sure is a misunderstanding of what SBC said in the first place. Maybe it could be good to ], with the odd excursion into things directly relevant to that process? ] (]) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I can't really contribute to the redrafting, and perhaps I should stop participating entirely. At any rate, I will try to be more mindful about whether or not my comments are productive with respect to the dispute resolution and to avoid those that are peripheral. ] (]) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Is a reliable biological difference between autism with intellectual disability and autism without intellectual disability an established theory or is it just a conjecture posed by some? I wonder why those who advocate for viewing autistic people with intellectual disabilities as disordered don't seem to use this as an argument (apart from Baron-Cohen) and even scientific sources don't often mention it and instead refer to there being multiple subtypes some of which have a somewhat higher likelihood of intellectual disability than others.
			:::::In the talk section, you wrote (]) about your achievements, marriage, children, house owning and savings in order to counter claims of impairment. Maybe you have read about the social model of disability in the meantime, but showing how much we achieve is not necessary for countering disorder narratives. It can even come close to Aspie supremacism () because it implies that one's brain is superior to that of an autistic person with intellectual disability. There is certainly a hope for a biological difference among autistic people without intellectual disability who want to distance themselves from what they call the "really impaired" ones.
			:::::From my perspective (I'm not a geneticist or neuroscientist) it looks more like there is no clear boundary between the two, but please correct me if I'm wrong. ] (]) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't necessarily doubt the status of this scientist but it is quite a fallacious argument from authority to use this to help perceive the reputability of a source (as it seems implied to me). People are fallible, scientific consensus is usually much less so.
			:I'm glad you point towards how neurodiversity and disorder as concepts are not mutually exclusive. The issue is with the so-called ''Neurodiversity Movement'', specifically the subset of its advocates who argue they are incompatible and thus assert ASD is not a real disorder.
			:The validity of ASD as a neurodevelopmental of course doesn't deny the underlying neurological diversity that leads to the disorder. But what's been empirically demonstrated is that once this diversity becomes sufficiently severe, significant impairment in major life domains, distress and/or predisposition to morbidity, injury and early mortality arise.
			:I'd like to note the scientific consensus for concluding ASD is a disorder isn't medically based, regardless of whether people wish to impose this term on it in order to contrast it with a "social model". Diagnosticians do not ''necessarily'' prescribe medical treatment but merely affirm the presence or absence of a disorder or other form of condition. No medication has been found to reduce the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no reputable guidelines, to my knowledge, have approved use of any medication for ASD. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, as noted by Nelson (2020). In the list of references, the terminology is not invalidated but actually consistently used in subfields of ASD that are unrelated to medicine. ] (]) 14:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A consensus is not a consensus if a major player does not subscribe to it. Baron-Cohen, amongst active researchers in the field of autism, is far from being alone in his views. There was a scientific consensus that space was pervaded by aether, which was the 'carrier' for electromagnetic radiation, until the work of Einstein disproved it. Scientists, let alone medics, can adhere to incorrect consensuses. More cogently, science can also admit the possible validity of two or more differing hypotheses or theories at the same time, if the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. ] (]) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The field of contributors and published literature in ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher or publication to wave the scientific consensus. Keep in mind that the argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature would occur.
			:::Citing the scientific consensus shouldn't be automatically untrustworthy because it has been wrong in the past. This implication ignores the Darwinian self-corrective process that is the scientific enterprise---proposing, testing, and refining based on the evidence thus far obtained. Even when paradigm shifts occur in science, it is exceedingly rare that the prior model is discarded but rather superseded by a more comprehensive model, e.g., the introduction of General Relativity didn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics (to expand on the example topic you cited).
			:::An appeal to scientific consensus isn't fallacious in the same way appealing to a singular authority is. For instance, if every single chemist alive unanimously agrees on the existence of the periodic table, then it's very indicative of the fact that that's how molecules work. This would be so even if I am unqualified to understand the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. ] (]) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::A consensus is a generally accepted opinion, it comes close to suggesting unanimity. As I have said, Baron-Cohen is not just eminent in the field of autism research he is far from alone! Here are just some scientific/medical publications and their authors that challenge your consensus: Akhtar, N., &&nbsp;Jaswal, V.K.&nbsp;(2013).&nbsp;Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths: An introduction to the special section.&nbsp;Developmental Psychology,&nbsp;49,&nbsp;1–3. Bagatell, N.&nbsp;(2010).&nbsp;From cure to community: Transforming notions of autism.&nbsp;Ethos,&nbsp;38,&nbsp;33–55. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H.,&nbsp;Chown, N., &&nbsp;Stenning, A.&nbsp;(Eds.) (2020).&nbsp;Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm.&nbsp;London: Routledge. Callanan, M., &&nbsp;Waxman, S.&nbsp;(2013).&nbsp;Commentary on special section: Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths.&nbsp;Developmental Psychology,&nbsp;49,&nbsp;80–83. Dawson, M., &&nbsp;Mottron, L.&nbsp;(2011).&nbsp;Do autistics have cognitive strengths? Should ASC be defined as disorders?&nbsp;In&nbsp;S. Bolte&nbsp;&&nbsp;J. Hallmayer&nbsp;(Eds.),&nbsp;Autism spectrum conditions: FAQs on autism, Asperger syndrome, and atypical autism answered by international experts&nbsp;(pp.&nbsp;32–39).&nbsp;Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. den Houting, J.&nbsp;(2019).&nbsp;Neurodiversity: An insider's perspective.&nbsp;Autism,&nbsp;23,&nbsp;271–273. Jaarsma, P., &&nbsp;Welin, S.&nbsp;(2012).&nbsp;Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement.&nbsp;Health Care Analysis,&nbsp;20,&nbsp;20–30. Leadbitter, K.,&nbsp;Buckle, K.L.,&nbsp;Ellis, C., &&nbsp;Dekker, M.&nbsp;(2021).&nbsp;Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice.&nbsp;Frontiers in Psychology,&nbsp;12(Article 635690),&nbsp;1–7. Nicolaidis, C.&nbsp;(2012).&nbsp;What can physicians learn from the neurodiversity movement?&nbsp;American Medical Association Journal of Ethics,&nbsp;14,&nbsp;503–510. Robertson, S.M.&nbsp;(2010).&nbsp;Neurodiversity, quality of life, and autistic adults: Shifting research and professional focuses onto real-life challenges.&nbsp;Disability Studies Quarterly,&nbsp;30. Einstein's work did entirely consign the concept of aether to the dustbin. Your extrapolation, away from the point I was making, in no way invalidates that assertion, or the mutability of scientific consensuses. ] (]) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::As with the term 'medical', it's unclear what 'scientific consensus' means to you, which is why I have pressed you on this before. It appears that you do not mean the same thing as what other participants here mean by the phrase.
			::I would argue that it is ''not'' a 'fallacious argument from authority' to point out that the author of the single most-cited paper on autism () publicly disagrees with the putative 'scientific consensus', and that this indicates that it is in fact something short of a ] among scientists. There are, however, many other, stronger lines of evidence for this conclusion, as . Evidently, a large number of relevant scientists actively disagree with the position you are describing. As such, it straightforwardly does not fit what most people mean by the phrase 'scientific consensus' - hence my sense that in order to move forward, we need you to explain exactly what you mean by the term.
			::To return to the question of what 'medical' means, when you say 'diagnosis', do you not intend it in the sense of ']'? If not, ]. ] (]) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Respectfully, and as I take into account my time constraints, I don't think ''us'' conversing or debating the specific issue again of whether a large number of scientists disagree would be worthwhile. I believe we've already made our positions clear in the talk page about the juxtaposition of sources, and what Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest, at least as we perceive them, so it would just be a regurgitation of essentially the same points that weren't convincing the first time.
			:::With that said, I'm not arguing that citing a single source is an argument from authority, but rather the insertion of "a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test" is fallaciously implying we should consider their opinion at a higher regard than sources who don't exhibit this subjective status of respect or have developed the AQ autism test.
			:::I understand ''why'' people like to mention this sort of background context; in fact, I sometimes do similar things in informal settings to show my admiration of a scientist; but it's fallacious given the context. To give an analogy, if ] had told someone or had published a scientific article concluding that the moon was made out of cheese, we would have had little or no reason to accept this as fact on Misplaced Pages. If he published a scientific paper, peer-reviewed it and the referees of the entire scientific community astonishingly did not find anything wrong with it, we arguably would have to.
			:::Citing a singular source isn't fallacious but, in our context, is insufficient. This is because ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher's stance to wave the existing consensus. I'd like to be clear: this does not suggest a researcher is unable to be right about the consensus being wrong. The argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature and by extent, the consensus, would occur. ] (]) 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding here relating to the meaning of words, particularly ]. I have pointed this out a number of times, but you are still not addressing it.
			::::The eminence of SBC in the field of autism is ''clearly'' relevant to the weight of his dissent from the supposed scientific consensus (although if it was ''just'' him, there might be a conversation to be had). When multiple leading scientists in a field disagree, there is simply not a consensus. ] (]) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] I do not like Simon Baron Cohen. For his claims regarding lack of empathy, for his weird extreme male brain theories, his eugenetic ideas and close association with Spectrum-10K, a controversial study. ] (]) 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are entitled to your dislike. However, your opinion does not affect Baron-Cohen's standing in the field of autism research. I think you will find that he has quietly distanced himself from the extreme male brain theory and generalised lack of empathy (towards specific difficulties with cognitive empathy) over recent years. ] (]) 11:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			There seems to be a basic difference in understanding here of what 'medical', 'medicalisation' and related terms mean. The DSM is the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders''. It is published by the ]. It is absolutely, fundamentally, a medical document: a ''clinical handbook''. If you look down the list of contributors, you'll see significantly more 'M.D.' than 'Ph.D.'
			Similarly, ESCAP is the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Psychiatry is a ''medical field''. Psychiatrists are, by definition, ''doctors''. NICE is the National Institute for ''Clinical'' Excellence. ICD is the International Classification of ''Diseases'' (ICD), which Misplaced Pages describes as 'a globally used medical classification', and so on.
	====Discussion====
			I have never encountered the suggestion before that these things could plausibly be considered non-medical; I'm not sure what definition Dmitri has in mind here, but from the context I wonder if he's interpreting it only to refer to ]?
	I don't know if it's against protocol to answer without the moderator ({{replyto|Kharkiv07}}), but to move things along, I though I would go ahead and do it. A lot of the dispute revolves along montanabw's issues with "close paraphrasing" or "quoting". But, I have not seen any wiki policy against either one, as long as the paraphrases or quotes are short and cited. ] None of the quotes I have suggest are more than one sentence, they aren't extensively used, and they are well cited. If it comes down to either quoting the source, or paraphrasing so far from it that it's intent and meaning is totally obscured, it seems to me that quoting is preferable. Does anyone else think that this quote: "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." is too long?] (]) 17:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			I believe that nearly everybody here would interpret the term ] to include the above. Some might prefer ], but the distinction is ''largely'' academic, and 'medical' is the standard term used for the approaches in question. Hopefully with this misunderstanding cleared up, we can move on to a sober evaluation of the views of relevant scientists in general, ''and'' others with relevant expertise.
	*I boldly renamed the above section to avoid confusion so that the Q&A here can be properly threaded; I also am not certain of the protocol. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			--] (]) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:oh, and just quickly, , and (regarding the opinions of relevant scientists and other experts).
	*However, to answer the above, this is why we are getting nowhere...asking "is this OK?" without any context of where or how it could be used is not very helpful. (The above quote might be OK in some places, but may not be in others). I think that saying things in one's own words is better encyclopedic style, Wysong does not explain why she thinks "intent and meaning is totally obscured" - and refuses to do anything but offer direct quotes in such a way as to render them rather meaningless. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			:The Tom Shakespeare chapter is in an edited collection published by Routledge, which the original reference made quite clear, and was included merely to provide a clear and authoritative account of the ].
			:The Dwyer et al paper provides a thorough exploration of the relationship between neurodiversity and the social model of disability, and gives considerable insight into the views of relevant stakeholders (autistic people, professionals, family members and so on; the paper breaks this down in detail).
			:The description of what the "autism rights movement" says about disability in the current lead is unambiguously wrong. ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:While they are not the direct publishers, the ''American Psychological Association'' among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists.
			:For example, the :
			:"The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association."
			:The C in NICE does not stand for "clinical"; it is the ], where we produce guidelines that concern matters beyond clinically related efforts. NICE guidelines for ASD do focus more on diagnosis, management, accommodations and clinical advice (but not to the exclusion of other contexts), but I am not relying solely on NICE national guidelines but other reputable sources as well that cover other subfields and contexts. These show how the terminology is not valid exclusively in a medical nor a clinical context.
			:Beyond this, we should not be relying on the name of a guideline developer or public health body or even their overarching publication to contextualise it. This is very misleading. Yes, the D in ICD stands for ''diseases'' but it encapsulates conditions that are not diseases, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, thereby disqualifying the context you are interpreting through the name. Such names are often made as a matter of convenience or sustained due to complicity that would otherwise arise.
			:The International Guidelines of ASD from ESCAP cover: "prevalence, socio/environmental considerations, prognosis in autism, assessments in adulthood, provide access to full and effective participation and inclusion in society, common co‑occurring conditions, early markers of autism, individual rights, making the environment more “autism friendly”, transition to adulthood, social skills, naturalistic learning/development, treatments for co-occurring conditions"
			:Therefore, it is far from limited to a medical context. This is true for many of the other citations I gave - some of which do not even mention medical topics - and the quotes I used to demonstrate this (see the two lists I linked in my statement).
			:While it's sometimes obfuscated with other, more overarching terms like "clinical", according to Oxford Languages, medical means: "relating to the science or practice of medicine." While I am fluent, English isn't my first language, so I apologise if it's in fact synonymous with "clinical" or something alike, but I've always thought of "medical" as referring to "medicine" and not a specific, more overarching context.
			:It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to conduct medical or clinical interventions. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD. ] (]) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Hi ], I'm wondering if you'd find WP's discussion of "]" to be helpful. It still seems that you're interpreting/using it in a sense that's narrower than its actual meaning. "Clinical" (when used in phrases like "clinical diagnosis," "clinical research," and "clinical evidence") means that the work involves direct observation of a patient. So "clinical" overlaps significantly with "medical," as the patient is most often someone interacting with the medical system (e.g., a doctor's patient, a hospital patient). When you talk about the DSM as a diagnostic manual, who do you envision doing the diagnosis of ASD? (Pediatricians? neurologists? psychologists? members of some other group?) ] (]) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you, @]; and thank you, @], for finally addressing the question of what you think 'medical' means. I hope you are starting to see why I have been pressing you to define terms that are at the centre of disagreements here: I think there is an ambiguity in the English terms ''medical'' and ] that has been tripping you up.
			:::Yes, 'medical' refers to medicine, but usually in the sense of ''''what doctors do'''<nowiki/>', ''not'' the '] which specifically promotes ] when ] or consumed in some way' ]. I hope you can see how this makes sense of many of the claims you have been arguing with. There has obviously been some arguing at cross-purposes happening, as I figured there must have been.
			:::And you are right, of course, that the C in NICE no longer stands for Clinical - I did know that they'd changed their name at some point, but obviously the old acronym was lodged deep in my brain, and I forgot in the moment. ] (]) 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@], @], @], @], just writing to let you all know that I appreciate your replies here, sorry for the delays in being able to reply to many of your comments ] (]) 01:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thank you, Oolong, for clarifying the meaning and connotations of that term. I do now see how I have been obfuscating the word to refer to medicine itself too much. More broadly, it can refer to the examination to assess a person's mental state/health as well, which would include diagnosis. ] (]) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<quote>'''''"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."'''''</quote> '''I do not agree that the current Misplaced Pages version reflects that.''' Discussions to much regarding causes, prognosis, treatments etc. revolve around medicalization and intervention centered weight in the topic.
			::The current version of the article revolves around pathology and promotes behavioral suppression.
			::It feels like the other viewpoints, other consensus, and especially necessary details on AAC and social support has not received sufficient importance. The actually helpful things are critically missing from the article.
			::] (]) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks for acknowledging this.
			:::::In your position I would want to apologise to @] and @], ] ] you persistently, angrily dismissed based on this misunderstanding. Your call, though, obviously.
			:::::One small point here, just in case of possible future misunderstandings: it doesn't just refer to the ''examination''; as one article puts it, "] is the field of health and healing. It includes nurses, doctors, and various specialists. It covers diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, medical research, and many other aspects of health."
			:::::] (]) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::<small>In case anyone is confused: Oolong's comment is a ], and not to Rit Rajarshi, even though it is located after it.</small> ] (]) 21:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I didn’t "angrily dismiss" anyone’s points. In fact, the discussion you cite was about the degree to which the global scientific consensus pertains to the various subfields in ASD. I provided ample evidence to show how the terminology is applicable to many subfields and contexts that are not medical, diagnostic or clinical. This is consistent with the broader definition of "medical" that I have acknowledged, as supported by the references and quotes I cited; so, bringing this up is irrelevant.
			::::::More generally, the were a number of misrepresentations and false accusations of strawmen fallacies in that talk page to which I constructively pointed out. At no point did I use insults, ad hominem attacks or other rhetoric to express some sort of "anger". I also don't appreciate you apologising to people on my behalf. Your reply just seems to be attempting to elicit some sort of response from me, so I'll just leave this at the comments I have provided already. ] (]) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That's an interesting interpretation.
			:::::::Perhaps you'd like to revisit those exchanges, now that you know what everyone else means by 'medicine' and 'medical', and clarify exactly which of these references and subfields you think are ''not'' medical.
			:::::::It would be helpful if you could provide us with an updated list of just the ones that are not from medical/clinical sources (which obviously include psychiatric organisations) and address the arguments made by the above in light of this new list.
			:::::::Thanks.
			:::::::Also, you go on claiming a "scientific consensus". Can you clarify which of your sources substantiates this claim? As the guidelines quoted in ] state clearly, such claims should only be made if backed up by reliable references ''specifically making those claims''.
			:::::::Again, I don't know what your working definition of the phrase 'scientific consensus' might be. For reference, mine would be on the lines of 'when there is little to no dissent, among respected scientists in relevant fields, on a scientific question'. ] (]) 09:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you, you are perfectly correct. I now see how the term has at least two meanings, one which refers more specifically to medicine itself or its connotations while it can also refer to examining the health or status of a person and thus encapsulates diagnosis more broadly. So indeed, psychologists diagnosing ASD can be thought of under "medical", at least in contexts where the term is prompted I guess. Thanks! ] (]) 00:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::For the ICD and "diseases", I think we can give much better examples of non-disease medical conditions. Consider:
			::* ICD-10 , normal ]
			::* ICD-10 , ]
			::* ICD-10 , constitutional ]
			::* ICD-10 , any ordinary ]
			::If you want to consider things that run on a spectrum from normal to abnormal, then consider:
			::* ]
			::* ]
			::* ]
			::* ]
			::* ]
			::] (]) 08:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thanks, that’s quite right :) ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The key word in the above post is, again, ''medical.'' ] (]) 08:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Do you think that being hungry is ''medical''? Or being frightened by dangerous things? ] (]) 22:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::oh, is hunger in the ICD as well?
			::::::you didn't mention that ] (]) 09:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::In ICD-11, the code is MG43.9 if hunger is increased intermittently, and VV00 if you're just adding a note that something else happens when the person is hungry.
			:::::::The point is that "in the ICD" and "actually a disease" are separate but overlapping ideas. ] (]) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] <quote>'''''"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."''''' </quote> Do you really think the current version reflect that sufficiently? I don't think it reflects that way. ] (]) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			I believe that a scientific consensus exists, but it is not Dimitry's version of a consensus. The present scientific consensus is that there are two current models of autism recognised by the scientific community, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both have a substantial weight of scientific publications behind them, plus a significant number of papers and books have been published examining their respective merits in side-to-side comparisons. As I have shown, the two models are not entirely incompatible and a number of experts advocate that the application of a selective combination of both models should be used to elucidate both theoretical and practical aspects of autism. On Misplaced Pages both models need to be reported in an equal and dispassionate manner, this is how an encyclopaedia should function. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect the reality of scholarship on any subject. A treatment of a contentious subject that does not do this, should not be a part of any encyclopaedia. ] (]) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Wysong is misstating the situation, I have actually repeatedly referred Wysong to ], ], ], ]. I hadn't yet pointed her to ]. And proves that Wysong DOES know about all of the above and is engaged in a certain about of ]. The reason I have not been comfortable with Wysong's style is because of context - she is prone to say "expert ''foo'' said '..." a lengthy quote with little introductory material. Then the next sentence will be "expert ''foobar'' said '...'" followed by another lengthy quote. Then, she may add some sort of summary that is at best synth and often OR but definitely not supported by the quotations. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			:Is the neurodiversity model meant to be scientific, strictly speaking? For example, to exclude ] as a way of knowing things about the world?
	Since MontanaBW seems to have conceded ] that the Dobie quote is not too lengthy, now we need to address the second concern of mine which is that it really doesn't apply to the horses subject to the Act the article is about. I DO agree with MontanaBW that it is a good idea to have the discussion, as the BLM states (not very well I'm afraid), the "millions" number is frequently misunderstood to apply to the geographical place and historical time of the subject horses. So, I'd like to expand upon his statement in something like the following:] (]) 14:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure how we can have a scientific consensus that a non-scientific model is valid. It would make more sense to care about what the relevant non-scientific scholars say about their non-scientific model. Scientists should not be trying to pass judgment on whether historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc. are correct.
			:Perhaps you mean something like "biologists acknowledge that the ] exist and are relevant to understanding autism"? ] (]) 08:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Your premise is fallacious. If a concept is repeatedly examined, researched and discussed in scholarly publications by scientists, then it is scientific. The concept and use of the word 'neurodiversity was first used in an academic setting in a thesis of 1998, by sociologist ], it has been in the domain of academic scholarship ever since. I see no functional distinction between scholarly work produced by medics, sociologists and scientists, all are in the public domain and are open to criticism from peers. All are valid sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Baron-Cohen was trained as a psychologist, but has worked on a subject that has a large genetic element. I was initially trained as a zoologist, but worked on the genetics of infectious human diseases. Nit-picking and asserting baseless inferences on relative merit between what is science, what is medicine, what is psychology, what is sociology in relation to a subject that is relevant to all these disciplines is fundamentally pointless. ] (]) 10:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Academic" does not mean "scientific". Science can happen outside of academia, and academia covers non-scientific subjects. Scientists also get to be interested in non-scientific subjects. International peace isn't a scientific concept just because Einstein wrote about it.
			:::The concept of neurodiversity can be ''academic'' without necessarily being ''scientific''. We might have a ''scholarly'' or ''academic'' consensus without necessarily having a ''scientific'' one. ] (]) 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The only prerequisite for the use of references in Misplaced Pages, is that they are reputable. The idea of a Misplaced Pages article on a subject such as autism being entirely or primarily dependent on 'scientific' sources is erroneous. This is my point. Autism has many facets, clinical, psychological, neurological, genetics, lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc. etc. All of these facets are relevant and reputable academic sources from all should be treated equally - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a scientific textbook. I am a professional scientist (now retired) and I find the fetishization of 'science', displayed by some editors here, deeply illogical when applied to a subject that has many non-scientific aspects.. ] (]) 10:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I agree that ] is a problem, but I'm not the one asserting that there is a "scientific" consensus about a model based on "lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc." ] (]) 22:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The reference to fetishization was not aimed at you. However, it has bedevilled moving the article towards a more holistic and inclusive treatment of autism. ] (]) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Neurodiversity is a way of interpreting scientific findings (among other things). It's scientific in exactly the same sense that looking at autism as a disorder is scientific: they're both about how we interpret empirical findings, what kinds of things we look for, what kinds of evidence we consider.
			::It's not ''non''-scientific, but it ''is'' philosophical, and political - just as the medical model of autism is. It's a ], in the Kunhnian sense.
			::Your question provoked me to write , exploring it in a little more depth (but it's still only about 700 words, roughtly a 3-minute read). ] (]) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Philosophy and politics are non-sciences. If neurodiversity is philosophical and political, then it is also ].
			:::I read your blog post. I (think I) understand that you believe your autism is not a disorder. But I want to know if you think that everyone with autism has a non-disorder form of autism. So: ] had autism. He died because his house caught on fire, and he couldn't figure out how to escape, even with help. Did he have a form of autism that (unlike yours) actually is a disorder, or do you think his autism was still not a disorder and there was some unknown but non-autism reason why he couldn't walk out of the house when he needed to? ] (]) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why can't it have scientific aspects, philosophical aspects, and political aspects? Seems to me that there can be both political and philosophical aspects to the work of a natural scientist or social scientist. ] (]) 23:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think it could, but Oolong asserts that {{xt|It's ''not'' non-scientific}}. When we're talking about ordinary medical practice ("what doctors do"), about half of it is ] – and half of it is not. I have seen doctors be offended at any suggestion that "the art and practice of medicine" is not True™ Science. It is at best an ], and the ordinary, everyday experience involves a lot of non-science. There is nothing "scientific" about telling a patient that beer and doughnuts are not a healthful diet, but they like to believe that they are Scientists™. Perhaps it is somewhat similar with the neurodiversity movement: our culture values science, and our views on neurodiversity are good views, so our views need to be called "scientific". It doesn't involve anything like the ] – there is no scientific experiment you can run to determine whether all people have equal moral value, or whether people should be treated with respect and accorded autonomy – but these days, we all want all of our treasured beliefs to be considered "scientific". Two millenia ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "philosophical"; two centuries ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "religious". "Scientific" is just a word we use in this century to say that my views are correct. ] (]) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I'll have to think a bit more about how I classify things as "scientific" or not. Research in the natural and social sciences is scientific work. Interpreting such research might or might not be scientific work, depending on whether you're digging into the details (especially with an eye towards how it could influence or give you insight into your own research / how it fits into the body of research in the discipline) or only accepting the surface results. Some physicians carry out medical research, but they're a minority. Ideally, all physicians interpret medical research, but I don't know whether they really dig in unless they're researchers themselves. Scientific research certainly isn't limited to the scientific method. Personally, I don't treat all my treasured beliefs as scientific; some of my most treasured beliefs are values. ] (]) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Science, especially on humans, inescapably has political and philosophical dimensions. This regularly comes to the fore during a ].
			::::Is ] ''non-scientific''? We're not talking about a ] (hence the inapplicability of the scientific method) but we're talking ''about'' science. Philosophy of science is something that scientists ought to take seriously, especially in more contentious areas of science, to avoid making epistemological errors.
			::::Here's a fun one: Is the ''scientific method'' scientific? There's no scientific experiment you can do to determine if it's the best way of approaching empirical questions, is there?
			::::It is interesting to note that ], who Dmitri likes to cite as the authority who resolved the question of what disorders are and how they relate to diversity, is not really any kind of scientist, ''certainly'' not primarily - he's a professor of social work, who works interdisciplinarily and has therapy experience. To quote :
			::::<blockquote>He argues for a middle ground position in which the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design" </blockquote>
			::::I don't think anyone with more than a very superficial understanding of the processes behind the production of the DSM (or ICD) would deny that they are heavily political. . .
			:::: philosopher ] on neurodiversity and science:
			::::<blockquote>Accompanying this, a scientific paradigm has also been emerging, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal way. More neurodivergent individuals have become involved in research, and more neurotypical researchers have begun to listen to neurodivergent perspectives. This is beginning to change how researchers formulate hypotheses and produce knowledge. Among other things, researchers increasingly recognize neurodivergent strengths alongside limitations, study cognitive problems as relational rather than as arising from individual deficits, and view neurodivergent disablement and distress based on a social model of disability rather than a medical model.</blockquote>
			::::I've possibly linked all of these before, but here are a series of peer-reviewed articles talking about what neurodiversity means for science: , , , , and .
			::::In short, there's no 'pure science' when it comes to the study of human difference, and it's not clear what can be achieved by trying to disentangle 'science' from 'non-science' in this context. ] (]) 09:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So why did you say that "it's ''not'' non-science", if you say here that of course it is (or has aspects of) non-science? ] (]) 23:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Because ''the study of humans inescapably has non-scientific elements''. I thought I was clear about that. Science can be do''ne using the neurodiversity paradigm.'' This being the case, claiming that neurodiversity is non-scientific is misleading, at best.
			::::::You don't think that psychiatry is purely scientific, do you? ] (]) 09:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Or is your position that psychiatry, having philosophical and political dimensions, is also ''non-science''? ] (]) 09:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks for your reply, the references, and the thought experiment, but I'm afraid you are arguing with an egregious misrepresentation of my citations. I have not been relying on the studies by Jerome Wakefield. I did, however, reference this author as a historical account of when the definition may have ''originated''. In my comments, I referred to the first International Consensus Statement on ADHD by scientists (Barkley et al., 2002), and the updated International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2021-2024) endorsing the model. There is also an Updated European Consensus Statement (Kooji et al., 2019).
			:::::Faraone et al. is coauthored by 80 leading researchers, its contents are endorsed by 403 additional experts, along with numerous professional groups and guideline developers, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Supplemental Tables), thereby demonstrating a global scientific consensus.
			:::::As concluded in the consensus statements, this model for determining a neurodevelopmental disorder to be valid is ''scientifically established''. Both reference sources such as guidelines internationally that the model is based upon, which encapsulate autism spectrum disorder.
			:::::As I have written before, I agree that the DSM Committees occasionally enact on policy or other reasons at the expense of scientific evidence and even scientific consensus. My colleagues and I have even personally dealt with such issues, so I am very well aware of this nuance. This is why I have not relied on the DSM but many reputable sources from around the world. In my experience, incidents where the DSM fails to reflect the science are usually evident with the contradictory consensus in the field. ] (]) 01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Please link your references. ] (]) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			I suspect that some people here think of 'neurodiversity' as some sort of fuzzy and trendy sociological term. In reality it is a shorthand term that researchers, including geneticists and other scientists, use for a concept. This concept being, "The phenotypic expression of natural variation in human brain architecture and physiology, largely determined by genetic causality; this genetic causality itself due to natural variation in alleles that are found widely throughout the general population". As such, the concept is scientific, but far too long winded not to require a specific and shorter term for general use. ] (]) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This is a bit complicated, because the word has multiple (closely related) meanings. ]'s is a useful source on this...
	:Some sources <ref name="Ryden129">Ryden, ''America's Last Wild Horses'' p. 129</ref><ref>Wyman ''The Wild Horse of the West'' p. 91</ref><ref name="Lynhaug104">Lynghaug, </ref> say that millions of feral horses, having been captured from the ], dispersed by the ],<ref name="Ryden63">Ryden ''America's Last Wild Horses'', pp 63-68</ref> and escaped to the wild, once roamed in western North America. Tom L McKnight stated that the population would have peaked in the late 1700's or early 1800's, and that the "best guesses apparently lie between two and five million".<ref name="McKnight512">McKnight, Tom, ''The Feral Horse in Anglo America'' Geographical Review Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), p. 512</ref> According to ], the peak would have been around the end of the ] in 1848, but "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million ] in ] and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."<ref name="Dobie108">Dobie, ''The Mustangs'' pp. 107-109</ref> De Steiguer stated that Dobie's lower guess is still "subject to question" as to being too high, but agreed with Dobie and McKnight that highest populations were found in the southern ] and ],<ref>de Steiguer, loc2253</ref> where the environment most closely mimicked the ] from which the horses originated.<ref name="Dobie23">Dobie, ''The Mustangs'' p. 23</ref> During the latter part of the 1800s, most of these horses were were rounded up and trailed north and east with the ], to be sold to farmers and settlers.<ref>Dobie, ''The Mustangs'' p. 316</ref><ref group=upper-alpha>, Lynghaug stated that numbers declined due to "competition with cattle and sheep for food and resources" Although sources agree that mustangs were routinely killed to free up the limited forage for more desirable livestock on public rangelands, Lynghaugh's comment that "as the West became more populated" is more indicative of the reason for the earlier and more drastic population decline. The horses were displaced as settlers fenced off and plowed up land to plant crops. There are very few public rangelands left in the regions where the vast numbers of horses used to run free.</ref>] (]) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			:"'''Neurodiversity''' is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species" (pretty much what you said) but we also talk about the '''neurodiversity paradigm''' (which entails seeing this diversity in broadly positive terms, on similar lines to ], of which neurodiversity is strictly a subset) and the '''neurodiversity movement''' (a human rights movement based around these ideas).
			:See ] & Pellicano's for further exploration of the political dimensions of the idea (they note that in practice, these distinctions are not always made clearly or using this exact vocabulary). Dwyer's article in the same] is also worth a look. ] (]) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Urselius, we could give the same definition for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. "Natural variation" is not "good variation".
			::The Wakefield definition above ("requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design") resonates more with me, but it would require autism to be defined as something that harms the person, which conflicts with the neurodiversity paradigm of insisting that autism be seen in "broadly positive terms".
			::So I ask this specific question again: ]'s autism prevented him from walking out of a burning building, even with his mother trying to help him walk out of his bedroom, down the stairs, and out the door to safety. They both ''died'' as a result of his autism. Does your concept of autism allow his autism to be disorder that ''actually killed him'', or is his autism just a "natural" and "normal" difference? ] (]) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The first question is how many autistic people are unable to leave a burning house and the second is how many autistic people's houses burn. Being tall can also kill one if one bumps one's head very badly into something. Being a woman can kill one because of complications at childbirth. Being homosexual can kill one because of the higher risk of HIV transmission. So if dying for such reasons as the above mentioned is only a very rare event than we would not consider the thing a disorder or disease. ] (]) 00:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] There is a global scientific consensus that ASD is a valid neurodevelopmental disorder, as indicated by international guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews and standardised diagnostic criteria etc. around the world. (for references, see ]). This is not synonymous with disease. To qualify for a disorder two criteria typically must be scientifically satisfied (International Consensus Statement on ADHD, 2002; International Consensus Statement, 2021-2024). First, there must be evidence establishing neurological variation (e.g., dysfunction, deficit, deviation) in a trait universal to humans. Second, this variation must cause significant impairment in major life activities and/or ''significantly'' predispose to increased morbidity and earlier mortality.
			::::Homosexuality, transgender and left-handedness are examples of neurological variation that do not meet the second criteria and thus are not disorders. Impairment experienced by these, if any, is attributable to societal oppression and discrimination rather than the variation itself. In contrast, ASD does meet the second criteria. It ''significantly'' predisposes to injury, morbidity and earlier mortality and so these statistics are relevant as they are not just some extraordinarily rare occurrences.
			::::''Note: Some commenters have opined that the citations supporting the aforementioned scientific consensus are localised to a medical context. I do not agree with this characterisation. Please feel free to judge the pertinence of these citations for yourself.'' ] (]) 00:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You seem not to have understood the full scope of the medical model. The medical model of disability proposes that the disability is rooted in the individual (which is then classified as a disorder or disease) and the desired outcome is to normalise the person to become as similar as possible to people without the „disorder“ regardless of whether medications to reduce features of it are currently available or not. Because of this focus it is often called the „individualistic model“. If a person classified as disabled has difficulties in the current environment and people assess these difficulties to stem from a „disorder“ within the person instead of the environment then it is a viewpoint from the individualistic or medical model even if no medical treatment or medical professional is involved. The social model, in contrast, asserts that the disability stems from an unaccommodating environment. Social-relational models acknowledge that there can be aspects of the disability that are best ascribed to the condition itself, but, as Dwyer points out , „neurodivergence sometimes comes with strengths (Carter et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2019), whereas social-relational models may, by drawing on the vocabulary of the social model and its use of the term “impairment” to refer to the characteristics of the disabled person, risk implying that neurodivergence is synonymous with impairment/reduced function.“. The neurodiversity paradigm proposes that autism is a disability but not a disorder. ] (]) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::ASD impairs people’s ability to do things that they enjoy, to take care of themselves and their daily needs, function in their relationships with family and friends, and in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society. Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising and erases the harms and experiences that directly result from people’s various cognitive impairments. ] (]) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::The claim that it does this "in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society" is completely unsupported. Nothing in the DSM criteria is unrelated to society. ] (]) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Nope. Major life domains required for diagnosis to establish impairment can include self-sufficiency and self-care, such as through ineffective maintenance of personal hygiene or the distress experienced by restricted, preservative interests and mental preoccupation. These are not necessarily related to society at all, and are valid functional domains for consideration in meeting the diagnostic criteria ] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yeah autism can be troubling by itself but it would be stupid to say the environment has nothing to do with it, I'm leaning towards the ] and saying; if the world was less loud ] would be gone. That's one example of a problem that the world makes. Maybe both is true but idk why we were talking about this -- I'm so behind. ] (]) 12:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::No, that's not true. If the world were silent, then sensory overload would still exist for people whose sensory problems focus on lights, smells, textures, tastes, etc.
			::::::::This is part of the philosophical aspect of what we're trying to decide. At its loudest, thunder can match a rock concert. If someone's nervous system can't handle the noise of a windstorm or thunder is the problem in that person's limitations, or in the fact that thunderstorms exist? When an individual and nature don't fit, evolutionary biology would say that it's the individual who has the problem, not nature. Perhaps the neurodiversity paradigm says that the person is fine and it's nature's fault for being so noisy? Or simply ignores how terrifying thunderstorms are for many autistic kids, because that doesn't fit into the model of the kid being fine and other people causing the problems? ] (]) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::1) Society can provide accommodations even for natural events like thunderstorms (insulated home, earplugs, earmuffs etc.).
			:::::::::2) Invoking evolution as an argument for the disorder view represents an ]. Just because people with certain characteristics had a lower chance of surviving in the past and the environment didn't provide accommodations (observation), it doesn't mean it is correct do assume that it is the individual who should change (normative judgement). ] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::"Society can provide" a lot of things, but total protection from the noise of a major storm is not one of them. Based on California's recent experience, we can't even provide a decent prediction of where a tornado might form. I heard that the tornado warning was issued for 50 miles away from where it actually appeared. Good luck building a sound-proof bunker when the tornado's already headed your way.
			::::::::::I mention evolutionary biology because Oolong quotes Wakefield above as saying that this is the perspective used in the definition of disorder: "the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design".
			::::::::::We have "harm, assessed according to social values": The person is extremely distressed by the sound of a storm, and society's values include minimizing distress.
			::::::::::We have "dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design": This isn't a trait that has anything survival benefit to the person.
			::::::::::Given a definition that says harm+dysfunction==disorder, then this is a disorder. You might not ''like'' that, and you might prefer that it were instead called something more "positive", but it still ''is'' a disorder (according to that definition). ] (]) 07:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::''Lots'' of people (and other animals) are scared of thunderstorms - and distressed by all sorts of other stimuli. It's not at all clear that this is automatically a problem; you have certainly not demonstrated dysfunction here. There are indeed evolutionary reasons why animals are distressed by some stimuli. For more on the evolutionary front, please see . ] (]) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I doubt that lots of healthy people are distressed by the noise of thunderstorms. It's not unusual in children, but a significant level of distress is unusual in adults. Perhaps it's just my own circle, but I can't think of a single adult who finds thunder distressing and isn't autistic. (I would also expect this to be experienced by people with some other neurological problems and some people with PTSD, but I don't know anyone with that combination.) How about you? How many neurotypical, non-traumatized adults can you think of who meltdown from sensory overload during a thunderstorm? ] (]) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Maybe I now understand your point a bit better. I’m going to reply to several of your posts here.
			:::::::::::::You assume that if there are negative aspects about something then it has to be classified as a disorder. Let me explain why this is not necessarily the case. An important paper about the revision of transgender diagnoses in the ICD-11 states: "Distress and dysfunction were more strongly predicted by experiences of social rejection and violence than by features related to gender incongruence.". So the ICD-11 went from the term "gender identity disorder" to "gender incongruence" which is not a disorder but listed in the diagnostic manual in order to ensure access to needed gender-affirming care and they did so without being fully sure that all and every aspect of distress in trans people is because of the environment. The main reasons for the re-classification were that trans people want their gender identity to be respected and in some cases, to change the characteristics of their bodies instead of being talked or pressured out of their gender identity: "Treatment most often consists of specialized supportive mental health services as well as family and social (e.g., school) interventions while treatments aimed at suppressing gender-variant behaviours in children are increasingly viewed as unethical." This is a striking similarity to the rejection of ABA therapies directed at autistic children in order to make them appear more neurotypical.
			:::::::::::::Most autistic people don’t want to be turned into a non-autistic person ("cured") and those who want to be "normal" do so because they think it is necessary for being able to socialise, they would want to participate in situations that are inaccessible to them because of a sensory mismatch or because they consider their support needs in their daily lives or their unemployment to be shameful. Reducing accident risk is not among the relevant reasons why some autistic people want a "cure" and if it weren’t for the aforementioned reasons, they would not consider changing their brain so dramatically just to reduce accident risk. The percentage of accidents that contribute to increased premature mortality in autistic people is quite small, other causes are more common . These aspects are not an insurmountable barrier for autism not be considered a disorder so we are talking about quite marginal aspects of the pathology vs neurodiversity debate here. ] (]) 03:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::In the example here, distress and dysfunction are predicted less by social rejection than by the fact that noise hurts (some) autistic people.
			::::::::::::::Given this pattern:
			::::::::::::::* loud noises → sensory overload → meltdown
			::::::::::::::wishing to not have this pattern in your life is not "wanting to be normal". It is "wanting to avoid pain". ] (]) 07:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::In general (when not only focusing on specific aspects), the distress and disadvantages of autistic people are mostly due to societal barriers and ableism. Just like you can focus on specific situations like natural, very loud (and rare) noises being a problem for the autistic person primarily because of their autism, one could focus on the distress because of the mismatch between gender identity and the physical characteristics of one's body in transgender people and then say that most of that might be caused by the transgender identity itself and not by society. ] (]) 08:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling.
			:::::::Many, '''many''' grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment.
			:::::::The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are ''direct'' results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence ''impossible to prevent'' without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has ''nothing to do with the experiencer's environment'', but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here. ] (]) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::First, the fact that an impairment may be ''implicated'' in an environment does not translate that the environment is therefore the ultimate cause of the impairment. Theoretically, eliminating all other humans may alleviate the impairments people with social anxiety disorder experience, but this is a completely unreasonable, practically impossible approach that is further complicated by the fact that effective social interaction is a biological adaptation of humans, as well as that they often ''want'' to interact with others without feeling anxious. Thus, when the adaptation becomes disrupted enough that it can no longer function effectively, it can be - and is - viewed as an inherent impairment to the disorder.
			::::::::Similarly, ASD can impair people's functioning including in occupational functioning, cohabiting with others, in their relationship with family and friends, and other domains important to them, in ways where the responsibility for reducing an impairment cannot be ''entirely'' delegated to the surrounding people or environment.
			::::::::ASD causes difficulties not just with doing the things people ''must'' do (our obligations to society), but the things they ''want'' to do (our agency to do the things we find fulfilling in life). As such, the ''potential'' for a person to select a less impairing environment is not a valid argument for attributing the impairment away from an individual's symptoms. Major life domains affected by ASD also include activities such as self-sufficiency and self-care, where one cannot neglect them and simultaneously be unimpaired. These are valid functional domains for meeting the diagnostic criteria.
			::::::::ASD also impairs functioning in ways ''unrelated'' to a society and even an external environment, such as with the distress experienced by unwanted, restricted and preservative interests and mental preoccupation.
			::::::::Natural variation in neurological makeup is not necessarily variation with ''purpose''. Natural variation is a fact of existence, but nature does not seek to moralise. ] (]) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This is interesting, because relying overmuch on the idea that "society can provide" whatever it takes to eliminate disability sometimes ignores the agency and desires of the affected person. For example: In the US, two-thirds of autistic teenagers without intellectual disability want to learn how to drive. Only half of them actually earn a drivers' license over five years. <small>(For those outside the US, our driving instruction process is ''very'' lenient by international standards. The pass rate for the general population in the US is around 98%; almost anyone who actually wants to get a driver's license can do so easily, and usually in less than one year. If you're 18, the usual rule is: take a quick multiple-choice test, have a friend or family member teach you how to drive, come back as soon as you're ready to show the examiner that you know how to drive. If you're 15.5 years old, the process is a little more involved, but not much. About half of teens pass the practical driving test on their first try.)</small>
			:::::::::Society can provide alternatives, like bus service and family members who will drive you.
			:::::::::But what if you actually want to have a driver's license, and you want to be able to drive independently? Society can't provide that if you don't have the necessary skills (e.g., multi-tasking, interpreting others' intentions, knowing where their body/vehicle is located in space, not being distracted by a leaf that lands on the windshield, not being consumed by anxiety when other drivers don't do what you expect...). Society isn't disabling people by refusing to give them a license when they don't have the skills, and society can't provide the necessary skills to everyone (autistic or otherwise) who doesn't have them and wants to be allowed to drive. ] (]) 08:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Thank you, you make very good points. I sometimes see this as politically driven that people should partake in societal activities according to their ''abilities'' so functional impairment is reduced, irrespective of peoples' personal agency, autonomy, and aspirations. I find it telling how forms of biological variation that are not disorders, such as sexuality, to which ASD is frequently compared to, do not lead to impairment in ways that conflict with the above. The impairment, if any, is attributable to society because it's usually in the form of discrimination and oppression, which by eliminating obviously wouldn't conflict with what the affected person would want, nor could it reach a degree of impracticality or unreasonableness. People with ASD also experience such oppression but this is not the primary or only impairment. ] (]) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (])
			:::::::::::] (]) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I understand, but deficits in social interaction is not the only symptom dimension and there are both practical and ethical limits to the degree an impairment can be accommodated, even if it's societally implicated, and it can also conflict with what a person may want to do, e.g. an autistic person may ''want'' the ability to effectively communicate. This does depend on the individual and symptom severity of course. ] (]) 23:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Let's ] that the inability to safely drive a car is due to a "cognitive mismatch" between what the task requires (e.g., multitasking, not getting distracted) and what an individual autistic person can realistically do (e.g,. not multitasking, being easily distracted).
			:::::::::::::How does the fact that there is a cognitive mismatch between what the person wants to do and what the person can do mean that the thing causing this cognitive mismatch is somehow not a disorder? ] (]) 23:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::@] Pardon, it seems miscommunications took place again.
			::::::::::::::I think this is question is reply to my comment "The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (Double empathy problem)".
			::::::::::::::Did I wrote anywhere that the social stress is the only kind of stress an Autistic person face?
			::::::::::::::Did I claimed anywhere that driving car is a social or communication task?
			::::::::::::::I do not think all Autistics are unable to drive a car. However, for those able to not drive a car, it is indeed partly due to cars being designed for neurotypicals. Battery operated chair cars without complex gear system would not be that hard to operate. Also the traffic jam and navigation is partly social. Or think of a joystick operated car? I think a great more number of people might be able to use them, if not all.
			::::::::::::::I think on many place I have acknowledged difficulties and cooccuring conditions.
			::::::::::::::I did not wanted to suppress your viewpoints... I wanted that encyclopedia should present existing options and other viewpoints too. I hope you consider them with kindness.
			::::::::::::::Regards. ] (]) 23:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::@] Did I make sense? Or not yet??] (]) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Driving a car is, as you point out, partly a social task. From what I see on social media, the problem isn't "the car", so a joystick would not help. The problem is "driving", and specifically:
			::::::::::::::::* knowing where you are, and
			::::::::::::::::* coping with inscrutable/unpredictable other drivers.
			::::::::::::::::From what I've read, they estimate that about 30% of autistic adults in the US have a driver's license, compared to about 90% of all adults in the US. Autistic adults who can drive additionally tend to restrict themselves (e.g., only driving to familiar destinations, never driving at night or when it rains, never taking any passengers with them). Autism is preventing these people from being able to drive. ] (]) 03:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Robert Chapman suggests the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" for this, covering cases where people are distressed because of a mismatch between their neurotype and their desires. They state that an adult able to consent could change their neurotype if they want without calling their neurotype a disorder which harms the majority of autistic people who don't want to be "cured". This is a similar framing that was used for homosexuals in the past who experienced their homosexuality as an entity separated from their identity and wanted to be converted ("ego-dystonic homosexuality"). Ultimately, this concept was abandoned because now it has become clear that this desire was rooted in internalised homophobia. In an interview, Chapman mentions that it might be an intermediate concept for autism as well and might even be viewed as unacceptable by society in the future but can be useful as of now. Without making a judgement about whether the same is likely to happen for neurotype dysphoria in the long-term, could you agree on using this concept? ] (]) 02:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I notice that ] does not include the word ''neurotype''. That might be a starting point. ] (]) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::It could indeed be a starting point. Proponents of the neurodiversity view would of course argue that autism is more than just a neurotype and also a social construct to some degree but neurotype can be used as a neutral term for autism. Do you find the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" useful for those autistic people who don't like being autistic? ] (]) 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::No, I don't. And I think that it's a marginal enough concept at this point that I wouldn't include it in ].
			:::::::::::::::::I don't see neurotype as a neutral term for autism. It seems to be used by some for "whatever's happening in my brain, some of which is autism and some of which is some other things". In other cases, it seems to be a vague category – like saying "He has a developmental disorder" when you ought to say "He has Down syndrome". ] (]) 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Using "developmental disorder" instead of Down's syndrome is only inaccurate if it is not clear from the context that one is talking about Down's syndrome. In the autism article, it is clear we are talking about autism so when we use the term "neurotype" as a replacement in order not to constantly write "autism" it is clear what it means. If we don't want this, we could just write "autism" all the time although it sounds repetitive.
			::::::::::::::::::I don't know whether you have noticed that I am not just talking about using the term "neurotype" but have suggested the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" (dysphoria is a word for unease or dissatisfaction) that was proposed by Robert Chapman in order to account for autistic people who don't like being autistic without having to call autism a "disorder". ] (]) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::"How many people's houses burn" is not relevant. I've seen estimates that suggest perhaps as many as 30% of diagnosed autistic people, and at least 10% of all (diagnosed and undiagnosed) autistic people have impairments that could predictably put them in dangerous situations or prevent them from receiving help in escaping from a dangerous situation.
			::::Autistic people, on average, have significantly (some estimates say 20 to 40 years) shorter lifespans than neurotypical people, and accidental deaths are one of the biggest causes of the disparity. ] (]) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::1) The shorter lifespan has many other reasons, especially suicide and barriers in healthcare, as well as an increased risk for many co-occurring conditions that reduce health. Please give me citations if you think that the thing you mentioned is a major contributor.
			:::::2) Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations is not a reason to pathologise autism as a whole. First, individuals without these risks should then not be seen as disordered. Second, not the whole presentation of being autistic should then be seen as a disorder but only the aspects that lead to the risk. Remember that autism is most likely a clinical construct that was built for practical reasons without a single underlying cause, so there is no need to encompass the entire autistic spectrum here. ] (]) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Per your request in 1), here's a handful:
			::::::*
			::::::* "We also found that deaths in individuals with autism were nearly 3 times as likely as were deaths in the general population to be caused by '''unintentional injury'''."
			::::::* "Elevated death rates were observed for several causes, including seizures and '''accidents'''"
			::::::* "Associated medical disorders (including epilepsy with cognitive impairment) and '''accidents''' accounted for most of the deaths"
			::::::* "The profile of the top causes of death for the ASD cohorts and the general population differed. The leading cause of death for those with ASD only was deaths caused by injury and poisoning...death from '''accidents''' was prominent specific causes of death for both those with and without ID."
			::::::* "These findings illustrate that poor social communication may well predispose autistic individuals to '''accidental death'''"
			::::::Suicide is an example of subgroup differences: autistic people (especially females) without intellectual disabilities have a higher than average rate of suicide, and autistic people with intellectual disabilities have a lower than average rate of suicide.
			::::::For your 2), I suggest that "Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations" is a good reason to not de-pathologize autism ''completely''. Though looking at the sources above, the bigger risk is probably choking (suffocating on inedible objects) and drowning (even if you really like swimming and really, really, really want to go swimming Right Now, not every bit of beautiful water is safe for swimming). ] (]) 06:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::While I agree that having a higher risk of dying by accident is a sub-optimal thing, I don't think calling autism a disorder is the right response to this.
			:::::::Children in general are far more vulnerable than adults, especially but not only when left alone. Nevertheless, being a child is seen as normal instead of a disorder. Even every person has a certain risk for an accident that is not seen as indicative of a disorder. I don’t think we are obliged to draw quite an arbitrary line there where we think a non-normal condition has increased the risk, especially because the percentage of autistic people dying by accident is still pretty low even if increased in comparison to non-autistic people. People have vulnerabilities and some people have more vulnerabilities than others, especially disabled people. Neurodiversity advocates argue for a non-pathologising disability framework that still allows for some interventions for the individual. Leadbitter et al. mention functional communication (whether it be spoken or some other means of communication), anxiety, inertia and “intolerance of uncertainty” as potential intervention targets . Reducing risks for accidents could also reasonably be seen as a desired outcome without trying to make the person non-autistic, just as reducing accident risks for people in general is seen as desirable.
			:::::::The main reason why autism is classified as a disorder and researchers are trying to find a cure is the ascription of “deficits” in social interactions in daily live to the individual instead of viewing these difficulties as stemming from the interaction between the mostly non-autistic environment and the autistic person, the increased risk for accidents is only a marginal reason.
			:::::::The problem is that all kinds of things (pain, support needs, vulnerabilities, prejudiced assumptions about normality) are lumped together under the terms disorder/disease. I would like to separate these things. If something causes pain and a cure is considered the right response, then it is a disorder or disease. If it means the person has higher support needs or vulnerabilities than others without necessarily wanting a “cure”, then it is a disability. If it is just a violation of prejudicial assumptions about “normal” functioning, then it is nothing of these and just a feature holders of which are discriminated against. Autism, in my view, combines aspects of the latter two without being a disorder to be “cured”. ] (]) 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We might not be "obliged" to notice that a 300% rate of dying from injuries, but I think we should. This is a statistically abnormal deviation in the rate premature death across all ages, not an "arbitrary" line.
			::::::::This is "autism + intellectual disability = probably won't see their 40th birthday" level of risk. People with Down syndrome live longer than that (the median is around age 55–60), and DS is notorious for premature death due to heart disease and leukemia. Autistic people ''without'' intellectual disability have a median survival that is not much older than DS.
			::::::::If something causes premature death, then a cure – or at least an effective treatment – seems like the right response to me. Some of these deaths happen because the now-dead person had those " “deficits” in social interactions", where "social interaction" means "understanding what that person means when they're saying 'Stop that, that's dangerous!' or 'No, we can't go swimming here. It's dangerous! Let's get your swimsuit and go to a real swimming pool.'". ] (]) 08:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, in my view 'disorder' remains an unhelpful framing. What do you think it adds, specifically? Autism is a ].
			:::We can't prevent autism, and there are strong arguments to say that we shouldn't try. There are no actual treatments, but we have seen a whole parade of harmful quack treatments, many of which continue to be promoted.
			:::Meanwhile, there are many, ''many'' things we can do to make life better for autistic people, at the societal level - for ''all'' autistic people. ] (]) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think that framing it as a disorder adds the understanding that autism is ''sometimes'' harmful. Autism is harmful when, despite all feasible efforts, the person's needs still cannot be met. We could theoretically ban fireworks to prevent noise from bothering noise-sensitive autistic people. We cannot ban the noise of thunder, tornadoes, or hurricanes.
