Talk:Neurodiversity/Archive 1

Concern about objectivity
This page lacks objectivity and reads like a brochure for some kind of politically correct mental health organisation. At very least the list of links at the bottom should removed: Private "official" link lists do not belong in what ought to be an encyclopedic article. --80.219.55.240 19:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No serious neuropsychologist considers Autism and Asperger's syndrome mental illnesses. Yes, they have DSM descriptions, but how else Autism spectrum people with them would get support for their problems? But I agree that the link list needs pruning. -Hapsiainen 22:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the article lacking objectivity. I don't understand the claim that it "reads like a brochure for some kind of politically correct mental health organisation" put it looks like a put down. As for the link list, I have categorized it so hopefully that will help. Q0 06:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the external links section is way too large. When the Aspergian Pride's list was separate from the external links section I thought that was ok because then people would still have a shorter list that is easier to go through. But now with the two links sections there is only one hard to sort through list. I think either the links needs to be divided back into separate "external links" and "aspergian pride links" sections like it was before, or the external links list needs to be cut shorter, or the external links section needs to be divided into subsections to make it easier to sort though. Q0 08:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the first user: I completely agree. Cerebral Palsy as neurological difference? And the WHO regards autism as a mental disorder/disease. The director of the American National Institute Mental Health, Thomas Insel, regards autism as a mental disorder/disease. As does the Judicial committee of the US.

The gay comparison is ludicrous as even some high functioning autistics find basic social interaction confusing, much less concepts like physical love and sex. And the motives are different. Most 'gay cure' attempts were to give a feeling of power over people, where as attempts to cure autism more often come out of a desire to help their children.

I don't hate auties/aspies, I'm just pro choice, and I'm against forcing a cure on them. They can choose to remain autistic, and that's fine by me, if their happy with it. But that doesn't mean they have the right to stop others from getting ABA or other therapies.

We need a bit more expansion on opposing views, and a change to some of the wording ('Response to Prejudice sounds a little POV, don't you think?) Lord Patrick


 * I think you have misunderstood a couple of things. Firstly, ABA, TEACCH and other therapies don't cure Autism. They modify Autistic people's behaviour and teach them new skills, but they don't remove the difference, "palsy" as you call it. Secondly, I have never heard of any Autism advocate who wants to stop such therapies. They have been sometimes criticised being not scientifically proven, but that is a completely different topic. You also don't realize, that this page tells about the whole Autistic spectrum. Asperger's and Rhett's syndromes are included. But you only talk about high-functioning and low-functioning Autistics.


 * Because you confuse some basic concepts, it is difficult to respond to your comment. However, I have to add that Cure Autism Now isn't about choice. They think is better that no people of Autism spectrum would be born. So they also want to prevent Asperger's syndrome, which causes only eccentric behaviour, not e.g. spinal pains or slow learning to talk. -Hapsiainen 20:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I've read the links and found people opposing ABA. But ABA isn't the only therapy for Autistics, although it is the best known. I think that the article gives too polarized view on the issue. If you view the Autism spectrum as plurality, the border between the Autistics and neurotypicality as a social construct, you have just to wait that an Autistic child learns to speak. If you interfere, you wish that such kids were never born. I don't recognize myself from either of these streotypes. I don't also believe that the situation in every coutry is so polarized.


 * I believe that when you can organize the child's environment differently, provide the therapies that you belive they help the child, and not force them to be someone else, you can still be a proponent of neurodiversity. Here is a text from a page under the proponent links. "Therapies we have used." I propose an extra paragraph under the "Who are the proponents" section: "There are different views among the proponents, which therapies help Autistics and develop their skills, and which only force them to act as desired and harm them." I sense that the article is controversial, so I first put the text here.

Autistics vs. Autistic spectrum
Not all Aspergers indentify themselves as Autistics. I identify myself only as an Asperger, although I know that the line between Autism and Asperger's syndrome is blurry, and in the future science it could be divided differently. If the article calls all the people of Autism spectrum as Autistics, it leads people to believe that there isn't Asperger's and Rett's syndromes. And then we forget their needs, obstacles that they meet, which are somewhat different from what the Autistics called Autistics have. So the article should describe the group as "people of Autism spectrum", or at least to explain that in this text the word autistic means all the people of Autistic spectrum. -Hapsiainen 11:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I used word "Autistic spectrum" differently than it is used in Wikipedia. It is used there about the whole humankind. I thought that it was the same concept as "autismin kirjo", all the people that have an autistic spectrum disorder. But the literal meaning of those words is so similar. Fortunately I didn't add my confusion to the text. -Hapsiainen 14:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Braun
The only google hit for ["Nathan Braun" Neurodiversity] is his Wikipedia page, Nathan Braun, which only says that he "claims a commitment" to it, whatever that means. What's the value of this "see also" link? -Willmcw 00:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps whoever added the link could answer that. Google is a poor barometer of notability in many, if not most instances.  Having witnessed with dismay the unrestrained zeal of certain deletionists, this particular restoration may have been a bit too reflexive.  The analogy of autoimmune disorders comes to mind.  Deletionism seems all to easy to defend, and no organized effort to temper the evident problem has jumped out front and center.  Ombudsman 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The editor who added the link is very likely Nathan Braun himself. -Willmcw 02:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Opposing views
The article states: "'There are some people, mostly some parents of autistic children, who believe that autistics face great difficulty in life because of their condition, so the 'benefits' of the unique, and arguably, rewarding subjectivity experienced by the autistic is not worth the social and functional strains entailed. These people believe a cure for autism is the best way to solve the problems of autistics, and see it as unfair to characterize the desire to cure autism as bigotry.'"

Many clinicians, doctors, scientists are cure oriented. It is usually professionals that encourage parents to normalize their children or they will have to be institutionalized. It is unfair and biased POV to say "mostly parents".

Because autism is a spectrum condition, It is unfair to those autistics who do have great difficulties in life to downplay the hardships they must live through. I agree that autistic people have unique and rewarding experiences, but their difficulties should be noted in order to raise awareness and acceptance. Autistics will not be given the help and services they need if they are portrayed as not in need of any accomodations. Becca77 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Q0, saw your edit. It is better, though still seems a tad offensive. Here is an example of some wording I think is more Wiki-like:
 * "Because autistic people usually have some unusual (or unfamiliar) difficulties (or challenges, hardships, etc) in life, there are some people who think finding a cure for autism would be in the best interest of autistics. People who are interested in a cure for autism are predominantly neurotypical individuals; including physicians, therapists and parents of autistic children. Autistic people accept their condition as unique, and arguably, rewarding; despite the social and functional strains entailed.  Autistic people feel the desire to cure autism demonstrates prejudice and intolerance.
 * Or something like that. What do you think?
 * Becca77♥  15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed dubious tag because it is not biased POV anymore; though still think it would come across better if slightly reworded. Becca77♥  00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added your suggested changes to the article. Q0 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is good now. I just took out the extra text that was in parenthesis - that was for you to choose which words you thought fit better :-) Becca77♥  13:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle Ground?
It seems that many in the anti-cure camp are at the 'high functioning' end of Autism and ADHD. They rightly point out the contributions to society that people with their conditions have made, and if we were to eliminate these, then who knows what humanity might lose?

On the other hand, there are many people who aren't high-functioning, and these disorders cause significant impairment to their lives.

It seems to me that the goal of 'cure' should be to help eliminate the impairments to help the people lead productive lives, but not eliminate the positive traits. .


 * I haven't seen any evidence to the effect that low-functioning autistics are more likely to be pro-cure. The anti-cure position is not exclussive to autism or psychiatric disorders. It seems to occur in disability in general. Are the politics in autism a little different? Maybe. As to elimination of impairments, leaving positive traits intact, that's too theoretical and simple of an idea, frankly. Being autistic is not entirely about strengths and weaknesses. It's more than that. If you were offered to be turned into Bill Gates, would you take the offer? Is it possible to cure Rain Man of autism and let him keep his human calculator and memory skills? Neurodivergent 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More Discussion off of where Middle Ground left off
A lot of what I'm about to tell you below is my own experiences, which I know can't be the complete basis for Wikipedia articles. However, I urge you to read what I have to say and seek out others like me in an attempt to make this article more balanced.

