This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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)
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. [1] What's the value of this "see also" link? - Willmcw 00:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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. .
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)
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)
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:
I might add that the idea of Neurodiversity as a political tool was mine and one that I pushed from the beginning.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider (from WP:EL, emphasis mine):
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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-separator=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2=
(
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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. "I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here"
is always the way Wikipedia works; Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources have already published. Doing otherwise is original research. "[P]eople who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement"
, 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, [3] as was happening here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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):
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)
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)
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)
Dlohcierekim, 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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. [4] -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
06:12 AM, 14 October 2021 (EDT)
There's misinformation about me in this article. How can I get it changed? -- Judy Singer ( talk) 09:09, 6 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Oolong ( talk) 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed that Neurotypical be merged into Neurodiversity. Please join the merge discussion. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.
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)
References
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JJlemus ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rslindse, GJaet, Kekecole, Jvnon.
— Assignment last updated by Rslindse ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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)
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. [1] What's the value of this "see also" link? - Willmcw 00:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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. .
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)
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)
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:
I might add that the idea of Neurodiversity as a political tool was mine and one that I pushed from the beginning.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider (from WP:EL, emphasis mine):
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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-separator=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2=
(
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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. "I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here"
is always the way Wikipedia works; Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources have already published. Doing otherwise is original research. "[P]eople who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement"
, 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, [3] as was happening here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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):
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)
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)
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)
Dlohcierekim, 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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. [4] -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
06:12 AM, 14 October 2021 (EDT)
There's misinformation about me in this article. How can I get it changed? -- Judy Singer ( talk) 09:09, 6 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Oolong ( talk) 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed that Neurotypical be merged into Neurodiversity. Please join the merge discussion. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.
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)
References
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JJlemus ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rslindse, GJaet, Kekecole, Jvnon.
— Assignment last updated by Rslindse ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)