			::::You say that "many, many" harms and bad experiences are avoidable. My point is that "many, many" is less than "all", and the ones that you have already admitted are unavoidable is where the "disorder" exists. ] (]) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::All ''sorts'' of things are ''sometimes harmful''. Sorry, but this is an absurdly low bar.
			:::::White people, especially redheads, are unavoidably going to get sunburned - so that's a disorder too, right?
			:::::The same traits that make me uncomfortably sensitive to loud noises make me sensitive to noises that I ''want'' to hear - be they warning sounds, or intensely pleasurable auditory experiences. ] (]) 09:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I usually hesitate to mention my personal experiences but I feel compelled to do so here, which I hope sharing may help clarify the ''why'' it being a disorder is necessary. It is simply the case that many of us experience serious impairment and distress in some form or other, in aspects of our lives that are dear to us, as a direct result of our ASD symptoms. This has been validated scientifically, and we cannot tolerate a movement or advocacy that tells everyone that the hurt and struggle they're experiencing is really just caused by their modern society being shit and that the issues caused by their neurology would be solved if society were somehow magically better. As someone with mild ASD myself, in my view modern capitalist societies are shit, but also the architecture of our brain doesn't necessarily work the way we want it to.
			::::Here's one example: I find strong and unpredictable sensory stimuli physically and mentally painful. Coming into contact with a piece of fabric can leave me overwhelmed, and it makes even the simplest of activities such as brushing my teeth far more difficult than it needs to be. There is so much tooling available, and things that can help, but there is nothing that can make up for the overwhelming effort it takes to do certain tasks and sustain that for more than a few minutes. Many of these are activities required for self-sufficiency or tasks I ''want'' to do and are directly, innately disrupted by the symptoms of ASD, and it ''hurts''. It hurts that I have so much trouble doing these things. And while I don't have ADHD or CDS, an autistic family member of mine does and can further describe the interplay of comorbidity in exacerbating such symptoms.
			::::Accommodations help, but its far from perfect. It doesn't address all of our needs. There is nothing society can do to accommodate all of peoples' impairments, distress and predispositions to various adverse risks in life. This is not ultimately society's fault. It’s simply the nature of living with a condition like ASD
			::::The diagnosis underscores that our neurological variation becomes impairing when sufficiently severe. Declassifying it risks eliminating or restricting access to entitlements we have fought obtaining, under a false and trivialising perception of disability or impairment being rooted ''entirely'' in a society, rather than the symptoms themselves. ] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You mentioned hygiene above. In developed countries, we tend to think of basic hygiene as a social thing: "You need to take a shower so the other kids at school won't think you stink".
			:::::However, from a biomedical viewpoint, hygiene isn't primarily about the social aspect. It's about preventing skin infections. People need to wash their bodies every now and again so they don't get itchy, oozy, painful rashes. If a neurological condition makes a person ineffective at keeping their body clean (this happens in dementia, too), then this isn't just a social impairment. It's a infectious disease risk. In other words, if autism prevents someone from taking basic care of their body, it's a disorder, not an equally valid and valuable "difference". There is nothing valuable about ], nor about preventable fungal or staph infections. ] (]) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That's precisely the point I was trying to emphasise there, that impairment can occur irrespective of social factors or not even necessarily be implicated in society, and thus can be attributed to the symptoms directly. Thanks for your comment. ] (]) 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] @] @] @] and all other users: I do not thing social model or neurodiversity deny any of the biological co-occurrences. I think this is a very bad misunderstanding both neurodiversity and social model.
			:::::::''Some good logic has been given in https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/ ('''Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about Neurodiversity:''' Just because you value neurological differences doesn’t mean you’re denying the reality of disabilities).''
			:::::::The problem is: The way we "frame" something as a "disease" or "disorder" inevitably comes with the consequence of a seek for cure, prevention, or erasure, or intervention.
			:::::::Autism is a neurotype. It is also a part of the person's perception and worldview. We cannot ethnic cleanse the cognitive minority. Also we cannot love a version of the person (minus Autism) that does NOT exist. We cannot extinguish the things helpful for a person.
			:::::::So called "Low function" Autism exists; but there are people who does not think the existing dominant neurotypical-favored pathology model is the right solution. Here is a statement from somebody:
			:::::::''"i really wish there was support and validation for us 'low functioning' autistics. not for the parents but for us. im an adult. i cant take care of myself, i cant even work. i dont need articles on 'how to care for your low functioning autistic child thats so clearly a monster and youre the godsend tough #warriormom'. not only is it incredibly dehumanising but extremely unhelpful.''
			::::::: ''for once id like to find something along the lines of 'youre not worthless for being a lowfunctioning adult that still lives with their parent and cant brush their teeth or bathe more than twice a month so heres some tips just to make life a bit easier'. i dont need constant reminders that the world doesnt need me"'' ] (]) 15:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@] @] @] Fishes are not "Normal" human being. Fishes can't (usually) breathe on air. Would you transplant lungs into fishes/ genetically engineer fishes? Or you would put them in water?
			::::::::Autism is inherently defined as a "social interaction and communication disorder", (and I think this one matter is pretty consistent between Kanner, Asperger, Sukhareva, Gilberg, DSM/ICD versions, etc.) and "communication" cannot happen through 1 person it takes at least 2 person. If we think of only 1 "normal" communication style or modality, and describe the other as the pathological one (which inevitably imply cure or extinguish) then we only increase pain and suffering, left with zero social support and acceptance. It is not about mild severity or significant severity. It is the matter of involvement of more than one person and their cognitive pattern or communication modality.
			::::::::I am not sure if here people are trying to create new definition of Autism solely based on negativity.
			::::::::] (]) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism; it must be a completely separate condition that just happens to co-occur in some people who also have autism, but it ''can't'' be autism, because if we admit that it were autism, then at least some parts of autism would be something worth preventing, curing, or treating.
			:::::::::BTW, there are "disorders" that don't need prevention, treatment, or cure. For example, 80% of 80-year-old men technically have prostate cancer. But almost all of them will die from something else before the prostate cancer gets big enough to cause any problems. Framing something as a disorder does not inevitably result in demands for a cure. ] (]) 21:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That is my impression as well. Some advocates portray ASD as a binary condition that occurs either with or without comorbid intellectual disability (ID) and thus conclude there is no severity spectrum of autism, implying the more significant of impairments are explicable through ID. this ignores that many level 2 and level 3 people with ASD do not have this comorbidity and ASD is at its core a spectrum disorder, not a dichotomy.
			::::::::::As I recall, there was a recent debate over this issue on the Lancet journal with the NCSA: https://www.ncsautism.org/blog//the-iacc-should-embrace-the-term-profound-autism ] (]) 23:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::@] @] @] @] @] @] @] @] and other users, I think it is a misunderstanding. I have seen the neurodiversity adherents prefer the term "High Support needs" or "High overall support needs" , and "Low support needs" or "Low overall support needs". I may be wrong.
			:::::::::::I do not agree with the position "My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism" Neurodiversity encompasses both high and low support need folks (although individual interpretation sometimes differ). I guess some of the editors are confusing neurodiversity with "Aspie supremacy". Nope, valuing person solely on capabilities or social contribution or usefulness is one of the worst ableist thing humankind can commit! Up to my knowledge, neufodiversity adherents do not support Aspie supremacy! The bathing or brushing example I gave clearly identifies as Autistic.
			:::::::::::The problem with "functioning labels" (not "support need levels") is that, the high function label takes away access to support, low function label takes away human value. It is not that suffering does not take place. The point is human value is taken away.
			:::::::::::Nobody here is creating a definition. Definitions are being reframed or explained in terms of internal experience. ] (]) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You are correct, @], and some of the claims being made here are ].
			::::::::::::People, if you're making assertions about what neurodiversity does or claims, you need to be able to back them up.
			::::::::::::@] and @], you may well share the impression that "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable" but this is simply fiction. If it wasn't bad etiquette on personal comments, I'd be slapping {{citationneeded}} tags all over the place here.
			::::::::::::I ''know'' you haven't based this impression on reliable sources. Literally nobody who understands the field thinks this, let alone people actually advocating for neurodiversity, and you have already been presented with a whole series of peer-reviewed and other sources that directly contradict this.
			::::::::::::With all due respect, I ''beg'' you to take this more seriously, if you plan to continue engaging with this discussion. You appear to be misunderstanding very fundamental things about the neurodiversity movement and paradigm. It is stressful and time-consuming for everyone else having to correct such mistakes; we shouldn't have to.
			::::::::::::Anyone sincerely interested in what 'the neurodiversity movement' actually has to say about what autism is might be interested in , ("Recognition of the negative aspects of autism and endorsement of parenting practices that celebrate and ameliorate but do not eliminate autism did not differ based on relation to autism or awareness of neurodiversity"); or . ] (]) 10:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::No, it is not fictional. Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them, while advocating against treatment of disorders in favour of only accommodations.
			:::::::::::::Here is one example of that by the economist, a popular trade media publisher, who recently publicised this neurodiversity perspective for ADHD: https://archive.is/hNPIQ#selection-971.0-971.40 . As I recall in reading your blog post from beforehand, there was a clear advocation against treatment and disorder validity for not just ASD but ADHD as well, under the broader neurodiversity movement.
			:::::::::::::There is a global scientific consensus ADHD is a valid disorder and that medication should be the first-line intervention for ADHD (), due to its high effectiveness relative to far less effective social interventions. No accommodation comes close to eliminating the impairments of the disorder, as society is not the ultimate cause of its impairments. Additionally, evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews that combine the primary literature have shown that people with ADHD, the disorder, are ''not'' more creative on average, nor that reducing symptoms with treatment impacts such creativity (;; ; ). In every domain studied in the International Consensus Statement, people with the disorder do not outcompete typical people but often are worse in their performance. Millions of people with ADHD endorse treatment of their ADHD with stimulant medication (), which conflicts heavily with any advocation against treatment. All of this disproves the claims in that trade media article advocating ADHD is not a disorder, for minimal or no treatment, and ''only'' use of accommodations - claims that are fairly ubiquitous across the movement. ] (]) 12:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::{{tpb|text="Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them"}}
			::::::::::::::{{citationneeded}}
			::::::::::::::This is, in any case, a different claim from the one you are responding to the denial of. ] (]) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::You're just completely disregarding the scientific evidence and consensus I cited in your response and fixating on the smallest of an issue. I was citing that post as an ''example'' to demonstrate the issues, of course that ''one post'' may not adhere to each and every piece of rhetoric from the movement.
			:::::::::::::::One simply has to search key terms on the Internet to find similar narratives regarding supposed benefits that are indeed false or dramatically overstated as substantiated by an extensive body of research. Here is an ''example'' of that: https://www.additudemag.com/attention-deficit-disorder-vast/
			::::::::::::::: It's unfortunate you don't acknowledge the many issues I point out with the neurodiversity-only framing, and with claiming the totality of impairments are attributable to society. ] (]) 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Robert Chapman and many others in the neurodiversity movement do not reject using methylphenidate in ADHD people because they share a progressive worldview that advocates for liberal drug policies, so just as someone should be allowed to use marijuana, they should not be prohibited from using methylphenidate if they freely choose to do so. The problem they criticize is a society that creates a pressure on ADHD people to use it in order to function in a world that sets normative requirements about functioning.
			::::::::::::::::You seem to have quite a chaotic, irresponsible kind of people in your mind when you think about the neurodiversity movement. Autistic doctor Mary Doherty says in a presentation for Cell Press that people, including clinicians, who really understand the neurodiversity paradigm don't go back to the old view because they see the benefits it has and resistance to the new paradigm is because people have misunderstood certain key elements of it:
			::::::::::::::::You are again talking about ADHD although this article is about autism. There are similarities in viewing both things as an expression of neurodiversity but the neurodiversity movement is far more advanced for autism than it is for ADHD. Maybe it is your professional focus on ADHD that is the reason why you have missed the growing importance of the neurodiversity paradigm for autism.
			::::::::::::::::Using a neurodiversity-only perspective has not been proposed by anyone here. The goal is to write an article that encompasses both the medical/pathology model and the social/neurodiversity paradigm. The proposal by @] also suggests writing that it can be argued that some aspects of autism can be inherently disabling. ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Sorry but Oolong was referring to the neurodiversity movement in general. I understand this talk page concerns ASD and I don't mean to generalise, but the neurodiversity movement encapsulates ADHD in their claims - as Oolong has also done in their blog post - and I have addressed the issues with it in regards to ASD. And they do in fact explicitly advocate against the use of treatment in replacement of accommodation.
			:::::::::::::::::The facts are based on extensive scientific evidence, not perceptions or wishful thinking. The issue is not modern society pressuring people to undergo treatment. Even the developers of CBT (ie., Ramsay, Solanto, Safren) acknowledge in the manuals that accommodations are no where near as effective as medication and must often be combined with medication for the patient to profit from them. So viewing societal changes as a stand alone approach to alleviating impairment is not supported in the scientific literature. Meta-analyses of twin and families studies indicate its symptom severity is influenced by genetics, and to a small extent, neurobiological events; not the rearing social environment. ADHD by virtue of its executive functioning deficits impairs a wide array of functioning unrelated to society,<ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Barkley RA, Murphy KR |date=2011-06-01 |title=The Nature of Executive Function (EF) Deficits in Daily Life Activities in Adults with ADHD and Their Relationship to Performance on EF Tests |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9217-x |journal=Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment |language=en |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=137–158 |doi=10.1007/s10862-011-9217-x |issn=1573-3505}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Fleming M, Fitton CA, Steiner MF, McLay JS, Clark D, King A, Mackay DF, Pell JP |date=July 2017 |title=Educational and Health Outcomes of Children Treated for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder |journal=JAMA Pediatrics |volume=171 |issue=7 |pages=e170691 |doi=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0691 |pmc=6583483 |pmid=28459927}}</ref> and ultimately leads to a reduced life span of about 13 years.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Barkley RA, Fischer M |date=July 2019 |title=Hyperactive Child Syndrome and Estimated Life Expectancy at Young Adult Follow-Up: The Role of ADHD Persistence and Other Potential Predictors |journal=Journal of Attention Disorders |volume=23 |issue=9 |pages=907–923 |doi=10.1177/1087054718816164 |pmid=30526189 |s2cid=54472439}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cattoi B, Alpern I, Katz JS, Keepnews D, Solanto MV |date=April 2022 |title=The Adverse Health Outcomes, Economic Burden, and Public Health Implications of Unmanaged Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Call to Action Resulting from CHADD Summit, Washington, DC, October 17, 2019 |journal=Journal of Attention Disorders |volume=26 |issue=6 |pages=807–808 |doi=10.1177/10870547211036754 |pmid=34585995 |s2cid=238218526}}</ref>
			:::::::::::::::::Known reports of ADHD go back to 1753 (), and the journal ''Nature'' published a meta-analysis examining ADHD gene variants in samples of modern, ancient, and archaic human populations going back to Neanderthals. They found substantial evidence that natural selection has steadily acted against these genetic variants over the course of at least 45,000 years, which means ADHD has been impairing way before modern societies ().
			:::::::::::::::::The draft written by Oolong doesn't seek to suggest writing ASD is inherently impairing at all. It simply erases much of the contextualising detail on this issue from the existing lede, while focusing the article on depathologising the disorder. This completely contradicts all of the national and international guidelines, systematic reviews, scientific consensus statements, and diagnostic criteria I have been citing and thus conflicts with Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] (]) 08:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::I'm not "fixating on the smallest of an issue" at all. @] made a claim, which you repeated, that ''if true'' would be profoundly important, but which is in fact - I'm repeating myself here - pure fiction.
			::::::::::::::::Your response to having this pointed out is emblematic.
			::::::::::::::::Let's recap how this went, lightly paraphrased:
			::::::::::::::::''WhatamIdoing:'' "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable"
			::::::::::::::::''Me:'' That's just not true at all. Please be serious.
			::::::::::::::::''You:'' Here is someone with no apparent connection to the neurodiversity movement, writing an anonymous leader for ], arguing that there are good various good things about ADHD, which I disagree with.
			::::::::::::::::''Me:'' How is that relevant, like, at all?
			::::::::::::::::''You:'' Why are you fixating on what we were actually talking about? Here's another piece about ADHD that I disagree with. ] (]) 08:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I'm trying to keep in mind that Robert McClenon has asked us to "Comment on content, not contributors" (which is sometimes hard for me, but I think is good advice) and has also stated that "our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources." ], ], are there citations in the field of autism to substantiate the claims "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable" and "Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them"? If so, would you present them? Thanks. (My sense is that text about this wouldn't go in the lead, but would instead go somewhere in the body. So if there are citations, let's just hold onto them for the time being.) If not, then these claims don't help us. The moderator also said "I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article" Oolong has presented a draft. Is anyone else who wants the focus to change planning to respond to Robert McClenon's request? (I cannot; as I noted in a response to him, I lack the subject matter background.) Or do those who want the focus to change all think that Oolong's draft represents you well? I think it would help for people to say one way or the other. If no other draft or plan is going to be presented, it seems like the next step is to wait for guidance from the moderator (e.g., re: whether it now goes to an RfC or if he has another task first). ] (]) 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::You were referring to the neurodiversity movement in general, but you omit this context. I understand this talk page concerns ASD and I don't mean to generalise, but the neurodiversity movement encapsulates other disorders in their rhetoric - as you have done in your blog post - and I have already addressed the issues with it in regards to ASD. And they do in fact explicitly advocate for the "de-medicalisation" of disorders while misrepresenting their nature, as the references show. Citing facts and the global scientific consensus statement is not "me disagreeing" with the claims, it's showing that they are demonstrably false. There is no official centralised Neurodiversity Movement organisation; both the economist article among the other one are advocating for neurodiversity to make their claims. ] (]) 08:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::The entirely fictional claim you were defending was that "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable".
			::::::::::::::::::Please try to stay on topic. ] (]) 09:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The social model of disability asserts that disabled people should be given the supports they need. These skin infections do not emerge if the disabled person is properly cared for. It is important that the "social" in "social model" does not only refer to the disablement that arises in interactions between the individual and their society but also to the social normativity regarding the autonomy and independence of people. While the neurodiversity movement does not reject teaching autistic people self-care skills if the autistic person wants it, it is important to note that although these hygiene things have to be done by someone, it is a cultural and capitalist decision to create a small separated space for every person for which the person is considered responsible and which they are expected to be able to manage. All humans are interdependent, a single human would not survive for very long in the wilderness. It is an arbitrary construct to say those who have certain skills are „independent“ and only those who don’t have them are not. Take the Jun/oansi hunter-gatherers in Namibia as an example: "No one in these villages expects anyone to live on their own and be completely responsible for their own successes and failures. In Europe and North America, however, we’ve long idealized the autonomous individual, dignified those who produce the most capital, and stigmatized those who produce the least. It is, in fact, because of this obsession with independence that Europeans first invented mental illness categories during the early industrial revolution. The idea was to separate out unproductive workers into distinct identities. In capitalism, mental illnesses and dependence on one’s family became signs of disgrace. In a society like Geshe and Tamzo’s, one would never ask the question nearly every American parent with an autistic child is, at some point, asked: 'Will your child be able to live independently?'" . You, @], also wrote that you are against capitalism so I thought you might find this insightful. ] (]) 03:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::@] <nowiki>{{support|strong}}</nowiki> Thank you for this wonderful dissection on the topic. ] (]) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::<nowiki>{{support|strong}}</nowiki> @] ] (]) 06:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It's true that cooperative societies don't ask "Will your child be able to live independently?" Instead, I believe that they skip that and ask some variant on "When you die, which of your other children will have the duty to care for their brother, because it's obvious that someone will be caring for him for the rest of his life?"
			:::::::This story reminds me of the "Eskimos and Inuits don't die of cancer" thing from the 1990s. The informative question to ask wasn't "Wow, how do they avoid cancer?!" but "So, what's the rate of heart disease?" Here we have a group that assumes the child will be cared for by family. Maybe if they wrote this book, they would be saying "You know what happens in the US and Europe? When your first-born has a major congenital disability, people don't say, 'You need to have more children, so that when you die, there will be siblings to take care of this one.' It would be so nice to live in that culture, where people have children because they want them instead of as a type of social insurance and extra caregivers for their dependent older brother." ] (]) 07:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Actually, on the same page of the book it says: "When I asked his father if he is concerned about who will take care of Geshe when he and his wife pass away, he looked confused and then pointed to his neighbors. 'We won't all die at once,' he said." ] (]) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] @] Neurodiversity is a political and ''not'' a scientific term; in fact, Judy Singer, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement even acknowledges this:https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html?m=1
			:Unlike more scientific terminology like neurological variation, "diversity" is associated with positivity and other such connotations as well as with the broader Neurodiversity Movement. That movement is notorious for denying the scientific validity of not just ASD but other disorders such as ADHD and the necessity of treatment (pharmacological or otherwise) in favour of homogenising peoples' neurological variation. The movement also tends to misrepresent their nature by minimising impairments and overstating or incorrectly ascribing positive benefits to the conditions in order to portray them in a positive light. Their positions contradict the global scientific consensus (e.g. Faraone et al., 2021) as well as the views of millions of people with lived experience of such disorders (e.g. Cortese et al., 2024). This has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience no matter how appealing it may be to some laypeople. It’s a pity so many are adversely affected by it.. ] (]) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::As with anything else, it can only be pseudo-science if they're claiming that it's real-science in the first place. (See ] if you are interested in this subject.) ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The assumption that Judy Singer coined the term neurodiversity is being challenged and Judy Singer didn't initiate the movement . Both the term and the movement arose out of autistic communities and weren't created by any single person. ] (]) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::We've been through this already. Besides our previous discussions, I refer you to and this very clear statement from ] which is prominently quoted in the essay ]:
			::"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."
			::Which of your citations directly states that all or even most scientists or scholars hold the view you are referring to? ] (]) 09:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Neurodiversity is "Hallmark of Pseudoscience"? I rather smell the pathology paradigm and all its army (usually paid and funded and supported by ) as a form of colonialism and master-slave relationship within a species.
			::You might know about ] . "Science" told if a slave does not want to remain enslaved then it is a disorder.
			::Brownlow, Charlotte. "Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’." Journal of Medical Humanities 31, no. 3 (2010): 243-255. can be an interesting read on this regard.
			::Many neurodiversity supporters are also science lovers and also often prefer strict rationality.
			::Only Autistics can say what works best for them. Neurotypical professionals and scientists aren't going to perceive the matter... best they can is to conduct surveys, take opinions, having empathy, listening to us, reading our autoethnography. Anything imposed on us outside of that causes harm. I am tired of seeing another group of people deciding what's best for Autistics. Really unhelpful and bad ideas. ] (]) 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] I greatly oppose the idea that neurodiversity is "pseudoscientific". It has a sociological or philosophical dimension as well scientific dimension. But to think it as "pseudoscience" is really sick idea. I rather think the so called "global scientific unanimous consensus" is a pseudoscientific one: because they want to look like science, but all they do is to vote and raise/ lower the various arbitrary bars much like things happen in politics and diplomacy. They don't know everything, yet they pretend they know best for us. ] (]) 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If scientists discuss and accept a concept, then it becomes scientific. The theory of evolution through natural selection was thought up by a country gentleman of independent means, trained in theology, who once had a job as a geologist, and a wildlife specimen collector who had been trained as a surveyor. I think this shows that the profession of the instigator of new ideas is irrelevant, if the idea is later taken up by scholars who are, or are not, professional scientists. ] (]) 15:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			;What's next?
	{{Reflist|group=upper-alpha}}
			This discussion has been enlightening for me, in part because it has forced me to think about fundemental questions in my own field (clinical psychology) and to consider strong arguments from thoughtful, smart, experienced Wikipedians on both sides of this debate. I find myself going back and forth and back and forth again as I read through this discussion. Although I believe the article should do more to integrate insights and perspectives from the neurodiversity viewpoint, I start with the belief that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that causes suffering for people born with it (and their families), i.e., it is not merely a "difference" that society needs to accommodate. I remain hopeful that we can craft a consensus statement, in the form of a new lede for the article. Should we start work on that? -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:"suffering" breaks ]. ] (]) 12:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Reflist}}
			::The reason why I mentioned this is because it can be offensive to autistic people to say we "suffer". ] (]) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for reminding me about that word (''suffer'') being problematic. It has four or five meanings, which is part of the problem. Would it be better to say that autism causes ''distress''? <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 08:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::In this context, it means much the same thing.
			::::I would suggest that the bigger issue is that it's not autism ''on its own'' that causes suffering or distress; it affects people's reactions to the environment they're in.
			::::I am certainly more distressed in some situations than a non-autistic person is likely to be, but in others I am undoubtedly ''less'' distressed. Similarly, I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by, while I am baffled by the enjoyment that many seem to take in other things. ] (]) 09:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by" you mean small things everyone misses? Like when I'm on the train I like to stare out the window, kinda ] and fun. Also ] should be a ].
			:::::@] I think "distress" would be better, what do you mean by suffer having like 5 meanings? What are these 5 meanings? Where were they defined? ] (]) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::See ]. ] (]) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would argue, as an autistic person myself, that though autism can be difficult to live with and be problematic, it is very largely contextual. If I am on my own or with my family and/or close friends, in a comfortable or neutral environment, I am not inconvenienced by my autism at all, neither is anyone else. This suggests to me, that it is only in my interactions with society at large that me being autistic can become a problem, either to me or other people (]). Also my autism has benefits, yes indeed. In my job as a biomedical researcher monotropism was a positive thing to posses, concentrating on my project and not being distracted by other things paid dividends. My abilities to solve problems from unusual angles was also very useful. I produced two theses, MSc and PhD, both passed without revision or correction. My autistic eye for detail also enabled me to become the 'go to person' for proof reading other people's theses, I have lost count of the number I have proofread. The article does not conspicuously engage with any beneficial aspects of autism.
			:As an aside, the use of the term 'deficit' in the DSM 5 wording is largely due to US medical insurance requirements, rather than wording for clinical accuracy. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Right - I don't think anyone with any insight into autistic experiences at all would deny that related issues are "very largely contextual". In fact, it scare me to think that some might - I know there are parents out there with ''no insight'' into what causes their kids' meltdowns, trying to train them to behave differently, rather than learning to spot triggers and work out strategies for avoiding overwhelm. I know that something similar can happen with autistic people in institutions, causing whole cycles of meltdowns and ill-treatment, and that is ''chilling''.
			::There are good reasons why ]'s equation 'autism + environment = outcomes' is so influential and widely quoted.
			::I discussed many of the ways that autism can be a disability, despite the ''same traits'' in many cases being neutral or even advantageous in other contexts, in . Might be helpful background reading for anyone interest in this discussion.
			::As for what next, @] and @] I don't think either of you have responded yet to the ] or my rough draft of a potential lead? ] (]) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Is there something about Beardon's 'autism + environment = outcomes' that is meant to be unique to autism? The same equation works for any individual with any trait. It's not even specific to humans, or animals: '] + environment = outcomes' or 'Flu virus + environment = outcomes'. ] (]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Only in the sense that for some reason, when it comes to autism, people often ''totally ignore this obvious point''.
			::::It's a bit like the ] in this regard. ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, I had not seen your draft, and I apologize for missing it. I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with. // I need to stop reading this on my phone because there's no way I can track the flow of discussions when they go up and down the page. I keep expecting sequential order going down the page, but that's not how a talk page works. <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 08:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks Mark! Yes, unfortunately it's extremely hard to follow these discussions on a phone (I've found the app helps a little, but not as much as I'd like). Also, on the phone there's usually no 'reply' button for some reason??
			::::It might be helpful if you'd chime in ], if you're up for it. ] (]) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Urselius, when I read through your comment, I'm left with the feeling that we're saying "When you've met one high-functioning autistic person with a PhD, then you've met every autistic person". For every autistic person like you, there's another one who can't be left unsupervised. Can we write this article in a way that doesn't erase those low-functioning, extremely high-need autistic people. It needs more than just the occasional passing reference to their existence.
			::<small>Conversations like this make me wish that they'd split autism back into separate components. It probably was better for autistic people with high academic achievement when they got a completely different label, so the distinction between highly capable and talented people vs those who have no hope of living independently was obvious on paper, not just in reality.</small> ] (]) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There is a great deal of distress, exhaustion and, indeed, mental ill health in autistics who can, most of the time, fully function in society. Most of the attention, support and accommodation, however, goes to those who cannot function in society. I believe that both sets of people deserve the help that they require to live the best life they can. For some autistic people that help might include sheltered accommodation, with round the clock supervision being available. For me, it might have been to be able to take examinations away from vast halls filled with crowds of other anxious people. Or department stores not making people walk through appallingly smelly perfume departments in order to get anywhere else. Yes autism is a spectrum, people on it have a variety of problems and require a variety of support or accommodation. ] (]) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There were good reasons why psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection; in short, the differences between different autistic people do not appear to be categorical.
			:::It is often said, and this is important, that the term 'low functioning' erases a person's autonomy, while 'high functioning' erases their difficulties.
			:::There certainly are substantial differences between different autistic people (largely, but probably not exclusively, because of other co-occurring disabilities) - but also within the same autistic person at different times, and in different environments.
			:::You asked if there was something special about autistic people with respect to ]'s 'golden equation' 'autism + environment = outcomes' and I suggested there wasn't, really; but it is really worth emphasising how ''huge'' the differences in a person can be depending on environment. Someone who is eloquent and capable well things are going well may lose the power of speech when things go wrong. All kinds of capabilities can be lost this way. ] is a very serious thing, and shorter-term shutdowns can also be very serious.
			:::Spiky profiles are also an absolutely key concept for understanding the variability of autism. Sometimes people who can't feed themselves are quite capable of getting PhDs, with the right support. Often, people who don't obviously struggle in public barely function at all in private (you might want to read up on the 'coke bottle effect' regarding how this manifests with schoolkids). Many autistic people have much higher support needs than may be immediately obvious; many with obvious difficulties are capable of great things. ] (]) 09:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] takes the day off after big events so this is a example of how functioning can change. I think the ''DSM'' mentions how the functioning of a person can change but I'm not bothered to find it because I gotta continue programing something then sleep. ] (]) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This comment is about this: {{xt|psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection}}.
			::::According to , there's a minority POV that says all the formulas they've come up with to delineate autistic from non-autistic fall apart on closer inspection, and therefore the whole concept of 'autism' is invalid (in terms of clinical utility and nosology, not in terms of the political movement) and should be abandoned. Having difficulty differentiating 1.2345 from 1.2435 doesn't mean that the "1" can be reliably delineated from "2". ] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yes, there is a reasonable case to be made that the construct of autism as we know it lacks scientific validity. In fact, I think the current version of the ] article boldly claims a "growing consensus" to that effect.
			:::::However, as Chapman points out, it retains considerable value as an identity; and as things stand, there is practical value to having a diagnosis. It's just sensible to be aware that classifications have changed in the past, largely for good reasons, and will likely change further in the future.
			:::::I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your final sentence though. ] (]) 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]
			;A Summation of the situation ====
			We seem to be generating a vast amount of verbiage from relatively entrenched positions. However, I think that these positions resolve into two fairly simple choices for the future of the article:
			'''Choice 1''' Largely the present situation. The 'medical model', also referred to in discussion as the "scientific consensus", retains priority, all other facets and models of autism are treated as being subordinate to this model, because, "Autism is a pathological state, defined by deficits, as described in clinical diagnostic manuals".
	This discussion strives for a neutral point of view, bringing in some of the more well known but less reliable sources such as Ryden and Lynghauh, as well as some of the lesser known but more scholarly ones to balance out some of the misinformation. It is important to make the distinction of time and place, to avoid misleading the reader into thinking there was once millions of horses where they are found today. Where they are found today, the public rangelands in the desert regions that could not support traditional settlement and homesteading, could not support those kinds of numbers.] (]) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			'''Choice 2''' Requiring substantial rewriting to shift emphasis. Treating the 'medical model' and the 'neurodiversity model' as equal, partly complimentary, methods of considering and describing autism. This would involve creating a neutral descriptive lead, then a definition of the two models, followed by a more equal treatment, where appropriate, of both models as aspects of autism are explored in the body of the text.
	====Second statement by volunteer moderator====
	I'm so sorry to both of you, I had to attend to a family emergency yesterday, let me take a look over your points and I'll be back here in a bit. ''''']]''''' 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			Misplaced Pages HAS to treat any subject in a manner that reflects current scholarship, this is particularly the case where there is any level dissention among relevant academics or commentators. This is not a choice! Given that there is a significant body of academic support for both the medical and neurodiversity models, both must be given substantial coverage in anything that makes any claim to be encyclopaedic. There is also a significant opinion in relevant circles which combines elements from both models, and this also needs to be addressed.
	Okay, you both make valid points and I do have a few thoughts on how you could compromise, but I'd like to see what you two have to say before I give any suggestions. Keeping in mind what was said earlier, I'd like you to ''try'' to reach neutral ground, because it doesn't seem either of you are completely right. So, I'd like you both to say what you think a reasonable compromise is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. ''''']]''''' 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			To my mind, as an editor who has created 39 novel articles on Misplaced Pages, only choice 2 aligns with Misplaced Pages core values. The 'second pillar' is, "Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view". When faced with two models describing any phenomenon, if editors are insisting that one is given preferential treatment they are then imposing their personal preferences on the reader, which is fundamentally against Misplaced Pages core values. ] (]) 11:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Second statement by SheriWysong====
			:], the moderator has already stated "I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources," (]), so the decision has already been made in favor of your Choice 2. He subsequently said "I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article" (]; you may want to reread his statements in full, including 5.1, as they address additional aspects of the moderator's plans for how things will progress). Do you have a draft lede that you want people to consider? Or, if you think that the work must start with the body, do you have a plan for how coordinated work on that could occur? ] (]) 13:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	First, I would like to hear a reasoned explanation as to WHY Montanabw does not believe it is necessary to put the "millions" number in proper context. The only reason I have been given is that it isn't relevant. What isn't relevant is the number itself, so if it's going to be put in the article, it should be put into context. I could go either way-just leave the "millions" number out and start perhaps with the 1934 number of 150,000, but if it's going to stay in, there needs to be further discussion of it similar to what I put in the above paragraph.] (]) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			::Yes,, I know, but it did not stop further debate, did it? I considered that a recapitulation of the choices available was moot. We need to move on from what to how, without forever mulling through the what question. ] (]) 14:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Robert McClenon clearly proposed a "how": {{tq|I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article.}} ] (]) 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::But we are still wrangling here, not creating a concrete plan. ] (]) 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::] - You are clearly a scholar in this area. Have you written a '''revised lede section''' for the article? If so, would you please link to it or tell me how I can find it? I did look, but there's so much here, I might have missed it. Thank you -- <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">] ]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;"></span> 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Alternatively @], do you support my ]? (the moderator did ask us ''each'' to draft a revised lede, but I'm not sure we should interpret that literally?)
			::::::We may also want to start work on a plan for reworking the body of the article; provide a helpful starting place, I think, but at some point we'll need an outline with proposed sections and so on. ] (]) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Thanks for linking, I must confess that I failed to find your lead earlier, on this rather full page. I think your lead is good. Personally, I would add, 'characterised by deficits' to the sentence on autism as a disorder. Plus, I would add hypermobility and gastro-intestinal problems to the commonly co-occurring conditions. Both advantages and disadvantages are mentioned in the 2nd para, but the 3rd only mentions associated problems, it would be good to mention some common advantages here, dependent on reputable supporting references, of course. I have come across a genetics paper where some commonly occurring autism-linked alleles were associated with higher academic attainment and, I think, sources for heightened abilities in concentration (monotropism) and attention to detail could be found. ] (]) 09:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That makes sense - probably a good call on both fronts. Thanks!
			::::::::Systematic review on GI symptoms in autism: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/7/1471
			::::::::Hypermobility/EDS reviews: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/10/4/260 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13575279.2022.2149471#d1e146 ] (]) 09:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Why I think splitting the spectrum is NOT a good idea, and what could be done instead.
	====Second statement by Montanabw====
	== Talk:State of Somaliland ==
			</br>
	{{DR case status|open}}
	{{drn filing editor|Largoplazo|22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428013801}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			:::Although I think a more individualized classification system under Autism Spectrum might be helpful; I do NOT think categorization based of functionality levels or usefulness or societal contributions are ANY helpful. '''Technically, people with similar variations in different cognitive domains may have different societal repercussions.''' Such as I have some weird form of number-blindness (I can't often remember or recognize numbers in a meaningful way; such as dates, times, public transport routes, addresses or street numbers, etc. and particularly banking is a troll for me), and heightened recognition for "names" and "words"; which do have social repercussion, but just think of opposite combinations: a heightened sense for number but inability to remember or use words and names (anomic aphasia, hypothetical scenario). The scenario seen in at least few of the severely Autistic/ low-functioning (so called) individual. Who can tell dates and day names of calendar instantly but can't use words as principal mode of communication. For this minute difference I would probably have much more social repercussion, probably I would be mistreated as intellectually disabled, probably communication modes weren't offered, probably would have been subjected to abusive therapies. Perhaps I would never been learn to frame sentences due to inability to recall words. Perhaps parents were suggested to speak simple words loudly near my ears, which would feel as irritating as train numbers feel to me currently while in platform announcements.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
			</br>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			::: '''In reality, no two Autistics are the same.''' Neither 2 high functional Autistics are the same, nor 2 low functional Autistics are the same. Some have more issues with fine or gross motor control, some have more issues with interoceptions, some have more issues with emotional safety (esp those on ] profile or ] characteristics), some have more issues with different use of ] and ] etc. Such as a relatively "low functioning" Autistic may have a lesser sensory issues. S/he might enjoy loud music and social gathering. '''Conversely a relatively "high functioning" Autistic may have much more issues in some aspects''' such as sensory, emotional regulation issues, alexithymia, etc. '''And intermediate-need Autistics do exist'''.
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:State of Somaliland}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|Largoplazo}}
	* {{User| Hadraa}}
	* {{User| AcidSnow}}
	* {{User| Middayexpress}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			:::I guess the following diagram provides a rough representation on how these variations might look like.
	This is a longstanding article, which is on my watchlist but in which I am not actively involved and have no personal stake, about a political entity that was British Somaliland until 26 June 1960 and that merged to become part of the Somali Republic five days later. Today two people decided that the article should be merged to ]. Another person who disagrees has reverted it, and there have been several re-reversions. Two people were actively arguing over it, and I decided to review their arguments and do my own research and see if I could clarify things, serving as an unrequested ]. I believe I have justified the article's existence, but the person who wants it redirected seems to be ignoring my commentary and repeating his original rationales, all of which, in my judgment, lack merit. I'm inclined to restore the article again, but I thought I'd open the question up to more people.
			:::]
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			::: '''FIGURE:''' Here is one hypothetical spikey profile, just think of another kind of hypothetical spikey or uneven profile.
	Nothing besides discussing it with them directly.
			:::Based on social outcome, we may '''mis-categorize''' some of us having just like some mild OCD like hyperreaction to small changes, or as if some common mental health disorder, and we may '''miscategorize''' some of others as "burdensome", "uneducable". But in reality, both kind of Autistics are part of a multidimensional continuum (Not just a linear spectrum of "more Autistic or Less Autistic" but differing in many many aspects).
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
	Opinions from additional objective editors on my reasoning as well as that of the others, perhaps a different way of expressing the relevant considerations.
			:::Therefore, we cannot force like "high functioning folks can't speak for low functioning folks" or "low functioning folks cannot speak for high functioning folks". '''In that logic, one high functioning folk should not have speaking for another high funnctioning individual'''. Or one low functioning shouldnt support another low functioning. But that is NOT the situation. Some of the experiences like SYNAESTHESIA, SENSORY OVERLOAD, STIMMING, ECHOLALIA, MELTDOWN etc apllicable on all the subgroups more or less, depending on individuals. Insights on one group really helps other subgroups. Back and forth.
	==== Summary of dispute by Hadraa ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland which i think was wronge simply because there was a country called the state of somaliland and was from 26 June to 1 July 1960 and with all my best reliable sources which can be found on talk page. but both of AcidSnow and Middayexpress keep redirecting the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland ] (]) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	==== Summary of dispute by AcidSnow ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			:::Look into underlying mechanism. Look into their introspection. Look into how they make friendships. look into what they want to share. Look into where they struggle. And deep inside there are similarities in mechanism,
	==== Summary of dispute by Middayexpress ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	The post above is factually inaccurate. First, the dispute was originally between ] and Hadraa. AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to ] for reasons he explained beforehand on its talk page, and Hadraa subsequently took exception to that. The discussion then proceeded from there. ] (]) 22:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::'''I do think we need to provide individualized support cards to Autistic people, elaborating what kind of support needs they require'''. How to communicate with them. What kind of accommodations that person might need in workplace. But yes we can get a general and collective idea from multiple Autistics' experience which is indeed helpful. '''Personally I call the so called high functioning profile as the "interpreters" between Autistic and Non-Autistic universe'''. Of course there are exceptions but If not an individual level then '''at a collective level''' it is helpful to see the whole spectrum unsplitted. Neurotypical assumptions in the other hand, misleads. Even neurotypical people close to Autistic population often have no clue about how to effectively communicate, while some Autistics do communicate effectively among each other.
	=== Talk:State of Somaliland discussion ===
			:::@] I would love to hear yor opinion regarding this matter. ] (]) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	====First statement by volunteer moderator====
			::::@] I would love to know your view too] (]) 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	As a volunteer at this noticeboard, I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. I don't have any specific knowledge about Somaliland or Somalia, and I don't intend to impose a solution; that isn't what this noticeboard is for. I expect the parties to present their own cases, and I will try to facilitate discussion. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is not merely requested. It is required here and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages.) I understand that there is a dispute about whether to merge or redirect this article. Will each of the parties please state concisely what they think should be done?
			::::Nice you also think it's not a liner spectrum, I also think this is true and never compere who's "more or less"{{efn|sometimes I have some intrusive thoughts where I do think about this}} but sometimes when I meet someone who is more intellectually impaired then me I can't not think their "more".
	] (]) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::------
			::::Also a source for autistic people are good a dates:<ref> (His kid is at the start. That's his kid's mate I think)</ref> Make sure you don't watch the whole thing its riddled with ] and then he donates to a bad charity, stupid. I wish it was under creative commons so it could be on the page inspiration porn for an example.
			::::------
			::::Also now that we have established that it's not a linear spectrum can we remove the word "severity" form the second paragraph? I think @] undid me removing the word because of scientific papers saying "severity", so maybe if we find more papers against this we could remove the word? ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::We don't need papers that say "My POV disagrees with using the word ''severity'' when describing their POV". We need a way to accurately communicate the POV that some autistic people are more impaired than others. A descriptive phrase such as "has higher support needs" might work. ] (]) 05:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That's what we have been arguing for. The proposal by @] that I largely with a few suggestions includes varying support needs. ] (]) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::'''@] @] @] @] I am going through too much burnout to rectify unintended problematic language. Please see through forgiveness. Know my good wishes. Good Wishes for volunteers and editors, Good wishes for neurodivergent, Good wishes for everyone. ''' ] (]) 08:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	====First statement by Largoplazo====
			;My views on the matter
	====First statement by Hadraa====
			Given the strict assurance from {{ping|Robert McClenon}} in the talk page conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-Robert_McClenon-20250103163000-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600 , Hereby I express my concerns regarding why sticking to pathology views can be harmful.
	====First statement by AcidSnow====
			(Moderators Please feel free to cut paste this to appropriate section)
	====First statement by Middayexpress====
	Posted to moderator's talk page:
	Hi Robert McClenon. The dispute over whether the State of Somaliland should redirect to British Somaliland or remain a stub was already resolved. All parties agreed that it should remain a stub. Given this, could you please close the discussion and note this agreement per the talk page? Best regards Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			(1) '''Are you Autistic?''' </br>
	== Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse ==
			‒ Yes, and also I have received formal diagnosis of “ASD”.
			(2) '''What are your perception of this ASD? Is this causing impairment to you? Is this a disorder to you?''' </br>
	{{DR case status}}
			‒ This is rather complicated to answer. I have been seeing the world as too fast, too loud, too rigid, too figurative, too changing, too chaotic, too unempathetic, too complicated. I can do my stuff only if the situation favors it. However, I do think some of the conditions like situational mutism, executive function issues, fine motor and motor planning issues, meltdowns, shutdowns, etc. are causing difficulties and misunderstandings. You can compare it with a person with Dwarfism who see the public transport, school desks and blackboards, etc. are designed for taller people. Who feel like people around them are all taller. The difference is biological, but the impact is mostly social.
	{{drn filing editor|IRISZOOM|00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428019327}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			(3) '''Do you think Autism should be defined solely based on negativity or deficits?''' </br>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
			‒ No, Autism should be defined and diagnosed based on its signs and internal experiences regardless of the stress level of the person. So that regardless of stress level you can predict and prevent or minimize traumatic experiences. Autistic person remains Autistic regardless of stress level or situations. In some situations we focus or work really well, in some other situation we meltdown or go into non functional, vegetative like state. But it is the same person and same brain. You can’t separate Autism from the Person and her/his core nature.
			(4) What is the impact of ASD diagnosis on you? </br>
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
			‒ It gave a rational explanation of my entire life. That was positive and empowering. It was the starting point to learn to stop hating oneself.
			(5) '''Why do you think that the pathology model causes harm?''' </br>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			‒ Before answering that, I want to let you know that I do not invalidate the impairments, stress, and suffering, regardless of need levels. For two reasons I think pathology model causes harm.
	* {{pagelinks|Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|IRISZOOM}}
	* {{User| Debresser}}
	* {{User| Zero0000}}
	* {{User| ShulMaven}}
	* {{User| Al Ameer son}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			* '''Firstly,''' it tries to extinguish the “disorder” and its symptoms itself, the so called “taking out the child or the person from the grasp of Autism”, and it causes a testimonial injustice and a systematic injustice by not considering whether Autistic people are being fruitfully helped by this approach.
	In the article ], some users are adding examples they can find on which attackers have come from the area. They also add some other details, like describing one attack and some residents erected a tent where they mourned the attacker. None of this belong to the article about the neighbourhood in Jerusalem but in the different articles mentioned.
			* '''Secondly,''' if we do not highlight the social nature of the problem, we would not achieve necessary societal changes and societal accommodations. As we know, Autism is often seen as a terror or an inherently undesirable trait, which leads to loss of human value and credibility. During COVID pandemic period just a few years ago; patients with learning disabilities were issued with '''DNR (Do not resuscitate)''' orders ; reflecting we are not yet seen as a full human being. '''The rate of job loss and unemployment, stress related disease, self-ha*rm and low life expectancy is skyrocketed'''.
	Debresser and ShulMaven think the info is relevant, while I, Zero0000 and Al Ameer son have said the opposite. But we are stuck so I ask here for comments.
			'''(6) Do you benefit from treatment such as social skills lesson, behavioural therapy, ABC model or antipsychotic medications?''' </br>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			‒ I was offered with social skills lessons, ABC model, behavioral therapies, and antipsychotic medications. NO, they worsen my wellbeing. They make me look like more regulated or sociable, but deep inside they worsen. They also take away my sense of boundary and autonomy. '''I also feel that there is not any real existence of “deficit of social skill” in the sense … because socialization is a 2 way process. I can do little if the so called “friends” abandons me or bullies me and I require to control myself to make room for everyone, yet I am considered to be the one who is “lacking” the social skills. Do not teach us forced eye contact etc. instead teach neurotypicals about existence and value of different kind of minds and brains.''' Further read: ()
			(7) '''Then what can help you?''' </br>
	None.
			‒ If I am allowed the way I cope up or learn or focus or play. Even if they look odd/ childish/ intolerable. And also Only reasonable accommodation, such as flexible work hours, written instructions, communicating changes and meetups earlier, making the banking system or form fill-up simpler, etc.
			(8) '''Will reasonable accommodation remove 100% of your problems?''' </br>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			‒ No, but it will minimize the survival mode.
			(9) '''If direct treatment of Autism spectrum does not help you, then why you need counselling/ psychotherapy?''' </br>
	Give your comments so hopefully a resolution could be found.
			‒ Because of the traumatic and stressful situations that arise from daily living or interaction with typical world.
			(10) '''Why do you think it is important to make Autism diagnosis and support more accessible?''' </br>
	==== Summary of dispute by Debresser ====
			‒ Currently the diagnosis and support for Autism are not accessible at all, because of existing stereotypes such as intellectual disability and inability to speak. Many professionals are also not aware of less typical presentations of Autism. As a result the stressed out person is often offered with mental health diagnosis such as depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizoid or borderline or introverted personality disorders, paranoia, anger, delusional disorder, OCD, etc. which are basically a secondary mental health condition. But cognitive differences esp. related to Autism Spectrum, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Prosopagnosia, Sensory processing disorder, etc. and its societal repercussions remain unaddressed.
	The sentence "A number of Jabel Mukaber residents have been involved in acts of anti-Israel violence" is relevant and very important. But it is unsourced. The rest of that paragraph and the two next paragraphs are examples. That means they are original research and synthesis, to support the unsourced statement by providing it with sources. That is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and those paragraphs, including the unsourced statement, need to be removed. Which is really a shame, because the unsourced statement is actually true and, as I said, very important to have it in the article IMHO. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to find a source which supports the unsourced statement, and perhaps even mentions a few examples. But without such a source, I am afraid I agree this must go.
			Secondly, Autistics who are able to any one of : speak or write or communicate using AAC tools … can provide significant insight about Autistic lived experience. Lived experience may include Qualia or unfalsifiable components, but lived experience is the ultimate thing that shapes our lives. '''Thus Autistic lived experiences can function as an “interpreter” between non-Autistic and Autiistic communications. Note that each Autistic is unique, but we get better details on how to help Autistics, and to reduce harms, if we listen to and trust Autistic voices.'''
	==== Summary of dispute by Zero0000 ====
			(11) '''Do you want to include testimony of any other Autistics?''' </br>
	If someone from New York shoots a few people in Washington, do we put this in ]? Obviously not, and few editors would even consider it. But this is exactly what several editors are doing here. They have trawled the internet for negative mentions of Jabel Mukaber and added them to the article regardless of whether they are about the village or not. With one exception that I'll mention in a moment, none of the items refer to events in the village and none of them tell us anything about the village beyond the trivial fact that some person came from there. Debresser argues on the talk page that these things are relevant because it is a "militant village that breads terrorists", but since the sources don't actually state that Debresser's argument is an admission of SYNTH. Finally, one event mentioned did actually happen in the village, I'll address it. When Palestinians have funerals it is common to erect a tent outside their former home for a few days to provide shelter for people who visit. This might get a mention in the newspaper if the person who died was notable, but it has no lasting significance and says nothing about the village where the home is. The text encourages us to think that some sort of memorial was constructed, but it wasn't; this fails ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			‒ Yes, a mostly nonspeaking Autistic, with a lot of co-occurring impairment and dynamic disabilities, clinically diagnosed as severe or low functioning; who was a faculty at Barkeley and currently at a PhD programme in ], that
			"I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 3, and for the amount of “evidence-based therapy for autism” that has consumed my entire childhood, I should have been able to navigate it many times over by now. Why was I not benefiting from the vast amount of research that is being done in the name of understanding autism better? After all, autism has been an official diagnosis since 1980". He also expressed that "Of course, as a child you don’t have the power to challenge the “expert,” and you are left with a feeling of cognitive dissonance and mismatch that this is not quite right. ".
	==== Summary of dispute by ShulMaven ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			and that
	==== Summary of dispute by Al Ameer son ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			"Yet, willy-nilly, existing autism research findings, and the resultant therapies and educational strategies, have been applied across the board to all autistics. Unfortunately, a lack of success in therapies not suited for you in the first place, leads to negative downstream impacts such as being placed in low expectations classrooms, the closure of opportunities, and less than positive lifetime outcomes. I find that despite all the careers, promotions, and profits being made by thousands of autism-experts, the state of autism interventions right now is one hot mess. In reality, there still are no real “experts” in autism because there is no one-size fits all model."
	=== Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			Note that "wellbeing" in neurotypical standard, and actual wellbeing in Autistic population may look different. But if we keep enforcing the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus" to people who cannot speak, and we systematically exclude people who can speak about the harm, we keep the injustice unnoticed and continued.
	== Islam and Antisemitism ==
	{{DR case status}}
	{{drn filing editor|Nishidani|16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428019327}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			] (]) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
			'''Further Reading:'''
	Yes.
			Regarding dissent on ABA or ABA based methods:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			* Bowman, Rachel A., and Jeffrey P. Baker. "Screams, slaps, and love: the strange birth of applied behavior analysis." Pediatrics 133, no. 3 (2014): 364-366.
	{{pagelinks| Talk:Islam and antisemitism }}
			* Wilkenfeld, Daniel A., and Allison M. McCarthy. "Ethical concerns with applied behavior analysis for autism spectrum" disorder"." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30, no. 1 (2020): 31-69. doi: 10.1353/ken.2020.0000 , url: https://www.learningkeystones.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Uploads/Ethical%20Concerns%20with%20ABA%20for%20Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder.pdf
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|Nishidani}}
	* {{User|RebSmith}}
	* {{User| Zero0000}}
	* {{User| Nableezy}}
	* {{User| Bkalafut}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			* Pyne, Jake. "“Building a person”: Legal and clinical personhood for autistic and trans children in Ontario." Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 35, no. 2 (2020): 341-365.
	I’ve had my eye on, and edited, the article ], since . It’s deeply problematic and needs a lot of work. A new user ] made his first edit on wikipedia, on this page, with a Since the page he edited has a statement by one of the leading authorities on Islam and the Arab world, ], specifically arguing that anti-Semitism is a modern issue for Islam, and since many authorities agree with him, and deny that anti-Semitism is evidenced by those verses,(regarding it as a modern development) that edit looked odd. The user has focused, since March 15, exclusively on this page, and appears thoroughly unfamiliar with standard policy guidelines. He is backed by ], who contributed mainly by reporting me immediately while he was making two in a few hours (, ), while ]ing RebSmith .
	Examination showed the user was relying on lists from writers who are commonly regarded as Islamophobes (], ]). The issues are multiple (a) ] (b) ] (defining primary sources whose antisemitic nature is contested by scholarship, as though they were intrinsically antisemitic) (c)].
			* Sandoval-Norton, Aileen Herlinda, Gary Shkedy, and Dalia Shkedy. "How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse?." Cogent Psychology 6, no. 1 (2019): 1641258.
	If one compares the relatively well-written ] sister article, further, there is no list of specific individuals and the reader comes away with a general impression of a careful unaggressive exposition. In ], to the contrary, half of the text(notes 113-205) is devoted to long list of isolated incidents and figures, fingering individuals and institutions as antisemitic, and the page has been built programmatically or note in defiance of ], as an attack page on Islam.
			* Shkedy, Gary, Dalia Shkedy, and Aileen H. Sandoval-Norton. "Long-term ABA therapy is abusive: A response to Gorycki, Ruppel, and Zane." Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 5, no. 2 (2021): 126-134.
	Subsequently the page was locked by , ]. Another administrator on the page to resolve the multiple difficulties of editing that page since March 15.
			* Conine, Daniel E., Sarah C. Campau, and Abigail K. Petronelli. "LGBTQ+ conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis: A call to action." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 55, no. 1 (2022): 6-18.