As someone well studied in ADHD issues and with middle-functioning ADHD who goes low-functioning on some issues and high-functioning on others, I'd have to lean towards the statements of the person above. I was especially bothered by the following statement: " Administration of drugs to children for minor conditions that won't affect their normal development such as ADHD."

''I wholeheartedly agree -- ADD/ADHD is NOT a minor condition -- it veritably defines the person who has it, as do all of the Spectrum 'disorders'. It is part of a person's makeup, not a minor annoyance or a phase that will 'gotten through'. Spectrum and ADHD children turn into Spectrum and ADHD ADULTS, who are often misunderstood, misdiagnosed, underserved in schools, under or chronically unemployed, depressed -- if this isn't a problem, then I don't know what is!!Janjt 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)'' ADHD is certainly not always a "minor condition" and certainly HAS affected my normal development. My ADHD has affected all parts of my life, all throughout my life. If it wasn't for my being treated for it, I would not have made it through elementary school, let alone the rest of school and on to adulthood. (You may argue this with "well, if schools were structured to accomodate the unique quirks of ADHD, this wouldn't be a problem". You may be right, but they're not, and until they are, we still have to function within their structures... and many of us couldn't w/o some kind of treatment. I know I'm one of them.) My ADHD has affected everything from study habits to being at work on time to driving to difficulty with orgasm. I *know* I'm not the only one.

Perhaps you should consider restating that as "Administration of drugs to children for minor conditions that won't affect their normal development as high-functioning ADHD" or some other wording of it that stresses a mild case of it.

Also, I've had people argue with me that ADHD doesn't exist, that if you had something you wanted to do, you'd be able to do it. I've cited times where I'm in my room, alone, with nothing to do but pay the bills. I really truly WANT to pay my bills. It's not hard. It's just writing the check, putting it in the envelope, putting the stamp and address on it and sending it. And yet, I can't do it. I try as hard as I can... and I just can't do it. I take my medication, and suddenly, I can. It's stuff like that that makes me realize that, disorder or neurological difference, I've got something that's keeping me from being able to live my life, even when I'm in an environment that's ok for me to work in. And I'm going to do whatever I can to overcome this thing that's keeping me frustrated and unable to live my life to the fullest.

The idea of neurodiversity will help to bring about greater acceptance of people with unique neurology like ours, and for that, I support it. I'm just worried that it will go too far and will keep those of us who need extra accomodation or who need our medication to live our lives from being able to obtain it. I think that both views need to be able to be held in a state of quasi-paradox: we have neurodiversity, but some of these people need help to be able to get by, and if they want it, they should be allowed to have it. But our gov't and our society is so wrapped up in needing things to be easily quantified if they are to be accepted, that I just don't see us being able to get any help from society or the gov't if we wish it if our conditions aren't labeled as a disability.

''In my opinion, the term neurdiversity means exactly that -- Spectrum and ADHD people are not disabled -- they in effect speak a different language. So, working with these individuals becomes more of an effort to 'acculturate' them to the neurotypical world rather than to 'change' them to fit. There are many side benefits of ADHD (i.e., multitasking, incredible productivity) and Spectrum individuals (i.e., incredible attention to detail, ingenious solutions, high IQ, loyalty and honesty)-- but these benefits serve no one, including the owner, if the individual cannot survive in the neurotypical world. I don't want to change my Asperger son -- I DO want him to be successful in the neurotypical world, and that means he needs to learn and demonstrate 'neurotypical acculturation'. Janjt 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)'' And as for your question above about "if you could suddenly be cured, would you"? That's a tricky question. I've thought about it at various points in the past, and have had different answers. I was diagnosed at age 8 and am 24 now, and I think I would have to say at this point that, no, I wouldn't want to be cured completely, but if someone made it possible to take a pill or have a cure for the parts that impact negatively on my life, I would go for it in a heartbeat. Not all of us are able to overcome the differences in our neurology by willpower alone, and to expect us to be able to do that is as bad as the people who say that ADHD doesn't exist or who call ADHDers lazy, stupid or crazy, and who say "well, if you'd just apply yourself, you'd be able to do it", as if we're choosing not to. It's blaming the victim.

And as for the part of the article on treatment of children... nobody, but NOBODY, has *asked* these children "Would you *like* to be treated? Do you feel like you need extra help?" I was never asked if I wanted to be treated... I felt like I had no choice. I was very keen to realize that, and it caused many conflicting feelings with the fact that the treatment *did* help me and that I did feel that I felt better and functioned better with my treatment. There's people who say "oh, it's not real" or "oh, I would never give drugs to my child", not thinking that perhaps the child feels the struggle in school themselves (because they most certainly DO) and that perhaps the child would WANT to try treatment to see if they could make their own life easier/better. People talk about treating children as if they're property... noone even proposes to give the child any choice... and I think that should be addressed as a good strategy for use with neurodiverse people.

''Actually, my son and I have talked about his treatment many, many times. He and I agreed together to put him on Concerta, and then later we agreed together to take him off it when he was better able to cope with organization and attention issues. He asked if he could go into therapy, and I agreed. He asked to go to more occuptational/social skills camps, and I was happy to help him. This is HIS life -- my job as his parent is to help him be successful, not to define who he is. I realize that I'm a bit unusual in this regard, but it's really what all parents should do.Janjt 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)'' Thanks for reading my writing, and I hope you'll think seriously about it and get back to me (and not just with a knee-jerk "you're brainwashed by the medical establishment." I truly do enjoy learning about multiple modes of thinking on ADHD and incorporating what works into my own personal outlook.)C4bl3Fl4m3 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, I actually have Aspergers and it's no picnic. Precisely what criteria for a disease does it fail to fulfill that any other mental illness doesn't also fail? This concept of neurodiversity strikes me as an outright farce. As though being friendless, unable to live alone, and socially inept is just another way of being. -- Eddy1701

''It's not a farce -- some of us truly get how hard your world is. The task at hand is to help the neurotypical world UNDERSTAND and ACCOMMODATE. They cannot do that if they continue to look at AS folks as 'disabled' because you will forever be put in a box, consciously or not, that states you are UNABLE to do certain things. We are ALL UNABLE to do certain things, so instead of looking at that as a disability, we need to look at that as a difference that can be understood, and perhaps treated if it makes life in the neurotypical world easier for the individual.Janjt 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)''


 * If I might chime in, I've also had ADHD (diagnosed when it was known as ADD, by the way) for my whole life. I can understand where C4bl3Fl4m3 is coming from too, and I agree in many respects. ADHD comes with a lot of problems. And I really do think that the therapy I went through added a lot of value to my life. I wrestle with my mind for my concentration every day. And I've seen many people fall by the wayside, becoming violent, a junkie, unemployed, or what have you. But for me, I'm about to complete my Master of Applied Finance, and work in a bank with a credit discretion (i.e. I lend money). And it doesn't get easier. In some ways, my willpower has gotten stronger, while my concentration is still intermittant. I don't know if I'd "cure" it, but I sure love the idea of effective treatment. So what's my point? :) I'm not really excited by the idea of being accomodated by society, or understood ;) I'd rather build my own personal empire around me, and let the bleeding hearts worry about all the understanding and accomodation ;)
 * Jason 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neurodiversity vs. Autism rights
Most of this content seems to include more stuff on autism rights than pretty much anything else, and it dosn't really even mention dyslexia, AD(H)D, schizophrenia. etc. If most of the stuff that's been done relating to neurodiversity is about autism then maybe we should merge this with "autism rights" Nathanww 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a shame, because as I understand it that's not the way this term is intended even when used within the autistic community. Usage by other such groups is more rare, however (but not non-existent). elmindreda 04:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judy Singer did not appear to coin the term
She claims she originated it in 1999, I found an article using it in sept, 1998. I made the correction to the main article. CeilingCrash 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Judy Singer here. I was contacted about this by someone who says they are from Wikipedia. I have amended the entry to clarify the situation

Here are copies of my correspondence with the people claiming to be from Wikipedia:


 * Harvey and I were in regular email correspondence starting around 1996 or 7 and discussed the idea. I'm not sure which of us first came up with the actual term, but certainly we both chewed the idea around. I will try and find the correspondence. It first appeared in my work my Honours Thesis. "Odd People In", which I submitted in 1998 to the University of Technology, Sydney. Your date of publication of Disability Discourse is correct, but I wrote the article in 1997. Turnaround between writing and publication is much slower for books than magazines. I am trying to locate my correspondence with Harvey for further verification.