	I would like to proceed to help edit the article towards good article level, using only the best academic scholarship (abundant) on this difificult and sensitive topic, as I began to do . The edit history and talk page divagations give me no confidence that improving it will not encounter edit-warring.
			* Graber, Abraham, and Jessica Graber. "Applied behavior analysis and the abolitionist neurodiversity critique: An ethical analysis." Behavior Analysis in Practice 16, no. 4 (2023): 921-937.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			*
	The extensive discussions on the talk page show consistent impasses.
			::"This is a topic concerning a community I care a great deal about. My
			decision to retract this piece stems from my love for my brother and years of
			inner turmoil over wanting to support both autistic individuals and their
			parents and caregivers, and growing up in an era and within a community
			that framed ABA as a positive tool for the autistic population that they had
			been wrongfully denied. That, in recent years, has been followed by the slow
			realization and resolution of cognitive dissonance in light of recent studies
			and literature reviews on the impact of ABA on people with autism and the
			individual testimonials of autistic adults on the trauma ABA caused them—
			that real harm is being done to these individuals by ABA. ABA has been in
			my family’s life for decades, since my brother was diagnosed in the 1990s, and though I am aware this retraction may not be well-received in our community of origin, I have seen enough for myself to
			be convinced that ABA is
			the autistic community’s analog to the LGBTQ community’s conversion
			therapy." - Ariana Cernius
			] (]) 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			Relevant discussions:
	I would appreciate supervision of a rediscussion of the key issues, by any experienced dispute resolution third party wikipedian.
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Too_little_focus_on_anthropology_and_social_dynamics;_too_intense_focus_on_medical_genetics. </br>
	====Summary of dispute by ]====
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#ABA_is,_at_least,_controversial </br>
	This dispute originated when I added a list of Quranic verses that were considered disparaging to Jews by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and commentators. While the list reflected secondary sources, it was improperly sourced. ] and I (please use pronoun "she", Reb=Rebecca) have since decided that the list shouldn't be included without each verse being properly sourced. However, a number of disputes still exist. The current points of contention:
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Editors_removed_%22Unbalanced%22_tag,_which_is_wrong </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Simple_reasoning_for_why_pathologising_Autism_is_unfair </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Autism_is_a_spectrum_and_it_looks_like_ICD_or_DSM_are_gatekeepers._Definition_of_Autism_and_ASD_varied_through_ages </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Fundamental_flaw_persist_in_how_a_%22pathology%22_is_defined._Until_that_is_going_to_be_solved,_the_debate_will_continue. </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241214061100-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213203100 </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600-Autistic_scorpio-20250103000000 </br>
			"I am consistently seeing the editors using the "Normal" vs "Pathology" dichotomy. Like if something isn't pathological then it is normal, or if something is not normal then it is pathological. They seem to miss the basic nature of the problem. Which occurs in a third dimension."
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Topic_missing_or_not_elaborate_enough </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Special_Section </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Adult_Autistics </br>
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241220201200-WhatamIdoing-20241220073400 </br>
			"Up to my common sense, impairment usually mean the biological aspects, and a disability means a barrier in societal aspect (societal participation, having voice, having access to the same things that a non-disabled do). For example: Retinal detachment or glaucoma is more of an impairment, but resulting situation such as inability to access books or a public library, lacking navigation support, etc. constitutes the disability. Sometimes a disability is not necessarily a deficit but a mismatch. Whereas not all deficits lead to a disability, such as draconian politicians (I would not name anybody) often lack affective empathy or conscience, to a various extent, and have excess of other dark triad traits ... but it does not put them in disadvantage, rather it makes them uninhibited to get what they want... by hook or crook. It makes them more advantaged. Distinguishing an impairment or a disability can be an interesting philosophical-ethical challenge, and that debate itself should cover a page."
			* https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0-20241217040400-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213132400
			;My Conclusion
	* using Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (], ], ], Hamas leadership, ], ], etc.)
			* Neurotypes and Internal experiences are not negotiable.
	* using orientalists who hold contrary views to Bernard Lewis' opinions as sources: more "right-wing" analysis (], ], Adam Bostom, ], ], etc.) and "left-wing" analysis (] and others).
			* Concealing the views critical to mainstream pathology paradigm doesn't help Audience. It rather takes away better quality of life, takes away better understanding on the matter.
			* Encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, with all viewpoints.
			* Neurodiversity and social model isn't a fringe position
			* Neurodiversity and social model does not invalidate biological suffering and co-occurring coditions.
			* The article should boost confidence, wellbeing, value, and social safety and social support of Autistic people. And acceptance of Autism to general population. That is only possible through better language and more positive and uplifting representation of Autism.
			* '''Complete re-write of the article is required.'''
			* '''I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics.'''
			* I PLEA the editors to come into a consensus to show the bigger picture including all opposing views and use uplifting perspective and uplifting language.
			* My opinion solely belongs to myself, and can have technical inaccuracies. however I do acknowledge an Autistic collective knowledge and Autistic consensus do exist, which does not often match with professional or biomedical consensus. This shows an existing shortcoming in the professional biomedical views, as it creates an epistemic injustice: '''So called high functioning folks are subjected to denial of support, job loss, self-ha*rm, stress etc. where as so called low functioning folks remain mistreated using inapplicable or coercive therapy methods with weird goals of extinguishing "behaviors" and not supporting inside out.''' I support that the concerns raised by {{ping|Oolong}} is true and highly important.
			] (]) 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* using MEMRI as a source for the translation of the Muslim clerics. Please note that MEMRI is used by major reputable news organizations, from the New York Times to the Washington Post , as well as in academic articles
			:@], thank you for sharing your views. Is there a typo in the sentence that says "doesn't help Audience"? I assume you meant "hep Autistics". ] (]) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	My position has always been that we should include both Muslim and non-Muslim views on this particular topic. We should include the analysis of Quranic verses by Muslim clerics who interpret them as showing a negative view of Jews as well as those who refute such analysis. Moreover, we should include the perspective of orientalists that agree with Bernard Lewis, as well as those who don't. A wikipedia article is not a place to highlight or push a particular POV, but to display the range of notable POVs and the criticism of those POVs on a particular topic. We should include the POVs of the "extremists" and "Islamophobes" on this particular issue since their views are very relevant and notable to current geopolitical events that include the Iranian nuclear treaty , the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , attacks on Jews and synagogues , blocking construction of mosques at "ground zero" , UK censoring of speakers considered "islamophobic" . "Christianity and anti-Semitism" is a different topic theologically, historically, culturally, politically etc. and thus, mirroring it in "Islam and anti-Semitism" may not be proper encyclopedic behavior. ] (]) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
			::@] By Audience I mean Encyclopedia readers. They can be parents, professionals, Autistic readers, Classmates, School teachers, anybody. Don't conceal truth. Reveal contrasting paradigms. Simple. Thank you for asking ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. ] (]) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks for this. I know that you've been finding engaging in these discussions extremely stressful, which is very understandable. I think all of your conclusions are clearly correct, although I imagine some will want to argue with this: 'I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics.'
			:However, I think any objections to that are convincingly answered by '''' (Gillespie-Lynch et al 2017) and '''' (Hersh et al 2024). ] (]) 10:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			;Are we reaching to dispiute resolution?
	==== Summary of dispute by ]====
			It looks like debates and discussions are going for a long period, but any permission to modify the article is not being obtained. Both in Talk page and DRN for Autism, wall of texts is growing up. People are not understanding that harmful things are being promoted in the name of only 1 consensus, and opposing viewes are being concealed. Emotional labour of the volunteers are being disrespected. Wall of text making things unreadable in talk and DRN.
	The dispute has two layers. The first, and let me get it out of the way since it's the shortest, is over editing practice. ] was in the process of making good-faith edits improving the content of the page and bringing it closer to NPOV. These edits did not use the best citation practice, so a "legalist" could say they were OR, but somebody here to build an encyclopedia could have been improved immediately by simply moving her citations around. Instead of making these immediate improvements, reverts were made, repeatedly and aggressively, without discussion. There is a kind of gaslighting going on, too, with ] and ] repeatedly saying on the talk page that I and RebSmith have not read policy while never really arguing their point based on stated policy. And further gaslighting, claiming RebSmith is calling solely for "popular sources written by dilettanti", nevermind what she outlined above. Incivility from the beginning to the end, starting with bad manners and moving onward from there.
			What a hopeless situation ] (]) 16:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	On top of that there is now this gripe about canvassing. A bully who reverts instead of fixes a newcomer's content complains that I "canvassed" his (one) victim (in implied violation of ] by telling <strike>him</strike> her I reported his conduct. In addition to being deeply out of line with basic morality and the spirit of ], that's an abuse of the meaning of the word "canvassing" in English! This kind of gaslighting and wikilawyering must stop and we must return to normal editing practice. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Note that I am not advocating for erasure of pathology view. I am just saying that encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It should present all aspects of a situation. ] (]) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	The second and more important is over NPOV and RS, and (from my point of view) ] with a dash of ]. An article about Islam and antisemitism needs to be about Islam and antisemitism meaning it needs (among other things) to give the reader a sense of how prevalent antisemitic attitudes are among Muslims and why antisemitic Muslims (qua Muslims) are antisemitic. If the Koran is part of the problem (and it is) a section on the Koran would be most useful. Proposing building this up verse by verse to avoid even the appearance of original research (because heaven forbid the sources are in the section and not verse by verse!)--was offered as a kind of olive branch but rejected.
			I strongly oppose concealing of information from people. ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	At the heart of this is that ] and several others are treating nearly all sources for this material--both Muslim and Western--as unreliable, while sources for a certain fringe POV (Bernard Lewis's claim that Muslim antisemitism is an import from Christendom--Lewis has a history of good scholarship but like Peter Duesberg or Linus Pauling that doesn't keep him from occasionally putting something wacky out there) make the cut. The argument has been made that because some of the sources for a certain POV are higher up a kind of totem pole of RS (academic papers, never mind that some of them come out of "studies" journals) what are otherwise RS for the beliefs and reasons for the beliefs of the the Muslim Joe Sixpack (clerics in translation, and secondary sources commenting on this) are not in this context RS. Following this perversion of WP:RS we end up with a POV article.
			;Unhelpful framing and misinterpretation
	Irrelevancies about some of these secondary sources have been brought up on the talk page--it doesn't matter if one of these secondary sources has enemies who say he is behind a "hate group". Is he reliable? The strategy appears to be not to adhere to WP:RS but to wear everyone else out with irrelevant argument until we just go away. WP:OWN for the win--and then we wonder why editor participation is down sitewide.
			The DRN has became an wall of text and it is being impossible for me to keep track so I am responding to intended discussions in a separate section. '''With loads of love and respect; I feel like some users grossly misunderstood or misinterpreted neurodivergence and/or social model.''' No, these paradigms does not exclude negative experience. Apart from that, in my very personal perspective, the “disorder” framing and “pathologization/ medicalization/ medical model” are 2 related but different issues. the “disorder” framing can be subjective, and many of the Autistics may even identify being in a disordered state. but the pathology paradigm has even one step ahead: it assumes the problem is in the person and not in the structure of civilization (that closes the doors to make simple adjustments) or even worse, a tragedy model, where the person is the problem.
	In short: we an NPOV article and we absolutely need to follow WP:RS. Not some twisted version of RS where my digging out a journal article means portions of an article relying on MEMRI or on journalistic sources or sources written by non-academics must be deleted. Not wikilawyering and aggressive reverts for you but POV for me. Simple adherence to policy, with everybody here to try to build an encyclopedia, will lead to a balanced article. And a balanced article is my only interest here.] (]) 21:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-LogicalLens-20250110032600-WhatamIdoing-20250110025700
	==== Summary of dispute by ] ====
	I think the above statement, in which ] is dismissed as a ''fringe POV'' from a user adamant on including ] as a reliable source, demonstrates the problems serious editors are facing on that talk page. A leading scholar is dismissed but the ravings of a blogger on the internet are upheld as reliable. That is what needs to be fixed here, and I kind of sort of doubt this is the place to do it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
			::::<quote> “They want the article more prominently reflect a POV that is popular in the neurodiversity movement (e.g., as it appears on social media, but also in some scholarly sources). This POV says that autism is part of each individual's personality and identity. If you could get rid of autism, then you would be getting rid of the autistic person's true character and identity.” </quote>
	==== Summary of dispute by ]====
			Kind of true, but that does not mean that difficulties and stresses are being ignored.
	===Islam and Antisemitism Discussion===
	'''Volunteer's note:''' I am one of the volunteers at this noticeboard. I am neither taking nor declining the case. However, I will comment that this noticeboard is normally for informal mediation of relatively small content disputes that are typically resolved in a few weeks. Looking over the discussion on this article's talk page, and the comments about its history, it might be appropriate to request formal mediation at ], a more formal process that may be better suited to handle complex disputes. ] (]) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I will certainly try that if things do not work out here, or if the case is declined. I don't imagine that this will be long here. I'd like some preliminary thrashing out of elementary principles of best editing practice. I.e. if we have a very substantial range of scholarship on a sensitive topic, should we use that, rather than popular works by people without any formal training in the area. Perhaps I am wrong in my conviction that encyclopedic work commends the first, particularly where a huge background noise of media and polemic controversy surrounds the subject.] (]) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
	::] I'd like to suggest that you add a paragraph to your opening statement stating what you hope to accomplish here at DRN and try to create some specific, defined and realistic parameters. At present your purpose is too wide ranging for this forum. If you have one or two key issues and other participants volunteer to participate, then hopefully a productive, moderated discussion can take place here and then back at the talk page after the DRN case, thereby avoiding the need for formal mediation. That would be my suggestion.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Reb has already summed up the issues, preempting me. We could deal with those three points.] (]) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			::::<quote> “This POV also believes that autism is good. Everything about autism is to be presented in as positive a light as possible.” </quote>
	* (1) Is it advisable to use the following Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (], ], ], Hamas leadership, ], ], etc.)
			This is strange. '''No, neurodiversity is NOT aspie supremacy.''' Autism is not bad either. It can have complex societal and individual impact. But pathologisation and negativity might take away social support. May not let us give the scope for societal supports and accommodations. Might lower the human value.
	* (2) is it advisable to use (], ], ], ] for the article on Islam and anti-Semitism, and if so, to what degree.
			::::<quote> "prefers eating the same food every day" or "his favorite food is plain pasta" instead of being negative and saying that person is "at risk of scurvy and other vitamin deficiencies because he refuses to eat anything except plain pasta, rice, and eggs"</quote>
	* (3) May MEMRI be used for quotations from Muslim clerics on the Qur'an.] (]) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::My brief answer to all three is that this is an encyclopedic article on the connection between anti-Semitism and Islam. The problem is therefore determining the issue of anti-Semitism in the Qur'an. There are anti-Semitic statements drawing on the Qur'an, made by Muslim clerics, but it would be an error of double selection bias to cite specific Qur'anic texts and specific modern Muslim clerical comments on them, to argue for that text's 'antisemitism'. Most of this kind of interpretation is done by POV-driven amateurs (Spencer, Geller, Bostom, Bat Ye'or) many of whom have no minimally adequate textual or methodological training in Arabic or Qur'anic interpretation. It is rather like an article on any passage in the Gospel, or Tanakh, in a Misplaced Pages article expounding a verse or passage by giving due weight to what scholars say, and what Joe-Blow of the evangelical Church of Fundamentalism in Arkansaw says of the same verse because Joe Blow is a cleric, and has a degree in Biblical studies from any of the 1,200 colleges in the North American Continent offering such degrees. That said, there should certainly be a section on the modern polemical literature (typified by these writers) and its assertions about Islam. Therefore, we should deal with the general outline according to what the best scholarship on Islam's relationship to the Jews was (and ] would disagree with ]), and then have a section, summarily covering the modern period controversies at a popular level. MEMRI's translations are not the point. They provide raw text as primary sources, and may be cited if the relevant scholarship cites them, through that scholarship. Finally, there is the question of why, in this particular article, in contradistinction to ], do we have such intense focus on individuals, many obscure. Antisemitism is a Christian plague, which has infected Islamic quarters, yet we tread delicately round individual responsibility in the article on modern Christian anti-Semitism, while going whole hog to name names, associated with the list of enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Arab countries generally) on this page. It's like raging over alien metastases while ignoring the primary cancer. The ] is patent. We are careful not to tread on the toes of our own tradition, but run like a bull in a china shop over the toes of a billion foreigners' beliefs by selectively targeting as their legitimate representatives a few dozen of hundreds of thousands of imams. I think Reb has agreed notes 113-205 are wildly ]. The compromise I suggest therefore is to make a generic synthesis of all that in an appropriate, comprehensive modern section. I myself am more interested in the historical picture overall.] (]) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
	::By the way, if I wish clarity on a section of the ], or the ] it is not my practice to ask clerical friends, or yeshiva heads, what those verses mean, since I am a pagan. What I do is look at what scholars, Christian or Jewish, secularists or whatever, qualified in Semitic philology and historical scholarship, tell me about them, which means looking at various conflicting interpretations, many acceptable neither to your local cleric or Yeshiva student. This distinction is elementary to anyone who has a knowledge of what encyclopedic article-writers do: they do not trust a partisan perspective. They follow the best modern scholarship on a topic.] (]) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			Keeping descriptions '''humanistic and positive, helps acceptance and social support.''' Yes there can be additional need for vitamins.
	=== Previous Discussions on this issue from 2010 by ]===
	Regarding the section on quotes from Muslim leaders and scholars, ] and myself had two extensive discussions on this topic - on the article's talk page (now archived) ] and on the OR Noticeboard ] - in August 2010. Although I was not named in this dispute, I believe they are relevant here.('''] (])''' 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC))
	:Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. It appears a lot of this ground has already been covered, albeit without reaching consensus. Am I correct in reading it that way (no consensus, or was it just ] remaining unconvinced and unwilling to go along in the end?] (]) 04:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	::We did agree to some revisions, but we both had strong opinions on this issue which were effectively left unresolved. I say "effectively" because although the quotes did remain in the article, I believe this was due to Nableezy deciding that he didn't want to argue about it anymore (no disrespect intended) as opposed to him accepting that my position was correct.('''] (])''' 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC))
			::::<quote>We should say that someone "has a strong desire to talk about their particular interests" instead of "fails to engage in reciprocal social communication by noticing that the other person is not interested in hearing a long lecture about the exact differences between Lego Mindstorms robots and Lego Education Spike Prime robots, and thus changing the subject to something the other person would enjoy".</quote>
	===What the article becomes if we don't take Muslim sources or advice in ] seriously===
	It isn't policy, but ] describes praxis elsewhere on WP (including articles on economics or Christianity) fairly accurately and the discussion makes sense. See the section on sources about religion: "For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics".
			This is such an insensitive and insightless reasoning. '''What’s wrong if somebody prefers to hyperfixate into things or topics they enjoy or love or value a lot? Other people too try to join in meaningful conversation through infodumping or prallel play. It is possible. In the other hand, it is possible to frame neurotypical shallow chit chats, vague hints, assumptions, and thin slice judgements as a pathology.'''
	Even the most "scholarly" perspective can be partisan, and NPOV means we do not give preference to the scholarly source merely because it is scholarly--especially if the article is about what practitioners of the religion actually believe. Setting aside the (itself POV) distinction between scholar and cleric (was Maimonides not both? what about Joseph Ratzinger?): If a detached scholar from a "studies" department (or even a more legitimate discipline) comes along and offers a novel interpretation of a prayer at Mass or a gospel passage, his novel interpretation does not suddenly become a reliable source--let alone the most reliable source--of information about what Christians actually believe.
			:::: <quote> By default, if isn't good, then it isn't autism. Any 'bad' things should be called a "co-occurring disorder" </quote>
	If our object is writing a balanced article, we cannot wait for a Westerner with a position at a university to come along and sum it all up as a 'tertiary' source. Nor can we hand the trump card to the first ostensibly detached Westerner we can find. What we can't do is say on Misplaced Pages is to decide the dispute between Muslims if the topic is in dispute--just like we don't turn Misplaced Pages into a magisterium deciding right and wrong among economists or Christians. ("Well, this economist studied at Arkansaw and the other studied at Hahvahd...") Just as we do for Christians, for Muslim clerics the best policy is to discern who speaks with some kind of stature or recognized authority. He is a primary source for his own views but a secondary source for the peculiar brand of orthodoxy he comes from. He is a primary source even if some other Muslims consider him heterodox. The alternative to letting Muslims speak for Muslims--especially if also have problems with non-University-affiliated tertiary sources like Bat Ye'or or Robert Spencer who take contemporary Muslim clerics seriously--is to have an article which gives undue weight to the positions emphasized by (themselves often biased) Western academics or which doesn't adequately cover actual Muslim belief and praxis, in favor of (since we're going to do something other than what is recommended in ] for religious topics) the Koran interprerations favored by academics up to ]'s standards of philological expertise, in short, an article about Nishidani's favored fringe POV (anti-semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) peppered with Koran exegesis from a few Nishidani-approved university-affiliated scholars Muslims don't actually follow. That is, unless we go digging for Western tertiary sources.
	Let's just follow ] as is done elsewhere and take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy the way we take Protestant preachers with some authority and reputation to represent their groups.] (]) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			'''I rather perceive the opposite.''' Adherents of pathology paradigm seem to continuously claim that if a person is “not impaired due to the symptoms” then it is not Autism. Some other user’s comment
	:'take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy.' There is no 'Muslim' orthodoxy, nor 'Christian' (put a Lutheran, an Evangelical, and a Catholic theologian in the one room) or 'Jewish' orthodoxy.
	:To call a 'fringe POV' (anti-Semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) a position widespread in scholarship means the editor in question has no grasp on policies at ] or ].
	:Every editor here who might have some hobby horse to ride quixotically into a wiki battle should first read Esther Webman, , ], Vol. 46, No. 5, 677–697, September 2010. Everyone will find some comfort there for any particular bias he or she may entertain. ] (]) 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			:::: <quote>If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). </quote>
	== Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood ==
	{{DR case status}}
	{{drn filing editor|FreeatlastChitchat|06:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 06:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428128017}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			I have discussed my concerns to this kind of framing at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250109222800-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20250105133000 . People do not move in-and-out of their impairment/ Autistic nature. They move in and out physiological and mental reaction to stress.
			It is like adherents of neurodiversity paradigm is trying to show us a whole picture that '''includes''' positive aspects, but adherents of pathology paradigm seem to define Autism solely based on negativity.
			::: <quote> If a parent or caregiver wants an autistic person to quit engaging in a behavior (e.g., removing their clothes in public), then the parent should simply figure out what prompts that behavior (e.g., clothes that are too hot, itchy, stiff, loose, tight, synthetic, smelly, colorful, wet, stained, torn, sewn, peed-in) and proactively remove the prompt, so that the child won't think about doing that. </quote>
			Like what was that?! '''A child feel sensory torture and the parents would not figure out what stressor is causing this? I'''nstead you chose to suppress the behavior, teaching the kid to not listen to its body? Kind of horrible idea this is.
			:::: <quote> Overall, autistic people (adults) are to be presented as capable, autonomous, valuable people who can do great things. </quote>
			Looks like the benefits of '''“presumed competence”''' and '''“strength based approaches”''' are being horribly misunderstood. No, social support is always important for every kind of human being, and nobody lives isolation from human civilization (parents / siblings/ spouse/ employer/ clients/ friends/ children/ students/ coworkers/ … / one way or other). In some situation the social support is quite different in nature.
			The following discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-LogicalLens-20250110033900-WhatamIdoing-20250109083000 elegantly answers this as <quote> The social model of disability asserts that disabled people should be given the supports they need. These skin infections do not emerge if the disabled person is properly cared for. It is important that the "social" in "social model" does not only refer to the disablement that arises in interactions between the individual and their society but also to the social '''normativity''' regarding the autonomy and independence of people. While the neurodiversity movement does not reject teaching autistic people self-care skills if the autistic person wants it, it is important to note that although these hygiene things have to be done by someone, it is a cultural and capitalist decision to create a small separated space for every person for which the person is considered responsible and which they are expected to be able to manage. </quote> Note that presumed competence is different from invalidation of the struggles.
			::::<quote> and that autism be presented as a medical disorder serious enough to result in an average lifetime cost (in the US) of US$2,200,000 per autistic person with intellectual disabilities, and US$1,400,000 per autistic person without an intellectual disability </quote>
			It seems this cost is much due to a lack of culturally available social support, and also the high cost of ABA-based therapy methods, its side effects, and lack of access to strength based approaches.
			:::: <quote> and the autistic person should not be blamed or shamed in any way. Most/all distress experienced by autistic people is caused by society's failure to provide sufficient accommodations and to value autistic people's views and perspectives, so "society" can be blamed and shamed. </quote>
			This is a misinterpretation. And why anyone would blame or shame an Autistic person? Note that societal stress is not always deliberate but due to systematic design fails due to normativity.
			I ultimately support and share the viewpoint that accommodation can’t solve 100% of the problems but It worth working on improving societal understanding, acceptance, and accommodation.
			I found the following statement insightful.
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-Oolong-20250108162000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20250108094700
			<quote> Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling.
			'''Many, many grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment.'''
			The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are direct results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence impossible to prevent without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has nothing to do with the experiencer's environment, but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here.</quote>
			I wished to visit and interact the DRN Page, but I feel like DRN is failing due to rigidity of the medical model. It is being harmful for my mental wellbeing. The topic is being extremely triggering and stressful for me once again.
			I am sorry I can't agree with adherents of current version of Misplaced Pages article and the pathology paradigm.
			It makes me feel helpless.
			I am sorry.
			] (]) 08:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapsebottom}}
			{{reflist}}
			{{notelist}}
			{{DRN archive bottom}}
			== Imran Khan ==
			{{DR case status|resolved}}
			{{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{DRN archive top|This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the ].}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 720:		Line 1,332:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood}}		* {{pagelinks|Imran Khan}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|FreeatlastChitchat}}		* {{User|SheriffIsInTown}}
	* {{User| Xtremedood}}		* {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}}
			* {{User|Veldsenk}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			The content removed in this had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing ] and ]. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, ] is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled ], published by ]. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, ].
	According to Ahmadi Claims Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S fulfilled a prophecy that said , "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." As is clear from the above statement the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani A.S is that 1)The Moon will be eclipsed on the first possible night in Ramadhan, 2)The Sun will be eclipsed on the middle of possible nights in Ramadhan, Now ] wants to add "criticism" to this which is "Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy. Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after." I contest to this addition. I will explain my reservations in my comment below.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
			]
	talk on talk page only
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
			I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources.
	Remove unreliably sourced material and protect the page.
	==== Summary of dispute by Xtremedood ====		==== Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001 ====
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially ], which states '''"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."'''
			While the book was published by a reputable publisher, ]'s credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> suggesting a potential motive for bias.
	The article in question contains material that is against Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy (NPOV). The prophecy outlined states: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." — Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188.
			The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. ] (]) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	According to the "Ahmadiyya" viewpoint, Mirza fulfilled this prophecy (which is detailed in the article), however, according to opponents, Mirza did not fulfill this prophecy. There are three main points of criticism that I want to remain on the article (as to retain NPOV), they are: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and middle-day (~15th) of Ramadan 1894/1895 respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. These criticisms are highlighted in a variety of different sources and I have mentioned them in the page's talk page.
			{{reflist-talk}}
			==== Summary of dispute by Veldsenk ====
	The dispute is centered around ] unwillingness to bring about legitimate criticisms to Mirza's claims and my willingness to do so. ] (]) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	=== Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood discussion ===		=== Imran Khan discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			*'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute at least partly about ]? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at ] first, before any other content issues are discussed. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	My reservations about the content are summarized below statement by statement.
			*'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a ]? If so, it might be answered more quickly at ]. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	1)Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy
			*:The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. ] &#124; ] &#124; 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Reservations are
	I)It is not the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Alaih-e-Salam that the eclipse will be on the first of month. This is tantamount to putting your own words in another persons mouth and then claiming that he is lying. The claim is that eclipses will occur in the first and middle days/nights of "possible" nights/days.
	II)the source http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html does not mention ANYWHERE that the prophecy is wrong because the eclispe did not occur on 1st of Ramadhan. This is blatant misinformation , I don't know what else to call it. Quoting a source and then saying something which the source does not say.
	2)Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after.
	The source <ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=NpurAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=mirza+ghulam+eclipse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q-cHVeiJOIatogSkr4DgBQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=eclipse&f=false|title=Muhammad is the Last Prophet|author=Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi|page=100|publisher=Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania|accessdate=2010-03-17}}</ref> does not mention this as his own words. He says that a person named "Molvi Syyed Barkat Ali" Gosha nashin of Waziarabad has mentioned this in his book "The false Prophet of Qadian". I have been unable to find a single reference to this aforementioned person on the internet and his book seems to be unknown as well. There fore this source should be fringe and unreliable.] (]) 06:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
	:As I have stated, the following criticisms should remain: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and 15th respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after.
			:I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. ] &#124; ] &#124; 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The reason why I say this is to adhere to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and to bring some neutrality to a biased article.
			===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)===
	:I will now attempt to address some of ] reservations. It is irrelevant whether or not Mirza claims that the eclipse will be on the first of the month or not. The criticism is that Mirza's claims of fulfilling the prophecy are invalid. The critics maintain that the prophecy indicates that the lunar and solar eclipses will occur on the 1st and 15th days of Ramadan. Based upon this understanding of the prophecy, the critics claim that Mirza did not fulfill the prophecy.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=NpurAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=mirza+ghulam+eclipse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q-cHVeiJOIatogSkr4DgBQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=eclipse&f=false|title=Muhammad is the Last Prophet|author=Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi|page=100|publisher=Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania|accessdate=2010-03-17}}</ref>
			I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read ] and ] ]. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a ]. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community.
			I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
	:Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi makes the criticisms clear that the prophecy was not fulfilled according to his interpretation of the prophecy. He essentially claims that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy.
			Are there any questions? ] (]) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The prophecy itself outlines that the lunar eclipse will occur on the 1st of Ramadan and the Middle day (~15th) of Ramadan, however the "Ahmadiyya" interpret the prophecy as not saying this, but rather saying as Mirza mentions.
			===Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)===
	:I never claimed that the source, http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html, ever claimed that the prophecy was wrong. The source however places doubt on "Ahmadiyya" claims, even if we were to interpret the prophecy according to their own interpretations. The website states exactly: "Thus, the Ahmadiyyas must either accept that eclipses may occur on the 12th of a lunar month as well as on the 27th - or else they must regard eclipses as impossible on both those Islamic dates. Whichever choice is made, requires revision of their thesis." David McNaughton tackles the issue while relying on "Ahmadiyya" interpretations of the prophecy to render the "Ahmadiyya" claim as potentially invalid.
			I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.
			I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute:
	:The third criticism is also crucial as to adhere to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, as it indicates a new and legitimate dimension to the interpretation of the prophecy. According to Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, we see that others interpret the events as occurring before the advent of the Mahdi and not 3 years after Mirza declared himself as the Mahdi (as the "Ahmadiyya" claim). I have checked the source and it is legitimate. ] (]) 07:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in ] that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the ], leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref>
	:: I have modified the 'the sun and moon eclipse' section to reflect a more neutral view of the prophecy claim. This may be observed in my most recent edit. It includes both the views of critics and supporters. ] (]) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			] &#124; ] &#124; 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic.
			I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly ], ], and ], which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As ] ], without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. ] (]) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}		{{reflist-talk}}
			{{collapsetop|Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. ] (]) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	== Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits ==
			:@] Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? ] &#124; ] &#124; 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{collapsebottom}}
			===First statement by moderator (Imran Khan)===
	{{DR case status}}
			The issue appears to be whether to include in our ] of ] the allegations made by his ex-wife. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? Has Imran Khan (or anyone acting as his spokesman) commented on the veracity of the allegations? If so, where? Have ], such as newspapers, discussed the allegations and commented on their accuracy?
	{{drn filing editor|PeeJay2K3|17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428168357}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
			The ] by ] is a primary source. The ] says that extreme caution should be used in the use of primary sources. It says that we may use the material in the primary sources if secondary sources have referred to the primary sources. So a major concern is whether secondary sources have discussed the allegations.
			Are there any questions?
			] (]) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You are correct and this is the only issue. Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the ], leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref> Khan's party information secretary alleged that the ] was behind the book and that "photograph of Ms Khan and her son with former US ambassador Hussain Haqqani doing the rounds on social media was sufficient evidence. Discussing yet another photograph of Ms Khan, this time with former PML-N MNA from Rawalpindi Hanif Abbasi, Mr Chaudhry claimed that the PML-N leader had asked “what will Imran do if Reham’s book is published before the election?"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1412320|title=Contents of Reham’s book are against family values: Fawad Chaudhry|date=6 June 2018}}</ref> Khan commented on the book in 2022, stating that his ex-wife had been paid by the ] to write a book against him.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/reham-khan-was-paid-to-write-book-against-me-in-2018-imran-khan-390701|title=Reham Khan was paid to write book against me in 2018: Imran Khan|date=30 April 2022}}</ref> ] (]) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			===First statements by editors (Imran Khan)===
			Following secondary sources and many others have covered the allegations:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref> ] &#124; ] &#124; 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			===Second statement by moderator (Imran Khan)===
			The memoir is a primary source, but secondary sources have reported on the allegations in the memoir, and the content dispute is about whether to report on the allegations. I agreed to consider this dispute at ] because the filing editor expressed a concern that some cases at the ] are not answered and are archived unanswered. However, I will take my chances on whether there is an answer at ]. I will be putting this dispute here on hold while I see if I get an answer. I have posted the dispute at ], and you may discuss the issues there. Be civil and concise, because that is always good advice about disputes.
			Please be patient. Are there any questions? ] (]) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Second statements by editors (Imran Khan)===
			{{DRN archive bottom}}
			== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) ==
			{{DR case status|hold}}
			<!-- ] 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738093151}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
			{{drn filing editor|Abo Yemen|19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 782:		Line 1,427:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits}}		* {{pagelinks|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|PeeJay2K3}}		* {{User|Abo Yemen}}
	* {{User| David-King}}		* {{User|Javext}}
	* {{User| Cliftonian}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the ]) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per ]). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.
	] made a comprehensive edit to the ] article which introduced a great many things that, in my opinion, were either unencyclopaedic or detracted from the quality of the writing in the article. A full list of issues under discussion is available at ].
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
			]
	I raised a discussion on the article talk page in which I itemised each of the issues I felt worsened the article and I attempted to bring in a third party to provide a different and unbiased perspective by posting a message at ].
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
			The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous ]
	I would like to think someone here could provide a more experienced hand at resolving the dispute through having no vested interest in the topic under discussion and more staying power when it comes to explaining to either user involved why one version is better than the other.
	==== Summary of dispute by David-King ====		==== Summary of dispute by Javext ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".
	==== Summary of dispute by Cliftonian ====
	I joined the discussion after PeeJay requested a third opinion at ]. The conversation already seemed quite heated to me (PeeJay had reverted David-King's edits, then initiated discussion) and I asked both parties to calm down. I listed the disputed proposed changes and gave my opinion on each. In my recollection my views coincided closer with PeeJay's than David-King's. PeeJay was unable to continue taking part in the conversation after he was temporarily blocked over an unrelated matter. David-King and I went on debating for a few days; on some issues we reached compromise solutions we both found satisfactory but on others we were unable to do so. After about a week of silence on my part—I must be frank and say I don't feel so involved in this issue as to devote large sections of my time to a vigorous argument about it—David-King made edits to the page implementing the agreed compromises where they existed, and implementing his preferred wordings where agreement had not been reached. He (not totally unreasonably, in my view) said he took the silence to be tacit approval. I do not know if he was aware PeeJay was prevented from editing or responding at the time. An IP editor reverted much of what David-King changed, leading him to revert it back. On his return from the aforementioned unrelated suspension PeeJay reverted the edits again, restarted the discussion and the situation soon returned to basically where it had been when I entered. PeeJay asked me on my talk page to step in again, and I recommended bringing the matter here. —<span style="color:white; background:darkgreen">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 19:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
			Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:
	=== Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits discussion ===
			-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"
			-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"
			-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the
			11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."
			I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:
			-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."
			-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."
			So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)
			It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.
			Thank you for whoever reads this. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the ] and ] sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.}}<br>{{pb}}First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see ]). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the ''"Standford" University Press'' (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just ].{{pb}}{{tqb|1=The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory}}<br>{{pb}}Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in ] and in ]? Something doesn't make any sense here.{{pb}}Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did; <br>{{tq|1=For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, '''claiming''' that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.}}<br> Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.{{pb}}Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy}}<br>Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See ] and ], both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.<br>{{tqb|1=The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.}}<br>Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "{{tq|1=(as already stated in the sources above)}}" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...{{pb}}{{tqb|1=It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.}}<br>I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this ''']]''' 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::''"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."''
			::.
			::'''Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to ], the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.
			::-'''
			::''"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."''
			::.
			::'''You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.'''
			::-
			::''"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."''
			::.
			::'''What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..'''
			::-
			::''"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
			::'' 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.' ''
			::''Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."''
			::.
			::'''I already responded to this above'''
			::-
			::''"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."''
			::.
			::'''Hello?? ''"defended itself from the invaders"'' - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary ''they were horribly routed''……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "'''
			::-
			::''"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."''
			::.
			::'''I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the ''Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."'''''
			::-
			::''"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."''
			::.
			::'''I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. ''"None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."'' Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out..''' ] (]) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	'''Volunteer note''': ] wasn't properly notified of this request. He has now been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. ] (]) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			=== Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	== ] ==
			I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of ]. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a ]; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are ] of this.
	{{DR case status|closed}}
	{{drn filing editor|97.88.168.200|00:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. Like all other moderated content ] venues at Misplaced Pages, DRN requires ''extensive'' talk page discussion before seeking assistance. At this point it doesn't even appear that there is a ''dispute'' over the talk page edits. And even if there were, it would be much more likely a conduct matter which does not belong here. If you want to ask whether or not what you did was acceptable, you might ask at ]. — ] (]) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind ]. ] (]) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
			=== Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
			I have read and am willing to follow ]. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. <br><small>(Do we state what changes we want now?)</small> ''']]''' 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Yes. ] (]) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Alright,<br><u>Changes that I want to be made:</u>
			::* I want the ] section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
			::* The infobox should Include the ] with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text<ref>: {{tq|1=However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. '''With the apparent collusion of some Mahra,''' the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).}}</ref>
			::* As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about ] and ]).
			:: ''']]''' 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
			For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. ] (]) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, ] would be a better place to discuss it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because ]. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to ] all significant viewpoints should be included ''']]''' 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read ].
			::If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. ] (]) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like from ] which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (] and a ] from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. ''']]''' 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?
			::::Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? ] (]) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A{{pb}}https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 ''']]''' 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What's the page in the last link? ] (]) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::sanaa uni's journal ''']]''' 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at ] ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. ] (]) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{talkreflist}}
			=== First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
			It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at ] and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. ] (]) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit ''']]''' 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Any updates on this? ] (]) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? ''']]''' 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins ''']]''' 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
			== Movement for Democracy (Greece) ==
			{{DR case status|open}}
			{{drn filing editor|77.49.204.122|18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.		Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Rainbow table}}		* {{pagelinks|Movement for Democracy (Greece)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|97.88.168.200}}		* {{User|Hellenic Rebel}}
	* {{User| }}		* {{User|Rambling Rambler}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.
	Talk::Rainbow Tables
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
	I found out I was fired and prevented from multiple job opportunities due to someone posting my name on here with false information. I first attempted to delete, then explain, but to no avail. It uses personal information while attempting to display opinions and statements that are not my own. I felt the proper way to do this was to eliminate the posts, but editors keep altering/replacing everything.
			* ] *] *] *] *] *]
	I advised the following at the bottom of that talk page:
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
	There were several sections here that violates wikipedia talk page guidelines. Namely, I have removed sections that are not on topic, that are meant to criticize or vent about the subject, argue personal points of view that also do not cite reliable sources of information, that are not based on verifiable facts, includes insults or personal details between various parties,
			We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			==== Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel ====
	delete, edit, remove, attempt to explain the error briefly.
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Hello dear users, those are my points:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			<br/>
			* Lack of Consensus:
			Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version.
			<br/>
			* Evidence from Sources:
			Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example:
			* Documento:
			* Politic:
			Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources.
			These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement.
			<br/>
			* Policy Misinterpretation:
			Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Misplaced Pages (e.g., ], ], ]). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group.
			''Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.''
	Remove the section permanently, as it breaks even the discussion page guidelines.
			<br/>
			* Parliamentary Website Context:
			The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs.
			<br/>
			* Request for Fair Evaluation:
			I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version.
			Thank you for your time and consideration.
	==== Summary of dispute by null ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			<div style="font-size:smaller">P.S.: I am really sorry, I did not managed not to not to exceed 2000 characters, I exceeded them by 500.</div>
	==== Summary of dispute by ====
			==== Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.
			However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.
	=== Rainbow table discussion ===
			The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.
			While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.
			Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.
			==== Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122 ====
			I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou
			MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			=== Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover ] and ]. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here ]: ''<font color="#777777">"</font>We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."''
	{{DRN archive bottom}}
			In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources ]. While one source was provided , the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, ], but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Misplaced Pages talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe ==
	{{DR case status|closed}}
	{{drn filing editor|Fyunck(click)|06:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top|This case is being closed for two reasons. First, there is an open RFC, and this noticeboard is not a forum to request that RFCs be withdrawn. Second, there are conduct issues involved. The parties are directed to ] or ]. ] (]) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			:@] Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? ] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - ] - "''A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.''. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, ] (with 6) and ] with 5, and according to the results of the ], both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] Yes, here is my opinion: ''are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question''. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "{{small|New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party}}". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... ] (]) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@], thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is ] - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy?
			:::::Regarding the citation of the WP policy ], yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "''since there is an identical article, let's do the same here''". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. ] (]) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Urartu ==
			{{DR case status}}
			<!-- ] 16:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739378392}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
			{{drn filing editor|Bogazicili|16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 863:		Line 1,644:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			* {{pagelinks|Urartu}}
	* {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|Fyunck(click)}}		* {{User|Bogazicili}}
	* {{User| Cinderella157}}		* {{User|Skeptical1800}}
	* {{User| and many others at MoS}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			Multiple issues discussed in ].
	It said you could at least point me in the proper direction. We have just had RFCs/proposals on the capitalization of Universe/universe... along with Galaxy/galaxy and others. Editors have failed to come to an agreement on when the words should be capitalized or if MoS should be changed at all. The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject... no breathing room at all. Editors haven't even had a chance for some lengthy discussions on if or how we would proceed. Maybe small steps.. maybe something else. But this new instant RfC is very disruptive. One editor removed it to stop more infighting and bang... it was plopped up again.
			I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
	I'm still in shock this was plopped up already. His talk page and the ] page.
			::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
	Either point us in the right direction to end the disruptive RfC or politely ask Cinderella157 to remove it.
			::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.
	==== Summary of dispute by Cinderella157 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			::] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
			]
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
			Resolve issues with respect to ], ], ], and removal of content
	The statement: "The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject" is false. The reasons given for removing the RfC were quite inconsistent with the question posed by the RfC (as noted at ] ] (]) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	==== Summary of dispute by and many others at MoS ====		==== Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
	=== Misplaced Pages talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe discussion ===
			::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
			::Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:
			::''"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"''
			::User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.
			::''Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.''
			::The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:
			::''"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"''
			::So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).
			::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
			::Here is the quote in question:
			::''"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"''
			::User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.
			::''"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."''
			::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu
			::User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:
			::Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. ''"The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."''
			::and:
			::Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 ''"Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."''
			::It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?
			::Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: ''"Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."''
			::It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.
			::To the previous point, there's also the following: ''"Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."''
			::Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.
			::There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when '''we''' take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?
			::These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.
			] (]) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Urartu discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	'''Volunteer note''': See the statement at the top of this page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." This request states that it wants to remove a Request for Comments that it is said to be disruptive. This noticeboard does not discuss whether to remove existing RFCs. There does appear to be a conduct dispute, although different parties have different ideas as to who is guilty of a conduct issue. Since this is a ] dispute and such disputes are subject to ], one possibility would be ], and another possibility would be ]. Unfortunately, the avenues for orderly resolution of the content issue appear to have been exhausted. ] (]) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}
			{{u|Skeptical1800}}, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.
	== Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations ==
			I had reverted your recent changes based on ] and had removed content I added that you object to based on ], so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? ] (]) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Undid recent edits, as requested.
			::] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{u|Skeptical1800}}, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. ] (]) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)===
			I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read ] and ]. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a ]. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.
			Are there any other questions?
			] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)===
			I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:
			* Removal of content from the lead. {{tq|Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".}}
			* Removal of content from ]: {{tq|The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".}}
			* Removal of this content, or where it should be put: {{tq|These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.}}
			* Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to . Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: ] and ]. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
			* I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. ] (]) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here. Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with. Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:
			:::* Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article ''should not'' include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages ''unless'' the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). '''The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely.'''" The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the '''Language''' section. It ''should not'' be in the lead.
			:::*Article ''should not'' include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of ] as it contradicts numerous ] included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::] (]) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Wesean Student Federation ==
	{{DR case status}}		{{DR case status}}
			<!-- ] 14:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739542861}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor|TCKTKtool|23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)}}
			{{drn filing editor|EmeraldRange|14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 23:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1428277824}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 904:		Line 1,774:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks|Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations}}		* {{pagelinks|Wesean Student Federation}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User|TCKTKtool}}		* {{User|EmeraldRange}}
	* {{User| OccultZone}}		* {{User|Flyingphoenixchips}}
	* {{User| Zhanzhao}}		* {{User|Kautilya3}}
	* {{User| Padenton}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".
	Some seem to be removing content saying its not proven yet there are quite a few references. They are also removing other pieces that are well referenced.
			Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
			Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)
	Many reverts
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
			],
	Give a outside view from a impartial view point.
			],
			],
			]
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
	==== Summary of dispute by OccultZone ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes
	==== Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao ====
			==== Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips ====
			My argument was basically that this constitutes ] as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". '''Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope.''' Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice '''(Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources)''', and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, '''I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.'''
			==== Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	I'd like to hands off on this, seriously.... Its sucking me back in even though I though the issue has been resolved. I've been accused of plagiarism (even though I was merely reverting a previous edit), socking (Please someone run a Checkuser) among other things. The only thing I've mainly done to the article is to reorganize content, revert what I though were questionable edits, and beef up existing content with a few more facts and sources. The only significant thing I added fresh to the article was a small section to summarize/end off the "reported rape on foreigners section" stating that because the reported rapes of their citizens in India (which is already mentioned in the article), a number of countries have issued updated travel advisories (the correlation of which is explicitly stated on the advisories and the news reports about the advisory updates themselves), and that the tourism minister has taken note of it and taken action to address these concerns (that one is fairly straight forward). And one of the editors I was discussing this with is figuratively doing the "finger in the ear going la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" jig by repeatedly removing my answer to him . If we can see some editors/admins who have not been involved in this article previously, to have a look at it, and make a unbiased judgement call on it. Thats all I hope to see here. ] (]) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
			=== Wesean Student Federation discussion ===
	==== Summary of dispute by Padenton ====
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	Submission here is ]. This dispute has already been reported here as well: ] I will provide my summary in a few hours when I can give this a little more attention. &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
			Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Jehovah's Witnesses ==
			{{DR case status|open}}
			<!-- ] 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739645857}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
			{{drn filing editor|Clovermoss|18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
			Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			* {{pagelinks|Jehovah's Witnesses}}
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
			* {{User|Clovermoss}}
			* {{User|Jeffro77}}
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
			]
			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
			I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.
			==== Summary of dispute by Jeffro77 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
			In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at ], that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations discussion ===
			=== Jehovah's Witnesses discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 11:55, 19 January 2025

Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	On hold	Oolong (t)	29 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 19 hours	Oolong (t)	2 days, 4 hours
Imran Khan	Resolved	SheriffIsInTown (t)	23 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 8 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	On hold	Abo Yemen (t)	18 days, 17 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	12 days, 21 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	12 days, 21 hours
Movement for Democracy (Greece)	In Progress	77.49.204.122 (t)	9 days, 18 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Hellenic Rebel (t)	23 hours
Urartu	New	Bogazicili (t)	3 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Skeptical1800 (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Wesean Student Federation	New	EmeraldRange (t)	1 days, 22 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	1 days, 22 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	1 days, 22 hours
Jehovah's Witnesses	In Progress	Clovermoss (t)	17 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	1 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	1 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Autism

The mediation has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism. Steven Crossin

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – This request has been placed on hold. Filed by Oolong on 15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Oolong (talk · contribs) Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs) Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk · contribs) HarmonyA8 (talk · contribs) TempusTacet (talk · contribs) WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs) 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs) GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) Markworthen (talk · contribs) Urselius (talk · contribs) Dispute overview See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society. On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all. Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years. This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways. A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful. Summary of dispute by involved contributors Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity. This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references. Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted. In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs. While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations. Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here. There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC) I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what. My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TempusTacet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC) @Oolong, let me expand on Robert's directions below: Please post your desired changes in the #First statements by editors (Autism) section of this page. It will be clearest if you use the "X to Y" style (as if this were the Misplaced Pages:Edit requests process) and show your exact suggested wording. You can use Template:Text diff if you'd like to contrast your suggestion with the current paragraph. (I believe that the other editors are recommending no significant change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section. Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 2409 40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (Pardon. My mobile IP keeps changing). I completely agree to the viewpoints supported by user @Oolong. I also want the people to know that there is no such division between "pathological symptom" and "non-pathological symptom". They are same features of a communication and socialization "disorder" where more than one neurotype is involved. It is the same, impairing symptom that can be credited to either neurotype, but unfortunately attributed to the cognitive minority solely. Although the article covers some aspects of neurodiversity perspective, still its language is too much negative and pathological, which isn't very helpful or uplifting for Autistic individuals. Too much importance given in biological causes and "epidemiology", while the more useful sress should have been on accommodation, accessibility, and AAC (Alternative Augmentative Communication). Trying to conceal the harmful effects of ABA therapies is misleading and un-encyclopedic. 2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) @LogicalLens was this your IP? You don't need to say this on your user page or anything, but just for this conversation it might be good to know because you got involved with the IP, not unless that's personal info and you don't gotta respond idk. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) Autism discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism) I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include; Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes. Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article. Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved. In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form). I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)? I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you. Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied. I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Misplaced Pages and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Autism) I asked for specific statements of how the lede section should be revised, and what changes should be made to the body of the article. So far, the statements have not been specific. Please read Be Specific at DRN. I understand that one of the main issues is that the current article, beginning with the lede section, is focused on the medical model of autism, and that there is at least one other perspective on autism that is not medical. If sources that meet the ordinary standard of reliability describe other perspectives and provide evidence that these perspectives are supported by scholarly non-medical sources, then the lede section should describe all perspectives. Discussion of the non-medical perspectives should be supported by reliable sources, and discussion of the medical perspective and any aspects of the medical perspective should be supported by medically reliable sources. That is, discussion of non-medical perspectives is not required to meet the medically reliable standard of sourcing, but the sources must meet the ordinary standard of reliable sourcing. If an editor thinks that the article should be revised to reflect multiple viewpoints, I will ask that they provide a revised draft of the lede section. We can wait to work on the sections of the body of the article until we have settled on the lede section, and then the body of the article should follow the lede. We need to start with something specific, in this case, a revised lede section. I will also repeat my request that each editor provide links to all of the previous discussions of how to revise this article, so as to provide a better overview of the issues. I would prefer that statements go in the sections for the purpose, such as First statements by editors (Autism), because that is what they are for. However, I will not enforce rules about where to make statements, as long as basic talk page guidelines are met. After I see at least one specific proposed revision to the article, preferably a draft rewrite of the lede section, I will know better whether DRN is a place to discuss the issues. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks @Robert McClenon! That helps clarify matters, including the question of evidence required for non-medical perspectives, which has been a source of much contention over the years. @Димитрий Улянов Иванов has has said that he won't "have the time to consistently respond within 48 hours. Hopefully that is not a strict requirement" - perhaps it would be helpful if you could address the implied question there? I will see if I can draft more detailed proposals tomorrow in the appropriate section; as I said earlier, part of the problem has been that the clash of viewpoints (with a supporting clash of readings of Misplaced Pages guidelines) has caused so much friction that it has been difficult to move on to the details of the rather large (and very overdue) project of rewriting and restructuring most of the page! I do at least have some fairly solid ideas about the lead, but of course, ideally the lead should reflect the rest of the article... Oolong (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC) @Oolong@Robert McClenon I have made a semi protected edit request which is phrased like the follows (sample): " Autism, Autism spectrum condition (ASC), Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or Autism Spectrum (AS) is a set of neurodevelopmental conditions, which have been described variously as a disorder, a condition, a valid human neurotype, and a socio-cultural misfit. No two Autistic persons are same, differing in their abilities and inabilities in multiple dimensions, and usually show a spikey or highly uneven cognitive profile. Many Autistics are capable of reading, writing, speaking clearly, or taking part in logical arguments, while having unnoticed deficits in working memory, information filtering, gross or fine motor skills issues, executive functions, sensory issues, trouble making eye contact or reading facial expressions etc. On the other hand, in some Autistics the deficits or differences can be immediately visible. In such cases the strengths might be unnoticed or ignored. Although an Autistic person may fall somewhere in between- and described better through a multidimensional approach than a unidirectional or linear "mild" vs "severe" categorization. Autistics often use repeatitive behaviour as a means of coping mechanism, and often requires structure and predictability to cope up. Autism is sometimes classified as a hidden disability or an invisible disability, as its features could be not immediately noticeable, and in some cases highly masked or camoufledged. Autistics may differ in the amount and nature of support they need in order to thrive and excell. Autism has close overlaps with specific learning disabilities (Such as dyslexia or dyscalculia), Personality disorders (Schizoid personality disorder, Pathological Demand avoidance), etc. that makes it often hard to differentiate from other psychological diagnoses. Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. " 2409:40E0:1F:E636:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Autism) 1. what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same ==== The overall framing of the lead is very much within the medical model of autism, taking for granted various things which are hotly contested in the wider world - particularly among autistic people, but also among researchers in this field. Let's take the opening paragraph. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by repetitive, restricted, and inflexible patterns of behavior, interests, and activities; deficits in social communication and social interaction; and the presence of high or low sensory sensitivity. A formal diagnosis requires that symptoms cause significant impairment in multiple functional domains, in addition to being atypical or excessive for the person's age and sociocultural context. I've highlighted the particularly contentious terms! Essentially, this paragraph takes the mainstream psychiatric perspective on all of these things for granted. Here's one alternative version, which I contributed to in 2022, with instances of more neutral terms highlighted: The autism spectrum, often referred to as just autism or in the context of a professional diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or autism spectrum condition (ASC), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication, and the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests. Other common signs include unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Note that for the most part these terms convey the same information, without assuming a particular interpretation is the correct one. Condition is often thought to be a slightly less value-laden equivalent of disorder, although arguably the difference is marginal. The hypothesis that autistic people have inherent deficits in social communication and interaction has been disproven quite convincingly (see double empathy problem); the difficulties, however, certainly remain in many contexts, and are in practice all that diagnosticians can go by on this front. There are all sorts of issues with applying the term symptom to the ways that autism manifests, starting with the assumption that they're problems, as opposed to e.g. coping strategies or objectively neutral characteristics. I recently edited the third paragraph simply to accurately reflect views associated with neurodiversity, correcting text based on blatant misunderstandings; variations on these edits have now been reverted at least four times, including after they have been restored by other editors. These reversions have not been accompanied by sensible edit summaries, instead claiming for example that they are ideologically motivated, and that my references (an academic textbook and a peer-reviewed paper researching community views) are somehow inadequate. I am aware that these reversions are starting to suggest that administrators' noticeboard for incidents may be a more appropriate venue for resolving these issues. The final paragraph of the lead is dubious, and largely reads like an advertisement for applied behavior analysis Above entered by Oolong Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. Classification goes into enormous technical detail, and seems to overlap heavily with both diagnosis and signs and symptoms. We need to cover common aspects of autistic experience somewhere (see Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions for some of these; there are many more) and it is not clear if they can fit in the above section, although they may be at least as important, just because they are not adequately covered by the current editions of diagnostic manuals. Possible causes should obviously be no more than 2-3 paragraphs at most, in line with summary style. Likewise epidemiology. Management is an awful framing; autism is a fundamental difference in a person, not an illness to be managed. I note that this heading is absent from the gender dysphoria entry. Perhaps it would be constructive to replace this section with something around access: access to healthcare, education, workplaces and so on. Prognosis probably doesn't warrant a section at all: it's lifelong. If it's going to be there, it needs to be completely rewritten. History and especially society and culture probably deserve to be significantly higher up in the article. Re your third question, I provided various links in my original submission - are those specific enough? --Oolong (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) References . doi:10.1177/1362361315588200 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134030/. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) Second statement by moderator (Autism) My explanation about source reliability is my own interpretation, based on the principle to use common sense. Other editors may disagree, but it is the rule that will be in place while I am moderating this discussion. The unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account if they wish to take part in this mediation. Their IPv6 address has changed between the time that this discussion was created and the time of this post. It is both difficult to remember IPv6 addresses and difficult to communicate with shifting IPv6 (or IPv4) addresses. The requested rewrite has no references. It also includes a statement of opinion that is not a summary of existing knowledge and is therefore not encyclopedic. On the other hand, the first sentence of the proposed rewrite is, in my opinion, a good starting point for a rewrite of the lede. The later sentences about differences between different autistic persons are, in my opinion, a good idea to be included somewhere in the article, but not necessarily in the lede paragraph. In the above paragraph, I am taking a more active role in trying to lead this discussion than I usually take. If the participants agree with my taking an active role, I will write a new set of rules providing for a semi-active role by the moderator. If the participants would prefer that I be less active, I will step back somewhat, and will implement DRN Rule A. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC) So I have issues with the proposed lede change, with interpreting the scientific consensus classification as a "medical model", among other issues. I'd like to clarify these per my involvement here, but I need time to formulate a reply. I saw an article stating that editors must reply within 48 hours but I cannot consistently do this with my time constraints. May I ask if this will be a significant issue and if it's a requirement can it not be so strict under the circumstances? Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) The provision about responding within 48 hours is in DRN Rule A, which is a standard rule but is not always used, and I have not yet specified what rules we are using, so there isn't a 48-hour provision at this time. Will 72 hours work better? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC) 72 hours should be fine in general. I plan to respond quicker than that if I can of course, my only concern is that I occasionally am not free to reply within 72 hours as sometimes I won't be able to until the weekend. Apologies if this is causing some issues. I'm much more free now with Christmas over so I think it'll mainly become an issue if our discussions extend much into January. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "The requested rewrite ... includes a statement of opinion." - Which part is a statement of opinion? I am not disputing your assessment; rather, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC) @Robert McClenon Hi there, I have a question following your third statement. I would like to clarify the issues with the proposed lede change, and with the interpretations of "models", but I'm unsure as to where I should write this out here and if this is necessary to do at the moment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC) @Robert McClenon Respected editor, I have noticed a miscommunication. Although I could not read the rules and formats of dispute resolution; and also did not took part in the dispute resolution due to mental health issues, I want to notify that since some of my talk page comments have been marked as relevant by various editors; I plea for forgiveness regarding unintended miscommunication(s). I have just discovered at least two editors have wrote regarding "at least one user not being familiar" (probably I am the intended user) "not knowing" the use of "et al". But this is totally a miscommunication mainly originating from my side. I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. I know, some of my conversation was not nice, including Talk:Autism#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213134300-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241213132400 or me venting out the stresses on several place such as Talk:Autism rights movement#c-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900-Ongoing dispute in the Misplaced Pages page on Autism, attentions needed , which was suspected or condemned as canvassing Talk:Autism rights movement#c-Pinecone23-20241217174100-RIT RAJARSHI-20241213054900 . I apologize for all these (and if any other) miscommunication, and I realize that the nature of this topic is so stressful for me that it would be better for me to stay off from this discussion by all and every means. I ask for forgiveness to the every respected editors. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Hi, sorry to ask in this rather odd place, but something seems to have gone wrong with this page - when I click 'edit' on any of the relevant sections, it goes to either edit the entire page, or a different, unrelated section (and either way, the visual editor isn't available). I assume something has gone weird with the markup somewhere, but I have no idea how to diagnose problems of this type! Oolong (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Try a "hard refresh" (⌘+⇧ Shift+R on a Mac; I don't know what the equivalent is on Windows). If that doesn't work, drop by my talk page with a link to the section you want to click the button in, and then tell me which section actually opens for you, and what kind of a computer you're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R on everything else. Anthony2106 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Autism) List of Perceived Relevant Discussions Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity? Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk? Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions " Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics Talk:Autism#Brevity Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one conversation in here was due to at least one user not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" - a standardised way to refer to multiple authors such as in scientific or academic contexts). I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong To my knowledge, the relevant discussions have not occurred outside of the article's talk page.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Thank you, you are perfectly correct. My apologies. More accurate to say that the discussion about the use of et al was an irrelevant and separate issue to the topics here, and was due to a miscommunication rather than you being unfamiliar with the term. I would forgive you but I don't think you've done anything wrong here at all! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) I ask for forgiveness from all the respected editors for this very unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Autism) Please read DRN Rule G. This is the new set of rules for this mediation. Please sign all of your posts. It is more important to sign your posts than to put them in the correct sections, although both are a good idea. If you forget to sign your post, the rest of us may not know who posted it. In the proposed lede by the unregistered editor, the last sentence reads: Autistic people are valuable member of society, regardless of their talents or impairments. That is true but not encyclopedic, because it does not summarize existing knowledge. It states a moral principle that governs development of the encyclopedia, and should also apply in the larger society. It is also not in a form that is verifiable because it is not attributed to anyone but in wikivoice. I would still like a list from each editor of links to all the previous discussions about the issues that are being discussed here. I know that some of the discussions have been mentioned in various statements, but I would like each editor to provide a list, in one place, without commenting on the discussions, and without concerning about whether another editor is also listing the same discussions. I just want this for background material. Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) Third statements by editors (Autism) I am making a rather late entry into this process and am not sure if putting this here is correct. There are a number of aspects that I would like to comment on. I think that anyone with any knowledge of autism will have noticed that autism is not merely, or even primarily, a medical condition, even though it is diagnosable by clinicians and has diagnostic criteria. It has sociological, disability, cultural and identity dimensions. I have had two brain-involving medical conditions, autism and stroke. I have an identity as an autistic person, but no identity as a stroke survivor. Both are medical conditions, diagnosable by clinicians, but only autism has the additional, extra-clinical, dimensions I have described. The Misplaced Pages article has suffered, in my opinion, from too great an emphasis on the medical aspects of autism, to the extent that some editors have excluded the other aspects of autism from prominent parts of the article, such as the lead, or treated them as though they were unsupported by reputable references, or were 'fringe' in nature. Furthermore, too literal use of pathologising phraseology, gleaned uncritically from diagnostic manuals, introduces wording to the article which is unnecessarily offensive to autistic people, when less offensive wording, while retaining the original meaning, could have been employed. Efforts to moderate the offensive wording have been repeatedly reverted. I have noticed that deafness, a condition which, like autism has cultural, communication, disability and identity dimensions, is treated in a way within Misplaced Pages (Deafness) that gives equal treatment to the purely medical and the sociological aspects. Though the deafness article is very much shorter than the one on autism, it struck me that the treatment of the subject might act as a useful paradigm. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC) List of discussions from WhatamIdoing I think the present dispute started about two months ago: Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Should autism continue to be described as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms, impairment and severity? Talk:Autism/Archive 7#Risk? Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Identity-first language for autistic people categories Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Disability terms Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions " Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics Talk:Autism#Brevity Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. (Note: one tangent in here was due to some people not being familiar with the Latin phrase et al., which means "and others" . It is a common way to refer to multiple authors in scientific journals, especially in journals using Vancouver style .) I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion." What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase et al. which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong As far as I know, most of the disputed edits and discussions are at this one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing ::I think a very serious miscommunication has happened. Please read my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241213144000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213141800 where I explicitly wrote "'''Thank you for explaining why you used 'et al'. I know et al means colleagues but I was expressing individual opinion.'''" What I tried to mean that, I know the meaning of latin phrase ''et al.'' which means "colleagues" or "coworkers" but since I expressed my individual opinion, I perceived calling me as "et al" to be weird. I was also super stressed out and mentally unstable after entering that discussion so I decided to not further proceed with this stressful topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) I ask for all editors' forgiveness on this unintended miscommunication RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) @RIT RAJARSHI, please do not worry. I added this note so that Robert would know that it was a perfectly innocent and unimportant thing, so he would focus on the other (non-tangential) comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Response and list of discussions from FactOrOpinion Since you (Robert McClenon) have posted a "Third statement by moderator," I'm guessing that I should respond in this "Third statements by editors" section, even though I never posted anything in the First or Second statements sections. I've read DRN G and agree to it. As I noted earlier, I haven't been involved for that long. I haven't read any of the archived discussions. I have only read comments on the current talk page, though not all of them, and I responded in even fewer sections. My list: Talk:Autism#Remove "Disorder" and add "Coocuring Conditions " Talk:Autism#Autism, Misplaced Pages and epistemic injustice Talk:Autism#Signs and symptoms --> Common characteristics Talk:Autism#Brevity Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al. Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication Talk:Autism#Wanting a very particular source Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Response to "Impairments" by Oolong Talk:Autism#Dispute Resolution Request Talk:Autism#Issues in recent editing by Oolong (edited to add:) Talk:Autism#Paradigm? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC) I made I talk page topic where I complained about "symptoms" being in the lead, but because I'm on phone and it's allmost 3:00 ill find it later. Anthony2106 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Autism) At this point, I want to clarify the overall approach that we are taking or will take. First, is the main issue the overall viewpoint with which autism is discussed? The current article discusses autism almost entirely as a medical condition. Is the main issue that some editors think that the article needs an overall rework to state that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a medical condition or disorder, and that there are reliable sources that describe autism as a human condition or a neurotype. Is that the main issue? If my understanding is correct, then I agree, because the neutral point of view is to describe the different views of different reliable sources. If that is the main issue, do we have at least rough consensus that the article should be revised accordingly? If there is a rough consensus that the article should be reworked in that way, then we need to rewrite the lede section first, and then to rework the rest of the article to be consistent with and expand on the lede. If there is disagreement with that approach, then a Request for Comments will be needed to formalize the change in viewpoint, but I will want the RFC to provide a revised lede, rather than just a statement of principle. So we need to start work on rewriting of the lede if we agree that the article should describe the multiple viewpoints, of which the medical model is one. So I will restate my first question, which is whether our objective is to revise the perspective of the article to describe multiple viewpoints. Please at least answer yes or no. If you answer no, please state what you think we should be doing to improve the article (or to leave it alone). If we have at least rough consensus that the end objective is to improve the article by describing other views of autism besides the medical model, then we will proceed to rewrite first the lede and then the body. A second question has to do with a comment that efforts to neutralize the wording of parts of the article (to make the autism-neutral) have been reverted. If so, who did the reverting? I would like to invite any reverting editors to participate in this discussion. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Autism) Yes, revising the article to include information about autism as a human condition or a neurotype, supported by citations to the best reliable sources, will improve the article. Here is a quote from a reliable source that highlights this issue: Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) which is associated with alterations in structures and mechanisms underlying behavior, has traditionally been viewed as a harmful condition. However, there is a contrary position, which may be particularly relevant to milder cases of ASD. In this view, the positive attributes associated with ASD (e.g. high levels of creativity and mathematical ability) are emphasized and neurodiversity is celebrated, shifting the onus onto neuro-typical society to accommodate neuro-atypical persons. However, despite the growing prevalence of persons with ASD who choose to see themselves as situated on a spectrum of normal variation, there are many individuals and families who seek health interventions or advocate for more scientific research to cure or prevent ASD. These disagreements are perhaps indicative of the heterogeneous and dimensional nature of both ASD and its impact; in severe cases care rather than accommodation is required. Thus, judgments about whether or not an entity should be included in the nosology require careful assessment of the extent to which social accommodation is possible. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Note: In my first sentence (above), I changed the hyperlink destination for reliable sources from WP:MEDRS to WP:RS because I agree with Oolong (below) that, as WP:MEDRS itself indicates in the first paragraph, biomedical information in any article should comply with WP:MEDRS, and general information in medical articles should comply with WP:RS. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) My answers: Question 1: Yes, I think that this (medical vs non-medical POVs) is the main dispute. However, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to re-write the body first. Question 2: For recent reverts, you might look at these: I believe that everyone involved is either already here or knows this is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you for the summary and helpful questions. Yes, the main issue is as you described; I'm not sure what determines a 'rough consensus' exactly, though. We have many people making the case for it, with one extremely strident dissent from that potential consensus; and one or two other editors broadly agreeing with him, without getting very much involved. This dispute, in a broad sense, predates the six months or so of his active involvement, though - a look through the Talk:Autism/Archive index (and, for completeness, Talk:Autism spectrum) will show that closely related arguments have been cropping up regularly since, I suspect, the start. One recurring theme has been the over-application (from my perspective, at least) of WP:MEDRS. The guideline itself states that "Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not" - but the boundaries of what does and does not fall under that rubric are not always clear. In this case, we have to ask whether the experiences and perspectives of autistic people ourselves are 'general information' or whether they are, perhaps automatically "Attributes of a disease or condition". There are likely to be grey areas like meltdown and burnout, where it is not necessarily clear which kinds of reliable sources we can lean on. Whatamidoing has a point about the lead vs the entire article; it is traditional for the lead to follow the lead of the article as a whole, as it were. However, to the extent that we are talking about language use, perhaps it makes sense to make the lead more balanced even before we fix the whole of the rest of the article - which is an absolutely huge job, because the article is extremely overlong, and dreadful on multiple levels: repetitious, poorly structured, self-contradictory, out-of-date, with a series of gaping holes, and overwhelmingly written in a way that takes a pathologising perspective for granted. My impression is that it is so poorly maintained largely because disputes along these lines have consumed so much of the energy that could otherwise have gone into improving the article. In case it's of interest, I ran a survey a couple of months to gather opinions and impressions of the entry (and Misplaced Pages's autism coverage more broadly) - I wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining how bad it was! You can see the full responses here, but the standout result is that out of 31 respondents who'd seen it and formed an opinion, the mean rating for the question 'How well does the main Autism entry reflect your own experiences and understanding of autism?' was 3.25 out of 10. Regarding your question about reversions, one editor has made a total of 29 reversions, often with very misleading edit summaries (e.g. compare description here with what the sources referred to actually are; I am aware that this process is supposed to steer clear of conduct issues, but as WP:CPUSH discusses, it can be hard to keep them separate). I am not aware of much other reverting that has happened lately. --Oolong (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) No it does not say 29 it says 88, cool site. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) (I believe that shows 88 edits, not 88 reverts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Replying here to correct egregiously misleading statements about me. Several other editors, other than myself, have extensively reverted edits on the article, as has the above poster, but this context has been omitted. Furthermore, the list of reversions cited are also implicated in different topics, not just the ones in this mediation, making the implication of "one editor" reverting things a generalised and selective representation of the edit history on the article. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) For the moderator my lie was here: Sorry this last one was rude: but I don't undo too much. Anyway lets not talk about each other too much because the moderator said "Comment on content, not contributors". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) No problem, I agree we should focus on commenting on the content, i was only responding to the implied misconduct accusations about me as I feel that these have the potential to undermine a constructive mediation. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Hi, I see you are replying to me directly. I think this is specifically what Rule G.11 is about, but as long as we're doing this: based on searching the edit history, it looks like there have been a total of 35 reversions over the last six months, 29 of which (83%) were by you, while around half of the remainder were reversions of your reversions. Perhaps a more thorough systematic search would turn up slightly different results; perhaps I have missed something; but I do not think that any part of my comment above is 'egregiously misleading'. The moderator specifically asked about reversions, which is why I made a stab at quantifying them. Oolong (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I think that your dissection of the problem is entirely accurate. Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to treat medical conditions have been used to assert that anything not adhering strictly to these guidelines is either inadmissible, or be treated as subordinate, or more extremely as 'fringe'. Autism is classed as a neurodevelopmental condition that is amenable to clinical diagnosis, but it also has social, communication and identity aspects that most medical conditions do not possess. As an example, the medical model highlights deficits in communication, but research has shown that communication between autistics is just as accurate as communication between allistics, problems exist only when autistics try to communicate with allistics. This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles? To my mind there are two current viewpoints concerning autism, both having reputable supporting literature, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both are useful methods of describing autism, they even overlap to some extent, both have validity and both should be treated in a similarly full, dispassionate and encyclopaedic way on Misplaced Pages. Urselius (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "autistics try to communicate with allistics" is the double empathy problem, you should of linked that because I don't think I'm allowed to edit your comment. You said "This raises the question, does this indicate a deficit in autistic communication, or only a difference in communication styles?" this indicates a difference because I like talking to autistic people a little bit better or at least I seem to make less mistakes (but non-autistic familiy members (or close people) always understand you because they know you well). autistic people say the neurotypical's are puzzling (they are just very uniform) the neurotypical's think we are puzzling, so they said we are disorded. We aren't but they aren't gonna change the name. If we were all autistic then no one would be "disorded" right? but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) I think that a move away from introducing autism as it is now in the article, would be beneficial. At present, we effectively have, Autism is ... then the reader is immediately launched into verbatim or edited definitions from diagnostic manuals, eventually followed by some mention of non-medicalised aspects, as a sort of aside. This gives the medical model of autism a rather erroneous place as THE defining model. The introduction should start with content that is not weighted in one direction, that all can agree on. I would see this as an expansion of something along these lines: "Autism is a neurodevelopmental lifelong condition characterised by differences in brain architecture and function. It has been linked to genetic and environmental factors and is defined by a range of behavioural, communication and sensory features. These features can vary widely between autistic individuals, hence autism is called a spectrum condition". "Two differing interpretations of autism are currently recognised, the medical model and the neurodiversity model." Following some similar sort of opening, both models can be described, beginning with the medical model, where the material from the diagnostic manuals can go, with the neurodiversity material following. Most of the aspects in the body of the text can follow roughly the same structure. Urselius (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Autism) Thank you for your responses. I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources. I would like to be able to close out the moderated discussion and resume normal editing to resume in no more than two to four months. I know that it may take longer than this to finish rewriting the article, but I would like to be able to step back from the rewrite in less than six months. I am aware that it is the recommended usual practice that lead follows body. I think that this is a special case in which a rewriting of the lede may simplify rewriting the body. If there is opposition to the change in viewpoint, then revisions to the sections of the body may be reverted as inconsistent with the lede, which will require multiple RFCs to formalize the change in emphasis. It is true that if the lede is rewritten first, it may then be later necessary to do a second rewrite to be consistent with the revised body, but I would like to get the change in viewpoint established earlier, rather than doing it on a piecemeal basis. If anyone knows of a way to formalize the change in viewpoint other than by changing the lede, I am willing to consider it. I don't like the idea of an abstract RFC saying to change the emphasis of the article. I am ready to consider a coordinated approach to rewriting the body first, but I would like first to see a description as a coordinated approach. I am aware that we may need to revise the lede twice, once at the beginning and once at the end. I just don't see a way to get the rewriting of the body on a consistent basis without first rewriting the lede the first time. I will restate the rule of reliability of sources. When autism is discussed as a medical condition, sources must satisfy the standard of medically reliable sources. When autism is discussed as a human condition, or in a cultural context, sources must satisfy the general standard of reliable sources. In particular, material that is sourced to sources meeting the general standard of reliability but not the medical standard of reliability should not be rejected unless the context is medical or psychiatric. Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion after responding to my questions. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) 72 hours have not passed per the rules since your last statement, I'm still in the process of writing a response. There are substantial issues with the arguments for the proposed lede changes which have remained unaddressed. These include the lack of reliable sources opposing the global scientific consensus, and that the consensus is demonstrably not isolated to a medical context, and so the medical interpretation of the evidence is a gross misrepresentation for basis to rewrite the lede. May I elaborate on these issues in a statement without this DRN prematurely concluding and normative editing resuming? I did make a request in a prior reply if I can do this, but I didn't receive any response. Thank you. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Two quick questions: 1. Would it be appropriate to post a notification of this discussion/process on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Autism? 2. Would it be appropriate to reinstate the {{unbalanced}} tag on the autism page while this work is ongoing? We seem to have something close to a consensus that it is indeed unbalanced. Oolong (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Statement 5.1 by moderator (Autism) Perhaps I wasn't clear about at least one aspect of my approach to the lede rewrite. After the draft revision of the lede is developed, I recognize that there may be disagreement with it. If there are disagreements with it, there will be a Request for Comments to obtain community input and establish community consensus. While the RFC is in progress, other discussion of the lede will be on hold, although there can be discussion of edits to the sections of the body of the article. So this DRN will not conclude prematurely. I hope that this is clear. A rewrite of the lede will be a draft rewrite, to be followed by an RFC, which will accept it or reject it. This will give editors who agree with the draft and disagree with the draft rewrite thirty days to present their cases to the community. Any decisions as important as changing the lede will not be made by local consensus here but by the community. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I have residual concerns. First, from my understanding, the rules state that we have 3 days to make a statement responding to the moderator's statement. However, just one day after, you issued statement 5.0 in which you basically concluded that there is agreement to move the article away from a "medical position". This is not a fair assessment as I was in the midst of writing my statement to demonstrate how that assertion is highly inaccurate as well as provide further countering evidence. As such, there is no such agreement, making it as well as support for the medical interpretation of the evidence, prematurely concluded. Additionally, in my initial statement I cited the citations demonstrating the global scientific consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies on its importance, which have not been acknowledged in any responding statements as of yet. Please may you redact these conclusions, or alter them accordingly, based on considering my newest statement? Second, we initiated this DRN process to seek an assessment from a neutral moderator because discussions on the talk page have been marred by persistent misrepresentation of arguments and citations, among other issues. Does "community consensus" in this context refers solely or primarily to the participants in this DRN from the article talk page? Without relying on external mediators, this risks replicating the same issues in the talk page. We would just be reiterating the same points already made in the talk page to the same users. And I seem to be the only active participant for maintaining the current general framing of ASD in the article. Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN. I hope you can understand my concerns that this would ultimately skew any perceived consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Autism) I like your proposed plan and your rationale, i.e., to start with a new lede, that will likely require revision down the road, but that will serve as a framework for revising the body of the article. I also appreciate your clear, coherent statement about reliable sources. Thank you for your hard work on this. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Your proposal makes sense to me, and I am quite grateful for your willingness to devote such a long period of time to moderating the discussion so that headway occurs in improving the article. As I said earlier, I can only contribute in limited ways here, but I will continue to read the exchanges, and will contribute when I think I can be helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I also support your proposal, and (just to be clear) your decision to use Rule G. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hopeful that we can make progress a lot faster once we have overcome some of the roadblocks preventing edits to date. Dmitriy's concern about being the only neurodiversity-opposing participant in this process is understandable - I did try to include at least two others when I initiated this, but they have not joined. This is one reason I suggested notifying Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Autism; historically, other editors broadly sharing his outlook have been much more involved. It might be best if he were not the only participant representing the pro-pathologisation side of this discussion, given our goal is presumably to produce an article which is acceptable to people with a range of personal views on these subjects. --Oolong (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Autism) I will again restate, and maybe clarify, about consensus. Any contested changes to the article will be made only by community consensus, which is obtained by an RFC, which runs for thirty days and is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. A majority of the editors in this DRN is only a local consensus and will not change the article substantively. I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. I think that revision of the lede should precede the revision of the sections of the body of the article, but am ready to consider a plan for a coordinated effort to rewrite the sections of the body first. Editors who want to leave the article more or less as it is may either provide a statement supporting their view, or nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Robert_McClenon, I have a few questions: In DRN Rule G, you said Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke. Would you clarify when it's appropriate to have a back-and-forth discussion with someone in the Back-and-forth discussion section? For example, is it fine for editors to use this section whenever we want to respond to something another editor wrote, or — given your point that back-and-forth discussion on the Talk page already failed to resolve the content issues — would you like us to reserve the use of this section to limited situations, and if so, would you briefly describe these situations? You emphasized "Comment on content, not contributors" several times in the DRN rule. If I think an exchange is veering into that territory, is it acceptable to give a gentle reminder, or is that something that I should leave entirely to you? I lack the knowledge base to "either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article." Is it acceptable for me to contribute in smaller ways when I think I might be helpful, or would you rather that I simply step back from any active participation (perhaps with the thought that such limited participation is as likely to distract as to help)? If it's the latter, I will likely continue to read some of the exchanges for my own learning, but I'm totally fine with it if you'd rather that I no longer comment. Thank you, FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Here's my summary of the above discussion: From editors who are both dissatisfied with the article and also have specific ideas about what they want to see changed: They want the article more prominently reflect a POV that is popular in the neurodiversity movement (e.g., as it appears on social media, but also in some scholarly sources). This POV says that autism is part of each individual's personality and identity. If you could get rid of autism, then you would be getting rid of the autistic person's true character and identity. This POV also believes that autism is good. Everything about autism is to be presented in as positive a light as possible. For example, we should say that someone "prefers eating the same food every day" or "his favorite food is plain pasta" instead of being negative and saying that person is "at risk of scurvy and other vitamin deficiencies because he refuses to eat anything except plain pasta, rice, and eggs". We should say that someone "has a strong desire to talk about their particular interests" instead of "fails to engage in reciprocal social communication by noticing that the other person is not interested in hearing a long lecture about the exact differences between Lego Mindstorms robots and Lego Education Spike Prime robots, and thus changing the subject to something the other person would enjoy". By default, if isn't good, then it isn't autism. Any 'bad' things should be called a "co-occurring disorder". If something negative cannot be omitted and cannot credibly be claimed to be a co-occurring disorder instead of autism, then it must be presented sympathetically, and the autistic person should not be blamed or shamed in any way. Most/all distress experienced by autistic people is caused by society's failure to provide sufficient accommodations and to value autistic people's views and perspectives, so "society" can be blamed and shamed. "Treatment" is not wanted, needed, or effective. ABA in particular is evil. If a parent or caregiver wants an autistic person to quit engaging in a behavior (e.g., removing their clothes in public), then the parent should simply figure out what prompts that behavior (e.g., clothes that are too hot, itchy, stiff, loose, tight, synthetic, smelly, colorful, wet, stained, torn, sewn, peed-in) and proactively remove the prompt, so that the child won't think about doing that. Overall, autistic people (adults) are to be presented as capable, autonomous, valuable people who can do great things. Towards this end, the article should focus primarily on the type of autistic people who are similar to Misplaced Pages's many autistic editors (e.g., having good verbal skills and having normal-to-high IQ) and less on autistic people who are intellectually disabled, who cannot effectively communicate their needs, who require round-the-clock, lifelong custodial care, or who hit or kick people if they are startled or their routine changes. If we write about autistic people who cannot be left in a room with windows because they will break the glass, then neurotypical people will get bad ideas about their co-workers or the autistic people they meet in the community. If there is going to be a bias in the article, that bias should favor making life better for autistic people who are high achieving (or at least living independently). For editors who are dissatisfied with the article but not proposing specific changes: I think they see autism as a maladaptive biological situation that is not synonymous with the person's true character and identity. For example: Eating a wide variety of foods/flavors/textures is adaptive; having sensory issues that restrict you from eating whatever food is available is maladaptive and therefore a disorder; you would not stop being "you" if you could eat a wide variety of foods without severe anxiety or physically gagging. I think they also believe that the article should present a significant amount of information about "profound" or "severe" autism, and that autism be presented as a medical disorder serious enough to result in an average lifetime cost (in the US) of US$2,200,000 per autistic person with intellectual disabilities, and US$1,400,000 per autistic person without an intellectual disability. I do not see any editors who seem satisfied with the current state of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) The neurodiversity view does not view autism solely as a positive thing but as a neutral way of being that can come along with challenges as well as positive and neutral aspects. This has been pointed out repeatedly in these discussions here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) This (Dwyer's) source gives what it calls an "interactionist definition of a neurodiversity approach". This might (or might not) be Interactionism (nature versus nurture). I think it might be a possible compromise model for us, as it is flexible and not extreme in either direction. He describes it as a middle ground between biological essentialism and biological denialism. It's okay to medically manage or treat features of autism that you dislike, and okay to not treat features that you like. We can predict that editors who hold one POV or the other will want the article to "flex" in the direction of their POV, so this alone will not resolve the dispute. The main focus on the neurodiversity side appears to be marketing: "the disabled individual should not feel they are deficient". We are to use euphemisms, e.g., that a person has "areas of challenge" rather than "deficits", to achieve this end. We are to have "a focus on positive aspects of neural differences" and to remember that the goal is "promoting well-being". One of the main targets of such marketing is parents caring for the kind of autistic editor who won't be editing Misplaced Pages, or reading it. He says that "much opposition to the neurodiversity approaches centers around the idea that the approaches should not be applied to so-called “severe” or “low-functioning” autism", and suggests that these parents would be less likely to want their child to be "normalized" if autism were less stigmatized by society. (Personally, I suspect these parents are looking for well-being for themselves and their child: fewer meltdowns, fewer injuries, better hygiene, something like an ordinary family life – not normal merely to be the same as everyone else, but normal because their everyday experience has low well-being for everyone.) There is an unstated belief that "being normal" is incompatible with well-being. I do not believe that either euphemisms or a strong focus on the positive is compatible with WP:NPOV, so there are limits on how far we could implement this in a Misplaced Pages article, but I think that some form of this approach is feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) MOS:EUPHEMISM says "Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms." Mitch Ames (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Yes, euphemisms should be avoided but the terms that we are proposing for a more balanced article are not euphemisms. It is euphemistic to use words with positive connotations. Note that all these negative terms like "symptom", "risk", "cure" or "burden" are the exact opposite of euphemisms (words with negative connotations) that should be avoided as well in favor of neutral terms. Two papers explaining that scientific accuracy is fully compatible with anti-ableist language: . LogicalLens (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @LogicalLens strong {{support|strong}} RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @LogicalLens strong Anthony2106 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) That sounds like a way forward to resolving the dispute in part so that we can arrive at a version of the article that is at least roughly acceptable to most of us. I envision including a section explaining the pathology paradigm and a section explaining the neurodiversity paradigm. In the pathology paradigm section, it could be mentioned that autistic characteristics are described as "deficits" by the DSM whereas in the neurodiversity section, positive descriptions like mentioning strengths in detail could be used (although actually the neurodiversity paradigm views autism as a neutral thing instead of something positive). In general (when not referring to either the pathology or the neurodiversity paradigm), I suggest using the following language guides for autism . These sources disagree in some aspects, for example, the US health authority NIH uses the term "autism spectrum disorder" while the UK’s NHS and Bottema-Beutel’s paper (1094 citations) prefer or recommend avoiding it. In many cases, we could just write "autism" or "neurotype" (and where it is inevitable, maybe "condition") instead to avoid the controversy. @Oolong and I have proposed mentioning the fact that public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the second paragraph of the lead section. The Manual of Style of Misplaced Pages also recommends using neutral terms and that “Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate”. So we could try to avoid the term “disorder” outside the pathology paradigm section as much as we can. In many other aspects, these sources agree with eath other, for example: - avoid “severe” or “disease”/”illness” - “characteristics”/“features”/”traits” instead of symptoms - not using the terms “cure” or “prevention” - “low/high support needs” instead of “low/high functioning” - “nonspeaking” instead of “nonverbal” - “likelihood”/”chance” instead of “risk” - “interventions”/”services”/”therapies”/”adjustments” instead of “treatments” - prefer identity-first language or “on the autism spectrum” instead of person-first language - avoid using the term “suffering” - “distressed behavior”/“stimming”/”meltdown” or other specific and neutral description of behavior instead of “challenging behavior” - “focused/intense/passionate interests” instead of “special interests” - describing specific needs instead of writing “special needs” - “impact”/”effect” instead of “burden” - “co-occurring” instead of “co-morbid” - “non-autistic”/”neurotypical” instead of “healthy control group” - avoid using “psychopathology” - avoid talking about autism as a puzzle, an epidemic or an economic burden I would like to hear whether we can reach a consensus on these changes. Remark: It is far from being a universal viewpoint among parents of autistic children with high support needs (e.g. 24/7 care) to hope for a “cure”. See Shannon des Roches Rosa (author of the well-known blog Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism) for example. LogicalLens (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I want to thank @FactOrOpinion for asking the above. I think the volume of back-and-forth discussion is out of hand, and while some of that has been constructive, much of it is exactly the kind of going-in-circles that Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors" is clearly intended to prevent. I would certainly welcome clearer guidance on this. @Robert McClenon I plan to re-draft my proposed lead section in line with @LogicalLens's comments, and paste them in a separate section below, as nobody else has proposed an alternative or fed back on my earlier draft, aside from Mark saying "I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with." Would you support moving to a formal RfC at this stage? Oolong (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Just a heads up that this is the Sixth statement by moderator section, not the Back-and-forth discussion section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Sixth statement by editors (Autism) In answering the moderator's question, I see two main issues implicated in the dispute. First is, whether - or the extent to which - ASD should be framed in the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by symptoms and impairments, varying severity, and risks/causes. The second issue regards compliance with due weight based on the sources. Addressing the First Issue Due weight and neutrality on Misplaced Pages do not indicate that two contrasting viewpoints ought to be presented equally or be of comparable influence in the terminology used in articles. The reliable sources substantiating positions need to be weighed in based on their reputability and the consensus of them in the field. For further details, see Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:scientific_consensus. Around the world, the developers of scientific guidelines, standardised diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews, etc. unanimously conclude that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments and varying severity levels (for references, see list of references). Additionally, some of these references are essentially developed by a unification of scientists. For example, the Misplaced Pages article concludes that ASD in the ICD-11 was "produced by professionals from 55 countries out of the 90 involved and is the most widely used reference worldwide". The idea that this global scientific consensus is localised to the context of medicine is highly inaccurate. The references pertain to a wide array of subfields and contexts related to ASD, clearly substantiating a general scientific consensus for the validity and application of the terminology - not just in a medical context. For a list of quotes documenting this, see list of quotes. In fact, many of the references are not medically based at all, with some such as the international guidelines from ESCAP concluding that no medicines exist to reduce the core symptoms of ASD, and as such, is irrelevant to the primary purposes of the guideline and thus gets a minor mention. Another example to demonstrate, are the standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. The 23rd citation in the Misplaced Pages article (Nelson, 2020) also concludes "the fact that autism is a disorder does not entail that medicalization is the only course". Addressing the Second Issue The references given to support the opposing perspective are insufficient relative to the scientific consensus. If we exclude the blog post citations (because they are considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:reliable_sources), one editor has provided the following sources per their edit to alter the third lede paragraph: A link to A PDF stored on thedigitalcommons.com, apparently authored by Tom Shakespear. This is not a link to a peer-reviewed journal, and has a single author. A peer-reviewed article in Sage Journal (Dwyer et al., 2024) finding that the Neurodiversity Movement advocates for the de-normalisation of ASD. In a prior discussion, which I cannot locate as it appears to have been archived or deleted, they have also cited a text-book and other advocacy papers or trade books which advocated against framing ASD as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Relying on these is problematic for several reasons. First, as shown in list of references, other peer-reviewed reports and textbooks disagree with the above articles. Thus, they cannot be selectively relied upon for the general framing of ASD in the lede. Second, these sources are advocating for something that is not currently established and as such, cannot overturn the scientific consensus classification of ASD as it stands currently. Third, by taking due weight and source reliability into account, the references do not overturn the global scientific consensus. This is because they are not even close to the source reliability of the standardised diagnostic criteria, international and national guidelines, and scientific consensus statements, which indicate otherwise. Conclusion In conclusion, the lede should continue to reflect the global scientific consensus that recognises ASD as a valid disorder characterised by symptoms, impairments and varying levels of severity, as required by Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. The medical interpretation of the consensus is flawed and lacks careful consideration. Thus, rewriting the lede to exclude the terminology except in medical contexts should not be admissible.Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Quick reply to clarify two things. I have not elaborated on the specific issues with the changes proposed by an editor on the third lede paragraph because I don't think this is (at least, as of yet) a main matter in the dispute, so I didn't want to include it and make my statement overly lengthy. I also apologise if I have not comprehensively covered the refs that have been given to support the Neurodiversity Movement's perspective; some have been scattered across talk discussions, and so I cited the ones used in article edits and the main ones I recall cited in discussions. In either case, the points about their general invalidity would still stand. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Here is a first stab at a lead. I have combined bits from various versions, and rewritten some parts. I have leaned towards neutral language rather than bifurcating from the start; I think this allows a much more concise treatment, without eliding the major differences of opinion. Note that in many ways this is a compromise lead; there is language that I am not entirely comfortable with, because it still foregrounds a medical perspective, this being the dominant lens still used by wider society as well as most relevant professionals. The direction of travel of both of those has been strongly towards neurodiversity in recent years; it is likely that in another few years, anything based on current discourse and research will need updating to reflect this ongoing progress. For now, I have entirely omitted the final paragraph, which in the existing version goes into talking about treatments and cures. Producing a balanced version of this will be a challenge, given the evidence that most autistic people (including those with high support needs) would not want a cure, if such a thing were ever possible, and that the most popular 'treatment', applied behavior analysis is extremely unpopular with autistic people. I am also not sure we need a paragraph on this (this draft lead is about the longest I think a lead should be); we certainly shouldn't be devoting as many words to ABA as the current version does. Autism, officially known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition (or conditions) characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a spectrum disorder, autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language. Public health authorities and diagnostic manuals classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. An alternative perspective, arising out of autistic communities, is neurodiversity, which positions autism as a healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder. This is usually associated with some version of the social model of disability, suggesting that disability arises out of a mismatch between a person and their environment. Others argue that autism can be inherently disabling. The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy among those who are autistic and advocates, practitioners, and charities. The causes of autism are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that the disorder is highly heritable and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant. Autism frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, and intellectual disability, and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population. Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism, and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.. Estimates of autism prevalence have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased. Lundström et al 2015 - fix ref The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine activists that autism is caused by vaccines. Boys are far more frequently diagnosed than girls, although this gap has been narrowing. Note: I have copied the text of the article into a Google Doc that anyone can comment on, in order to start collecting notes about what ought to change, because I find Misplaced Pages's own interfaces extremely clunky for this sort of thing. Hopefully, keeping the rest of the article in mind while we focus on the lead will help us to navigate the potential issues that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY flags up. --Oolong (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) While I, like @Oolong, would like the lead section to be significantly more respectful and neurodiversity-affirming, I also agree that we should be aiming to build bridges, but I still want to make some suggestions to make the proposal by @Oolong clearer and more neutral. Feel free to comment on them. First paragraph 1) Is “officially known as” the best wording? On the one hand, it can encourage readers to just use autism in daily life contexts but on the other hand it can imply a sense of authority that is already conveyed in the second paragraph and doesn’t necessarily need repetition. But it might still be better than just calling it ASD and suggesting it to be a fact of nature. 2) Remove „(or conditions)“ because it’s confusing (general audience doesn’t know what is meant by it). 3) Include „differences and difficulties in social interaction“ as not all social features of being autistic are difficulties. 4) Change „Being a spectrum disorder“ to „Being a spectrum“: the term disorder has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph makes it clear that diagnostic manuals classify autism as a disorder, using the term „disorder“ out of this context makes it appear more objective than it is. 5) Mention strengths of autistic people, like pattern recognition. 1 Second paragraph 1) Change „healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder.“ to „healthy part of the diversity of humankind to be valued and supported, rather than a disorder to be treated.“ 2) Remove the citation of Shield’s paper as it focuses mainly on the criminal justice system and states that its conclusions need not apply to autistic people who don’t commit crimes, which is the overwhelming majority. It is too marginal of an aspect to be included in the lead section. Maybe Russell (2020) 2 could be cited as an analysis of critiques of the neurodiversity movement. The sentence that others view autism as inherently disabling would then have to be changed. It is also misleading because neurodiversity academics don’t state that autism cannot have inherently disabling features alongside neutral features and strengths 3. It is a misconception and when deliberately used, a straw man. 3) Make it clear that the debate is changing and the support for the neurodiversity movement is growing rapidly. Your proposal makes it appear to be a stalemate conflict which it isn’t. Also highlight the growing importance of self-advocacy and of seeing autistic people as the primary experts on the topic 4. Also cite Bottini et. Al (2024) 5. It is a secondary source with regard to the terminology being used in autism research. The fact that it is a primary source in its judgement of some of the terms as neurodiversity-affirming and others as not neurodiversity-affirming does not change that because critics would (if they are well-informed) not contend that not calling autism a disorder, for example, is neurodiversity-affirming while doing the opposite is not. Moreover, as @Robert McClenon , we should only apply the rigid standards for medically reliable sources for sources that are about biomedical information. So even someone who sees it as a primary source cannot reasonably contend its citation anymore. Additional useful sources to cite are: 6 and 7 4) Maybe change „The neurodiversity approach has led to significant controversy ...“ to „There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among ...“ Third paragraph 1) Write „autism is highly heritable“ instead of „the disorder is highly heritable“ (see my remark 4) for the first paragraph). This is completely neutral and even those who view autism as a disorder should be able to agree. 2) Include mental health issues like depression and anxiety as co-occurring conditions 8, ideally with a reference to masking and stigma 9. Fourth paragraph 1) Change „Disagreements persist about what should be part of the diagnosis“ to „There is an ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria“ and also cite 10. 2) Change „myth“ to „entirely disproven conspiracy theory“ 3) Use this citation for the narrowing gender gap between males and females 11 and also mention the biases leading to females being under-diagnosed. --LogicalLens (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks, I support most of these suggestions. I suggest we wait a day or so to see if any other parties to this dispute have other feedback, before co-producing a draft lead integrating suggestions. A few of your suggestions, like 'entirely disproven conspiracy theory', may be unnecessarily wordy - important to keep in mind the guidelines here, I think, given how many of the problems with the existing entry relate to its ballooning length. Just to reinforce the overall thrust of what we're trying to do here: accoding to Misplaced Pages guidelines, a neutral point of view "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity." So avoiding language that disparages autistic people should be a priority, as long as it doesn't otherwise violate neutrality (or other guidelines). The Manual of Style also explicitly states, in case there was any doubt: "Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate." Oolong (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC) This paper mentions the tensions between autistic people and the research community, calling for a paradigm shift in biomedical autism research. The authors are important figures in Europe's largest autism research project, AIMS-2-Trials. It could be cited at the end of the second paragraph where it is about the controversy between the models. LogicalLens (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Redraft I have re-drafted the lead below. As you will see, I have adopted many but not all of LogicalLens's suggestions. Brevity has been my biggest consideration where I have not accepted their changes; in a couple of cases, I have left the wording as it was in the name of maximising neutrality. One or two other bits have been tweaked for the sake of clarity or, again, brevity. "Health authorities classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder" is shorter, for example, and, I think, unambiguously accurate; the reason the diagnostic manuals and guidelines are seen as important is because they are produced and endorsed by medical or public health authorities, after all. I have also tweaked the description of the social model of disability slightly, and the following sentence now reads "It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling" - I take LL's point that this is argued by many of the same people taking the former position, so saying 'other people' here (let alone 'other scientists'!) was misleading. Few proponents of the medical model are absolutist about it, certainly in the context of the neurodiversity movement. Autism, referred to in clinical contexts as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication; the presence of repetitive behavior and restricted interests; and unusual responses to sensory stimuli. Being a spectrum, autism manifests in various ways, and support needs vary widely between different autistic people. For example, some are nonspeaking, while others have proficient spoken language. Health authorities classify autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder. An alternative perspective, arising out of autistic communities, is neurodiversity, which positions autism as a healthy part of the diversity of humankind, rather than a disorder - with advantages, as well as disadvantages. This is usually associated with some version of the social model of disability, suggesting that disability generally arises when a person's environment does not accommodate their needs. It can also be argued that autism can be inherently disabling. There is a significant controversy between the neurodiversity perspective and the medical model of disability among autistic people, practitioners, researchers and charities. Support for the neurodiversity approach has greatly increased in recent years among all of these groups. The causes of autism are unknown in most individual cases. Research shows that autism is highly heritable and polygenic. Environmental factors are also relevant. Autism frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, and intellectual disability, and research indicates that autistic people have significantly higher rates of LGBTQ+ identities and feelings than the general population. Autistic people are also significantly more likely to experience anxiety and depression, especially if they try to hide their autistic traits. There is ongoing debate within the autism community and among researchers regarding diagnostic criteria, whether there are meaningful subtypes or stages of autism, and the significance of autism-associated traits in the wider population.. Estimates of autism prevalence have increased greatly since the 1990s, mainly due to the combination of broader criteria and increased awareness; there is disagreement on whether the actual prevalence has increased. The increase in reported prevalence has reinforced the myth perpetuated by anti-vaccine activists that autism is caused by vaccines. Boys are more frequently diagnosed than girls, although this gap has been narrowing. I await guidance from @Robert McClenon on how to proceed with feeding back on and refining this draft. --Oolong (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Oolong, I sometimes find it hard to find/re-find draft text amidst the wall of other text on the page. Would you mind using something like the {{tq2}} template to set the draft text off? (That's the template I'm familiar with, but perhaps there's another that has a similar effect.) Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) FYI (for everyone): {{tq2}} = {{tqb}} = Template:Talk quote block -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Ah, I wondered what markup you were using for that! Yes, I'm happy to - but note that this one has the heading #Redraft so you should be able to find it that way! Oolong (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Oolong - I like your "redraft" too. I have a couple of (relatively minor) questions or comments, but I will wait to post them on the Rfc when that is set up. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks Mark! Oolong (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Note that the main part of the process is now on a separate subpage. @Robert McClenon, would it make sense to collapse this whole section if people are meant to be replying elsewhere now? Thanks! Oolong (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator (Autism) I thank the editors who are developing a proposed revised draft of the lede section. I have one question, and that is: Do you think that you will be able to develop a draft that has the support of those editors who want to rework the article to reflect the neurodiversity viewpoint? My plan, as I have noted above, is to prepare an RFC for the lede section, knowing that it may have to be revised again after the body of the article is revised. I am responding to the comments about the walls of text that have been posted by moving this dispute. I have created two DRN subpages for the discussion of the article on Autism. I am copying all of the material except the back-and-forth discussion to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism, and am requesting that future work be in that subpages. I have copied the back-and-forth discussion to a separate subpage, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism discussion. In the near future, I will be collapsing the previous dispute resolution on Autism in the main DRN page so that it does not overwhelm other cases. Are there any questions at this point either about future procedures for this task, or about the Autism dispute in general? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Hi, I'd still appreciate a brief answer to the three questions I posted in your Sixth statement section,. Thank you, FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) For the benefit of anyone else seeing this: questions have now been answered on the separate subpage. Thanks to both of you! Oolong (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion (Autism) See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Autism discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Димитрий Улянов Иванов, my understanding is that by "community consensus," Robert McClenon means consensus via an RfC advertised to the community at large; elsewhere, he contrasted that with "local consensus here" (i.e., consensus only among the editors participating in this DRN). Re: "Numerous other editors who indicated their support for maintaining the current framing are not included in this DRN," at least one of them was invited to participate here but declined (as did some editors who don't support the current framing); participation here is entirely voluntary. My understanding is that you can invite wider participation as long as the invitation is consistent with the guidelines in WP:Canvassing; however, since the existence of this DRN has already been advertised on the Autism talk page, I don't know that there are any other venues that would make sense to advertise it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I'm baffled as to why my comment has that visual appearance. I don't see anything in the source editor that would result in that. Apologies, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) You have a space before the first curly bracket, that produces the 'box effect'. Feel free to remove this pointer once you have edited your text. Urselius (talk) Fixed. Thank you! FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) I see, thank you for clarifying this! I will see if I can promote the DRN elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as well Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Димитрий Улянов Иванов wrote (above): ... standardised diagnostic criteria, which include the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-11 and the American Psychological Association (APA) DSM-5. These exist primarily to establish the diagnosis of ASD; they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD, for it is not even mentioned. (a) Correction: The American Psychiatric Association publishes the DSM. (b) "... it is not even mentioned." - What is not mentioned? (c) "they are not attempting to promote medicalisation of ASD" - I encourage you to consider the history of mental disorders listed in the DSM. For example, until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and therefore a medical disorder, since the DSM is published by an organization of physicians. For many years, including for many years after 1973, children, adolescents, and adults were told that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a psychopathology that requires long-term treatment to (possibly) eliminate the mental illness—such as the medical treatment provided to Alan Turing. Simply listing an alleged disorder in the DSM medicalizes it. I hope you understand this important point. At the same time, there are some important differences between homosexuality and autism spectrum disorders, so I should make clear that I am not comparing them in most aspects. I actually agree with you that autism spectrum disorders are neurodevelopmental disorders. However, this article is about autism, not just autism spectrum disorders. Also, we are an encyclopedia, not a professional treatment guideline or diagnostic manual, so it is important for us to discuss political, sociological, phenomenological, and many other aspects of autism. The article will still be about, mostly, a neurodevelopmental disorder. But it will also include an enriched understanding, grounded in reliable sources, that reviews the many facets of this condition, including the lived experience of people diagnosed with it. What we're trying to do is get away from narrow, rigid editing that creates articles that sound like a psychiatric treatment textbook. -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) a) By that statement, I meant the DSM criteria for ASD does not mention medical treatments. b) Sorry, I made a typo there, indeed the American Psychiatric, and not Psychological, Association publishes the DSM. Note that while they are not the direct publishers, the American Psychological Association among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists. c) I understand your concern but you are specifically referencing borderline pre-scientific conceptions of disorders that have no bearing on our modern outlook. In the early DSM iterations, homosexuality was indeed implicitly included as a disorder. This was largely because of political reasons and an idiosyncratic interpretation of what qualifies as a disorder. For decades since then, there has been a global scientific consensus (Barkley et al., 2002; Faraone et al., 2021) that for something to qualify as a disorder it must meet two criteria. First, there must be scientifically established evidence of a dysfunction or deviation in a trait universal to humans. One may argue homosexuality meets this first criteria as it deviates from the more typical heterosexuality in the underlying spectrum of sexuality universal to humans. However, the second criteria requires this deviation or dysfunction causes significant impairment or distress in major life domains and/or predisposes to increased morbidity and early mortality. Homosexuality does not meet this criteria and is therefore not a disorder; whilst some homosexual people may experience problems due to societal oppression and discrimination, this is not attributable to the condition itself. This is ultimately why we can't compare things like homosexuality and transgender (which are not impairing or disabling) to neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD (which are). I'm know you agree with this differentiation and are aware of the criterion for establishing disorders, but it seems I need to describe it so we can avoid these sort of comparisons. It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to prescribe medical treatment. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP). No guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD. I'm aware and have personally dealt with the fact that DSM committees are far from perfect and make egregious errors at times, including for political reasons, which is why I have not relied on the DSM at all. This was much worse back in its early versions indeed, but has improved substantially since. It was one reputable reference of many I have provided. I'd like to ask you please consider re-reading my statement, the citations, and the contexts of the aforementioned scientific literature which go far beyond medicine. The article is about autism which is a neurodevelopmental disorder. If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I'm puzzled by your comment that "It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." It seems that your assessment of whether something is medicalized is a function of whether it's treated/treatable with medication. Have I misunderstood how you assess whether something has been medicalized? There are many medical concerns that are addressed through behavioral or other adaptations rather than medication (e.g., through physical therapy, condom use, hand washing, use of mosquito nets, exercise, water treatment). When I look at the terminology used for many of the main headings in the article (e.g., symptoms, diagnosis, etiology, comorbidities, interventions, prevention, prognosis, epidemiology), these strike me as mostly medical terms, and certainly the combination strikes me as a medical perspective (e.g., if you do an internet search for that set of words, the results are medical conditions). Would you mind clarifying how you assess whether something has been medicalized? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I don't like it when neurotypical people say "every one is on the spectrum" but luckily you only almost said that: "From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism." So everyone has everything then? You didn't say that but this idea of people-having-something-but-it-not-being-bad-enough-to-count could be used on any condition or disability, at least in a social way like when talking to people, you could use it to offend and devaluatie someone. "starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder." But only a little bit so it doesn't count. I understand, but personally I only think the autistic ones are autistic, but that's off topic. Anthony2106 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Anthony, I believe there are two different ways to understand the "ASD" spectrum. One works like this: All the neurotypical people get put in this big neurotypical bubble over here: ⭕️. They are not on the spectrum because they are not autistic. All the autistic people are excluded from the neurotypical bubble, and they line up along the autistic spectrum, ranging from . The spectrum runs (more or less, because being autistic is a multidimensional experience, and this is an over-simplifed two-dimensional spectrum) from "barely qualifies as autistic" to "extremely autistic". The other works like this: All humans have a place on the spectrum of human variation. Everyone is somewhere in the colors. The extremely neurotypical people are at one end, and the extremely autistic people are at the other end. People who are not at the extremes line up somewhere in the middle. This is "everyone is on the spectrum"; that spectrum runs from "extremely non-autistic" to "extremely autistic". I have my own preferences, and I think it's confusing to use the word "spectrum" to describe both the spectrum of autistic people and the spectrum of all humans, but neither of these is bad or wrong. It may help if people are clear about which meaning they're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Way #1 is better, also some people believe you can't be more or less autistic I think I mostly agree with this unless the person is intellectually impaired, or maybe that just means their intellectually impaired. Anyway yt is bad for Misplaced Pages but if there are any other sources that fell this way it should probably be mentioned on the page: "some autism advocates say you can't compare who's more or less autistic". Anthony2106 (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I agree that moving away from the psychoanalytic diagnostic model to a research based model with DSM-III was a major improvement. However, my point is that including a condition in a medical diagnostic manual has the potential for both positive and negative impacts on people in a variety of ways. By itself, this is of course not a reason to exclude or include a condition in a medical diagnostic manual, it's simply one of many considerations. Note that I am intentionally calling the DSM a "medical diagnostic manual", because psychiatry is a branch of medicine. With regard to the American Psychological Association, while some psychologists and other non-physician professionals serve on DSM committees, there is no doubt that this is an American psychiatric Association publication and that psychiatrists run the show. A useful way to highlight this distinction is to note that the American psychological association is not listed as an author or copyright holder for the DSM, and does not earn any income from the sale of the DSM and all that related products associated with it. On the other hand, the American Psychiatric Association makes a ton of money with their copyright and trademark of the DSM name and contents. Since we, in the United States, live in a country with a free market economy (capitalism), all I can say is more power to them. But my point here is that while some psychologists are involved, it is the psychiatrists who are in charge and make the final decisions. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I feel puzzled by the statements <quote> If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). From my understanding, everyone is on the spectrum that underlies autism. But the autism spectrum is a dichotomy imposed on this spectrum, starting where people have autism to represent its different severity levels; as such, the autism spectrum is not applicable to people who do not have the disorder. If I have misinterpreted this, please let me know </quote> at many levels. Firstly, somebody can show less extent of Autistic traits yet be more stressed/ impaired due to mismatch with environment or bad consequences. A person with more significantly severe symptoms might be less stressed / do better with better support and understanding. School or workplace problems, self ha*rm, agressions meltdowns etc are often caused by stressful situations the person is unable to handle. When an Autistic (or non-Autistic) person cannot cope up and end up with traumatic complication (according to their own nervous system), it is called PTSD/ CPTSD. When a person shows significant level of Autistic traits then the person is called Autistic. When the person cannot function due to these (better to say a more sensitive nervous system that gets messed up in the same stimuli that neurotypicals comfortably digest) and enters into a state of shutdown or paralysis or bad condition, it is called PTSD/ CPTSD co-occuring with Autism. Autism is primarily defined as a social and communication disorder, and it takes at least 2 people to establish communication. Telling only one of them having communication disorder just because this group is less understood and less in number, is ridiculous. The mismatch between interaction is the key factor that make us appear functionally impaired. People do not fluctuate in and out impairment: Autistic people remain same level of Autistic. The stress level, mental stability, cope-up power fluctuates depending upon incidences and environment. No, everyone is DAMN not little bit Autistic. If everyone was somewhere on the Autism spectrum, then understanding and accommodation would NOT be this hard, we would NOT be so much misunderstood and judged. It is true that many people are misdiagnosed with a secondary mental health condition only. Or miss a diagnosis, never come to know they were Autistic, or access a diagnosis late in life... as a surprise discovery or accidental medical finding on some weird or traumatic life phase. STILL, no, NOT everyone in the planet is anywhere on the spectrum. The Autism spectrum is multidimensional, and the severity level is an unhelpful linear oversimplification of Autism spectrum. Because different Autistics have their needs and strengths in very different cognitive and sensori-motor domains. So called mild Autistics can have a different set of more severe problems, so called severe Autistics can have less problem in those domains. Each Auyistics go through different life situations. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The goal should be reducing or minimizing the traumatic state. We can also prevent traumatic situation to some degree if diagnosis, support, and information are more accessible. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) To quote Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test: "Regarding scientific evidence, there is evidence for both neurodiversity and disorder. For example, at the genetic level, about 5 percent 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 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation. At the neural level, some regions of the autistic brain (such as the amygdala, in childhood) are larger, and others (such as the posterior section of the corpus callosum) are smaller. These are evidence of difference but not necessarily disorder. Early brain overgrowth is another sign of difference but not necessarily disorder." See: https://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2019_Baron-Cohen_Concept-of-neurodiversity.pdf I think that in and of itself, this single quotation destroys the idea that the scientific consensus is only supportive of the 'medical model' of autism. It also effectively discredits its corollary, that scientists reject the 'neurodiverity model' of autism, or consign it to the realms of 'fringe theory'. I suggest that Baron-Cohen's ideas on the equal and complimentary nature of the two models is a useful paradigm for the treatment of autism on Misplaced Pages. Urselius (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) I hope that Baron-Cohen isn't actually claiming, as it sounds from this quotation, that anything resulting from SNP mutations is "natural variation", because some SNP mutations result in deadly diseases (e.g., some forms of cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Premature death could be described as "natural" but it's not what most people think of as "natural variation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) That is exactly what he is claiming. The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial. He is contrasting SNPs with larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications, which are almost always highly deleterious. The major determinant of blue eyes in humans is a SNP in the OCA2 gene, known as rs12913832, I doubt that possessing blue eyes can be called a 'deadly disease'. Even if Baron-Cohen is not a molecular biologist by training, I am. Urselius (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) I think it is easier to interpret Baron-Cohen's sense here if you omit SNPs, which are given as an example: '50 percent of the variance in autism can be attributed to common genetic variants which simply reflect individual differences or natural variation'. There's no implication that all SNPs 'simply reflect natural variation', on my reading... but either way, it's worth bearing in mind that the term 'natural' is notoriously slippery. Sounds positive; actually includes all sorts of value-neutral or feared phenomena. Oolong (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Baron-Cohen is saying that many of the SNPs involved in autism are part of the natural variation within humanity as a whole. That is, he is pointing to these SNPs as being part of neurodiversity. A simplified corollary would be, again, the major blue eye colour SNP. Blue eye SNPs are found throughout populations of European descent, but an individual only displays blue eyes when they have two copies of the OCA2 gene with the SNP. With autism-associated SNPs, the individual will only display autism when they have above a certain threshold number of the alleles containing the 'autism SNPs'. It is a simple concept. For the majority of the population with lower numbers of autism-associated SNPs, they are not autistic and the individual SNPs may be neutral or even beneficial in their effects. Some autism-associated SNPs are connected to higher than average academic attainment. SNP variants as such can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. I have a number of Neanderthal-derived SNPs, one that affects my muscles - makes me a better sprinter than distance runner, two that make me less fearful of heights and one that means I do not get agitated or moody when hungry. SNPs are variable in their effects they are just changes to one nucleotide, it is where and how that change occurs that determines its phenotypic outcome. The concept of SNPs is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself. Urselius (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Yup! Thanks for that authoritative summary. :) Oolong (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Urselius, if Baron-Cohen is actually using the molecular mechanism as a way to define "normal human variation", then that's quite WP:Extraordinary. He'd be defining XYY syndrome – which is mostly harmless – as a "disorder" and most cases of Phenylketonuria – which can be deadly – as normal variation. Let's find better sources for determining what "normal human variation" is. I suspect (but would be happy to be proven wrong) that those better sources are going to rely more on the phenotype, e.g., "It is not 'normal' for children to scream for multiple hours a day." WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) WhatamIdoing, I think the difference between "natural" and "normal" might be meaningful here. Among the meanings of "natural" (the word in the Baron-Cohen quote) is "typical" or "normal," but another is "found in nature." When I read Urselius's comment that "The majority of natural human variation consists of SNPs. Some can indeed cause disease states, but very many are neutral, especially in non-coding regions or where the SNP does not affect the coded amino acid, while some are beneficial," my sense is that "natural" is being used in the second sense, not the first. My interpretation of Urselius's comment is that most human variation found in nature "consists for SNPs," where that variation might result in disease, or have a neutral effect, or be a beneficial change. Elsewhere in the short article, Baron-Cohen explains some of the terms he's using: The term “disorder” is used when an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown, whilst the term “disease” is used when a disorder can be ascribed to a specific causal mechanism. The term “disability” is used when an individual is below average on a standardized measure of functioning and when this causes suffering in a particular environment. In contrast, the term “difference” simply refers to variation in a trait, like having blue or brown eyes. So I don't think he'd say that XYY syndrome is a disorder, and he might say that phenylketonuria is natural in the sense of "found in nature," but not natural in the sense of "normal." He doesn't define how he's using either "natural" or "normal" and only uses each one time in the article, and even then, he only uses "normal" inside quotation marks: Many autistic people—especially those who have intact language and no learning difficulties such that they can self-advocate—have adopted the neurodiversity framework, coining the term “neurotypical” to describe the majority brain and seeing autism as an example of diversity in the set of all possible diverse brains, none of which is “normal” and all of which are simply different. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) If the relevant definition is "found in nature", then "larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications" are equally "natural". It sounds like we need a definition of "dysfunction". (We leave aside the fact that asymptomatic dysfunction is also a medical disorder, since his focus is on behavioral health.) Is it a "dysfunction" if you are "below average on a standardized measure of functioning"? In a less politicized area, such as low back pain, we would say that you have a "dysfunction" or a "disorder" if you are significantly worse than average on standardized measures of functioning, such as the ability to lean forward without pain. If an autistic person is significantly below average on a standardized measure of functioning, e.g., social communication, then would that not be "a disorder"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I think which definition is relevant depends on the context. Yes, if the intended meaning is "'found in nature', then 'larger scale changes to DNA, such as deletions, transpositions and duplications' are equally 'natural'". But Urselius indicated that the human variation that results from larger scale changes to DNA is less common than the variation that results from SNPs, and that SNPs and larger scale changes to DNA have different distributions of deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects. I'm guessing that "dysfunction" is meant as something like "impaired function relative to what's typical for a healthy person." I wouldn't think that simply being below average necessarily means that you're atypical, since "typical for a healthy person" is often a range, and someone can be below average but still in that healthy range. However, significantly below would indicate dysfunction. I don't understand your last question: why would it not be a disorder? Seems to me that it falls in his description of disorder: "an individual shows symptoms that are causing dysfunction and where the cause is unknown." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) To a first approximation, all mutations are lethal. For the uncommon subset of mutations that both produce a practical effect and aren't immediately lethal, then on average, bigger changes are more damaging than smaller changes. However, that's about the average, and as a simple example, a single SNP mutation can change the three-letter code for a Tyr or Cys amino acid into a stop codon, which has the same practical effect as a deletion of the rest of that gene. It would be silly to say that cystic fibrosis caused by a deletion is a "disease" but cystic fibrosis caused by an unfortunately located stop codon "simply reflect individual differences or natural variation" when both cases are producing the same partial and equally ineffective protein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Yeah, I'm assuming that the discussion isn't about mutations that are immediately lethal and is instead about human variation among those who are born. Re: your example, aren't they both examples of "variation found in nature," with both cases resulting in disease? Somehow I'm missing the point of your example. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) The point is that declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation' is nonsense. The genetic mechanism is less important than the practical result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) But I don't think anyone is declaring "deletions" to be 'disorder' and "SNPs" to be 'normal variation'. As I understand it, both deletions and SNPs are "natural variation" (not in the sense of "normal"), and either can produce disorder, but disorder is a more common result with the former than the latter (excluding all of the mutations that are immediately lethal). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) This is an awful lot of discussion of what I'm fairly sure is a misunderstanding of what SBC said in the first place. Maybe it could be good to refocus on redrafting, with the odd excursion into things directly relevant to that process? Oolong (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I can't really contribute to the redrafting, and perhaps I should stop participating entirely. At any rate, I will try to be more mindful about whether or not my comments are productive with respect to the dispute resolution and to avoid those that are peripheral. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Is a reliable biological difference between autism with intellectual disability and autism without intellectual disability an established theory or is it just a conjecture posed by some? I wonder why those who advocate for viewing autistic people with intellectual disabilities as disordered don't seem to use this as an argument (apart from Baron-Cohen) and even scientific sources don't often mention it and instead refer to there being multiple subtypes some of which have a somewhat higher likelihood of intellectual disability than others. In the talk section, you wrote (Talk:Autism#c-Urselius-20241218203600-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241218172800) about your achievements, marriage, children, house owning and savings in order to counter claims of impairment. Maybe you have read about the social model of disability in the meantime, but showing how much we achieve is not necessary for countering disorder narratives. It can even come close to Aspie supremacism () because it implies that one's brain is superior to that of an autistic person with intellectual disability. There is certainly a hope for a biological difference among autistic people without intellectual disability who want to distance themselves from what they call the "really impaired" ones. From my perspective (I'm not a geneticist or neuroscientist) it looks more like there is no clear boundary between the two, but please correct me if I'm wrong. LogicalLens (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I don't necessarily doubt the status of this scientist but it is quite a fallacious argument from authority to use this to help perceive the reputability of a source (as it seems implied to me). People are fallible, scientific consensus is usually much less so. I'm glad you point towards how neurodiversity and disorder as concepts are not mutually exclusive. The issue is with the so-called Neurodiversity Movement, specifically the subset of its advocates who argue they are incompatible and thus assert ASD is not a real disorder. The validity of ASD as a neurodevelopmental of course doesn't deny the underlying neurological diversity that leads to the disorder. But what's been empirically demonstrated is that once this diversity becomes sufficiently severe, significant impairment in major life domains, distress and/or predisposition to morbidity, injury and early mortality arise. I'd like to note the scientific consensus for concluding ASD is a disorder isn't medically based, regardless of whether people wish to impose this term on it in order to contrast it with a "social model". Diagnosticians do not necessarily prescribe medical treatment but merely affirm the presence or absence of a disorder or other form of condition. No medication has been found to reduce the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no reputable guidelines, to my knowledge, have approved use of any medication for ASD. This doesn't take away from the fact that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, as noted by Nelson (2020). In the list of references, the terminology is not invalidated but actually consistently used in subfields of ASD that are unrelated to medicine. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) A consensus is not a consensus if a major player does not subscribe to it. Baron-Cohen, amongst active researchers in the field of autism, is far from being alone in his views. There was a scientific consensus that space was pervaded by aether, which was the 'carrier' for electromagnetic radiation, until the work of Einstein disproved it. Scientists, let alone medics, can adhere to incorrect consensuses. More cogently, science can also admit the possible validity of two or more differing hypotheses or theories at the same time, if the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. Urselius (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) The field of contributors and published literature in ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher or publication to wave the scientific consensus. Keep in mind that the argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature would occur. Citing the scientific consensus shouldn't be automatically untrustworthy because it has been wrong in the past. This implication ignores the Darwinian self-corrective process that is the scientific enterprise---proposing, testing, and refining based on the evidence thus far obtained. Even when paradigm shifts occur in science, it is exceedingly rare that the prior model is discarded but rather superseded by a more comprehensive model, e.g., the introduction of General Relativity didn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics (to expand on the example topic you cited). An appeal to scientific consensus isn't fallacious in the same way appealing to a singular authority is. For instance, if every single chemist alive unanimously agrees on the existence of the periodic table, then it's very indicative of the fact that that's how molecules work. This would be so even if I am unqualified to understand the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) A consensus is a generally accepted opinion, it comes close to suggesting unanimity. As I have said, Baron-Cohen is not just eminent in the field of autism research he is far from alone! Here are just some scientific/medical publications and their authors that challenge your consensus: Akhtar, N., & Jaswal, V.K. (2013). Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths: An introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–3. Bagatell, N. (2010). From cure to community: Transforming notions of autism. Ethos, 38, 33–55. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (Eds.) (2020). Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. London: Routledge. Callanan, M., & Waxman, S. (2013). Commentary on special section: Deficit or difference? Interpreting diverse developmental paths. Developmental Psychology, 49, 80–83. Dawson, M., & Mottron, L. (2011). Do autistics have cognitive strengths? Should ASC be defined as disorders? In S. Bolte & J. Hallmayer (Eds.), Autism spectrum conditions: FAQs on autism, Asperger syndrome, and atypical autism answered by international experts (pp. 32–39). Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider's perspective. Autism, 23, 271–273. Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20, 20–30. Leadbitter, K., Buckle, K.L., Ellis, C., & Dekker, M. (2021). Autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement: Implications for autism early intervention research and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(Article 635690), 1–7. Nicolaidis, C. (2012). What can physicians learn from the neurodiversity movement? American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 14, 503–510. Robertson, S.M. (2010). Neurodiversity, quality of life, and autistic adults: Shifting research and professional focuses onto real-life challenges. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30. Einstein's work did entirely consign the concept of aether to the dustbin. Your extrapolation, away from the point I was making, in no way invalidates that assertion, or the mutability of scientific consensuses. Urselius (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) As with the term 'medical', it's unclear what 'scientific consensus' means to you, which is why I have pressed you on this before. It appears that you do not mean the same thing as what other participants here mean by the phrase. I would argue that it is not a 'fallacious argument from authority' to point out that the author of the single most-cited paper on autism (Mota et al 2024) publicly disagrees with the putative 'scientific consensus', and that this indicates that it is in fact something short of a consensus among scientists. There are, however, many other, stronger lines of evidence for this conclusion, as discussed exhaustively elsewhere. Evidently, a large number of relevant scientists actively disagree with the position you are describing. As such, it straightforwardly does not fit what most people mean by the phrase 'scientific consensus' - hence my sense that in order to move forward, we need you to explain exactly what you mean by the term. To return to the question of what 'medical' means, when you say 'diagnosis', do you not intend it in the sense of 'medical diagnosis'? If not, please clarify. Oolong (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Respectfully, and as I take into account my time constraints, I don't think us conversing or debating the specific issue again of whether a large number of scientists disagree would be worthwhile. I believe we've already made our positions clear in the talk page about the juxtaposition of sources, and what Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest, at least as we perceive them, so it would just be a regurgitation of essentially the same points that weren't convincing the first time. With that said, I'm not arguing that citing a single source is an argument from authority, but rather the insertion of "a very well respected scientific researcher (world renowned) and theorist of autism and one of the developers of the AQ autism test" is fallaciously implying we should consider their opinion at a higher regard than sources who don't exhibit this subjective status of respect or have developed the AQ autism test. I understand why people like to mention this sort of background context; in fact, I sometimes do similar things in informal settings to show my admiration of a scientist; but it's fallacious given the context. To give an analogy, if Stephen Hawking had told someone or had published a scientific article concluding that the moon was made out of cheese, we would have had little or no reason to accept this as fact on Misplaced Pages. If he published a scientific paper, peer-reviewed it and the referees of the entire scientific community astonishingly did not find anything wrong with it, we arguably would have to. Citing a singular source isn't fallacious but, in our context, is insufficient. This is because ASD and its subfields far transcends the potential for a single researcher's stance to wave the existing consensus. I'd like to be clear: this does not suggest a researcher is unable to be right about the consensus being wrong. The argument supporting a conclusion is contained in the evidence put forward that the scientific consensus is based on, not by any one or group of scientists stating the consensus. Thus, if one researcher presented sufficient evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, naturally a paradigm shift in the literature and by extent, the consensus, would occur. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding here relating to the meaning of words, particularly consensus. I have pointed this out a number of times, but you are still not addressing it. The eminence of SBC in the field of autism is clearly relevant to the weight of his dissent from the supposed scientific consensus (although if it was just him, there might be a conversation to be had). When multiple leading scientists in a field disagree, there is simply not a consensus. Oolong (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC) @Urselius I do not like Simon Baron Cohen. For his claims regarding lack of empathy, for his weird extreme male brain theories, his eugenetic ideas and close association with Spectrum-10K, a controversial study. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) You are entitled to your dislike. However, your opinion does not affect Baron-Cohen's standing in the field of autism research. I think you will find that he has quietly distanced himself from the extreme male brain theory and generalised lack of empathy (towards specific difficulties with cognitive empathy) over recent years. Urselius (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) There seems to be a basic difference in understanding here of what 'medical', 'medicalisation' and related terms mean. The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is published by the American Psychiatric Association. It is absolutely, fundamentally, a medical document: a clinical handbook. If you look down the list of contributors, you'll see significantly more 'M.D.' than 'Ph.D.' Similarly, ESCAP is the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Psychiatry is a medical field. Psychiatrists are, by definition, doctors. NICE is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. ICD is the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which Misplaced Pages describes as 'a globally used medical classification', and so on. I have never encountered the suggestion before that these things could plausibly be considered non-medical; I'm not sure what definition Dmitri has in mind here, but from the context I wonder if he's interpreting it only to refer to medication? I believe that nearly everybody here would interpret the term medical to include the above. Some might prefer clinical, but the distinction is largely academic, and 'medical' is the standard term used for the approaches in question. Hopefully with this misunderstanding cleared up, we can move on to a sober evaluation of the views of relevant scientists in general, and others with relevant expertise. --Oolong (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC) oh, and just quickly, here's a rundown of the references referred to above, and here is a post with most of my other references (regarding the opinions of relevant scientists and other experts). The Tom Shakespeare chapter is in an edited collection published by Routledge, which the original reference made quite clear, and was included merely to provide a clear and authoritative account of the social model of disability. The Dwyer et al paper provides a thorough exploration of the relationship between neurodiversity and the social model of disability, and gives considerable insight into the views of relevant stakeholders (autistic people, professionals, family members and so on; the paper breaks this down in detail). The description of what the "autism rights movement" says about disability in the current lead is unambiguously wrong. Oolong (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) While they are not the direct publishers, the American Psychological Association among other professional groups collaborate to develop and produce the DSM which consists of a variety of experts, such as neuropsychologists, beyond psychiatrists. For example, the APA wrote during the development of the DSM-5: "The American Psychological Association has members with significant expertise in the scientific areas relevant to the DSM, and we have urged them to take part in the DSM revision efforts. We are encouraged that many psychologists are making meaningful contributions to the process as individuals, as members of the DSM-5 Task Force and work groups, and through the divisions of the American Psychological Association." The C in NICE does not stand for "clinical"; it is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, where we produce guidelines that concern matters beyond clinically related efforts. NICE guidelines for ASD do focus more on diagnosis, management, accommodations and clinical advice (but not to the exclusion of other contexts), but I am not relying solely on NICE national guidelines but other reputable sources as well that cover other subfields and contexts. These show how the terminology is not valid exclusively in a medical nor a clinical context. Beyond this, we should not be relying on the name of a guideline developer or public health body or even their overarching publication to contextualise it. This is very misleading. Yes, the D in ICD stands for diseases but it encapsulates conditions that are not diseases, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, thereby disqualifying the context you are interpreting through the name. Such names are often made as a matter of convenience or sustained due to complicity that would otherwise arise. The International Guidelines of ASD from ESCAP cover: "prevalence, socio/environmental considerations, prognosis in autism, assessments in adulthood, provide access to full and effective participation and inclusion in society, common co‑occurring conditions, early markers of autism, individual rights, making the environment more “autism friendly”, transition to adulthood, social skills, naturalistic learning/development, treatments for co-occurring conditions" Therefore, it is far from limited to a medical context. This is true for many of the other citations I gave - some of which do not even mention medical topics - and the quotes I used to demonstrate this (see the two lists I linked in my statement). While it's sometimes obfuscated with other, more overarching terms like "clinical", according to Oxford Languages, medical means: "relating to the science or practice of medicine." While I am fluent, English isn't my first language, so I apologise if it's in fact synonymous with "clinical" or something alike, but I've always thought of "medical" as referring to "medicine" and not a specific, more overarching context. It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it. It's simply a diagnostic manual, as is the ICD, with many diagnosticians not necessarily using the diagnosis to conduct medical or clinical interventions. Certainly, a diagnosis opens the gateway for medical treatment in cases where it is suitable but this is not itself the only purpose of the DSM. No medication has been found that reduces the core symptoms of ASD (see guidelines from ESCAP) and no guidelines I know of have approved use of any medication for ASD symptoms. Yet, ASD is diagnosable according to the DSM and ICD. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Hi Димитрий Улянов Иванов, I'm wondering if you'd find WP's discussion of "medicalization" to be helpful. It still seems that you're interpreting/using it in a sense that's narrower than its actual meaning. "Clinical" (when used in phrases like "clinical diagnosis," "clinical research," and "clinical evidence") means that the work involves direct observation of a patient. So "clinical" overlaps significantly with "medical," as the patient is most often someone interacting with the medical system (e.g., a doctor's patient, a hospital patient). When you talk about the DSM as a diagnostic manual, who do you envision doing the diagnosis of ASD? (Pediatricians? neurologists? psychologists? members of some other group?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you, @FactOrOpinion; and thank you, @Димитрий Улянов Иванов, for finally addressing the question of what you think 'medical' means. I hope you are starting to see why I have been pressing you to define terms that are at the centre of disagreements here: I think there is an ambiguity in the English terms medical and medicine that has been tripping you up. Yes, 'medical' refers to medicine, but usually in the sense of 'what doctors do', not the 'substance which specifically promotes healing when ingested or consumed in some way' sense. I hope you can see how this makes sense of many of the claims you have been arguing with. There has obviously been some arguing at cross-purposes happening, as I figured there must have been. And you are right, of course, that the C in NICE no longer stands for Clinical - I did know that they'd changed their name at some point, but obviously the old acronym was lodged deep in my brain, and I forgot in the moment. Oolong (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) @Oolong, @FactOrOpinion, @Anthony2106, @Urselius, just writing to let you all know that I appreciate your replies here, sorry for the delays in being able to reply to many of your comments Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you, Oolong, for clarifying the meaning and connotations of that term. I do now see how I have been obfuscating the word to refer to medicine itself too much. More broadly, it can refer to the examination to assess a person's mental state/health as well, which would include diagnosis. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) <quote>"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it."</quote> I do not agree that the current Misplaced Pages version reflects that. Discussions to much regarding causes, prognosis, treatments etc. revolve around medicalization and intervention centered weight in the topic. The current version of the article revolves around pathology and promotes behavioral suppression. It feels like the other viewpoints, other consensus, and especially necessary details on AAC and social support has not received sufficient importance. The actually helpful things are critically missing from the article. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for acknowledging this. In your position I would want to apologise to @TempusTacet and @Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, whose points you persistently, angrily dismissed based on this misunderstanding. Your call, though, obviously. One small point here, just in case of possible future misunderstandings: it doesn't just refer to the examination; as one Medical News Today article puts it, "Medicine is the field of health and healing. It includes nurses, doctors, and various specialists. It covers diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, medical research, and many other aspects of health." Oolong (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) In case anyone is confused: Oolong's comment is a reply to Димитрий, and not to Rit Rajarshi, even though it is located after it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I didn’t "angrily dismiss" anyone’s points. In fact, the discussion you cite was about the degree to which the global scientific consensus pertains to the various subfields in ASD. I provided ample evidence to show how the terminology is applicable to many subfields and contexts that are not medical, diagnostic or clinical. This is consistent with the broader definition of "medical" that I have acknowledged, as supported by the references and quotes I cited; so, bringing this up is irrelevant. More generally, the were a number of misrepresentations and false accusations of strawmen fallacies in that talk page to which I constructively pointed out. At no point did I use insults, ad hominem attacks or other rhetoric to express some sort of "anger". I also don't appreciate you apologising to people on my behalf. Your reply just seems to be attempting to elicit some sort of response from me, so I'll just leave this at the comments I have provided already. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) That's an interesting interpretation. Perhaps you'd like to revisit those exchanges, now that you know what everyone else means by 'medicine' and 'medical', and clarify exactly which of these references and subfields you think are not medical. It would be helpful if you could provide us with an updated list of just the ones that are not from medical/clinical sources (which obviously include psychiatric organisations) and address the arguments made by the above in light of this new list. Thanks. Also, you go on claiming a "scientific consensus". Can you clarify which of your sources substantiates this claim? As the guidelines quoted in that essay you like state clearly, such claims should only be made if backed up by reliable references specifically making those claims. Again, I don't know what your working definition of the phrase 'scientific consensus' might be. For reference, mine would be on the lines of 'when there is little to no dissent, among respected scientists in relevant fields, on a scientific question'. Oolong (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you, you are perfectly correct. I now see how the term has at least two meanings, one which refers more specifically to medicine itself or its connotations while it can also refer to examining the health or status of a person and thus encapsulates diagnosis more broadly. So indeed, psychologists diagnosing ASD can be thought of under "medical", at least in contexts where the term is prompted I guess. Thanks! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) For the ICD and "diseases", I think we can give much better examples of non-disease medical conditions. Consider: ICD-10 Z34, normal pregnancy ICD-10 L64, male-pattern baldness ICD-10 E34.3, constitutional short stature ICD-10 Q85.2, any ordinary birth mark If you want to consider things that run on a spectrum from normal to abnormal, then consider: Menstrual cramps Flatulence Anxiety Hunger (physiology) Fatigue WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks, that’s quite right :) Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The key word in the above post is, again, medical. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Do you think that being hungry is medical? Or being frightened by dangerous things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) oh, is hunger in the ICD as well? you didn't mention that Oolong (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) In ICD-11, the code is MG43.9 if hunger is increased intermittently, and VV00 if you're just adding a note that something else happens when the person is hungry. The point is that "in the ICD" and "actually a disease" are separate but overlapping ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) @Oolong <quote>"It is false to suggest listing a disorder in the DSM thereby medicalises it." </quote> Do you really think the current version reflect that sufficiently? I don't think it reflects that way. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I believe that a scientific consensus exists, but it is not Dimitry's version of a consensus. The present scientific consensus is that there are two current models of autism recognised by the scientific community, the medical model and the neurodiversity model. Both have a substantial weight of scientific publications behind them, plus a significant number of papers and books have been published examining their respective merits in side-to-side comparisons. As I have shown, the two models are not entirely incompatible and a number of experts advocate that the application of a selective combination of both models should be used to elucidate both theoretical and practical aspects of autism. On Misplaced Pages both models need to be reported in an equal and dispassionate manner, this is how an encyclopaedia should function. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect the reality of scholarship on any subject. A treatment of a contentious subject that does not do this, should not be a part of any encyclopaedia. Urselius (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Is the neurodiversity model meant to be scientific, strictly speaking? For example, to exclude lived experience as a way of knowing things about the world? I'm not sure how we can have a scientific consensus that a non-scientific model is valid. It would make more sense to care about what the relevant non-scientific scholars say about their non-scientific model. Scientists should not be trying to pass judgment on whether historians, philosophers, ethicists, etc. are correct. Perhaps you mean something like "biologists acknowledge that the social sciences exist and are relevant to understanding autism"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Your premise is fallacious. If a concept is repeatedly examined, researched and discussed in scholarly publications by scientists, then it is scientific. The concept and use of the word 'neurodiversity was first used in an academic setting in a thesis of 1998, by sociologist Judy Singer, it has been in the domain of academic scholarship ever since. I see no functional distinction between scholarly work produced by medics, sociologists and scientists, all are in the public domain and are open to criticism from peers. All are valid sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Baron-Cohen was trained as a psychologist, but has worked on a subject that has a large genetic element. I was initially trained as a zoologist, but worked on the genetics of infectious human diseases. Nit-picking and asserting baseless inferences on relative merit between what is science, what is medicine, what is psychology, what is sociology in relation to a subject that is relevant to all these disciplines is fundamentally pointless. Urselius (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Academic" does not mean "scientific". Science can happen outside of academia, and academia covers non-scientific subjects. Scientists also get to be interested in non-scientific subjects. International peace isn't a scientific concept just because Einstein wrote about it. The concept of neurodiversity can be academic without necessarily being scientific. We might have a scholarly or academic consensus without necessarily having a scientific one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The only prerequisite for the use of references in Misplaced Pages, is that they are reputable. The idea of a Misplaced Pages article on a subject such as autism being entirely or primarily dependent on 'scientific' sources is erroneous. This is my point. Autism has many facets, clinical, psychological, neurological, genetics, lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc. etc. All of these facets are relevant and reputable academic sources from all should be treated equally - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a scientific textbook. I am a professional scientist (now retired) and I find the fetishization of 'science', displayed by some editors here, deeply illogical when applied to a subject that has many non-scientific aspects.. Urselius (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I agree that Scientism is a problem, but I'm not the one asserting that there is a "scientific" consensus about a model based on "lived experience, interpersonal communication, sociological, disability-related, legal, educational etc." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) The reference to fetishization was not aimed at you. However, it has bedevilled moving the article towards a more holistic and inclusive treatment of autism. Urselius (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Neurodiversity is a way of interpreting scientific findings (among other things). It's scientific in exactly the same sense that looking at autism as a disorder is scientific: they're both about how we interpret empirical findings, what kinds of things we look for, what kinds of evidence we consider. It's not non-scientific, but it is philosophical, and political - just as the medical model of autism is. It's a paradigm, in the Kunhnian sense. Your question provoked me to write this, exploring it in a little more depth (but it's still only about 700 words, roughtly a 3-minute read). Oolong (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Philosophy and politics are non-sciences. If neurodiversity is philosophical and political, then it is also non-scientific. I read your blog post. I (think I) understand that you believe your autism is not a disorder. But I want to know if you think that everyone with autism has a non-disorder form of autism. So: Muhammed Almaliti had autism. He died because his house caught on fire, and he couldn't figure out how to escape, even with help. Did he have a form of autism that (unlike yours) actually is a disorder, or do you think his autism was still not a disorder and there was some unknown but non-autism reason why he couldn't walk out of the house when he needed to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Why can't it have scientific aspects, philosophical aspects, and political aspects? Seems to me that there can be both political and philosophical aspects to the work of a natural scientist or social scientist. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I think it could, but Oolong asserts that It's not non-scientific. When we're talking about ordinary medical practice ("what doctors do"), about half of it is Evidence-based medicine – and half of it is not. I have seen doctors be offended at any suggestion that "the art and practice of medicine" is not True™ Science. It is at best an applied science, and the ordinary, everyday experience involves a lot of non-science. There is nothing "scientific" about telling a patient that beer and doughnuts are not a healthful diet, but they like to believe that they are Scientists™. Perhaps it is somewhat similar with the neurodiversity movement: our culture values science, and our views on neurodiversity are good views, so our views need to be called "scientific". It doesn't involve anything like the scientific method – there is no scientific experiment you can run to determine whether all people have equal moral value, or whether people should be treated with respect and accorded autonomy – but these days, we all want all of our treasured beliefs to be considered "scientific". Two millenia ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "philosophical"; two centuries ago, we would have done the same thing, but claimed it was "religious". "Scientific" is just a word we use in this century to say that my views are correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) I'll have to think a bit more about how I classify things as "scientific" or not. Research in the natural and social sciences is scientific work. Interpreting such research might or might not be scientific work, depending on whether you're digging into the details (especially with an eye towards how it could influence or give you insight into your own research / how it fits into the body of research in the discipline) or only accepting the surface results. Some physicians carry out medical research, but they're a minority. Ideally, all physicians interpret medical research, but I don't know whether they really dig in unless they're researchers themselves. Scientific research certainly isn't limited to the scientific method. Personally, I don't treat all my treasured beliefs as scientific; some of my most treasured beliefs are values. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Science, especially on humans, inescapably has political and philosophical dimensions. This regularly comes to the fore during a paradigm shift. Is philosophy of science non-scientific? We're not talking about a scientific theory (hence the inapplicability of the scientific method) but we're talking about science. Philosophy of science is something that scientists ought to take seriously, especially in more contentious areas of science, to avoid making epistemological errors. Here's a fun one: Is the scientific method scientific? There's no scientific experiment you can do to determine if it's the best way of approaching empirical questions, is there? It is interesting to note that Jerome Wakefield, who Dmitri likes to cite as the authority who resolved the question of what disorders are and how they relate to diversity, is not really any kind of scientist, certainly not primarily - he's a professor of social work, who works interdisciplinarily and has therapy experience. To quote his faculty page: He argues for a middle ground position in which the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design" I don't think anyone with more than a very superficial understanding of the processes behind the production of the DSM (or ICD) would deny that they are heavily political. Here's one account by autistic researchers/activists. Here's Wakefield again, on the controversies. Here's philosopher Robert Chapman on neurodiversity and science: Accompanying this, a scientific paradigm has also been emerging, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal way. More neurodivergent individuals have become involved in research, and more neurotypical researchers have begun to listen to neurodivergent perspectives. This is beginning to change how researchers formulate hypotheses and produce knowledge. Among other things, researchers increasingly recognize neurodivergent strengths alongside limitations, study cognitive problems as relational rather than as arising from individual deficits, and view neurodivergent disablement and distress based on a social model of disability rather than a medical model. I've possibly linked all of these before, but here are a series of peer-reviewed articles talking about what neurodiversity means for science: , , , , and . In short, there's no 'pure science' when it comes to the study of human difference, and it's not clear what can be achieved by trying to disentangle 'science' from 'non-science' in this context. Oolong (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) So why did you say that "it's not non-science", if you say here that of course it is (or has aspects of) non-science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Because the study of humans inescapably has non-scientific elements. I thought I was clear about that. Science can be done using the neurodiversity paradigm. This being the case, claiming that neurodiversity is non-scientific is misleading, at best. You don't think that psychiatry is purely scientific, do you? Oolong (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Or is your position that psychiatry, having philosophical and political dimensions, is also non-science? Oolong (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for your reply, the references, and the thought experiment, but I'm afraid you are arguing with an egregious misrepresentation of my citations. I have not been relying on the studies by Jerome Wakefield. I did, however, reference this author as a historical account of when the definition may have originated. In my comments, I referred to the first International Consensus Statement on ADHD by scientists (Barkley et al., 2002), and the updated International Consensus Statement (Faraone et al., 2021-2024) endorsing the model. There is also an Updated European Consensus Statement (Kooji et al., 2019). Faraone et al. is coauthored by 80 leading researchers, its contents are endorsed by 403 additional experts, along with numerous professional groups and guideline developers, across 27 countries and 6 continents (Supplemental Tables), thereby demonstrating a global scientific consensus. As concluded in the consensus statements, this model for determining a neurodevelopmental disorder to be valid is scientifically established. Both reference sources such as guidelines internationally that the model is based upon, which encapsulate autism spectrum disorder. As I have written before, I agree that the DSM Committees occasionally enact on policy or other reasons at the expense of scientific evidence and even scientific consensus. My colleagues and I have even personally dealt with such issues, so I am very well aware of this nuance. This is why I have not relied on the DSM but many reputable sources from around the world. In my experience, incidents where the DSM fails to reflect the science are usually evident with the contradictory consensus in the field. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Please link your references. Oolong (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I suspect that some people here think of 'neurodiversity' as some sort of fuzzy and trendy sociological term. In reality it is a shorthand term that researchers, including geneticists and other scientists, use for a concept. This concept being, "The phenotypic expression of natural variation in human brain architecture and physiology, largely determined by genetic causality; this genetic causality itself due to natural variation in alleles that are found widely throughout the general population". As such, the concept is scientific, but far too long winded not to require a specific and shorter term for general use. Urselius (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC) This is a bit complicated, because the word has multiple (closely related) meanings. Nick Walker's Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions is a useful source on this... "Neurodiversity is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species" (pretty much what you said) but we also talk about the neurodiversity paradigm (which entails seeing this diversity in broadly positive terms, on similar lines to biodiversity, of which neurodiversity is strictly a subset) and the neurodiversity movement (a human rights movement based around these ideas). See Ne'eman & Pellicano's Neurodiversity as Politics for further exploration of the political dimensions of the idea (they note that in practice, these distinctions are not always made clearly or using this exact vocabulary). Dwyer's article in the sameHuman Development special issue on neurodiversity is also worth a look. Oolong (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Urselius, we could give the same definition for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. "Natural variation" is not "good variation". The Wakefield definition above ("requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design") resonates more with me, but it would require autism to be defined as something that harms the person, which conflicts with the neurodiversity paradigm of insisting that autism be seen in "broadly positive terms". So I ask this specific question again: Muhammed Almaliti's autism prevented him from walking out of a burning building, even with his mother trying to help him walk out of his bedroom, down the stairs, and out the door to safety. They both died as a result of his autism. Does your concept of autism allow his autism to be disorder that actually killed him, or is his autism just a "natural" and "normal" difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) The first question is how many autistic people are unable to leave a burning house and the second is how many autistic people's houses burn. Being tall can also kill one if one bumps one's head very badly into something. Being a woman can kill one because of complications at childbirth. Being homosexual can kill one because of the higher risk of HIV transmission. So if dying for such reasons as the above mentioned is only a very rare event than we would not consider the thing a disorder or disease. LogicalLens (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) @LogicalLens There is a global scientific consensus that ASD is a valid neurodevelopmental disorder, as indicated by international guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews and standardised diagnostic criteria etc. around the world. (for references, see Talk:Autism#c-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241126131200-Oolong-20241126104700). This is not synonymous with disease. To qualify for a disorder two criteria typically must be scientifically satisfied (International Consensus Statement on ADHD, 2002; International Consensus Statement, 2021-2024). First, there must be evidence establishing neurological variation (e.g., dysfunction, deficit, deviation) in a trait universal to humans. Second, this variation must cause significant impairment in major life activities and/or significantly predispose to increased morbidity and earlier mortality. Homosexuality, transgender and left-handedness are examples of neurological variation that do not meet the second criteria and thus are not disorders. Impairment experienced by these, if any, is attributable to societal oppression and discrimination rather than the variation itself. In contrast, ASD does meet the second criteria. It significantly predisposes to injury, morbidity and earlier mortality and so these statistics are relevant as they are not just some extraordinarily rare occurrences. Note: Some commenters have opined that the citations supporting the aforementioned scientific consensus are localised to a medical context. I do not agree with this characterisation. Please feel free to judge the pertinence of these citations for yourself. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) You seem not to have understood the full scope of the medical model. The medical model of disability proposes that the disability is rooted in the individual (which is then classified as a disorder or disease) and the desired outcome is to normalise the person to become as similar as possible to people without the „disorder“ regardless of whether medications to reduce features of it are currently available or not. Because of this focus it is often called the „individualistic model“. If a person classified as disabled has difficulties in the current environment and people assess these difficulties to stem from a „disorder“ within the person instead of the environment then it is a viewpoint from the individualistic or medical model even if no medical treatment or medical professional is involved. The social model, in contrast, asserts that the disability stems from an unaccommodating environment. Social-relational models acknowledge that there can be aspects of the disability that are best ascribed to the condition itself, but, as Dwyer points out , „neurodivergence sometimes comes with strengths (Carter et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2019), whereas social-relational models may, by drawing on the vocabulary of the social model and its use of the term “impairment” to refer to the characteristics of the disabled person, risk implying that neurodivergence is synonymous with impairment/reduced function.“. The neurodiversity paradigm proposes that autism is a disability but not a disorder. LogicalLens (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ASD impairs people’s ability to do things that they enjoy, to take care of themselves and their daily needs, function in their relationships with family and friends, and in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society. Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising and erases the harms and experiences that directly result from people’s various cognitive impairments. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) The claim that it does this "in many other ways that have absolutely nothing to do with a society" is completely unsupported. Nothing in the DSM criteria is unrelated to society. Oolong (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Nope. Major life domains required for diagnosis to establish impairment can include self-sufficiency and self-care, such as through ineffective maintenance of personal hygiene or the distress experienced by restricted, preservative interests and mental preoccupation. These are not necessarily related to society at all, and are valid functional domains for consideration in meeting the diagnostic criteria Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Yeah autism can be troubling by itself but it would be stupid to say the environment has nothing to do with it, I'm leaning towards the disability side and saying; if the world was less loud sensory overload would be gone. That's one example of a problem that the world makes. Maybe both is true but idk why we were talking about this -- I'm so behind. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) No, that's not true. If the world were silent, then sensory overload would still exist for people whose sensory problems focus on lights, smells, textures, tastes, etc. This is part of the philosophical aspect of what we're trying to decide. At its loudest, thunder can match a rock concert. If someone's nervous system can't handle the noise of a windstorm or thunder is the problem in that person's limitations, or in the fact that thunderstorms exist? When an individual and nature don't fit, evolutionary biology would say that it's the individual who has the problem, not nature. Perhaps the neurodiversity paradigm says that the person is fine and it's nature's fault for being so noisy? Or simply ignores how terrifying thunderstorms are for many autistic kids, because that doesn't fit into the model of the kid being fine and other people causing the problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) 1) Society can provide accommodations even for natural events like thunderstorms (insulated home, earplugs, earmuffs etc.). 2) Invoking evolution as an argument for the disorder view represents an Is–ought problem. Just because people with certain characteristics had a lower chance of surviving in the past and the environment didn't provide accommodations (observation), it doesn't mean it is correct do assume that it is the individual who should change (normative judgement). LogicalLens (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Society can provide" a lot of things, but total protection from the noise of a major storm is not one of them. Based on California's recent experience, we can't even provide a decent prediction of where a tornado might form. I heard that the tornado warning was issued for 50 miles away from where it actually appeared. Good luck building a sound-proof bunker when the tornado's already headed your way. I mention evolutionary biology because Oolong quotes Wakefield above as saying that this is the perspective used in the definition of disorder: "the concept of a physical or mental medical disorder is a hybrid value and scientific concept requiring both harm, assessed according to social values, and dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design". We have "harm, assessed according to social values": The person is extremely distressed by the sound of a storm, and society's values include minimizing distress. We have "dysfunction, anchored in facts about evolutionary design": This isn't a trait that has anything survival benefit to the person. Given a definition that says harm+dysfunction==disorder, then this is a disorder. You might not like that, and you might prefer that it were instead called something more "positive", but it still is a disorder (according to that definition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Lots of people (and other animals) are scared of thunderstorms - and distressed by all sorts of other stimuli. It's not at all clear that this is automatically a problem; you have certainly not demonstrated dysfunction here. There are indeed evolutionary reasons why animals are distressed by some stimuli. For more on the evolutionary front, please see Chapman (2021). Oolong (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I doubt that lots of healthy people are distressed by the noise of thunderstorms. It's not unusual in children, but a significant level of distress is unusual in adults. Perhaps it's just my own circle, but I can't think of a single adult who finds thunder distressing and isn't autistic. (I would also expect this to be experienced by people with some other neurological problems and some people with PTSD, but I don't know anyone with that combination.) How about you? How many neurotypical, non-traumatized adults can you think of who meltdown from sensory overload during a thunderstorm? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Maybe I now understand your point a bit better. I’m going to reply to several of your posts here. You assume that if there are negative aspects about something then it has to be classified as a disorder. Let me explain why this is not necessarily the case. An important paper about the revision of transgender diagnoses in the ICD-11 states: "Distress and dysfunction were more strongly predicted by experiences of social rejection and violence than by features related to gender incongruence.". So the ICD-11 went from the term "gender identity disorder" to "gender incongruence" which is not a disorder but listed in the diagnostic manual in order to ensure access to needed gender-affirming care and they did so without being fully sure that all and every aspect of distress in trans people is because of the environment. The main reasons for the re-classification were that trans people want their gender identity to be respected and in some cases, to change the characteristics of their bodies instead of being talked or pressured out of their gender identity: "Treatment most often consists of specialized supportive mental health services as well as family and social (e.g., school) interventions while treatments aimed at suppressing gender-variant behaviours in children are increasingly viewed as unethical." This is a striking similarity to the rejection of ABA therapies directed at autistic children in order to make them appear more neurotypical. Most autistic people don’t want to be turned into a non-autistic person ("cured") and those who want to be "normal" do so because they think it is necessary for being able to socialise, they would want to participate in situations that are inaccessible to them because of a sensory mismatch or because they consider their support needs in their daily lives or their unemployment to be shameful. Reducing accident risk is not among the relevant reasons why some autistic people want a "cure" and if it weren’t for the aforementioned reasons, they would not consider changing their brain so dramatically just to reduce accident risk. The percentage of accidents that contribute to increased premature mortality in autistic people is quite small, other causes are more common . These aspects are not an insurmountable barrier for autism not be considered a disorder so we are talking about quite marginal aspects of the pathology vs neurodiversity debate here. LogicalLens (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) In the example here, distress and dysfunction are predicted less by social rejection than by the fact that noise hurts (some) autistic people. Given this pattern: loud noises → sensory overload → meltdown wishing to not have this pattern in your life is not "wanting to be normal". It is "wanting to avoid pain". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) In general (when not only focusing on specific aspects), the distress and disadvantages of autistic people are mostly due to societal barriers and ableism. Just like you can focus on specific situations like natural, very loud (and rare) noises being a problem for the autistic person primarily because of their autism, one could focus on the distress because of the mismatch between gender identity and the physical characteristics of one's body in transgender people and then say that most of that might be caused by the transgender identity itself and not by society. LogicalLens (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling. Many, many grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment. The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are direct results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence impossible to prevent without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has nothing to do with the experiencer's environment, but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here. Oolong (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) First, the fact that an impairment may be implicated in an environment does not translate that the environment is therefore the ultimate cause of the impairment. Theoretically, eliminating all other humans may alleviate the impairments people with social anxiety disorder experience, but this is a completely unreasonable, practically impossible approach that is further complicated by the fact that effective social interaction is a biological adaptation of humans, as well as that they often want to interact with others without feeling anxious. Thus, when the adaptation becomes disrupted enough that it can no longer function effectively, it can be - and is - viewed as an inherent impairment to the disorder. Similarly, ASD can impair people's functioning including in occupational functioning, cohabiting with others, in their relationship with family and friends, and other domains important to them, in ways where the responsibility for reducing an impairment cannot be entirely delegated to the surrounding people or environment. ASD causes difficulties not just with doing the things people must do (our obligations to society), but the things they want to do (our agency to do the things we find fulfilling in life). As such, the potential for a person to select a less impairing environment is not a valid argument for attributing the impairment away from an individual's symptoms. Major life domains affected by ASD also include activities such as self-sufficiency and self-care, where one cannot neglect them and simultaneously be unimpaired. These are valid functional domains for meeting the diagnostic criteria. ASD also impairs functioning in ways unrelated to a society and even an external environment, such as with the distress experienced by unwanted, restricted and preservative interests and mental preoccupation. Natural variation in neurological makeup is not necessarily variation with purpose. Natural variation is a fact of existence, but nature does not seek to moralise. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) This is interesting, because relying overmuch on the idea that "society can provide" whatever it takes to eliminate disability sometimes ignores the agency and desires of the affected person. For example: In the US, two-thirds of autistic teenagers without intellectual disability want to learn how to drive. Only half of them actually earn a drivers' license over five years. (For those outside the US, our driving instruction process is very lenient by international standards. The pass rate for the general population in the US is around 98%; almost anyone who actually wants to get a driver's license can do so easily, and usually in less than one year. If you're 18, the usual rule is: take a quick multiple-choice test, have a friend or family member teach you how to drive, come back as soon as you're ready to show the examiner that you know how to drive. If you're 15.5 years old, the process is a little more involved, but not much. About half of teens pass the practical driving test on their first try.) Society can provide alternatives, like bus service and family members who will drive you. But what if you actually want to have a driver's license, and you want to be able to drive independently? Society can't provide that if you don't have the necessary skills (e.g., multi-tasking, interpreting others' intentions, knowing where their body/vehicle is located in space, not being distracted by a leaf that lands on the windshield, not being consumed by anxiety when other drivers don't do what you expect...). Society isn't disabling people by refusing to give them a license when they don't have the skills, and society can't provide the necessary skills to everyone (autistic or otherwise) who doesn't have them and wants to be allowed to drive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you, you make very good points. I sometimes see this as politically driven that people should partake in societal activities according to their abilities so functional impairment is reduced, irrespective of peoples' personal agency, autonomy, and aspirations. I find it telling how forms of biological variation that are not disorders, such as sexuality, to which ASD is frequently compared to, do not lead to impairment in ways that conflict with the above. The impairment, if any, is attributable to society because it's usually in the form of discrimination and oppression, which by eliminating obviously wouldn't conflict with what the affected person would want, nor could it reach a degree of impracticality or unreasonableness. People with ASD also experience such oppression but this is not the primary or only impairment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (Double empathy problem) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I understand, but deficits in social interaction is not the only symptom dimension and there are both practical and ethical limits to the degree an impairment can be accommodated, even if it's societally implicated, and it can also conflict with what a person may want to do, e.g. an autistic person may want the ability to effectively communicate. This does depend on the individual and symptom severity of course. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Let's stipulate that the inability to safely drive a car is due to a "cognitive mismatch" between what the task requires (e.g., multitasking, not getting distracted) and what an individual autistic person can realistically do (e.g,. not multitasking, being easily distracted). How does the fact that there is a cognitive mismatch between what the person wants to do and what the person can do mean that the thing causing this cognitive mismatch is somehow not a disorder? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing Pardon, it seems miscommunications took place again. I think this is question is reply to my comment "The societal stress is not always due to DELIBERATE discrimination but due to cognitive and communication mismatch (Double empathy problem)". Did I wrote anywhere that the social stress is the only kind of stress an Autistic person face? Did I claimed anywhere that driving car is a social or communication task? I do not think all Autistics are unable to drive a car. However, for those able to not drive a car, it is indeed partly due to cars being designed for neurotypicals. Battery operated chair cars without complex gear system would not be that hard to operate. Also the traffic jam and navigation is partly social. Or think of a joystick operated car? I think a great more number of people might be able to use them, if not all. I think on many place I have acknowledged difficulties and cooccuring conditions. I did not wanted to suppress your viewpoints... I wanted that encyclopedia should present existing options and other viewpoints too. I hope you consider them with kindness. Regards. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing Did I make sense? Or not yet??RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Driving a car is, as you point out, partly a social task. From what I see on social media, the problem isn't "the car", so a joystick would not help. The problem is "driving", and specifically: knowing where you are, and coping with inscrutable/unpredictable other drivers. From what I've read, they estimate that about 30% of autistic adults in the US have a driver's license, compared to about 90% of all adults in the US. Autistic adults who can drive additionally tend to restrict themselves (e.g., only driving to familiar destinations, never driving at night or when it rains, never taking any passengers with them). Autism is preventing these people from being able to drive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Robert Chapman suggests the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" for this, covering cases where people are distressed because of a mismatch between their neurotype and their desires. They state that an adult able to consent could change their neurotype if they want without calling their neurotype a disorder which harms the majority of autistic people who don't want to be "cured". This is a similar framing that was used for homosexuals in the past who experienced their homosexuality as an entity separated from their identity and wanted to be converted ("ego-dystonic homosexuality"). Ultimately, this concept was abandoned because now it has become clear that this desire was rooted in internalised homophobia. In an interview, Chapman mentions that it might be an intermediate concept for autism as well and might even be viewed as unacceptable by society in the future but can be useful as of now. Without making a judgement about whether the same is likely to happen for neurotype dysphoria in the long-term, could you agree on using this concept? LogicalLens (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I notice that Autism does not include the word neurotype. That might be a starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) It could indeed be a starting point. Proponents of the neurodiversity view would of course argue that autism is more than just a neurotype and also a social construct to some degree but neurotype can be used as a neutral term for autism. Do you find the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" useful for those autistic people who don't like being autistic? LogicalLens (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) No, I don't. And I think that it's a marginal enough concept at this point that I wouldn't include it in Autism. I don't see neurotype as a neutral term for autism. It seems to be used by some for "whatever's happening in my brain, some of which is autism and some of which is some other things". In other cases, it seems to be a vague category – like saying "He has a developmental disorder" when you ought to say "He has Down syndrome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Using "developmental disorder" instead of Down's syndrome is only inaccurate if it is not clear from the context that one is talking about Down's syndrome. In the autism article, it is clear we are talking about autism so when we use the term "neurotype" as a replacement in order not to constantly write "autism" it is clear what it means. If we don't want this, we could just write "autism" all the time although it sounds repetitive. I don't know whether you have noticed that I am not just talking about using the term "neurotype" but have suggested the concept of "neurotype dysphoria" (dysphoria is a word for unease or dissatisfaction) that was proposed by Robert Chapman in order to account for autistic people who don't like being autistic without having to call autism a "disorder". LogicalLens (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) "How many people's houses burn" is not relevant. I've seen estimates that suggest perhaps as many as 30% of diagnosed autistic people, and at least 10% of all (diagnosed and undiagnosed) autistic people have impairments that could predictably put them in dangerous situations or prevent them from receiving help in escaping from a dangerous situation. Autistic people, on average, have significantly (some estimates say 20 to 40 years) shorter lifespans than neurotypical people, and accidental deaths are one of the biggest causes of the disparity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) 1) The shorter lifespan has many other reasons, especially suicide and barriers in healthcare, as well as an increased risk for many co-occurring conditions that reduce health. Please give me citations if you think that the thing you mentioned is a major contributor. 2) Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations is not a reason to pathologise autism as a whole. First, individuals without these risks should then not be seen as disordered. Second, not the whole presentation of being autistic should then be seen as a disorder but only the aspects that lead to the risk. Remember that autism is most likely a clinical construct that was built for practical reasons without a single underlying cause, so there is no need to encompass the entire autistic spectrum here. LogicalLens (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Per your request in 1), here's a handful: "Children with autism 40 times more likely to die from injury, study says" "We also found that deaths in individuals with autism were nearly 3 times as likely as were deaths in the general population to be caused by unintentional injury." "Elevated death rates were observed for several causes, including seizures and accidents" "Associated medical disorders (including epilepsy with cognitive impairment) and accidents accounted for most of the deaths" "The profile of the top causes of death for the ASD cohorts and the general population differed. The leading cause of death for those with ASD only was deaths caused by injury and poisoning...death from accidents was prominent specific causes of death for both those with and without ID." "These findings illustrate that poor social communication may well predispose autistic individuals to accidental death" Suicide is an example of subgroup differences: autistic people (especially females) without intellectual disabilities have a higher than average rate of suicide, and autistic people with intellectual disabilities have a lower than average rate of suicide. For your 2), I suggest that "Some autistic people being predisposed to the inability to leave dangerous situations" is a good reason to not de-pathologize autism completely. Though looking at the sources above, the bigger risk is probably choking (suffocating on inedible objects) and drowning (even if you really like swimming and really, really, really want to go swimming Right Now, not every bit of beautiful water is safe for swimming). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) While I agree that having a higher risk of dying by accident is a sub-optimal thing, I don't think calling autism a disorder is the right response to this. Children in general are far more vulnerable than adults, especially but not only when left alone. Nevertheless, being a child is seen as normal instead of a disorder. Even every person has a certain risk for an accident that is not seen as indicative of a disorder. I don’t think we are obliged to draw quite an arbitrary line there where we think a non-normal condition has increased the risk, especially because the percentage of autistic people dying by accident is still pretty low even if increased in comparison to non-autistic people. People have vulnerabilities and some people have more vulnerabilities than others, especially disabled people. Neurodiversity advocates argue for a non-pathologising disability framework that still allows for some interventions for the individual. Leadbitter et al. mention functional communication (whether it be spoken or some other means of communication), anxiety, inertia and “intolerance of uncertainty” as potential intervention targets . Reducing risks for accidents could also reasonably be seen as a desired outcome without trying to make the person non-autistic, just as reducing accident risks for people in general is seen as desirable. The main reason why autism is classified as a disorder and researchers are trying to find a cure is the ascription of “deficits” in social interactions in daily live to the individual instead of viewing these difficulties as stemming from the interaction between the mostly non-autistic environment and the autistic person, the increased risk for accidents is only a marginal reason. The problem is that all kinds of things (pain, support needs, vulnerabilities, prejudiced assumptions about normality) are lumped together under the terms disorder/disease. I would like to separate these things. If something causes pain and a cure is considered the right response, then it is a disorder or disease. If it means the person has higher support needs or vulnerabilities than others without necessarily wanting a “cure”, then it is a disability. If it is just a violation of prejudicial assumptions about “normal” functioning, then it is nothing of these and just a feature holders of which are discriminated against. Autism, in my view, combines aspects of the latter two without being a disorder to be “cured”. LogicalLens (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) We might not be "obliged" to notice that a 300% rate of dying from injuries, but I think we should. This is a statistically abnormal deviation in the rate premature death across all ages, not an "arbitrary" line. This is "autism + intellectual disability = probably won't see their 40th birthday" level of risk. People with Down syndrome live longer than that (the median is around age 55–60), and DS is notorious for premature death due to heart disease and leukemia. Autistic people without intellectual disability have a median survival that is not much older than DS. If something causes premature death, then a cure – or at least an effective treatment – seems like the right response to me. Some of these deaths happen because the now-dead person had those " “deficits” in social interactions", where "social interaction" means "understanding what that person means when they're saying 'Stop that, that's dangerous!' or 'No, we can't go swimming here. It's dangerous! Let's get your swimsuit and go to a real swimming pool.'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) No, in my view 'disorder' remains an unhelpful framing. What do you think it adds, specifically? Autism is a disability. We can't prevent autism, and there are strong arguments to say that we shouldn't try. There are no actual treatments, but we have seen a whole parade of harmful quack treatments, many of which continue to be promoted. Meanwhile, there are many, many things we can do to make life better for autistic people, at the societal level - for all autistic people. Oolong (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I think that framing it as a disorder adds the understanding that autism is sometimes harmful. Autism is harmful when, despite all feasible efforts, the person's needs still cannot be met. We could theoretically ban fireworks to prevent noise from bothering noise-sensitive autistic people. We cannot ban the noise of thunder, tornadoes, or hurricanes. You say that "many, many" harms and bad experiences are avoidable. My point is that "many, many" is less than "all", and the ones that you have already admitted are unavoidable is where the "disorder" exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) All sorts of things are sometimes harmful. Sorry, but this is an absurdly low bar. White people, especially redheads, are unavoidably going to get sunburned - so that's a disorder too, right? The same traits that make me uncomfortably sensitive to loud noises make me sensitive to noises that I want to hear - be they warning sounds, or intensely pleasurable auditory experiences. Oolong (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I usually hesitate to mention my personal experiences but I feel compelled to do so here, which I hope sharing may help clarify the why it being a disorder is necessary. It is simply the case that many of us experience serious impairment and distress in some form or other, in aspects of our lives that are dear to us, as a direct result of our ASD symptoms. This has been validated scientifically, and we cannot tolerate a movement or advocacy that tells everyone that the hurt and struggle they're experiencing is really just caused by their modern society being shit and that the issues caused by their neurology would be solved if society were somehow magically better. As someone with mild ASD myself, in my view modern capitalist societies are shit, but also the architecture of our brain doesn't necessarily work the way we want it to. Here's one example: I find strong and unpredictable sensory stimuli physically and mentally painful. Coming into contact with a piece of fabric can leave me overwhelmed, and it makes even the simplest of activities such as brushing my teeth far more difficult than it needs to be. There is so much tooling available, and things that can help, but there is nothing that can make up for the overwhelming effort it takes to do certain tasks and sustain that for more than a few minutes. Many of these are activities required for self-sufficiency or tasks I want to do and are directly, innately disrupted by the symptoms of ASD, and it hurts. It hurts that I have so much trouble doing these things. And while I don't have ADHD or CDS, an autistic family member of mine does and can further describe the interplay of comorbidity in exacerbating such symptoms. Accommodations help, but its far from perfect. It doesn't address all of our needs. There is nothing society can do to accommodate all of peoples' impairments, distress and predispositions to various adverse risks in life. This is not ultimately society's fault. It’s simply the nature of living with a condition like ASD The diagnosis underscores that our neurological variation becomes impairing when sufficiently severe. Declassifying it risks eliminating or restricting access to entitlements we have fought obtaining, under a false and trivialising perception of disability or impairment being rooted entirely in a society, rather than the symptoms themselves. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) You mentioned hygiene above. In developed countries, we tend to think of basic hygiene as a social thing: "You need to take a shower so the other kids at school won't think you stink". However, from a biomedical viewpoint, hygiene isn't primarily about the social aspect. It's about preventing skin infections. People need to wash their bodies every now and again so they don't get itchy, oozy, painful rashes. If a neurological condition makes a person ineffective at keeping their body clean (this happens in dementia, too), then this isn't just a social impairment. It's a infectious disease risk. In other words, if autism prevents someone from taking basic care of their body, it's a disorder, not an equally valid and valuable "difference". There is nothing valuable about dermatosis neglecta, nor about preventable fungal or staph infections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) That's precisely the point I was trying to emphasise there, that impairment can occur irrespective of social factors or not even necessarily be implicated in society, and thus can be attributed to the symptoms directly. Thanks for your comment. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing @Димитрий Улянов Иванов @Oolong @FactOrOpinion and all other users: I do not thing social model or neurodiversity deny any of the biological co-occurrences. I think this is a very bad misunderstanding both neurodiversity and social model. Some good logic has been given in https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/ (Clearing Up Some Misconceptions about Neurodiversity: Just because you value neurological differences doesn’t mean you’re denying the reality of disabilities). The problem is: The way we "frame" something as a "disease" or "disorder" inevitably comes with the consequence of a seek for cure, prevention, or erasure, or intervention. Autism is a neurotype. It is also a part of the person's perception and worldview. We cannot ethnic cleanse the cognitive minority. Also we cannot love a version of the person (minus Autism) that does NOT exist. We cannot extinguish the things helpful for a person. So called "Low function" Autism exists; but there are people who does not think the existing dominant neurotypical-favored pathology model is the right solution. Here is a statement from somebody: "i really wish there was support and validation for us 'low functioning' autistics. not for the parents but for us. im an adult. i cant take care of myself, i cant even work. i dont need articles on 'how to care for your low functioning autistic child thats so clearly a monster and youre the godsend tough #warriormom'. not only is it incredibly dehumanising but extremely unhelpful. for once id like to find something along the lines of 'youre not worthless for being a lowfunctioning adult that still lives with their parent and cant brush their teeth or bathe more than twice a month so heres some tips just to make life a bit easier'. i dont need constant reminders that the world doesnt need me" https://www.tumblr.com/asdoutcast/666098069659615232/i-really-wish-there-was-support-and-validation-for? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing @Oolong @Robert McClenon Fishes are not "Normal" human being. Fishes can't (usually) breathe on air. Would you transplant lungs into fishes/ genetically engineer fishes? Or you would put them in water? Autism is inherently defined as a "social interaction and communication disorder", (and I think this one matter is pretty consistent between Kanner, Asperger, Sukhareva, Gilberg, DSM/ICD versions, etc.) and "communication" cannot happen through 1 person it takes at least 2 person. If we think of only 1 "normal" communication style or modality, and describe the other as the pathological one (which inevitably imply cure or extinguish) then we only increase pain and suffering, left with zero social support and acceptance. It is not about mild severity or significant severity. It is the matter of involvement of more than one person and their cognitive pattern or communication modality. I am not sure if here people are trying to create new definition of Autism solely based on negativity. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism; it must be a completely separate condition that just happens to co-occur in some people who also have autism, but it can't be autism, because if we admit that it were autism, then at least some parts of autism would be something worth preventing, curing, or treating. BTW, there are "disorders" that don't need prevention, treatment, or cure. For example, 80% of 80-year-old men technically have prostate cancer. But almost all of them will die from something else before the prostate cancer gets big enough to cause any problems. Framing something as a disorder does not inevitably result in demands for a cure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) That is my impression as well. Some advocates portray ASD as a binary condition that occurs either with or without comorbid intellectual disability (ID) and thus conclude there is no severity spectrum of autism, implying the more significant of impairments are explicable through ID. this ignores that many level 2 and level 3 people with ASD do not have this comorbidity and ASD is at its core a spectrum disorder, not a dichotomy. As I recall, there was a recent debate over this issue on the Lancet journal with the NCSA: https://www.ncsautism.org/blog//the-iacc-should-embrace-the-term-profound-autism Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing @Димитрий Улянов Иванов @Anthony2106 @FactOrOpinion @LogicalLens @Markworthen @Oolong @Urselius and other users, I think it is a misunderstanding. I have seen the neurodiversity adherents prefer the term "High Support needs" or "High overall support needs" , and "Low support needs" or "Low overall support needs". I may be wrong. I do not agree with the position "My impression is that the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable. Savant-like focus on details? That's a valuable job skill, so that's autism. Inability to brush teeth or bathe more than twice a month? That's a bad thing, so that's not autism" Neurodiversity encompasses both high and low support need folks (although individual interpretation sometimes differ). I guess some of the editors are confusing neurodiversity with "Aspie supremacy". Nope, valuing person solely on capabilities or social contribution or usefulness is one of the worst ableist thing humankind can commit! Up to my knowledge, neufodiversity adherents do not support Aspie supremacy! The bathing or brushing example I gave clearly identifies as Autistic. The problem with "functioning labels" (not "support need levels") is that, the high function label takes away access to support, low function label takes away human value. It is not that suffering does not take place. The point is human value is taken away. Nobody here is creating a definition. Definitions are being reframed or explained in terms of internal experience. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) You are correct, @Rit, and some of the claims being made here are way out. People, if you're making assertions about what neurodiversity does or claims, you need to be able to back them up. @WhatamIdoing and @Димитрий, you may well share the impression that "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable" but this is simply fiction. If it wasn't bad etiquette on personal comments, I'd be slapping tags all over the place here. I know you haven't based this impression on reliable sources. Literally nobody who understands the field thinks this, let alone people actually advocating for neurodiversity, and you have already been presented with a whole series of peer-reviewed and other sources that directly contradict this. With all due respect, I beg you to take this more seriously, if you plan to continue engaging with this discussion. You appear to be misunderstanding very fundamental things about the neurodiversity movement and paradigm. It is stressful and time-consuming for everyone else having to correct such mistakes; we shouldn't have to. Anyone sincerely interested in what 'the neurodiversity movement' actually has to say about what autism is might be interested in this collaborative description from the RADAR project, this 2013 survey-based paper ("Recognition of the negative aspects of autism and endorsement of parenting practices that celebrate and ameliorate but do not eliminate autism did not differ based on relation to autism or awareness of neurodiversity"); or this effort to "develop a clinical self-report measure of autistic traits as described by autistic people". Oolong (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) No, it is not fictional. Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them, while advocating against treatment of disorders in favour of only accommodations. Here is one example of that by the economist, a popular trade media publisher, who recently publicised this neurodiversity perspective for ADHD: https://archive.is/hNPIQ#selection-971.0-971.40 . As I recall in reading your blog post from beforehand, there was a clear advocation against treatment and disorder validity for not just ASD but ADHD as well, under the broader neurodiversity movement. There is a global scientific consensus ADHD is a valid disorder and that medication should be the first-line intervention for ADHD (International Consensus Statement, 2021), due to its high effectiveness relative to far less effective social interventions. No accommodation comes close to eliminating the impairments of the disorder, as society is not the ultimate cause of its impairments. Additionally, evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews that combine the primary literature have shown that people with ADHD, the disorder, are not more creative on average, nor that reducing symptoms with treatment impacts such creativity (Hoogman et al., 2020;Paek et al., 2016; Healey et al., 2008; Abraham et a., 2014). In every domain studied in the International Consensus Statement, people with the disorder do not outcompete typical people but often are worse in their performance. Millions of people with ADHD endorse treatment of their ADHD with stimulant medication (Cortese et al., 2024), which conflicts heavily with any advocation against treatment. All of this disproves the claims in that trade media article advocating ADHD is not a disorder, for minimal or no treatment, and only use of accommodations - claims that are fairly ubiquitous across the movement. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them" This is, in any case, a different claim from the one you are responding to the denial of. Oolong (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) You're just completely disregarding the scientific evidence and consensus I cited in your response and fixating on the smallest of an issue. I was citing that post as an example to demonstrate the issues, of course that one post may not adhere to each and every piece of rhetoric from the movement. One simply has to search key terms on the Internet to find similar narratives regarding supposed benefits that are indeed false or dramatically overstated as substantiated by an extensive body of research. Here is an example of that: https://www.additudemag.com/attention-deficit-disorder-vast/ It's unfortunate you don't acknowledge the many issues I point out with the neurodiversity-only framing, and with claiming the totality of impairments are attributable to society. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Robert Chapman and many others in the neurodiversity movement do not reject using methylphenidate in ADHD people because they share a progressive worldview that advocates for liberal drug policies, so just as someone should be allowed to use marijuana, they should not be prohibited from using methylphenidate if they freely choose to do so. The problem they criticize is a society that creates a pressure on ADHD people to use it in order to function in a world that sets normative requirements about functioning. You seem to have quite a chaotic, irresponsible kind of people in your mind when you think about the neurodiversity movement. Autistic doctor Mary Doherty says in a presentation for Cell Press that people, including clinicians, who really understand the neurodiversity paradigm don't go back to the old view because they see the benefits it has and resistance to the new paradigm is because people have misunderstood certain key elements of it: You are again talking about ADHD although this article is about autism. There are similarities in viewing both things as an expression of neurodiversity but the neurodiversity movement is far more advanced for autism than it is for ADHD. Maybe it is your professional focus on ADHD that is the reason why you have missed the growing importance of the neurodiversity paradigm for autism. Using a neurodiversity-only perspective has not been proposed by anyone here. The goal is to write an article that encompasses both the medical/pathology model and the social/neurodiversity paradigm. The proposal by @Oolong also suggests writing that it can be argued that some aspects of autism can be inherently disabling. LogicalLens (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry but Oolong was referring to the neurodiversity movement in general. I understand this talk page concerns ASD and I don't mean to generalise, but the neurodiversity movement encapsulates ADHD in their claims - as Oolong has also done in their blog post - and I have addressed the issues with it in regards to ASD. And they do in fact explicitly advocate against the use of treatment in replacement of accommodation. The facts are based on extensive scientific evidence, not perceptions or wishful thinking. The issue is not modern society pressuring people to undergo treatment. Even the developers of CBT (ie., Ramsay, Solanto, Safren) acknowledge in the manuals that accommodations are no where near as effective as medication and must often be combined with medication for the patient to profit from them. So viewing societal changes as a stand alone approach to alleviating impairment is not supported in the scientific literature. Meta-analyses of twin and families studies indicate its symptom severity is influenced by genetics, and to a small extent, neurobiological events; not the rearing social environment. ADHD by virtue of its executive functioning deficits impairs a wide array of functioning unrelated to society, and ultimately leads to a reduced life span of about 13 years. Known reports of ADHD go back to 1753 (Kernebeek et al., 2024), and the journal Nature published a meta-analysis examining ADHD gene variants in samples of modern, ancient, and archaic human populations going back to Neanderthals. They found substantial evidence that natural selection has steadily acted against these genetic variants over the course of at least 45,000 years, which means ADHD has been impairing way before modern societies (Cucala et al., 2020). The draft written by Oolong doesn't seek to suggest writing ASD is inherently impairing at all. It simply erases much of the contextualising detail on this issue from the existing lede, while focusing the article on depathologising the disorder. This completely contradicts all of the national and international guidelines, systematic reviews, scientific consensus statements, and diagnostic criteria I have been citing and thus conflicts with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I'm not "fixating on the smallest of an issue" at all. @WhatamIdoing made a claim, which you repeated, that if true would be profoundly important, but which is in fact - I'm repeating myself here - pure fiction. Your response to having this pointed out is emblematic. Let's recap how this went, lightly paraphrased: WhatamIdoing: "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable" Me: That's just not true at all. Please be serious. You: Here is someone with no apparent connection to the neurodiversity movement, writing an anonymous leader for The Economist, arguing that there are good various good things about ADHD, which I disagree with. Me: How is that relevant, like, at all? You: Why are you fixating on what we were actually talking about? Here's another piece about ADHD that I disagree with. Oolong (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I'm trying to keep in mind that Robert McClenon has asked us to "Comment on content, not contributors" (which is sometimes hard for me, but I think is good advice) and has also stated that "our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources." WhatamIdoing, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, are there citations in the field of autism to substantiate the claims "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable" and "Many advocates of the movement focus on the benefits of these conditions, often at the expense of dramatically overstating or inventing them"? If so, would you present them? Thanks. (My sense is that text about this wouldn't go in the lead, but would instead go somewhere in the body. So if there are citations, let's just hold onto them for the time being.) If not, then these claims don't help us. The moderator also said "I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article" Oolong has presented a draft. Is anyone else who wants the focus to change planning to respond to Robert McClenon's request? (I cannot; as I noted in a response to him, I lack the subject matter background.) Or do those who want the focus to change all think that Oolong's draft represents you well? I think it would help for people to say one way or the other. If no other draft or plan is going to be presented, it seems like the next step is to wait for guidance from the moderator (e.g., re: whether it now goes to an RfC or if he has another task first). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) You were referring to the neurodiversity movement in general, but you omit this context. I understand this talk page concerns ASD and I don't mean to generalise, but the neurodiversity movement encapsulates other disorders in their rhetoric - as you have done in your blog post - and I have already addressed the issues with it in regards to ASD. And they do in fact explicitly advocate for the "de-medicalisation" of disorders while misrepresenting their nature, as the references show. Citing facts and the global scientific consensus statement is not "me disagreeing" with the claims, it's showing that they are demonstrably false. There is no official centralised Neurodiversity Movement organisation; both the economist article among the other one are advocating for neurodiversity to make their claims. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) The entirely fictional claim you were defending was that "the neurodiversity movement is trying to create a new definition based only on traits they find valuable". Please try to stay on topic. Oolong (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) The social model of disability asserts that disabled people should be given the supports they need. These skin infections do not emerge if the disabled person is properly cared for. It is important that the "social" in "social model" does not only refer to the disablement that arises in interactions between the individual and their society but also to the social normativity regarding the autonomy and independence of people. While the neurodiversity movement does not reject teaching autistic people self-care skills if the autistic person wants it, it is important to note that although these hygiene things have to be done by someone, it is a cultural and capitalist decision to create a small separated space for every person for which the person is considered responsible and which they are expected to be able to manage. All humans are interdependent, a single human would not survive for very long in the wilderness. It is an arbitrary construct to say those who have certain skills are „independent“ and only those who don’t have them are not. Take the Jun/oansi hunter-gatherers in Namibia as an example: "No one in these villages expects anyone to live on their own and be completely responsible for their own successes and failures. In Europe and North America, however, we’ve long idealized the autonomous individual, dignified those who produce the most capital, and stigmatized those who produce the least. It is, in fact, because of this obsession with independence that Europeans first invented mental illness categories during the early industrial revolution. The idea was to separate out unproductive workers into distinct identities. In capitalism, mental illnesses and dependence on one’s family became signs of disgrace. In a society like Geshe and Tamzo’s, one would never ask the question nearly every American parent with an autistic child is, at some point, asked: 'Will your child be able to live independently?'" . You, @Димитрий Улянов Иванов, also wrote that you are against capitalism so I thought you might find this insightful. LogicalLens (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @LogicalLens {{support|strong}} Thank you for this wonderful dissection on the topic. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) {{support|strong}} @LogicalLens RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) It's true that cooperative societies don't ask "Will your child be able to live independently?" Instead, I believe that they skip that and ask some variant on "When you die, which of your other children will have the duty to care for their brother, because it's obvious that someone will be caring for him for the rest of his life?" This story reminds me of the "Eskimos and Inuits don't die of cancer" thing from the 1990s. The informative question to ask wasn't "Wow, how do they avoid cancer?!" but "So, what's the rate of heart disease?" Here we have a group that assumes the child will be cared for by family. Maybe if they wrote this book, they would be saying "You know what happens in the US and Europe? When your first-born has a major congenital disability, people don't say, 'You need to have more children, so that when you die, there will be siblings to take care of this one.' It would be so nice to live in that culture, where people have children because they want them instead of as a type of social insurance and extra caregivers for their dependent older brother." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Actually, on the same page of the book it says: "When I asked his father if he is concerned about who will take care of Geshe when he and his wife pass away, he looked confused and then pointed to his neighbors. 'We won't all die at once,' he said." LogicalLens (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @Urselius @WhatamIdoing Neurodiversity is a political and not a scientific term; in fact, Judy Singer, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement even acknowledges this:https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html?m=1 Unlike more scientific terminology like neurological variation, "diversity" is associated with positivity and other such connotations as well as with the broader Neurodiversity Movement. That movement is notorious for denying the scientific validity of not just ASD but other disorders such as ADHD and the necessity of treatment (pharmacological or otherwise) in favour of homogenising peoples' neurological variation. The movement also tends to misrepresent their nature by minimising impairments and overstating or incorrectly ascribing positive benefits to the conditions in order to portray them in a positive light. Their positions contradict the global scientific consensus (e.g. Faraone et al., 2021) as well as the views of millions of people with lived experience of such disorders (e.g. Cortese et al., 2024). This has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience no matter how appealing it may be to some laypeople. It’s a pity so many are adversely affected by it.. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) As with anything else, it can only be pseudo-science if they're claiming that it's real-science in the first place. (See Misplaced Pages:Alternative medicine#Is it pseudoscience? if you are interested in this subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) The assumption that Judy Singer coined the term neurodiversity is being challenged and Judy Singer didn't initiate the movement . Both the term and the movement arose out of autistic communities and weren't created by any single person. LogicalLens (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) We've been through this already. Besides our previous discussions, I refer you to this piece I wrote on Monday and this very clear statement from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources which is prominently quoted in the essay Misplaced Pages:Scientific consensus: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Which of your citations directly states that all or even most scientists or scholars hold the view you are referring to? Oolong (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Neurodiversity is "Hallmark of Pseudoscience"? I rather smell the pathology paradigm and all its army (usually paid and funded and supported by Autism industrial complex) as a form of colonialism and master-slave relationship within a species. You might know about Drapetomania . "Science" told if a slave does not want to remain enslaved then it is a disorder. Brownlow, Charlotte. "Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’." Journal of Medical Humanities 31, no. 3 (2010): 243-255. can be an interesting read on this regard. Many neurodiversity supporters are also science lovers and also often prefer strict rationality. Only Autistics can say what works best for them. Neurotypical professionals and scientists aren't going to perceive the matter... best they can is to conduct surveys, take opinions, having empathy, listening to us, reading our autoethnography. Anything imposed on us outside of that causes harm. I am tired of seeing another group of people deciding what's best for Autistics. Really unhelpful and bad ideas. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @Oolong I greatly oppose the idea that neurodiversity is "pseudoscientific". It has a sociological or philosophical dimension as well scientific dimension. But to think it as "pseudoscience" is really sick idea. I rather think the so called "global scientific unanimous consensus" is a pseudoscientific one: because they want to look like science, but all they do is to vote and raise/ lower the various arbitrary bars much like things happen in politics and diplomacy. They don't know everything, yet they pretend they know best for us. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) If scientists discuss and accept a concept, then it becomes scientific. The theory of evolution through natural selection was thought up by a country gentleman of independent means, trained in theology, who once had a job as a geologist, and a wildlife specimen collector who had been trained as a surveyor. I think this shows that the profession of the instigator of new ideas is irrelevant, if the idea is later taken up by scholars who are, or are not, professional scientists. Urselius (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) What's next? This discussion has been enlightening for me, in part because it has forced me to think about fundemental questions in my own field (clinical psychology) and to consider strong arguments from thoughtful, smart, experienced Wikipedians on both sides of this debate. I find myself going back and forth and back and forth again as I read through this discussion. Although I believe the article should do more to integrate insights and perspectives from the neurodiversity viewpoint, I start with the belief that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that causes suffering for people born with it (and their families), i.e., it is not merely a "difference" that society needs to accommodate. I remain hopeful that we can craft a consensus statement, in the form of a new lede for the article. Should we start work on that? -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "suffering" breaks WP:SUFFER. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) The reason why I mentioned this is because it can be offensive to autistic people to say we "suffer". Anthony2106 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you for reminding me about that word (suffer) being problematic. It has four or five meanings, which is part of the problem. Would it be better to say that autism causes distress? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) In this context, it means much the same thing. I would suggest that the bigger issue is that it's not autism on its own that causes suffering or distress; it affects people's reactions to the environment they're in. I am certainly more distressed in some situations than a non-autistic person is likely to be, but in others I am undoubtedly less distressed. Similarly, I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by, while I am baffled by the enjoyment that many seem to take in other things. Oolong (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "I take great joy in some things that pass nearly all non-autistic people by" you mean small things everyone misses? Like when I'm on the train I like to stare out the window, kinda stimmy and fun. Also stimmy should be a disambiguation page. @Markworthen I think "distress" would be better, what do you mean by suffer having like 5 meanings? What are these 5 meanings? Where were they defined? Anthony2106 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) See wikt:suffer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I would argue, as an autistic person myself, that though autism can be difficult to live with and be problematic, it is very largely contextual. If I am on my own or with my family and/or close friends, in a comfortable or neutral environment, I am not inconvenienced by my autism at all, neither is anyone else. This suggests to me, that it is only in my interactions with society at large that me being autistic can become a problem, either to me or other people (social model of disability). Also my autism has benefits, yes indeed. In my job as a biomedical researcher monotropism was a positive thing to posses, concentrating on my project and not being distracted by other things paid dividends. My abilities to solve problems from unusual angles was also very useful. I produced two theses, MSc and PhD, both passed without revision or correction. My autistic eye for detail also enabled me to become the 'go to person' for proof reading other people's theses, I have lost count of the number I have proofread. The article does not conspicuously engage with any beneficial aspects of autism. As an aside, the use of the term 'deficit' in the DSM 5 wording is largely due to US medical insurance requirements, rather than wording for clinical accuracy. Urselius (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Right - I don't think anyone with any insight into autistic experiences at all would deny that related issues are "very largely contextual". In fact, it scare me to think that some might - I know there are parents out there with no insight into what causes their kids' meltdowns, trying to train them to behave differently, rather than learning to spot triggers and work out strategies for avoiding overwhelm. I know that something similar can happen with autistic people in institutions, causing whole cycles of meltdowns and ill-treatment, and that is chilling. There are good reasons why Luke Beardon's equation 'autism + environment = outcomes' is so influential and widely quoted. I discussed many of the ways that autism can be a disability, despite the same traits in many cases being neutral or even advantageous in other contexts, in this 2017 article. Might be helpful background reading for anyone interest in this discussion. As for what next, @Markworthen and @Urselius I don't think either of you have responded yet to the sixth statement from the moderator or my rough draft of a potential lead? Oolong (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Is there something about Beardon's 'autism + environment = outcomes' that is meant to be unique to autism? The same equation works for any individual with any trait. It's not even specific to humans, or animals: 'Boston fern + environment = outcomes' or 'Flu virus + environment = outcomes'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Only in the sense that for some reason, when it comes to autism, people often totally ignore this obvious point. It's a bit like the double empathy problem in this regard. Oolong (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) No, I had not seen your draft, and I apologize for missing it. I like what you wrote and I appreciate you seeking to integrate even if it means including statements you don't necessarily agree with. // I need to stop reading this on my phone because there's no way I can track the flow of discussions when they go up and down the page. I keep expecting sequential order going down the page, but that's not how a talk page works. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks Mark! Yes, unfortunately it's extremely hard to follow these discussions on a phone (I've found the app helps a little, but not as much as I'd like). Also, on the phone there's usually no 'reply' button for some reason?? It might be helpful if you'd chime in in the relevant section, if you're up for it. Oolong (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Urselius, when I read through your comment, I'm left with the feeling that we're saying "When you've met one high-functioning autistic person with a PhD, then you've met every autistic person". For every autistic person like you, there's another one who can't be left unsupervised. Can we write this article in a way that doesn't erase those low-functioning, extremely high-need autistic people. It needs more than just the occasional passing reference to their existence. Conversations like this make me wish that they'd split autism back into separate components. It probably was better for autistic people with high academic achievement when they got a completely different label, so the distinction between highly capable and talented people vs those who have no hope of living independently was obvious on paper, not just in reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) There is a great deal of distress, exhaustion and, indeed, mental ill health in autistics who can, most of the time, fully function in society. Most of the attention, support and accommodation, however, goes to those who cannot function in society. I believe that both sets of people deserve the help that they require to live the best life they can. For some autistic people that help might include sheltered accommodation, with round the clock supervision being available. For me, it might have been to be able to take examinations away from vast halls filled with crowds of other anxious people. Or department stores not making people walk through appallingly smelly perfume departments in order to get anywhere else. Yes autism is a spectrum, people on it have a variety of problems and require a variety of support or accommodation. Urselius (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) There were good reasons why psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection; in short, the differences between different autistic people do not appear to be categorical. It is often said, and this is important, that the term 'low functioning' erases a person's autonomy, while 'high functioning' erases their difficulties. There certainly are substantial differences between different autistic people (largely, but probably not exclusively, because of other co-occurring disabilities) - but also within the same autistic person at different times, and in different environments. You asked if there was something special about autistic people with respect to Luke Beardon's 'golden equation' 'autism + environment = outcomes' and I suggested there wasn't, really; but it is really worth emphasising how huge the differences in a person can be depending on environment. Someone who is eloquent and capable well things are going well may lose the power of speech when things go wrong. All kinds of capabilities can be lost this way. Autistic burnout is a very serious thing, and shorter-term shutdowns can also be very serious. Spiky profiles are also an absolutely key concept for understanding the variability of autism. Sometimes people who can't feed themselves are quite capable of getting PhDs, with the right support. Often, people who don't obviously struggle in public barely function at all in private (you might want to read up on the 'coke bottle effect' regarding how this manifests with schoolkids). Many autistic people have much higher support needs than may be immediately obvious; many with obvious difficulties are capable of great things. Oolong (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Chloé Hayden takes the day off after big events so this is a example of how functioning can change. I think the DSM mentions how the functioning of a person can change but I'm not bothered to find it because I gotta continue programing something then sleep. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) This comment is about this: psychiatrists gave up on the separate categories. Specifically, all the formulas they'd come up with to delineate these categories fell apart on closer inspection. According to , there's a minority POV that says all the formulas they've come up with to delineate autistic from non-autistic fall apart on closer inspection, and therefore the whole concept of 'autism' is invalid (in terms of clinical utility and nosology, not in terms of the political movement) and should be abandoned. Having difficulty differentiating 1.2345 from 1.2435 doesn't mean that the "1" can be reliably delineated from "2". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Yes, there is a reasonable case to be made that the construct of autism as we know it lacks scientific validity. In fact, I think the current version of the autism article boldly claims a "growing consensus" to that effect. However, as Chapman points out, it retains considerable value as an identity; and as things stand, there is practical value to having a diagnosis. It's just sensible to be aware that classifications have changed in the past, largely for good reasons, and will likely change further in the future. I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your final sentence though. Oolong (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing A Summation of the situation ==== We seem to be generating a vast amount of verbiage from relatively entrenched positions. However, I think that these positions resolve into two fairly simple choices for the future of the article: Choice 1 Largely the present situation. The 'medical model', also referred to in discussion as the "scientific consensus", retains priority, all other facets and models of autism are treated as being subordinate to this model, because, "Autism is a pathological state, defined by deficits, as described in clinical diagnostic manuals". Choice 2 Requiring substantial rewriting to shift emphasis. Treating the 'medical model' and the 'neurodiversity model' as equal, partly complimentary, methods of considering and describing autism. This would involve creating a neutral descriptive lead, then a definition of the two models, followed by a more equal treatment, where appropriate, of both models as aspects of autism are explored in the body of the text. Misplaced Pages HAS to treat any subject in a manner that reflects current scholarship, this is particularly the case where there is any level dissention among relevant academics or commentators. This is not a choice! Given that there is a significant body of academic support for both the medical and neurodiversity models, both must be given substantial coverage in anything that makes any claim to be encyclopaedic. There is also a significant opinion in relevant circles which combines elements from both models, and this also needs to be addressed. To my mind, as an editor who has created 39 novel articles on Misplaced Pages, only choice 2 aligns with Misplaced Pages core values. The 'second pillar' is, "Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view". When faced with two models describing any phenomenon, if editors are insisting that one is given preferential treatment they are then imposing their personal preferences on the reader, which is fundamentally against Misplaced Pages core values. Urselius (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Urselius, the moderator has already stated "I think that there is agreement that our objective is to change the focus of the article from viewing autism purely as a medical disorder to presenting multiple viewpoints on autism as they are described by reliable sources," (Fifth statement by moderator), so the decision has already been made in favor of your Choice 2. He subsequently said "I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article" (Sixth statement by moderator; you may want to reread his statements in full, including 5.1, as they address additional aspects of the moderator's plans for how things will progress). Do you have a draft lede that you want people to consider? Or, if you think that the work must start with the body, do you have a plan for how coordinated work on that could occur? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Yes,, I know, but it did not stop further debate, did it? I considered that a recapitulation of the choices available was moot. We need to move on from what to how, without forever mulling through the what question. Urselius (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Robert McClenon clearly proposed a "how": I would like each editor who agrees that the focus of the article should be changed so that it describes both the medical paradigm and the neurodiversity paradigm either to draft a revised lede section for the article, or to provide a plan for a coordinated effort to rework the sections of the body of the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) But we are still wrangling here, not creating a concrete plan. Urselius (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Urselius - You are clearly a scholar in this area. Have you written a revised lede section for the article? If so, would you please link to it or tell me how I can find it? I did look, but there's so much here, I might have missed it. Thank you -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Alternatively @Urselius, do you support my redraft? (the moderator did ask us each to draft a revised lede, but I'm not sure we should interpret that literally?) We may also want to start work on a plan for reworking the body of the article; comments left on this Google Doc provide a helpful starting place, I think, but at some point we'll need an outline with proposed sections and so on. Oolong (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for linking, I must confess that I failed to find your lead earlier, on this rather full page. I think your lead is good. Personally, I would add, 'characterised by deficits' to the sentence on autism as a disorder. Plus, I would add hypermobility and gastro-intestinal problems to the commonly co-occurring conditions. Both advantages and disadvantages are mentioned in the 2nd para, but the 3rd only mentions associated problems, it would be good to mention some common advantages here, dependent on reputable supporting references, of course. I have come across a genetics paper where some commonly occurring autism-linked alleles were associated with higher academic attainment and, I think, sources for heightened abilities in concentration (monotropism) and attention to detail could be found. Urselius (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) That makes sense - probably a good call on both fronts. Thanks! Systematic review on GI symptoms in autism: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/7/1471 Hypermobility/EDS reviews: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/10/4/260 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13575279.2022.2149471#d1e146 Oolong (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Why I think splitting the spectrum is NOT a good idea, and what could be done instead. Although I think a more individualized classification system under Autism Spectrum might be helpful; I do NOT think categorization based of functionality levels or usefulness or societal contributions are ANY helpful. Technically, people with similar variations in different cognitive domains may have different societal repercussions. Such as I have some weird form of number-blindness (I can't often remember or recognize numbers in a meaningful way; such as dates, times, public transport routes, addresses or street numbers, etc. and particularly banking is a troll for me), and heightened recognition for "names" and "words"; which do have social repercussion, but just think of opposite combinations: a heightened sense for number but inability to remember or use words and names (anomic aphasia, hypothetical scenario). The scenario seen in at least few of the severely Autistic/ low-functioning (so called) individual. Who can tell dates and day names of calendar instantly but can't use words as principal mode of communication. For this minute difference I would probably have much more social repercussion, probably I would be mistreated as intellectually disabled, probably communication modes weren't offered, probably would have been subjected to abusive therapies. Perhaps I would never been learn to frame sentences due to inability to recall words. Perhaps parents were suggested to speak simple words loudly near my ears, which would feel as irritating as train numbers feel to me currently while in platform announcements. In reality, no two Autistics are the same. Neither 2 high functional Autistics are the same, nor 2 low functional Autistics are the same. Some have more issues with fine or gross motor control, some have more issues with interoceptions, some have more issues with emotional safety (esp those on PDA profile or ODD characteristics), some have more issues with different use of episodic and semantic memories etc. Such as a relatively "low functioning" Autistic may have a lesser sensory issues. S/he might enjoy loud music and social gathering. Conversely a relatively "high functioning" Autistic may have much more issues in some aspects such as sensory, emotional regulation issues, alexithymia, etc. And intermediate-need Autistics do exist. I guess the following diagram provides a rough representation on how these variations might look like. FIGURE: Here is one hypothetical spikey profile, just think of another kind of hypothetical spikey or uneven profile. Based on social outcome, we may mis-categorize some of us having just like some mild OCD like hyperreaction to small changes, or as if some common mental health disorder, and we may miscategorize some of others as "burdensome", "uneducable". But in reality, both kind of Autistics are part of a multidimensional continuum (Not just a linear spectrum of "more Autistic or Less Autistic" but differing in many many aspects). Therefore, we cannot force like "high functioning folks can't speak for low functioning folks" or "low functioning folks cannot speak for high functioning folks". In that logic, one high functioning folk should not have speaking for another high funnctioning individual. Or one low functioning shouldnt support another low functioning. But that is NOT the situation. Some of the experiences like SYNAESTHESIA, SENSORY OVERLOAD, STIMMING, ECHOLALIA, MELTDOWN etc apllicable on all the subgroups more or less, depending on individuals. Insights on one group really helps other subgroups. Back and forth. Look into underlying mechanism. Look into their introspection. Look into how they make friendships. look into what they want to share. Look into where they struggle. And deep inside there are similarities in mechanism, I do think we need to provide individualized support cards to Autistic people, elaborating what kind of support needs they require. How to communicate with them. What kind of accommodations that person might need in workplace. But yes we can get a general and collective idea from multiple Autistics' experience which is indeed helpful. Personally I call the so called high functioning profile as the "interpreters" between Autistic and Non-Autistic universe. Of course there are exceptions but If not an individual level then at a collective level it is helpful to see the whole spectrum unsplitted. Neurotypical assumptions in the other hand, misleads. Even neurotypical people close to Autistic population often have no clue about how to effectively communicate, while some Autistics do communicate effectively among each other. @Oolong I would love to hear yor opinion regarding this matter. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @Urselius I would love to know your view tooRIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Nice you also think it's not a liner spectrum, I also think this is true and never compere who's "more or less" but sometimes when I meet someone who is more intellectually impaired then me I can't not think their "more". ------ Also a source for autistic people are good a dates: Make sure you don't watch the whole thing its riddled with inspiration porn and then he donates to a bad charity, stupid. I wish it was under creative commons so it could be on the page inspiration porn for an example. ------ Also now that we have established that it's not a linear spectrum can we remove the word "severity" form the second paragraph? I think @Димитрий undid me removing the word because of scientific papers saying "severity", so maybe if we find more papers against this we could remove the word? Anthony2106 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) We don't need papers that say "My POV disagrees with using the word severity when describing their POV". We need a way to accurately communicate the POV that some autistic people are more impaired than others. A descriptive phrase such as "has higher support needs" might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) That's what we have been arguing for. The proposal by @Oolong that I largely with a few suggestions includes varying support needs. LogicalLens (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) @Anthony2106 @LogicalLens @WhatamIdoing @Oolong I am going through too much burnout to rectify unintended problematic language. Please see through forgiveness. Know my good wishes. Good Wishes for volunteers and editors, Good wishes for neurodivergent, Good wishes for everyone. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) My views on the matter Given the strict assurance from @Robert McClenon: in the talk page conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-Robert_McClenon-20250103163000-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600 , Hereby I express my concerns regarding why sticking to pathology views can be harmful. (Moderators Please feel free to cut paste this to appropriate section) (1) Are you Autistic? ‒ Yes, and also I have received formal diagnosis of “ASD”. (2) What are your perception of this ASD? Is this causing impairment to you? Is this a disorder to you? ‒ This is rather complicated to answer. I have been seeing the world as too fast, too loud, too rigid, too figurative, too changing, too chaotic, too unempathetic, too complicated. I can do my stuff only if the situation favors it. However, I do think some of the conditions like situational mutism, executive function issues, fine motor and motor planning issues, meltdowns, shutdowns, etc. are causing difficulties and misunderstandings. You can compare it with a person with Dwarfism who see the public transport, school desks and blackboards, etc. are designed for taller people. Who feel like people around them are all taller. The difference is biological, but the impact is mostly social. (3) Do you think Autism should be defined solely based on negativity or deficits? ‒ No, Autism should be defined and diagnosed based on its signs and internal experiences regardless of the stress level of the person. So that regardless of stress level you can predict and prevent or minimize traumatic experiences. Autistic person remains Autistic regardless of stress level or situations. In some situations we focus or work really well, in some other situation we meltdown or go into non functional, vegetative like state. But it is the same person and same brain. You can’t separate Autism from the Person and her/his core nature. (4) What is the impact of ASD diagnosis on you? ‒ It gave a rational explanation of my entire life. That was positive and empowering. It was the starting point to learn to stop hating oneself. (5) Why do you think that the pathology model causes harm? ‒ Before answering that, I want to let you know that I do not invalidate the impairments, stress, and suffering, regardless of need levels. For two reasons I think pathology model causes harm. Firstly, it tries to extinguish the “disorder” and its symptoms itself, the so called “taking out the child or the person from the grasp of Autism”, and it causes a testimonial injustice and a systematic injustice by not considering whether Autistic people are being fruitfully helped by this approach. Secondly, if we do not highlight the social nature of the problem, we would not achieve necessary societal changes and societal accommodations. As we know, Autism is often seen as a terror or an inherently undesirable trait, which leads to loss of human value and credibility. During COVID pandemic period just a few years ago; patients with learning disabilities were issued with DNR (Do not resuscitate) orders (Dougan, Lesley. "2.6 Neurodivergence." The SAGE Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy (2023): 56.) ; reflecting we are not yet seen as a full human being. The rate of job loss and unemployment, stress related disease, self-ha*rm and low life expectancy is skyrocketed. (6) Do you benefit from treatment such as social skills lesson, behavioural therapy, ABC model or antipsychotic medications? ‒ I was offered with social skills lessons, ABC model, behavioral therapies, and antipsychotic medications. NO, they worsen my wellbeing. They make me look like more regulated or sociable, but deep inside they worsen. They also take away my sense of boundary and autonomy. I also feel that there is not any real existence of “deficit of social skill” in the sense … because socialization is a 2 way process. I can do little if the so called “friends” abandons me or bullies me and I require to control myself to make room for everyone, yet I am considered to be the one who is “lacking” the social skills. Do not teach us forced eye contact etc. instead teach neurotypicals about existence and value of different kind of minds and brains. Further read: Sasson, Noah J., Daniel J. Faso, Jack Nugent, Sarah Lovell, Daniel P. Kennedy, and Ruth B. Grossman. "Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments." Nature Scientific reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 1-10. (PDF) (7) Then what can help you? ‒ If I am allowed the way I cope up or learn or focus or play. Even if they look odd/ childish/ intolerable. And also Only reasonable accommodation, such as flexible work hours, written instructions, communicating changes and meetups earlier, making the banking system or form fill-up simpler, etc. (8) Will reasonable accommodation remove 100% of your problems? ‒ No, but it will minimize the survival mode. (9) If direct treatment of Autism spectrum does not help you, then why you need counselling/ psychotherapy? ‒ Because of the traumatic and stressful situations that arise from daily living or interaction with typical world. (10) Why do you think it is important to make Autism diagnosis and support more accessible? ‒ Currently the diagnosis and support for Autism are not accessible at all, because of existing stereotypes such as intellectual disability and inability to speak. Many professionals are also not aware of less typical presentations of Autism. As a result the stressed out person is often offered with mental health diagnosis such as depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizoid or borderline or introverted personality disorders, paranoia, anger, delusional disorder, OCD, etc. which are basically a secondary mental health condition. But cognitive differences esp. related to Autism Spectrum, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Prosopagnosia, Sensory processing disorder, etc. and its societal repercussions remain unaddressed. Secondly, Autistics who are able to any one of : speak or write or communicate using AAC tools … can provide significant insight about Autistic lived experience. Lived experience may include Qualia or unfalsifiable components, but lived experience is the ultimate thing that shapes our lives. Thus Autistic lived experiences can function as an “interpreter” between non-Autistic and Autiistic communications. Note that each Autistic is unique, but we get better details on how to help Autistics, and to reduce harms, if we listen to and trust Autistic voices. (11) Do you want to include testimony of any other Autistics? ‒ Yes, Hari Srinivasan, a mostly nonspeaking Autistic, with a lot of co-occurring impairment and dynamic disabilities, clinically diagnosed as severe or low functioning; who was a faculty at Barkeley and currently at a PhD programme in Vanderbilt University, wrote in an opinion in Times magazine that "I was diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 3, and for the amount of “evidence-based therapy for autism” that has consumed my entire childhood, I should have been able to navigate it many times over by now. Why was I not benefiting from the vast amount of research that is being done in the name of understanding autism better? After all, autism has been an official diagnosis since 1980". He also expressed that "Of course, as a child you don’t have the power to challenge the “expert,” and you are left with a feeling of cognitive dissonance and mismatch that this is not quite right. ". and that "Yet, willy-nilly, existing autism research findings, and the resultant therapies and educational strategies, have been applied across the board to all autistics. Unfortunately, a lack of success in therapies not suited for you in the first place, leads to negative downstream impacts such as being placed in low expectations classrooms, the closure of opportunities, and less than positive lifetime outcomes. I find that despite all the careers, promotions, and profits being made by thousands of autism-experts, the state of autism interventions right now is one hot mess. In reality, there still are no real “experts” in autism because there is no one-size fits all model." Note that "wellbeing" in neurotypical standard, and actual wellbeing in Autistic population may look different. But if we keep enforcing the "Global, unanimous scientific consensus" to people who cannot speak, and we systematically exclude people who can speak about the harm, we keep the injustice unnoticed and continued. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Further Reading: Regarding dissent on ABA or ABA based methods: Bowman, Rachel A., and Jeffrey P. Baker. "Screams, slaps, and love: the strange birth of applied behavior analysis." Pediatrics 133, no. 3 (2014): 364-366. Wilkenfeld, Daniel A., and Allison M. McCarthy. "Ethical concerns with applied behavior analysis for autism spectrum" disorder"." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30, no. 1 (2020): 31-69. doi: 10.1353/ken.2020.0000 , url: https://www.learningkeystones.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Uploads/Ethical%20Concerns%20with%20ABA%20for%20Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder.pdf Pyne, Jake. "“Building a person”: Legal and clinical personhood for autistic and trans children in Ontario." Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 35, no. 2 (2020): 341-365. Sandoval-Norton, Aileen Herlinda, Gary Shkedy, and Dalia Shkedy. "How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse?." Cogent Psychology 6, no. 1 (2019): 1641258. Shkedy, Gary, Dalia Shkedy, and Aileen H. Sandoval-Norton. "Long-term ABA therapy is abusive: A response to Gorycki, Ruppel, and Zane." Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 5, no. 2 (2021): 126-134. Conine, Daniel E., Sarah C. Campau, and Abigail K. Petronelli. "LGBTQ+ conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis: A call to action." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 55, no. 1 (2022): 6-18. Graber, Abraham, and Jessica Graber. "Applied behavior analysis and the abolitionist neurodiversity critique: An ethical analysis." Behavior Analysis in Practice 16, no. 4 (2023): 921-937. Cernius, Ariana. "Statement of retraction & withdrawal:" No imbecile at all": How California won the autism insurance reform battle, and why its model should be replicated in other states (2016)." Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 15 (2020): 661. PDF ::"This is a topic concerning a community I care a great deal about. My decision to retract this piece stems from my love for my brother and years of inner turmoil over wanting to support both autistic individuals and their parents and caregivers, and growing up in an era and within a community that framed ABA as a positive tool for the autistic population that they had been wrongfully denied. That, in recent years, has been followed by the slow realization and resolution of cognitive dissonance in light of recent studies and literature reviews on the impact of ABA on people with autism and the individual testimonials of autistic adults on the trauma ABA caused them— that real harm is being done to these individuals by ABA. ABA has been in my family’s life for decades, since my brother was diagnosed in the 1990s, and though I am aware this retraction may not be well-received in our community of origin, I have seen enough for myself to be convinced that ABA is the autistic community’s analog to the LGBTQ community’s conversion therapy." - Ariana Cernius RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Relevant discussions: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Too_little_focus_on_anthropology_and_social_dynamics;_too_intense_focus_on_medical_genetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#ABA_is,_at_least,_controversial https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Editors_removed_%22Unbalanced%22_tag,_which_is_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Simple_reasoning_for_why_pathologising_Autism_is_unfair https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Autism_is_a_spectrum_and_it_looks_like_ICD_or_DSM_are_gatekeepers._Definition_of_Autism_and_ASD_varied_through_ages https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#I_think_multiple_miscommunication_from_various_side_(including_me)_and_quit_the_topic_._I_apologise_for_any_miscommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Fundamental_flaw_persist_in_how_a_%22pathology%22_is_defined._Until_that_is_going_to_be_solved,_the_debate_will_continue. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241214061100-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213203100 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250103092600-Autistic_scorpio-20250103000000 "I am consistently seeing the editors using the "Normal" vs "Pathology" dichotomy. Like if something isn't pathological then it is normal, or if something is not normal then it is pathological. They seem to miss the basic nature of the problem. Which occurs in a third dimension." https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Topic_missing_or_not_elaborate_enough https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Special_Section https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Adult_Autistics https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20241220201200-WhatamIdoing-20241220073400 "Up to my common sense, impairment usually mean the biological aspects, and a disability means a barrier in societal aspect (societal participation, having voice, having access to the same things that a non-disabled do). For example: Retinal detachment or glaucoma is more of an impairment, but resulting situation such as inability to access books or a public library, lacking navigation support, etc. constitutes the disability. Sometimes a disability is not necessarily a deficit but a mismatch. Whereas not all deficits lead to a disability, such as draconian politicians (I would not name anybody) often lack affective empathy or conscience, to a various extent, and have excess of other dark triad traits ... but it does not put them in disadvantage, rather it makes them uninhibited to get what they want... by hook or crook. It makes them more advantaged. Distinguishing an impairment or a disability can be an interesting philosophical-ethical challenge, and that debate itself should cover a page." https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#c-2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0-20241217040400-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20241213132400 My Conclusion Neurotypes and Internal experiences are not negotiable. Concealing the views critical to mainstream pathology paradigm doesn't help Audience. It rather takes away better quality of life, takes away better understanding on the matter. Encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, with all viewpoints. Neurodiversity and social model isn't a fringe position Neurodiversity and social model does not invalidate biological suffering and co-occurring coditions. The article should boost confidence, wellbeing, value, and social safety and social support of Autistic people. And acceptance of Autism to general population. That is only possible through better language and more positive and uplifting representation of Autism. Complete re-write of the article is required. I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics. I PLEA the editors to come into a consensus to show the bigger picture including all opposing views and use uplifting perspective and uplifting language. My opinion solely belongs to myself, and can have technical inaccuracies. however I do acknowledge an Autistic collective knowledge and Autistic consensus do exist, which does not often match with professional or biomedical consensus. This shows an existing shortcoming in the professional biomedical views, as it creates an epistemic injustice: So called high functioning folks are subjected to denial of support, job loss, self-ha*rm, stress etc. where as so called low functioning folks remain mistreated using inapplicable or coercive therapy methods with weird goals of extinguishing "behaviors" and not supporting inside out. I support that the concerns raised by @Oolong: is true and highly important. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @RIT RAJARSHI, thank you for sharing your views. Is there a typo in the sentence that says "doesn't help Audience"? I assume you meant "hep Autistics". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing By Audience I mean Encyclopedia readers. They can be parents, professionals, Autistic readers, Classmates, School teachers, anybody. Don't conceal truth. Reveal contrasting paradigms. Simple. Thank you for asking RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for this. I know that you've been finding engaging in these discussions extremely stressful, which is very understandable. I think all of your conclusions are clearly correct, although I imagine some will want to argue with this: 'I assume that any Good Faith editor would want the BEST for Autistics, and to do that we need to listen to Autistics.' However, I think any objections to that are convincingly answered by Whose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts (Gillespie-Lynch et al 2017) and Community Member Views on Autism Intervention: Effects of Closeness to Autistic People with Intellectual Disabilities And Nonspeaking Autistic People (Hersh et al 2024). Oolong (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Are we reaching to dispiute resolution? It looks like debates and discussions are going for a long period, but any permission to modify the article is not being obtained. Both in Talk page and DRN for Autism, wall of texts is growing up. People are not understanding that harmful things are being promoted in the name of only 1 consensus, and opposing viewes are being concealed. Emotional labour of the volunteers are being disrespected. Wall of text making things unreadable in talk and DRN. What a hopeless situation RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Note that I am not advocating for erasure of pathology view. I am just saying that encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It should present all aspects of a situation. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) I strongly oppose concealing of information from people. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Unhelpful framing and misinterpretation The DRN has became an wall of text and it is being impossible for me to keep track so I am responding to intended discussions in a separate section. With loads of love and respect; I feel like some users grossly misunderstood or misinterpreted neurodivergence and/or social model. No, these paradigms does not exclude negative experience. Apart from that, in my very personal perspective, the “disorder” framing and “pathologization/ medicalization/ medical model” are 2 related but different issues. the “disorder” framing can be subjective, and many of the Autistics may even identify being in a disordered state. but the pathology paradigm has even one step ahead: it assumes the problem is in the person and not in the structure of civilization (that closes the doors to make simple adjustments) or even worse, a tragedy model, where the person is the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-LogicalLens-20250110032600-WhatamIdoing-20250110025700 <quote> “They want the article more prominently reflect a POV that is popular in the neurodiversity movement (e.g., as it appears on social media, but also in some scholarly sources). This POV says that autism is part of each individual's personality and identity. If you could get rid of autism, then you would be getting rid of the autistic person's true character and identity.” </quote> Kind of true, but that does not mean that difficulties and stresses are being ignored. <quote> “This POV also believes that autism is good. Everything about autism is to be presented in as positive a light as possible.” </quote> This is strange. No, neurodiversity is NOT aspie supremacy. Autism is not bad either. It can have complex societal and individual impact. But pathologisation and negativity might take away social support. May not let us give the scope for societal supports and accommodations. Might lower the human value. <quote> "prefers eating the same food every day" or "his favorite food is plain pasta" instead of being negative and saying that person is "at risk of scurvy and other vitamin deficiencies because he refuses to eat anything except plain pasta, rice, and eggs"</quote> Keeping descriptions humanistic and positive, helps acceptance and social support. Yes there can be additional need for vitamins. ::::<quote>We should say that someone "has a strong desire to talk about their particular interests" instead of "fails to engage in reciprocal social communication by noticing that the other person is not interested in hearing a long lecture about the exact differences between Lego Mindstorms robots and Lego Education Spike Prime robots, and thus changing the subject to something the other person would enjoy".</quote> This is such an insensitive and insightless reasoning. What’s wrong if somebody prefers to hyperfixate into things or topics they enjoy or love or value a lot? Other people too try to join in meaningful conversation through infodumping or prallel play. It is possible. In the other hand, it is possible to frame neurotypical shallow chit chats, vague hints, assumptions, and thin slice judgements as a pathology. <quote> By default, if isn't good, then it isn't autism. Any 'bad' things should be called a "co-occurring disorder" </quote> I rather perceive the opposite. Adherents of pathology paradigm seem to continuously claim that if a person is “not impaired due to the symptoms” then it is not Autism. Some other user’s comment <quote>If someone exhibits autistic-like traits but are not sufficiently severe to lead them to be functionally impaired, then they do not have autism, and by extent are not on the autism spectrum (with an exception for borderline cases that may periodically fluctuate in and out of impairment). </quote> I have discussed my concerns to this kind of framing at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-RIT_RAJARSHI-20250109222800-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20250105133000 . People do not move in-and-out of their impairment/ Autistic nature. They move in and out physiological and mental reaction to stress. It is like adherents of neurodiversity paradigm is trying to show us a whole picture that includes positive aspects, but adherents of pathology paradigm seem to define Autism solely based on negativity. <quote> If a parent or caregiver wants an autistic person to quit engaging in a behavior (e.g., removing their clothes in public), then the parent should simply figure out what prompts that behavior (e.g., clothes that are too hot, itchy, stiff, loose, tight, synthetic, smelly, colorful, wet, stained, torn, sewn, peed-in) and proactively remove the prompt, so that the child won't think about doing that. </quote> Like what was that?! A child feel sensory torture and the parents would not figure out what stressor is causing this? Instead you chose to suppress the behavior, teaching the kid to not listen to its body? Kind of horrible idea this is. <quote> Overall, autistic people (adults) are to be presented as capable, autonomous, valuable people who can do great things. </quote> Looks like the benefits of “presumed competence” and “strength based approaches” are being horribly misunderstood. No, social support is always important for every kind of human being, and nobody lives isolation from human civilization (parents / siblings/ spouse/ employer/ clients/ friends/ children/ students/ coworkers/ … / one way or other). In some situation the social support is quite different in nature. The following discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-LogicalLens-20250110033900-WhatamIdoing-20250109083000 elegantly answers this as <quote> The social model of disability asserts that disabled people should be given the supports they need. These skin infections do not emerge if the disabled person is properly cared for. It is important that the "social" in "social model" does not only refer to the disablement that arises in interactions between the individual and their society but also to the social normativity regarding the autonomy and independence of people. While the neurodiversity movement does not reject teaching autistic people self-care skills if the autistic person wants it, it is important to note that although these hygiene things have to be done by someone, it is a cultural and capitalist decision to create a small separated space for every person for which the person is considered responsible and which they are expected to be able to manage. </quote> Note that presumed competence is different from invalidation of the struggles. <quote> and that autism be presented as a medical disorder serious enough to result in an average lifetime cost (in the US) of US$2,200,000 per autistic person with intellectual disabilities, and US$1,400,000 per autistic person without an intellectual disability </quote> It seems this cost is much due to a lack of culturally available social support, and also the high cost of ABA-based therapy methods, its side effects, and lack of access to strength based approaches. <quote> and the autistic person should not be blamed or shamed in any way. Most/all distress experienced by autistic people is caused by society's failure to provide sufficient accommodations and to value autistic people's views and perspectives, so "society" can be blamed and shamed. </quote> This is a misinterpretation. And why anyone would blame or shame an Autistic person? Note that societal stress is not always deliberate but due to systematic design fails due to normativity. I ultimately support and share the viewpoint that accommodation can’t solve 100% of the problems but It worth working on improving societal understanding, acceptance, and accommodation. I found the following statement insightful. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#c-Oolong-20250108162000-Димитрий_Улянов_Иванов-20250108094700 <quote> Claiming that "Reducing autism to a mere environmental mismatch is highly trivialising" is in fact trivialising. There is nothing trivial at all about environmental mismatches. They are often intensely distressing and disabling. Many, many grave harms and bad experiences are clearly avoidable by adjusting the environment in identifiable ways. Nobody's harms or experiences are being erased by saying that they arise from a mismatch between the person and their environment. The idea that any of these harms and experiences, the reality of which is not in question, are direct results of somebody's cognitive makeup, and hence impossible to prevent without changing the person, appears to be pure speculation. Perhaps it is true, but I for one have never had experiences that didn't depend on my environment in some way. It's hard to imagine what kind of empirical evidence could plausibly demonstrate that a particular class of experiences has nothing to do with the experiencer's environment, but if you believe you have such evidence, by all means share it here.</quote> I wished to visit and interact the DRN Page, but I feel like DRN is failing due to rigidity of the medical model. It is being harmful for my mental wellbeing. The topic is being extremely triggering and stressful for me once again. I am sorry I can't agree with adherents of current version of Misplaced Pages article and the pathology paradigm. It makes me feel helpless. I am sorry. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ^ Cite error: The named reference World Health Organization was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "Overview | Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management | Guidance". www.nice.org.uk. 2013-08-28. Retrieved 2024-11-02. ^ Cite error: The named reference iacc.hhs.gov was invoked but never defined (see the help page). National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Dalwai, Samir; Ahmed, Shabina; Udani, Vrajesh; Mundkur, Nandini; Kamath, S. S.; C Nair, M. K. (2017-05-15). "Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder". Indian Pediatrics. 54 (5): 385–393. doi:10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4. ISSN 0974-7559. PMID 28368272. Howes, Oliver D; Rogdaki, Maria; Findon, James L; Wichers, Robert H; Charman, Tony; King, Bryan H; Loth, Eva; McAlonan, Gráinne M; McCracken, James T; Parr, Jeremy R; Povey, Carol; Santosh, Paramala; Wallace, Simon; Simonoff, Emily; Murphy, Declan G (2018-01-01). "Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology". Journal of Psychopharmacology. 32 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0269881117741766. ISSN 0269-8811. PMC 5805024. PMID 29237331. Kapp, Steven K., ed. (2020). "Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement". SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0. Dwyer, Patrick; Gurba, Ava N; Kapp, Steven K; Kilgallon, Elizabeth; Hersh, Lynnette H; Chang, David S; Rivera, Susan M; Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen (2024-09-18). "Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions". Autism: 13623613241273029. doi:10.1177/13623613241273029. ISSN 1362-3613. Shakespeare, Tom (1997). "The Social Model of Disability". In Davis, Lennard J. (ed.). The disability studies reader (PDF). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91470-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Nelson RH (2021). "A Critique of the Neurodiversity View". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 38 (2): 335–347. doi:10.1111/japp.12470. Shields, Kenneth; Beversdorf, David (1 July 2021). "A Dilemma For Neurodiversity". Neuroethics. 14 (2): 125–141. doi:10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x. ISSN 1874-5504. Robison JE (2020). "My Time with Autism Speaks". In Kapp SK (ed.). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline. Singapore: Springer. pp. 221–232. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16. ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0. S2CID 210496353. Opar, Alisa (24 April 2019). "In search of truce in the autism wars". Spectrum. Simons Foundation. doi:10.53053/VRKL4748. S2CID 249140855. Archived from the original on 8 July 2022. Retrieved 9 July 2022. Hodges, Holly; Fealko, Casey; Soares, Neelkamal (February 2020). "Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation". Translational Pediatrics. 9 (Suppl 1): S55–S5S65. doi:10.21037/tp.2019.09.09. ISSN 2224-4344. PMC 7082249. PMID 32206584. Ratajczak, Helen V. (2011-03-01). "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review". Journal of Immunotoxicology. 8 (1): 68–79. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086. ISSN 1547-691X. PMID 21299355. Mandy W, Lai MC (March 2016). "Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 57 (3): 271–292. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12501. eISSN 1469-7610. ISSN 0021-9630. OCLC 01307942. PMID 26782158. Bertelli, Marco O.; Azeem, Muhammad Waqar; Underwood, Lisa; Scattoni, Maria Luisa; Persico, Antonio M.; Ricciardello, Arianna; Sappok, Tanja; Bergmann, Thomas; Keller, Roberto (2022), Bertelli, Marco O.; Deb, Shoumitro (Shoumi); Munir, Kerim; Hassiotis, Angela (eds.), "Autism Spectrum Disorder", Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 391, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16, ISBN 978-3-319-95720-3, retrieved 8 June 2022, Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have transgender identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. ^ Lord, Catherine; Charman, Tony; Havdahl, Alexandra; Carbone, Paul; Anagnostou, Evdokia; Boyd, Brian; Carr, Themba; de Vries, Petrus J; Dissanayake, Cheryl; Divan, Gauri; et al. (2022). "The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism" (PDF). The Lancet. 399 (10321): 299–300. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5. hdl:11250/2975811. PMID 34883054. S2CID 244917920 – via Norwegian Institute of Public Health. ^ Cite error: The named reference Graham Holmes-2022 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR (December 2021). "The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 51 (12): 4253–4270. doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1. PMC 8531066. PMID 33624215. Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J (2011). "The Broad Autism Phenotype". Autism Spectrum Disorders. Oxford University Press. pp. 457–476. doi:10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031. ISBN 978-0-19-996521-2. Chapman R, Veit W (November 2021). "Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact?". Molecular Psychiatry. 26 (11): 7069. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6. PMID 34697454. S2CID 239771302. Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J (June 2007). "The autism epidemic: fact or artifact?". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 46 (6): 721–730. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b. PMID 17513984. ^ Cite error: The named reference Russell 2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). ^ DeStefano F, Shimabukuro TT (September 2019). "The MMR Vaccine and Autism". Annual Review of Virology. 6 (1): 585–600. doi:10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015515. PMC 6768751. PMID 30986133. ^ Cite error: The named reference CDC 2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "Overview | Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management | Guidance". www.nice.org.uk. 2013-08-28. Retrieved 2024-11-02. National Consultation Meeting for Developing IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders under the aegis of IAP Childhood Disability Group and the Committee on Child Development and Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Dalwai, Samir; Ahmed, Shabina; Udani, Vrajesh; Mundkur, Nandini; Kamath, S. S.; C Nair, M. K. (2017-05-15). "Consensus Statement of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on Evaluation and Management of Autism Spectrum Disorder". Indian Pediatrics. 54 (5): 385–393. doi:10.1007/s13312-017-1112-4. ISSN 0974-7559. PMID 28368272. Howes, Oliver D; Rogdaki, Maria; Findon, James L; Wichers, Robert H; Charman, Tony; King, Bryan H; Loth, Eva; McAlonan, Gráinne M; McCracken, James T; Parr, Jeremy R; Povey, Carol; Santosh, Paramala; Wallace, Simon; Simonoff, Emily; Murphy, Declan G (2018-01-01). "Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology". Journal of Psychopharmacology. 32 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0269881117741766. ISSN 0269-8811. PMC 5805024. PMID 29237331. Kapp, Steven K., ed. (2020). "Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement". SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0. Dwyer, Patrick; Gurba, Ava N; Kapp, Steven K; Kilgallon, Elizabeth; Hersh, Lynnette H; Chang, David S; Rivera, Susan M; Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen (2024-09-18). "Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions". Autism: 13623613241273029. doi:10.1177/13623613241273029. ISSN 1362-3613. Shakespeare, Tom (1997). "The Social Model of Disability". In Davis, Lennard J. (ed.). The disability studies reader (PDF). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91470-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Nelson RH (2021). "A Critique of the Neurodiversity View". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 38 (2): 335–347. doi:10.1111/japp.12470. Shields, Kenneth; Beversdorf, David (1 July 2021). "A Dilemma For Neurodiversity". Neuroethics. 14 (2): 125–141. doi:10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x. ISSN 1874-5504. Robison JE (2020). "My Time with Autism Speaks". In Kapp SK (ed.). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline. Singapore: Springer. pp. 221–232. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_16. ISBN 978-981-13-8437-0. S2CID 210496353. Opar, Alisa (24 April 2019). "In search of truce in the autism wars". Spectrum. Simons Foundation. doi:10.53053/VRKL4748. S2CID 249140855. Archived from the original on 8 July 2022. Retrieved 9 July 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-020-09431-x. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) "Moving from Disorder to Difference: A Systematic Review of Recent Language Use in Autism Research". Autism in Adulthood. "Annual Research Review: Shifting from 'normal science' to neurodiversity in autism science". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Hodges, Holly; Fealko, Casey; Soares, Neelkamal (February 2020). "Autism spectrum disorder: definition, epidemiology, causes, and clinical evaluation". Translational Pediatrics. 9 (Suppl 1): S55–S5S65. doi:10.21037/tp.2019.09.09. ISSN 2224-4344. PMC 7082249. PMID 32206584. Ratajczak, Helen V. (2011-03-01). "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review". Journal of Immunotoxicology. 8 (1): 68–79. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086. ISSN 1547-691X. PMID 21299355. Mandy W, Lai MC (March 2016). "Annual Research Review: The role of the environment in the developmental psychopathology of autism spectrum condition". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 57 (3): 271–292. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12501. eISSN 1469-7610. ISSN 0021-9630. OCLC 01307942. PMID 26782158. Bertelli, Marco O.; Azeem, Muhammad Waqar; Underwood, Lisa; Scattoni, Maria Luisa; Persico, Antonio M.; Ricciardello, Arianna; Sappok, Tanja; Bergmann, Thomas; Keller, Roberto (2022), Bertelli, Marco O.; Deb, Shoumitro (Shoumi); Munir, Kerim; Hassiotis, Angela (eds.), "Autism Spectrum Disorder", Textbook of Psychiatry for Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 391, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95720-3_16, ISBN 978-3-319-95720-3, retrieved 8 June 2022, Persons with autism spectrum disorder and/or other neurodevelopmental problems are more likely than the general population to have transgender identity, non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and other gender non-conformities. "Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review". Clinical Psychology Review. Rosen NE, Lord C, Volkmar FR (December 2021). "The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-III to DSM-5 and Beyond". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 51 (12): 4253–4270. doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1. PMC 8531066. PMID 33624215.fix this citation Losh M, Adolphs R, Piven J (2011). "The Broad Autism Phenotype". Autism Spectrum Disorders. Oxford University Press. pp. 457–476. doi:10.1093/med/9780195371826.003.0031. ISBN 978-0-19-996521-2. Chapman R, Veit W (November 2021). "Correction to: The essence of autism: fact or artefact?". Molecular Psychiatry. 26 (11): 7069. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01057-6. PMID 34697454. S2CID 239771302. Wazana A, Bresnahan M, Kline J (June 2007). "The autism epidemic: fact or artifact?". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 46 (6): 721–730. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31804a7f3b. PMID 17513984. "Autism phenotype versus registered diagnosis in Swedish children: prevalence trends over 10 years in general population samples". The BMJ. "What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Barkley RA, Murphy KR (2011-06-01). "The Nature of Executive Function (EF) Deficits in Daily Life Activities in Adults with ADHD and Their Relationship to Performance on EF Tests". Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 33 (2): 137–158. doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9217-x. ISSN 1573-3505. Fleming M, Fitton CA, Steiner MF, McLay JS, Clark D, King A, Mackay DF, Pell JP (July 2017). "Educational and Health Outcomes of Children Treated for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder". JAMA Pediatrics. 171 (7): e170691. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0691. PMC 6583483. PMID 28459927. Barkley RA, Fischer M (July 2019). "Hyperactive Child Syndrome and Estimated Life Expectancy at Young Adult Follow-Up: The Role of ADHD Persistence and Other Potential Predictors". Journal of Attention Disorders. 23 (9): 907–923. doi:10.1177/1087054718816164. PMID 30526189. S2CID 54472439. Cattoi B, Alpern I, Katz JS, Keepnews D, Solanto MV (April 2022). "The Adverse Health Outcomes, Economic Burden, and Public Health Implications of Unmanaged Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Call to Action Resulting from CHADD Summit, Washington, DC, October 17, 2019". Journal of Attention Disorders. 26 (6): 807–808. doi:10.1177/10870547211036754. PMID 34585995. S2CID 238218526. Doyle, Nancy (14 October 2020). "Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults". British Medical Bulletin. 135 (1): 108–125. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaa021. PMC 7732033. PMID 32996572. Mark Rober's video about autism (His kid is at the start. That's his kid's mate I think) sometimes I have some intrusive thoughts where I do think about this The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imran Khan

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs) Veldsenk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The content removed in this diff had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Misplaced Pages is not censored. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Imran Khan#Reham Khan How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources. Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially Misplaced Pages:BLP, which states "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, she lost the case and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, suggesting a potential motive for bias. The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) References "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls. Summary of dispute by Veldsenk Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Imran Khan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Is this dispute at least partly about the reliability of sources? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard first, before any other content issues are discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a biography of a living person? If so, it might be answered more quickly at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan) I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on editing of biographies of living persons. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan) I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute: Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in her book that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018. Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth." Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) References "Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan". dnaindia.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 10 August 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018. "Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book". Deccanchronicle.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018. "Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan". hindustantimes.com. 13 July 2018. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Tagore, Vijay (15 July 2018). "Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan". Mumbai Mirror. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2021. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls. I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:GRAPEVINE, which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, she had to publicly apologize. Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias. These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As User:Veldsenk pointed out, without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) References "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls. Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) @WikiEnthusiast1001 Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Imran Khan) The issue appears to be whether to include in our biography of Imran Khan the allegations made by his ex-wife. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? Has Imran Khan (or anyone acting as his spokesman) commented on the veracity of the allegations? If so, where? Have reliable sources, such as newspapers, discussed the allegations and commented on their accuracy? The memoir by Reham Khan is a primary source. The policy on biographies of living persons says that extreme caution should be used in the use of primary sources. It says that we may use the material in the primary sources if secondary sources have referred to the primary sources. So a major concern is whether secondary sources have discussed the allegations. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) You are correct and this is the only issue. Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects. Khan's party information secretary alleged that the PML-N was behind the book and that "photograph of Ms Khan and her son with former US ambassador Hussain Haqqani doing the rounds on social media was sufficient evidence. Discussing yet another photograph of Ms Khan, this time with former PML-N MNA from Rawalpindi Hanif Abbasi, Mr Chaudhry claimed that the PML-N leader had asked “what will Imran do if Reham’s book is published before the election?" Khan commented on the book in 2022, stating that his ex-wife had been paid by the Sharif family to write a book against him. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) References "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2021. Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls. "Contents of Reham's book are against family values: Fawad Chaudhry". 6 June 2018. "Reham Khan was paid to write book against me in 2018: Imran Khan". 30 April 2022. First statements by editors (Imran Khan) Following secondary sources and many others have covered the allegations: Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) References "Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan". dnaindia.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 10 August 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018. "Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book". Deccanchronicle.com. 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 14 July 2018. Retrieved 9 August 2018. "Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan". hindustantimes.com. 13 July 2018. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Tagore, Vijay (15 July 2018). "Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan". Mumbai Mirror. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018. "Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'". The News (Pakistan). 12 July 2018. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2021. Second statement by moderator (Imran Khan) The memoir is a primary source, but secondary sources have reported on the allegations in the memoir, and the content dispute is about whether to report on the allegations. I agreed to consider this dispute at DRN because the filing editor expressed a concern that some cases at the biographies of living persons noticeboard are not answered and are archived unanswered. However, I will take my chances on whether there is an answer at BLPN. I will be putting this dispute here on hold while I see if I get an answer. I have posted the dispute at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imran_Khan, and you may discuss the issues there. Be civil and concise, because that is always good advice about disputes. Please be patient. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Imran Khan) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