 * I went in and changed the wiki article to what I think is a more accurate version. I wouldnt like Harvey to get all the credit, in the meantime I'm trying to locate when the term first emerged in our private conversations. I still think I first used the term in our conversations but the ego can be misleading... Also I feel a certain colonial resentment - ie why should the USA end up with all the credit for new ideas - when they have all the major publications, are at the centre of things and can therefore be published much more quickly and easily - the fact is that it was very hard for me as an Australian to get the support and recognition that I think I deserve for pioneering a whole new discourse.

I might add that the idea of Neurodiversity as a political tool was mine and one that I pushed from the beginning.

Judy singer DID co-coin the term== ==

I just want to confirm what Ms. Singer has stated, I contacted both authors and neither claim priority and both acknowledge they were discussing the matter in email.


 * Given an informal collaboration existed and no dispute exists between them, it seems clear we should attribute both equally. - Added Apr/6/2007

As an encyclopedic matter, the fact both authors were in communication can't be mentioned here, as I only have it in private correspondence and Ms. Singer's statement of it in this forum qualifies as WP:OR

I am sure this legalistic matter can be cleared up once either of them mentions it to a 3rd party we can source.

For now, I will remove mention of the communication.

I will later add a bit to Mr Blume's section so that roughly equal space is given to both.

(Hey - we were a colony too.  So long as the British don't get credit!)

... exits stage left CeilingCrash 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What if someone mentioned it on their website? Couldn't that be used as a reference? Although Wikipedia cannot assert something as fact because a website claims it so, Wikipedia can state as a fact that the author of the website has asserted that claim. For example, if Judy Singer wrote on her website, "Harvey Blume and I co-coined the term neurodiversity," then Wikipedia cannot say, "Harvey Blume and Judy Singer co-coined the term neurodiversity," but Wikipedia can say, "Judy Singer claims that she and Harvey Blume co-coined the term neurodiversity." Q0 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A good question, and a tricky one. My understanding of Wikipedia's source policy is

a) It should be on paper rather than only online because paper is permanent, a site can disappear or change any time.  It will be interesting to see how, in the future, digital media evolves "archival permanence".

b) A credible fact-checker should stand between the source and the publication.   So self-published material is out, as well as printed materials without credible fact-checkers. (There are certain narrow exceptions to self-published material.)

To answer your question, if Ms. Singer made that statement on her website, and we say "On her website, Judy Singer said ..." then we are actually engaged in original research by reporting that observation. I know this seems like hair-splitting and I may be wrong ... but i think the critical point is the statement is made to a 2nd party who is in the business of accurately recording and archiving information. So, for instance, Ms. Singer could call any local newspaper, say "Harvey Blume and I discussed neurodiversity in 1996. Print that please."

Put more concisely, we can say "Judy Singer says X" once she says it to someone *else* (a verifiable source). This is my understanding anyway, I'd appreciate any correction in case I am hallucinating ... CeilingCrash 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

CeilingCrash utterly screws up, calls for Wiki backup
I have reflected further on this, and realize I have been trying to play Solomon rather than dutiful wiki scribe.

We are a tertiary source. We summarize and point to Verifiable, Published Sources and nothing else.

My comments up to this point constitute a massive cognitive failure.

We can only say what we can reference, and we can only reference published material. Anything else is not our business. We determine verifiability, not fairness nor even truth.

Blume's article is the first published use of the word "Neurodiversity". Anyone who contests this fact needs to provide an earlier, published reference. Discussion beyond that is off-topic here. He is also in print previously, especially here

http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/techcol/063097techcol.html, June 30, 97

"Yet in trying to come to terms with an NT-dominated world, autistics are neither willing nor able to give up their own customs. Instead, they are proposing a new social compact, one emphasizing neurological pluralism."

So we've got the author writing in no less than the New York Times of "neurological pluralism" which is the most succint definition of neurodiversity i've seen, then we've got him first to print using the word 'neurodiversity' as the very title of his article. The Atlantic has it archived such that you have to buy a subscription, I am now a proud subscriber to the Atlantic. I will post the article here if need be under Fair Use to help resolve the issue.

The definition in the wiki article's first paragraph is "Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological wiring is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference". This does not imply a Political Movement, rather a perspective that "autistic" does not equal "inferior". Not the action, but the principle that motivates it.

In Blume's article of Sept, 1998, he writes "Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? Cybernetics and computer culture, for example, may favor a somewhat autistic cast of mind." This is a clear expression of that principle.

First to print with "Neurodiversity" with a similar definition.

So as for history, again with regards only to published sources, we start with this.

After that we can mention Singer's thesis published Feb 1, 1999. Should we? Does it improve the article? I don't know. I don't want to decide on my own. I screwed up enough as it is.

I'll make the change to put Blume first, Singer second, give publication dates and only publication dates, then I'd like other wiki's to decide if mention of singer's thesis improves the article or not.

Also, I would like to make Subject Matter Authors aware of Wikipedia's guideline against Conflict of Interest where although they are more than welcome in our discussion pages, they should make no direct edit to the article itself, as this can lead to a Reversion War and subsequent locking of the article against any future edits, which is not in our spirit of productive anarchy.

CeilingCrash 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to article
I understand the premise behind the recent changes SandyGeorgia made to the article, but I do not agree with all of them and would like to open discussion on it. In particular, I would like to bring back some of the internal links (specifically Disablism and maybe a few others) and some of the external links to neurodiversity organizations. The wikipedia article on Discrimination links to sites seeking to end discrimination; why then can this article not link to such prominent sites as [www.neurodiversity.com Neurodiversity.com]?

It is nice to see someone taking an interest in improving this article, and I hope we can come to a consensus on the best changes to make. --Luai lashire 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that a link to Neurodiversity.com would be apt. --elmindreda (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neurodiversity.com does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, also see WP:EL and WP:NOT. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss neurodiversity, and more that can be found. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It need not meet WP:RS to be included as an external link, it need only be a valuable resource that contains more information than this article would if it were Featured status. Skomorokh  incite 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another read of WP:EL would be helpful; there are numerous reliable sources discussing neurodiversity that haven't even been tapped yet, so the justification for adding a non-reliable source isn't met. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of this clause for links that should be considered - "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Can you clarify which of the criteria you have in mind? Skomorokh incite 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider (from WP:EL, emphasis mine):
 * 1) No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.
 * 2) Links should be kept to a minimum.
 * 3) For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception.  Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
 * See, as but one example, this page.
 * 1) What should be linked?  Sites that contain neutral and accurate material ... There are multiple, neutral independent reliable sources that can be tapped, such as the New York Times.
 * 2) WP:EL: I don't see anything on this list that describes neurodiversity.com, especially considering material from reliable, secondary, independent sources is available.
 * 3) Links normally to be avoided, at least numbers 1 and 12, clearly, and there may be more.  If reliable sources are tapped, then a discussion about the inclusion of a non-RS might make sense.
 * 4) See WP:EL.

On the other hand, can you point me to any reliable information about the topic of this article, contained at neurodiversity.com, that can't be found from a reliable source? Having the same URL name as the article title doesn't confer automatic utility. An article needs to be written about neurodiversity; a link to a website named neurodiversity doesn't help write the article. Efforts to finish writing this article based on reliable sources would seem more productive than arguing for the inclusion of an external link to a non-reliable source for an uncited and incomplete article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sandy, plus criterion 5. Seidel isn't a "recognized authority". Acording to Slate, she's "a doughty New Hampshire mother of a teenager with an autism-spectrum disorder". This is a personal web site that consists largely of a blog, and pages of weblinks that appear to be contributed by readers. There are lots of categorised pages of books, which are neither shortlist recommendations nor reviews. They seem to exist mainly to earn commission from Amazon. I don't doubt that neurodiversity.com contains some interesting info, but it is an amateur production.


 * However, the site might just be barely notable in itself (see the Slate link and this interesting article in the BMJ). If such sites could be considered a significant aspect of the neurodiversity movement, then perhaps it could be mentioned in the body text. You'd need to find multiple independent sources to prove notability, plus some independent sources (newspapers, magazines) discussing the use of blogs in the movement. The above two discuss the same issue and are more concerned with Seidel's letter to a journal than the site as a whole. Colin°Talk 23:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neurodiversity

 * Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia.

Dear SandyGeorgia:

Thank you for monitoring the Neurodiversity article. You removed most of the Evaluative Diversity section as "off topic" because it has its own article. I appreciate edits, but please do not remove so much--it is not off topic: on the contrary, evaluative diversity may be the most important form of neurodiversity. 24.177.114.22 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Evaluative diversity has its own article, so does not need to be re-examined in depth at neurodiversity. Unless, if as you say, Evaluative diversity is the most important form of neurodiversity, then one of them should be merged to the other.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make a fuss about fairness if the topic of evaluative diversity is not considered on par with that of the autism movement which is another subset of neurodiversity and discussed in depth in the neurodiversity article despite having its own article. Evaluative diversity research makes significant contributions to our understanding of neurodiversity, so I think the neurodiversity article should include the following cited facts (though feel free to better phrase them):
 * Neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity) has been shown mathematically and empirically to have social value.
 * A survey of religious and philosophical doctrines finds all major doctrines to be on the side of neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).
 * The impact of discrimination against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) was recently measured to outpace both classism and racism.
 * Bias against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) is implicit (i.e., we discriminate even when we try not to).
 * Wage disparity has been found between certain neurological (evaluative) types.
 * Conflicts over neurodiversity are inevitably political because diversity of political orientations comes from neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).
 * These research achievements are tools and milestones for the neurodiversity movement. A neurodiversity article which lacked these citations would be incomplete. I also think it is important to diffuse the criticism that "neurodiversity" is poorly named: it is intended to refer to cognitive differences which happen to manifest neurologically in humans but manifest via other mechanisms in machines (i.e., what causes us to discriminate against people with Aspergers would also cause us to discriminate against artificial intelligences which lack empathy). Let's just admit that the name is historical, but may extend to computers as well. Langchri (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As just one (there are others) of the problems with the proposed text, is a primary source that shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, and it never mentions the word neurodiversity (original research). Evaluative diversity probably needs cleanup. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to add secondary sources. Do you agree that these ideas belong in this article? Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these comments about articles on the science, or the social movements? Confusing the two is clearly not going to lead to good articles. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for teaching me to ping--that's useful! If you were researching the neurodiversity movement for a school report, you might turn to this article, and your teacher might expect you to report on both the history of the movement and whether you think it is likely to grow in the future, so you would want this article to include answers to questions like, "What evidence can you cite that neurodiversity is valuable?" and "What measurements have been made so far of discrimination on the basis of neurotype?" If the science has been done, then I think this article should indicate that it exists (and how to find it)--That's our goal: to make a useful encyclopedia.
 * The other part of what was removed (not copied above) was to mention evaluative diversity as a form of neurodiversity and link to the article (much as this article treats autism). I have not been able to find any sources indicating that there is any controversy over whether neurodiversity includes evaluative diversity--I think anyone familiar with both terms would think it does. Both terms are relatively new, so it is not surprising that we find no source that uses both, but we do find sources which contain both concepts: My original addition included: "Simon Baron-Cohen concluded that discrimination against Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism can be mere discrimination against evaluative diversity (e.g., against evaluation not swayed by empathy)." It also included sources to support the claim that evaluative diversity includes the disparity between evaluation that is swayed by empathy and not swayed by empathy, and other sources are already cited to indicate that neurodiversity includes Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism. Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, but does that address my question? LeadSongDog come howl!  01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you asked if the removed material was about the science or the social movement. The part about evaluative diversity being a form of neurodiversity is not about the science. The other statements are about scientific achievements which are milestones for the movement. ...so both parts are about the movement. Langchri (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , from your recent edits at Evaluative diversity, it appears that a review of WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS may be helpful. For example, the entire sections on Genetics and Neurological in that article are also based on primary sources, without a single secondary review used. I am not interested in doing the cleanup over there, but this article has long been kept correctly sourced. Before adding content to this article, please be sure you understand sourcing policy and guidelines on Wikipedia, and please be sure to use sources that are actually about the topic.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These research achievements are tools and milestones for the neurodiversity movement. A neurodiversity article which lacked these citations would be incomplete. I also think it is important to diffuse the criticism that "neurodiversity" is poorly named: it is intended to refer to cognitive differences which happen to manifest neurologically in humans but manifest via other mechanisms in machines (i.e., what causes us to discriminate against people with Aspergers would also cause us to discriminate against artificial intelligences which lack empathy). Let's just admit that the name is historical, but may extend to computers as well. Langchri (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As just one (there are others) of the problems with the proposed text, is a primary source that shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, and it never mentions the word neurodiversity (original research). Evaluative diversity probably needs cleanup. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to add secondary sources. Do you agree that these ideas belong in this article? Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these comments about articles on the science, or the social movements? Confusing the two is clearly not going to lead to good articles. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for teaching me to ping--that's useful! If you were researching the neurodiversity movement for a school report, you might turn to this article, and your teacher might expect you to report on both the history of the movement and whether you think it is likely to grow in the future, so you would want this article to include answers to questions like, "What evidence can you cite that neurodiversity is valuable?" and "What measurements have been made so far of discrimination on the basis of neurotype?" If the science has been done, then I think this article should indicate that it exists (and how to find it)--That's our goal: to make a useful encyclopedia.
 * The other part of what was removed (not copied above) was to mention evaluative diversity as a form of neurodiversity and link to the article (much as this article treats autism). I have not been able to find any sources indicating that there is any controversy over whether neurodiversity includes evaluative diversity--I think anyone familiar with both terms would think it does. Both terms are relatively new, so it is not surprising that we find no source that uses both, but we do find sources which contain both concepts: My original addition included: "Simon Baron-Cohen concluded that discrimination against Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism can be mere discrimination against evaluative diversity (e.g., against evaluation not swayed by empathy)." It also included sources to support the claim that evaluative diversity includes the disparity between evaluation that is swayed by empathy and not swayed by empathy, and other sources are already cited to indicate that neurodiversity includes Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism. Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, but does that address my question? LeadSongDog come howl!  01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you asked if the removed material was about the science or the social movement. The part about evaluative diversity being a form of neurodiversity is not about the science. The other statements are about scientific achievements which are milestones for the movement. ...so both parts are about the movement. Langchri (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , from your recent edits at Evaluative diversity, it appears that a review of WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS may be helpful. For example, the entire sections on Genetics and Neurological in that article are also based on primary sources, without a single secondary review used. I am not interested in doing the cleanup over there, but this article has long been kept correctly sourced. Before adding content to this article, please be sure you understand sourcing policy and guidelines on Wikipedia, and please be sure to use sources that are actually about the topic.    Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And a new issue: the author of most of the published information on Evaluative diversity appears to be a Christopher Santos-Lang, while the main editor of the Evaluative diversity article is a Wikipedia editor, Langchri, raising the issue of WP:COI, in addition to copyvio issues surrounding this source, mentioned at Talk:Evaluative diversity by Langchri as being published before the Wikipedia article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the complaint just about primary sources, or about something deeper? Any works citing the sources named above would qualify (by definition) as secondary research, and Google Scholar reports many such works, so it seems easy to resolve the source concern by substituting those other sources. I would be happy to do that work and re-post, but my intention is to be helpful, rather than combative, so please tell me upfront whether that would be interpreted as an attack.


 * I thought the Baron-Cohen article is a notable reliable published secondary source making the argument that it would be better to protect people who have Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism from discrimination without actually forcing them to get diagnosed and labelled, but that such protection would be impossible without preventing discrimination against people on the basis of how they conduct the evaluative aspect of decision-making. In other words, preventing evaluativism should be a goal of the neurodiversity movement. That would make the evaluative diversity article relevant here. If the community here thinks this misrepresents the neurodiversity movement, however, I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here. I can understand why people who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement might serve as editors here, and I am not trying to compete with that. Langchri (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This concern is about COI, keeping article correctly cited and using due weight, but has also now become also about helping you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have you reviewed WP:MEDRS?  This sample shows how sources are used incorrectly, generating synthesis and original research.  The sample above on this talk page is another.  You may find Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches to be helpful.  The Baron-Cohen article is a secondary review; if it ever uses the term "Evaluative divesity" or "neurodiversity", please provide those quotes here.  Otherwise, the use of that article in discussing "evaluative diversity" is synth/OR.   is always the way Wikipedia works; Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources have already published.  Doing otherwise is original research. , or any other movement, should not be using Wikipedia for advocacy.  Wikipedia should not be used to advance original thoughts or ideas, and should not be used for advocacy; it reports what reliable sources have already covered. See WP:NPOV and WP:V; from what I can tell, you have cited Christopher Santos-Lang in quite a few articles, in ways that appear to be original research,  as was happening here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:What SYNTH is not tells us that we are allowed to explain a source in other terms. We are allowed to use the terms "neurodiversity" and "evaluative diversity" to explain what a source says, even if the source does not contain those terms. The question is whether the explanation is accurate, not whether it contains certain keywords. An accurate explanation of a cited source does not qualify as original research.
 * Baron-Cohen wrote: "This article challenges the received view through a subtle but important shift of emphasis. Rather than conceiving of autism as a deficiency, it instead considers if autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style. ...this small shift could mean the difference between whether the diagnosis of autism is received as a family tragedy, akin to being told that the child has some other severe, life-long illness like diabetes or haemophilia, or whether the diagnosis of autism is received as interesting information, akin to being told that the child is right or left-handed. In this millennium special issue of Development and Psychopathology, the intention is to highlight this as an issue for the agenda." Is it accurate to explain the article as "written by a prominent autism researcher to advance the neurodiversity movement"?
 * The Baron-Cohen article can be found at http://www.larry-arnold.net/Neurodiversity/Mission/disability.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langchri (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies: no, it would not be accurate to draw our own conclusion about what Baron-Cohen meant. It would be even less accurate to describe him in this article as a "prominent autism researcher"; we don't need puffery.  Either something is sourced or it's not, and we don't need to puff it up. Anyway, Baron-Cohen never mentioned neurodiversity, and the evidence that even you seem to be unclear on exactly what he meant is that text opposing what is being advanced here was removed from Evaluative diversity.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Neurological vs psychological
Should the first sentence be edited to say "neurological and psychological conditions?" Or should it remain as it because most people in the movement use neuroscience-based language and not psychology-based language (and besides everything psychological results from material processes in the brain, materialism of the mind is the scientific consensus). Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It also seems like most of what neurodiversity covers, with the exception of Down syndrome and narcolepsy which are sometimes included, is covered under psychiatry and psychology so I guess that is worth remembering. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

ND and the Anti-Psychiatry movement
A paragraph or two from an expert specifically concerning the degree and extent of the connexion of this movement, if any, to the anti-psychiatry movement (qv) as in Szasz et al would be helpful in giving further context, I believe. If there are indeed distinct factions or tendencies within the Neurodiversity movement, a brief overview thereof would also be helpful. What I have read and heard over the years points to the movement being a big tent including people from most of the US, Latin American, Australian, Canadian, British, and Continental European political spectra and such movements as Objectivism, palaeoconservatism, followers of Michel Foucault, anarchism Left and Right, people with religious objections and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.103 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neurodiversity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101015957/http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf to http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215181832/http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html to http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202254/http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/04_30/3_patients_practice05_8.html to http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/04_30/3_patients_practice05_8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A precursor of the sentiment
No idea if this is worth mentioning, but in the Jargon File ESR writes, apparently in about 2000 (or, judging from the timestamp, at the end of 2003 at the latest):


 * "Many hackers have noticed that mainstream culture has shown a tendency to pathologize and medicalize normal variations in personality, especially those variations that make life more complicated for authority figures and conformists. Thus, hackers aware of the issue tend to be among those questioning whether ADD and AS actually exist; and if so whether they are really ‘diseases’ rather than extremes of a normal genetic variation like having freckles or being able to taste DPT."

This certainly foreshadows the core idea of the neurodiversity movement (questioning or denying the stance that conditions like ADHD and Asperger's are inherently pathological), which was only forming at the time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Blume's work seems to cover this core idea, though, and was earlier (late 1990s). "NT [neurotypical] is only one of many neurological configurations -- the dominant one certainly, but not necessarily the best." (Blume, 1997) --Avenue (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Rights movements
The article says that there are many facets and that autistic rights are the most prominent but the ONLY specific group it talks about are autistic rights activists. Possibly since it's an article about neurodiversity in general, not just autism, there should be sections on activists for other disorders? such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia... I don't even know if those have rights groups but if they do they should be added or at least linked to. 50.129.99.10 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no organized rights movement for ADHD, bipolar and other mood disorders, dyslexia, dyspraxia, schizophrenia spectrum, sociopathy or any other atypical psycho/neurology other than autism spectrum. The idea of neurodiversity is inclusive but it seems like only autism spectrum gets a specific movement. Clr324 (say hi) 08:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome to the "See also" section for the moment. I think it would be useful to summarise the relevant parts of that article in this one, to show neurodiversity rights movements are not restricted to autism. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Advocates and Citation
I had a read through the guidelines but couldn't get a specific answer to my query. One of the reasons that Neurodiversity is a "Nothing about us without us" movement is that a lot of the main advocates struggle getting books and articles published and therefore resort to social media such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs for their advocacy. Under the guidelines social media isn't listed as a reference/citation source which does skew the article towards the critics. What is the best way of including these public conversations when they can't be referenced/citated?

For example the criticism of "not supporting low functioning autistics" is not accurate as there are many of those promoting neurodiversity on Twitter that would be classed as "low functioning". Some of the critics listed in the article have used intelligence based insults against prominent Neurodiversity Twitter users, in contradiction to the claims they support low functioning autistics. As its on Twitter it doesn't seem they can be referenced, and if a claim can't be referenced it shouldn't go up.

Any guidance would be much appreciated.Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mattevans, it's not really my business (I'm not really looking at content since I'm wearing my admin hat), but if things (whatever those things are) aren't published in reliable sources (see WP:RS), especially on medical topics (WP:MEDRS), they shouldn't be reported on in encyclopedic articles--it's as simple as that. Without reliable sources (overseen by editorial boards, tested by peer review, etc.) nothing will happen. Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not true, check out the Amanda Baggs article for instance, she is a low-functioning autistic advocate. Also check out the sources in the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.  Ylevental (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruption
, I upped the protection a bit--I think it's clear from the recent history that we have a meaty operation at work here. I suspected socking at first and ran CU on one of the culprits, but comparison with the other IPs (there's plenty) makes me think this is a local butcher shop; just look where all the IPs are located. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not having that tool, I did not look closely at the IP's. On the one hand, the removed content looked like promoting an event, complete w/ a brief description of speakers's credentials. On the other, the edit summaries looked like "righting great wrongs". As an aut, I cringe at the thought of "normalizing" autism-- it isn't always a "normal" variant. I also cringe at the though of making it a matter of "identity". To me that can become self-limiting. It's one of several conditions I deal with/work around on a daily basis. It is often useful in activities that do not require an intuitive emotional response/interacting with others. My complex essential tremors is much  more of an annoyance.-- Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dlohcierekim, I have no real meaning on the content--I just noted that it seemed verified. As for CU, I used it only on one account, and since I suspected meating anyway I refrained from looking at others. Here's a thing: I have "taken over" protection. Moreover, there was real disruption. In other words, you are not involved at all--please feel free to edit in any way you see fit. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah. Let the IP's make their case here. It should be discussed.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I can explain the "meaty operation". Intent to edit the page was publicised on Twitter using an anti-Neurodiversity hashtag which people like myself sought to "correct". Does this get reported to you or via a specific administrator page? Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm things can get reported on WP:ANI or WP:AN if they get really out of hand, but in this case I have seen no evidence of such editing from your opponents, so to speak. The most recent big edits were made by User:Ylevental and they've been on Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ylevental may have been here a while but he did not disclose a three year friendship with John Mitchell or other persons he wrote about in the criticism section, nor that he's been name checked by John Mitchell in his blog posts (this is from the investigation into a COIN raised against Ylevental). Even after being told to disclose the COI on the John Mitchell page over a month ago he continued to edit the criticism section here without adding the COI notification. He's the person I was talking about in my last edit. As Ylevental didn't disclose his friendship with one of the critics he wrote about in the criticism section and the additions he's made to the article have all been negatively framed (NPOV concern) I politely ask that the upped protection covers Ylevental as well so that his edits come via this talk page. Mattevansc3 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't "protect" a person with a COI from editing a page, you tell them that they can only edit the talkpage with respect to the COI. Ylevental (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was the only one that was editing though. Plus, the "meaty operation" was actually quite a few IP addresses and new accounts blanking large content, also discussed on twitter.  That action could be more reportable. Ylevental (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Neurodiversity is not a movement
(But, of course, there is a Neurodiversity Movement.)

I realize that's a bit of a bold statement, but I say it to draw attention to this. I've been looking through the past edits for information, as well as doing my own research, particularly in order to balance the criticisms section. The term "neurodiversity" on its own is biological fact: all brains are different, end of story. The "movement" is the idea that BECAUSE of neurodiversity, we should accept the natural ways of being of autistic people, etc. While I have reworked a lot of the article, particularly to remove any lines that conflate neurodiversity with the movement, I do think it probably requires more work to reflect this.

I do think it's an important distinction, particularly because the criticisms of the movement seem to be based on straw men arguments. In order to have clear, concise debate about an issue, it requires clear, concise definitions. The movement involves a lot of people with different ideas; the term only means one thing. (See Nick Walker's blog post) I've already removed large sections from "autism rights movement," since they were literally copied and pasted from the autism rights movement article. There is a substantial amount of overlap between the neurodiversity movement and the autism rights movement, and I propose that criticisms of the movement be moved over there, particularly because of the controversial nature of the topic; it seems unnecessary to rehash the same arguments on every article to do with autism. --Anomalapropos (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

COI - Criticism Section
User:Ylevental has a disclosed conflict of interest with Johnathan Mitchell, and has had a COIN Investigation about it. - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 01:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, when you use the COI section tag, you just write the word section, not the section name. Additionally, the section was already cleared up by someone else, as can be seen in the edit history. Ylevental (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfocused template
This article is called neurodiversity, but is mostly about the neurodiversity movement (which is a different thing entirely). I recommend splitting it into two articles. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Autism and science
I would like to add a section on the evidence that autism is associated with technical ability and skill in science. I am leaving this source here for later. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [Re|Wikiman2718] I’d say no due to the age of the article (2011) and the following excerpt;

Baron-Cohen acknowledges that "there is a problem that there are too few attempts at replication" of his studies, and says that he remains "open minded about these hypotheses until there are sufficient data to evaluate them". But he says he doesn't see a problem with introducing theories before definitive evidence has been collected.

If we are talking evidence it should be based on a peer reviewed study not an observation. Mattevansc3 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Jonathan Mitchell from Criticism Section
I recommend that the entry to Jonathan Mitchell be removed from the Controversy section.

By his own admission Jonathan Mitchell's book was self published. This makes him an unreliable source.

The sources attributed to John Mitchell is one paragraph in citation 13 and citation 30 is his own blog. Giving him such a prominent part has undue weight.

There are also significant COI issues with his inclusion. Ylevental has an existing COI with Jonathan Mitchell. Taking that into consideration with him being a self published writer Jonathan Mitchell's inclusion is more akin to POV pushing.

Mattevansc3 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, Jonathan Mitchell stays. There's nothing about his book in the article. The first citation says that Mitchell is one of the "most prominent" opponent of neurodiversity, so he deserves to be mentioned. Yes, one citation is his own blog, but it's accompanied by another citation to a neutral source (the New Yorker). If you're worried about weight, the sentence below the paragraph about Mitchell (about other autistic advocates) should be expanded with better sources since none of the four provided are independent. And please stop adding the COI tag. I've already removed much of the fluff from the Mitchell passage, and User:Ylevental hasn't added anything about Mitchell to the article in a while. CatPath (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FC
Efficacy of facilitated communicated is disputed. It is widely claimed to be discredited pseudoscience, but there are many qualitative studies supporting its use. Link. I have debated this elsewhere and don't really intend to rehash the whole argument; however, removing an entire paragraph that is reliably sourced, I think, is inappropriate. Anomalapropos (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are mistaken. While there may be some studies that support it's use, there are also studies which support the use of Extrasensory perception. The key is that no high quality studies (systematic reviews published in reputable journals) support it's use. See the page on facilitated communication to learn more. This makes all sources supporting FC unreliable. Per reliable sourcing guidelines, I am changing the articles back to reflect that FC is psudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done extensive research on FC by myself, and I don't need the Wikipedia page to teach me. I provided you a review of FC that was published in SAGE journal in 2015 that support its use (on Amy Sequenzia's talk page). I will be asking someone to intervene, as removing large portions of peoples' biographies is surely inappropriate. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Contesting the article
I don't know if this is the right way to do it, and I am feeling some urgency, so I'll go ahead. I did know how to edit decades ago but I have forgotten.

I've moved past caring about the misinformation about me.

I'm more concerned about the takeover of the whole article by people with alt-right tendencies who while making a few valuable points about differentiating between an identity and a severe disability, are more concerned with attacking and misrepresenting what the mainstream neurodiversity movement is about.

They are managing to skew perceptions of all the good work being done for the recognition of NeuroMinorities all over the world.

Is there a way of stating this article is now heavily contested?

Neurodiversity is not, and never has been about denying the realities of disability. It was never just about autism, though that's where my research began. My sociology thesis originated in the social constructionist model, but I found it inadequate and proposed instead an amalgam of the best of the medical and social models, as well as adding an ethnicity model (which I now prefer to call a "Minority" model), developed by The Deaf Movement. No doubt some "pro-neurodiversity" people get this wrong, and may well consider that all disability is socially constructed, but that is not my experience of the mainstream view.

We want to remove social barriers as best we can without claiming that we don't have hardships that are neurologically based. What you are really seeing is border skirmishes between a few naive extremists who take a rainbows and sunshine view of autism, and their opponents, the few alt-right types who I won't name, but who seem determined to write themselves and their mates into the history of the movement. While they sound reasonable when they appear in the mainstream,I suggest some research on their twitter personas, which might give a different view.

Though I claim that I did coin the word, I do not claim to own it, and accept that meanings do evolve as part of a dialectical process.

You can see my current opinion of what the word should mean at my blog Neurodiversity 2:0: What is Neurodiversity.

My original 1997-8 thesis, along with an intro written in 2016, is in my book Neurodiversity: the birth of an idea. Could someone add it to the reference list? The book also contains my intellectual relationship with Harvey Blume, which he has not contested.

Judy Singer.

--Judy Singer (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For future reference, it's best to start this sort of argument in a new section. I don't think it is highly contested, just has some criticism. Ylevental (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I find generalizing and calling those who are critical of the ND movement as well as labeling movements such as the autistic-dark-web as alt-right as somewhat unfounded, can you provide a citation that the founders of the movement align with the alt-right? From what I understand, the founder is a self-described liberal, and libertarian and many members are vaguely left-leaning while still not unified by any ideology. In the very least the burden of proof should be on you to give evidence since throwing unfounded accusations is extremely harmful. Also, since neurodiversity inherently seems to lean anti-cure and at least to some strong degree anti-treatment with many not even wanting to consider it a disorder, it does seem to me seem like it is against autistics who want to get treated themselves.

06:12 AM, 14 October 2021 (EDT)

Misinformation about me
There's misinformation about me in this article. How can I get it changed? --Judy Singer (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leave a message here stating what is incorrect and I'll see if I can fix it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a rather complex issue. I assume that the section you have a problem with is the History section? Please note that you have a conflict of interest, so you should not edit the article directly, but if you would leave a proposed re-write of this section here on the talk page myself and other editors would be happy to review it for inclusion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. There are a host of issues with the article; misrepresentation of advocates, misrepresentation of both neurodiversity and social model of disability.  There seems to be a lot of gatekeeping going on as well.
 * Random Acts of Language (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you make some specific suggestions, perhaps we can clean it up. I've been working at it for a while. One of the problems is that this article used to concentrate mainly on the neurodiversity "movement" rather than the word itself and duplicated multiple things from the autism rights movement article. I reworked it from that, but it's certainly not ideal yet.
 * I've been trying to use Neurocosmopolitan's definitions and stay consistent there. His interpretation of the resulting paradigm and social movement was published in The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry, which is probably one of the better academic sources I've found so far. But Ms. Singer's book is on my to-read list, of course!--anomalapropos (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just been reading a paper by Nancy Doyle in the British Psych Assoc journal that is quite good. I think part of the issue is that it's become dominated by the notion that it's only about autism, rather than in general about neurological conditions.  There's also a useful description in the recent book by Sue Fletcher-Watson and Francesca Happe, although that is about Autism.  I've also recently downloaded Luke Beardons book, so there might be something in there.
 * Random Acts of Language (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As the originator of the concept, I did not got to great trouble to define it in my original work - I thought its meaning was obvious in its context, besides it never occurred to me that the idea would take off. If was just one idea in my thesis which was the first to examine the phenomenon of the emergence of new social movements based on "neurological difference", which was absent from the understanding of the then Disability Rights movement", and which I thought should be added to what is now called intersectionality. But I see it is being misunderstood especially by commercial and bureaucratic interests as lazy shorthand for "Neurologically Disabled". No,all humans are NeuroDiverse. In fact, NeuroDiverse is an "Unreal Adjective" in that it describes everything but means nothing. Kind of like Imaginary numbers..., I think But the Neurodiversity Movement is an umbrella movement for formerly stigmatized neurological minorities to highlight their strengths instead of just their weaknesses. --Judy Singer (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Giftedness
The terminology of neurodiversity and neurotypicality is also widespread among people with giftedness, which is not considered a disability but is considered a neurological difference which requires adaptation at times from schools. Should I start digging for academic sources on the subject?

CbrDrgn (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free! There should probably be some sources on that. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lamshaw5. Peer reviewers: Lsolares.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section
I'm a bit baffled as to how any of the criticism section follows any of Wikipedia's guidelines whatsoever. It editorializes, it makes unsourced claims (e.g. Many people believe that...), it cites broken links, cites sources that don't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria... I'm struggling to understand why this section is here. It's been deleted once before, but I don't feel comfortable being the one to re-delete it. Nevertheless, I want to open up conversation for the section's deletion in the talk page, and would like to know if someone more experienced with Wikipedia content moderation could please weigh in. Thank you. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a perfect section, but Neurodiversity generalizes a lot of experiences that autistic people face. Given that there are three sections on this talkpage already about this debate with zero progress in actual editing or providing specific examples makes it more clear why a criticism section is needed. Ylevental (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it shows that you don't understand what you are doing here. The section needs to be totally re-written, and frankly it's not you that should be doing this as you are clearly a biased editor trying to promote autism in a negative light rather than from a neutral point of view. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is anyone actually going to do something about it or make edits then? Ylevental (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done and awaiting review. A number of claims could not be supported and were removed accordingly. It was biased in those areas, and my changes may have resolved the issues noted with the tags. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm curious about who these people are and why they're credible sources. Please remember that anybody can be an author, but that doesn't necessarily make them a subject expert. I want to refer you to a Wikipedia page that will help improve your article writing: Article_development -- This page has a lot of information, and also includes guidelines on citing quality sources. Also, to any would-be editors: if you have access to a public library, check in with the reference desk and they can help you with that. Just tell them that you're looking to edit a wikipedia article and need help with finding good sources to cite. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added more details as requested - will add more later Ylevental (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I fixed the dead links, unsourced claims, and bias as needed. Best of luck from here on.  Ylevental (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm reversing your last edit, since it does not appear to be constructive. Additionally, I do not believe that active topics that are still being discussed would qualify for being archived, anyways. It's clear that you're not a very experienced editor, and I would really appreciate it if you could seek out the assistance of someone who is before making major changes like this. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He was trying to hide the whole issue - and if you were to look at his history he is keen to introduce a biased point of view on the autistic spectrum and promote it as all world bad. He's a promoter, and gaming the system IMHO. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:5D5A:C7BA:9194:757B (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, but wanting an entire section with reliable sources deleted isn't constructive or evident of demonstrated experience in any way. I am giving you one week to make constructive changes or constructive suggestions, or I will re-archive this again. Ylevental (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He's talking about this talk page, not the main page!!! 2001:8003:58DD:C700:EDCE:9B6F:49F3:DF40 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you re-archive this again too soon you will be reported. Looking at your history the IP above has a point. Stop hiding your behavior. Leave archiving to the experienced and unbiased. 1.136.111.33 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this talk page in WP:DRN and wanted to chime in on this discussion. I believe the policy page is WP:TALKCOND rather than the one you cited, but the point is still valid.  Archiving this unresolved discussion, as Ylevental did with Archive 3 (See  and ) two days ago, is disruptive to Wikipedia's purpose, and doing so deliberately to shut down discussion is vandalism per WP:VANDAL.  Doing so to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies is also gaming the system and talk page vandalism under WP:VANDTYPES.  One week is not enough time to resolve this discussion, and Ylevental should not be so quick to archive, even if for a legitimate purpose.  I would also refer Ylevental to WP:DISRUPT because even if the intention isn't to vandalize, the archiving of an ongoing discussion that they were part of is still prohibited under that behavioral guideline.  I would suggest that this user refrain from archiving this page regardless of wait time, and leave it to another editor, because the purpose of archiving is only to reduce the size of talk pages about 75 KB in length or more, for the sake of faster loading, by moving only resolved discussions to a separate archive page, and it isn't strictly necessary for the purpose of the wiki.  For reference, this talk page was about 31 KB immediately prior to Archive 3, far below that threshold, and Ylevental had edited this section less than 4 hours prior.  --Tathar (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. It's just that a lot of those editors aren't acting in good faith by wanting the entire section deleted (although admittedly, I might have gone too far too.) Ylevental (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you understand. Looking at the content of the criticism section, I see the length of it gives the criticism undue weight per WP:WEIGHT by speaking of non-prominent individuals' criticisms at excessive length.  Although there can and should be a criticism section for something that is controversial, the section must not give, per WP:NPOV more broadly, the overall article a non-neutral view of the topic.  The criticism section is also about as long as the longest content section, and I'm concerned that WP:FALSEBALANCE might be violated by it.  As an example, I don't see why Michael Fitzpatrick should be given any weight at all in the section, as his only claim to prominence is that he's a GP physician with an autistic son.  He is neither more prominent than other GPs or psychiatrists, nor more prominent than other parents of autistic children, and if the view is held by a significant minority, then there should be other sources that would be a better choice.  You can also have multiple sources cited for the same thing, and probably should have several for a criticism section because it helps establish the significance of the minority required by WP:WEIGHT. --Tathar (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All good points. Weight is important. Ylevental (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I trimmed down the criticism section, let me know what you think... Ylevental (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL at Jonathan Mitchell getting the entire final paragraph of this article to himself. I note that the user above has proudly posted about their anti-neurodiversity Wikipedia edits on Twitter, and seems to have a personal relationship with Mitchell. Someone with some energy and some understanding of neurodiversity should really have a look at this.


 * Totally agree with you, User:Oolong. I am also contesting the Neurodiversity page, and think it needs a complete rewrite Page is full of errors, needs complete rewrite Jsinger (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

--Oolong (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Neurotypical
I've proposed that Neurotypical be merged into Neurodiversity. Please join the merge discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Split the page away from Neurodivergent
Shouldn't the topics/pages be separated as an Individual that's Neurodivergent usually says more about genetic neurodevelopmental conditions (Autism, ADHD, ASPD, etc) Whereas the Neurodiversity movement is about interpretation of the neurological changes in people? I mean, of course don't take my word for it but the professional in the neurodevelopmental field who coined the term has also pointed this out. 86.14.56.116 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but only if there are enough reliable sources which show that such a page could stand on its own. I would also recommend participating in the the merge discussion about whether to merge Neurotypical into Neurodiversity noted above. Historyday01 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Page is full of errors, needs a complete rewrite
I am the acknowledged coiner of the term "Neurodiversity", in a 1998 Sociology Honours Thesis from the University of Technology Sydney.

This page needs a complete rewrite: It's out of date, full of errors, non-authoritative citations, appears to have a USAcentric bias

I don't claim to have followed this closely, so I don't who the latest editors are, but the last time couple of times I looked, I found hostile edits from a few biased individuals, who are generally recognised on twitter as trolls. They were collectively known as "The Autistic Dark Web", though there were only a few of them.

There is so much wrong with this, and since I'm drowning in committments, I am only going to cite one piece of specific text as a starting point. I need advice on how to proceed on the rights of authors who feel their work is misrepresented

Thus I am not sure if I can edit the page myself. And I don't think I should have to, if there is a way of getting an editor who is qualified in the field to do the job.

It's a serious matter when I'm finding respected academic publications quoting erroneous definitions by seemingly unqualified Wikipedia editors.


 * Specific text to be added or removed: Neurodiversity or ND, refers to variation in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions in a non-pathological sense.[1]
 * Reason for the change: This definition is nothing like the concept, and constitutes the opinion of just one author, written a decade ago. For a detailed definition, in the first instance, please go to the authoritative source, which is my work:
 * Jsinger (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC) References supporting change:


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the Request edit template for this proposed change.  casualdejekyll  14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Jsinger, let's try and build a consensus here - although I have to say I'm a bit puzzled by @Casualdejekyll's rejection of your edit request on the basis that a consensus should be established before using the 'request edit' template - the page about edit requests doesn't seem to specify this, and nobody has actually objected to your proposal.
 * I'll post on WikiProject Autism about this, anyway; not sure if there are other WikiProjects that are also relevant, other editors we should ping.
 * Could you perhaps elaborate a little on your objection to the opening definition? I'm not sure I like it very much, but more because it seems unnecessarily complicated; I wouldn't have said it's nothing like the concept as I understand it, or indeed the definition you give on your page, which says it "refers specifically to the limitless variability of human cognition and the uniqueness of each human mind". Nick Walker similarly has it as "the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species." It should be straightforward to formulate an opening definition that accords with both of these, but I'd like to understand your objection better first.
 * For reference, here's the full paragraph from the Armstrong book referred to as a citation for the definition currently given :
 * "The lessons we have learned about biodiversity and cultural and racial diversity need to be applied to the human brain. We need a new field of neurodiversity that regards human brains as the biological entities that they are and appreciates the vast natural differences that exist from one brain to another regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood, and other important mental functions. Instead of pretending that there is hidden away in a vault somewhere a perfectly “normal” brain to which all other brains must be compared (e.g., the rose psychiatrist’s brain), we need to admit that there is no standard brain, just as there is no standard flower, or standard cultural or racial group, and that, in fact, diversity among brains is just as wonderfully enriching as biodiversity and the diversity among cultures and races."
 * Thanks Judy!
 * Meanwhile, the section starting 'The subsequent neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates' is obviously written by someone opposed to this position, and at the very least needs rewriting for balance. Oolong (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that a complete rewrite would do a better job of following Wikipedia's policies than the current version, and removing sourced material would require a solid policy justification. The most relevant policies here would be WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. I think the Armstrong source follows these policies better than the Blogspot post you cited, and the secondary source also helps to establish the topic's notability, but if you have reliable sources (as defined by the policy) covering a viewpoint that the current article is missing, including them in addition to what's already there would likely improve article's neutral point of view. Regarding your request for advice on how to proceed, I believe the essay WP:TRUTH is a good starting point. --Tathar (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

From Judy Singer: How to fix errors on this page.
I raised this a a while ago, but found Wikipedia too complicated and gave up. You can see my early post below. I recognise that the definition of Neurodiversity is obviously highly contested, but as the acknowledged coiner of the term, I find the definition offered is a misunderstanding, linguistically illogical, and certainly not what I intended. In fact, it is a "bio/medical model" description, exactly the opposite of the social model of disability that my ideas were based on. Diversity is a measurement of variability in a location Neurodiversity can never be a variation in a person. Neurodiversity refers refers to the infinite varieability of minds on the planet" no two minds are exactly alike. Neurodiversity is not a biological descriptor. I coined it to name a movement for recognition of Neurodiversity as a necessary condition for a sustainbable society, not as diagnosis.  Unfortunately I did not define it other than to state its usage thus "For me, the significance of the “Autistic Spectrum” lies in its call for and anticipation of a “Politics of Neurodiversity”. The “Neurologically Different” represent a new addition to the familiar political categories of  class / gender / race  and will augment the insights of the Social Model of Disability. (p12)

The rise of Neurodiversity takes postmodern fragmentation one step further. Just as the postmodern era sees every once too solid belief melt into air, even our most taken-for granted assumptions: that we all more or less see, feel, touch, hear, smell, and sort information, in more or less the same way, (unless visibly disabled) are being dissolved. (Neurodiversity: the birth of an Idea p33)"/, Please check my discussion of Neurodiversity in my blog http://www,neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html

I did not "help" popularise the idea with Harvey Blume. I had written to him about Neurodiversity as far back as 1997. He did not acknowledge this in his brief article, while I acknowedged him in my thesis, He wrote one article., I have been active in the field for 30 years with book chapters talks presentations. The whole things smacks of Northerh Hemisphere Centricism and sexism. As an australian woman in the middle of 3 generations of women with neurodivergent traits who has advocated in the field for 30 years, I find this understandable because the North is so dominant and focussed on itself but its time that Northerners developed a global consciousness. I would like someone to contact me to sort out this mess.Jsinger (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Rslindse (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)