– This request has been placed on hold. Filed by Abo Yemen on 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Abo Yemen (talk · contribs)
• Javext (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

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

Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

Summary of dispute by Javext

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"

-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"

-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."

-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."

So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.

First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.

The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory

Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy

Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.

The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.

Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."

.

Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.

-

"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."

.

You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.

-

"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."

.

What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..

-

"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;

'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'

Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."

.

I already responded to this above

-

"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."

.

Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "

-

"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."

.

I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."

-

"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."

.

I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet wikipedia standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:

• I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
• The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
• As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).

Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.

If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?

Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. : However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).

First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

Movement for Democracy (Greece)

– Discussion in progress. Filed by 77.49.204.122 on 18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

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

Location of dispute

• Movement for Democracy (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hellenic Rebel (talk · contribs)
• Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.

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

• Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#5/300 *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Disruptive editing *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greece#Movement for Democracy (Greece) *Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated pov pushing *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Discussion *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 - Dispute over whether the party has MPs or not

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.

Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Hello dear users, those are my points:

• Lack of Consensus:

Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version.

• Evidence from Sources:

Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example:

• Documento: the five MPs who have left SYRIZA and joined the Democracy Movement..
• Politic: The five MPs belonging to the Democracy Movement

Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources. These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement.

• Policy Misinterpretation:

Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Misplaced Pages (e.g., SSW, UDI, DemoS). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group.

Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.

• Parliamentary Website Context:

The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs.

• Request for Fair Evaluation:

I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

P.S.: I am really sorry, I did not managed not to not to exceed 2000 characters, I exceeded them by 500.

Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.

However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.

The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.

While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.

Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.

Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122

I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou

MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. On the initiative of the independent MP of Viotia Giota Poulou, which was co-signed by the five Independent MPs of the party "DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT", a Question was submitted to the Parliament on the problem of the road blockade of Delphi due to rockfalls on the National Road of Livadia-Amfissa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover articles on living people and reliable sourcing. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here mentioned here is accurate: "We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."

In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources undue weight. While one source was provided that mentions that they belong to the party, the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, consensus can change, but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. Steven Crossin 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - Hellenic_Parliament#Parliamentary_groups - "A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, Course of Freedom (with 6) and Spartans (Greek political party) with 5, and according to the results of the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. Steven Crossin 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Yes, here is my opinion: are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hellenic Rebel, thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. Steven Crossin 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy?

Regarding the citation of the WP policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "since there is an identical article, let's do the same here". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Misplaced Pages. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Steven Crossin just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Urartu

– New discussion. Filed by Bogazicili on 16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Urartu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• Skeptical1800 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple issues discussed in Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes.

I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.

Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolve issues with respect to WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:OR, and removal of content

Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:

"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"

User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.

Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.

The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:

"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"

So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).

User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

Here is the quote in question:

"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"

User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.

"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu

User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:

Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."

and:

Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."

It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?

Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."

It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.

To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."

Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.

There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?

These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Urartu discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Skeptical1800, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.

I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Undid recent edits, as requested.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Skeptical1800, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)

I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)

I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:

• Removal of content from the lead. Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".
• Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia: The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".
• Removal of this content, or where it should be put: These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.
• Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to this edit. Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: Talk:Proto-Armenian_language#Recent_edits and Talk:Origin_of_the_Armenians#Recent_edits. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
• I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here. Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with. Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:

• Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.
• Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
• Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Wesean Student Federation

– New discussion. Filed by EmeraldRange on 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wesean Student Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EmeraldRange (talk · contribs)
• Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".

Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.

Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)

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

Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Third Opinion requested, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#POV Based Content: Possible Original Research, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Removal of the etymology section, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Request for Review: Insurgency-Related Content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes

Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips

My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wesean Student Federation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! Steven Crossin 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

– Discussion in progress. Filed by Clovermoss on 18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Clovermoss (talk · contribs)
• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.

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

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Lead sentence

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at religious group, that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--Jeffro77 Talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! Steven Crossin 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? Steven Crossin 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards