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. |
I wish to revive this discussion over the to concerns about objectivity, in my opinion this page has been "vandalised" over time by both pro and anti "neurodiversity camps" however the article in it's current cut down format does not reflect the true status of the term as it is used in UK effectively as an identity, whose epistemology originates within the disability movement and the debate around social models. This has nothing in particular to do with autism specific disputes but a wider conception of non medical identities for people stigmatised by medical model labelling. The concept did not arise with Harvey Blume, he was merely the first who gives it a citation, like many neologisms, before they make the grade as current usages to be included in dictionaries, the term had been around before then. It has obvious resonances of Biodiversity in it's coinage (Larry Arnold - go google me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.89.212 ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a focus on Autistic spectrum conditions in this article & I think it is unbalanced. -- 78.86.146.148 ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) For example the 'Autism rights movement' box! -- 78.86.146.148 ( talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This entire article smacks of pro-autism propaganda. Gimme a break! I reached this article through a link from eugenics. IchiroMihara ( talk) 10:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some dispute in the past on this article about whether or not it was Harvey Blume or Judy Singer who coined the term. According to [1], "The term neurodiversity was put forward by Judy Singer, an Australian whose mother and daughter have Asperger’s and who is on the spectrum herself, and was first published by the American writer Harvey Blume." Q0 ( talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Judy Singer here: Maybe this will sort out the controversy. Haven't been back to wikipedia for years, to see what became of the concept that Harvey Blume and I collaborated on back in 1996-8, when I met him online while researching my Honors thesis "Odd People In: An exploration of a New Social Movement based on Neurological Diversity" at the University of Technology, Sydney. To sort it out, the concept arose out of dialogues between myself and Harvey. While Harvey was first in print, it should be borne in mind that he published in the media, with a short lead time. I published in an academic work, "Disability Discourse" [1] with over a year to publication. Our takes were slightly different too. Mine was rooted in the British based, social constructionist, disability rights, activist tradition. My aim was politicised and within the still popular ideas of identity politics. I wanted to empower people who were neurologically different to claim a space in the political sphere, by locating "neurological difference" as a social category on a par with "gender", "ethnicity", "class", "disability" etc.
Jsinger ( talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It isn't our role to adjudicate a "he-said, she-said" disagreement. The first to print is Harvey Blume. J Singer knows this, which is why the nebulous phrase "first put forward" is used in the newspaper article. Which is itself non RS since it's the popular press.
This isn't rocket science, folks. If you wish to abide by WP, you observe that the Atlantic article predates any other RS mention of the term. It doesn't matter if Blume scooped Singer unfairly due to publishing delays. We don't determine fairness, or even truth. Just verifiablity. And the Atlantic article is verifiable.
Anyone who wishes to contest the date need only produce a prior mention in a reliable source.
Any debate as to whether Blume stole the term from conversations with Singer is not for WP to decide. Let that debate occur and be decided (or not) in print in an RS. Then we can include it.
The current state of the article reflects a stark failure to observe policy. CeilingCrash ( talk) 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
CeilingCrash ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add this link, a parody of the many institutes and journals devoted to the study of autism:
I this early site is a pretty good example of the rise of an 'anti medical establishment' point of view. It is referred to in the New York Times article by Harvey Blume but the link is broken there. -- 79.78.150.200 ( talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides the proponents mentioned in the section "proponents and opponents" there is not being talked about opponents- what about them? Maybe somebody knowledgable in that field is able to contribute this part?! Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.44.130 ( talk) 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Proponents and Opponents" section remains inaccurately titled; there is no discussion of opponents and very limited discussion of proponents. I think that the section should probably be merged with another. Monstromash ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the main article as Monstromash suggested, since there hasn't been any contradiction and it's a stylistic cleanup (I merged the content into the remaining subsections). Overall, the article lacks a "Criticism" section, and is quite biased. I don't have the research in hand to write that section, but I think it's a serious lack. Ironphoenix ( talk) 21:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some criticism, one quote from the web: One went so far as to suggest that all proponents are pedophiles and neurodiversity is just their cover and means of obtaining victims. DS Belgium ( talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
What looks like opinion and original research was added in this edit by Stephv611 ( talk · contribs), subsequently removed [2] and later re-added [3] (edit warring). Will the original editor who added this text please place an exact quote from the source on this page so we can evaluate the text? Because of the curly quotes used, I am also concerned that this may be a copyvio. Thank you, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The first subheading, "Neurodiversity as an Ideology" seems a bit strange to me. The paragraph simply seems to be discussion differing opinions on the relevance of neurodiversity as a category of human functioning. And since neurodiversity is a relatively marginal movement (as it is still a developing and slow-accepted concept), it doesn't seem to fit the primary theoretical definition of ideology (as a set of internalized, assumed, or unquestioned beliefs; beliefs so deeply ingrained they are understood as being essentialist or natural law). The use of the word "ideology" isn't used anywhere else in the article, so its appropriateness to the conversation seems lacking. If no one is opposed, I would like to change the section to "Opinions on Neurodiversity" or something like that. Does anyone have a better idea, or is opposed? Madnessandcivilization ( talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an appalling section that has been written as an opinion and completely lacks both sources and neutrality. I'm not sure if it can be saved, but as I'm fairly new it may be better to get some other views. If it was up to me I'd take it out altogether, but a better writer might be able to save it because it might be a good issue to include. Aspie Lover ( talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This article should be downgraded to a C or to a start. It's really not a B class article. Here are some suggestions to help the page. Article needs to be reframed as a disability right issue NOT an autism rights issue. Correcting the history will help this a great deal. Controverseies needs to be made its own section and not in the introduction. If you want to talk about the specific ways that the autism spectrum community have appropriated it it needs to be included in the autism section. The rest of the article should be retooled to be more neutral. Sugarcoma ( talk) October 3, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, except that not everyone views Autism as a "disability"...did you not read the bit, for instance, about the push by those in the movement to remove pathologizing terms?--
74.132.26.248 (
talk) 07:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on a project that is somewhat related to the neurodiveristy movement. Some co-workers and I were talking about the article and how it could be improved. I took the liberty to begin by rewriting the introduction to be more netural. While there are controversies involved with the ND movement, an introduction should state simply and concisely what the concept is and its context. Controversies should be included in their own section or if they are nescissary for the introduction, given their own paragraph concisely summarizing the the nature of the controversy and leave the details for deeper in the article. Sugarcoma ( talk) October 3, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This section needs removing, perhaps with the content inserted in other sections. Nothing in it refers to controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.26.248 ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm working from Sonoma State University in California on a Masters thesis which includes information on the neurodiversity movement. Part of my project this semester (Spring 2013) is to create or update a Wiki page on my topic. Since this page already exists, and because the neurodiversity movement is so active, I want to introduce myself before I make any changes. I've done research on the neurodiversity movement, including its history, controversies, the differences between the British and American concepts of neurodiversity, and the organizations which promote a neurodiversity framework. I also have a boatload of academic references for the page. Since this movement is growing and changing, my sense is that this entry needs to change as well. However, I don't want to step on any toes. Would it be preferable for me to create a page of my intended changes elsewhere (and link you to it for discussion), or shall I just enter boldly into this page? Let me know! I'd like to start posting in April, 2013. Thank you! Karla McLaren. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 20:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was somewhat bold in my first edit, but the formatting on Wiki is so convoluted that I didn't want to make larger changes until I saw what these ones did. Let me know how this flies before I become bolder still. Thanks KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 22:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Wikignomes is a fun term! I'll be adding more data and continuing my edit over the next week or so. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! After my second edit, I have two questions. First, the warnings on this page, about lack of balance and the need for a rewrite of the lead (which I rewrote) -- who decides when these issues have been dealt with satisfactorily? Second, a formatting question: The first Blume excerpt in para 3 of the History section is in a pull quote format, but his next excerpts aren't. Is this a convention, or an omission? Thank you! KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and your explanations. I wanted to understand the quoting convention before I added more quotes, and I agree with Sandy Georgia's decision to pull-quote where she did, since that is the first public mention of the term. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 05:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello and thank you all for your support. I've just completed a large edit and added updated information in two sections (History and Controversies). I have three questions:
New section names: Is there a place for a new section along the lines of Neurodiversity Organizations or something like that? I don't mean to be a promoter of specific organizations, but there are places people can go to learn more. I couldn't find a rule for section header names, and I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable addition.
Page references: When quoting sources more than once in a para, do you re-reference after quotes?
Controversies: I struggled with one subject that is controversial, but I'm not sure how to frame it. The DANDA reference at the bottom of the History section is important because it shows neurodiversity moving outward from the autism community. However, for some reason, UK neurodiversity sites present ND conditions in terms of disability, disorder, debility, difficulty, and problems ( http://www.danda.org.uk/pages/neuro-diversity.php) [2] , which is the exact opposite of what Singer, Sinclair, and Blume intended neurodiversity to mean. This misuse of the term is an important controversy, and it separates the UK and US neurodiversity movements decidedly, but I could use some direction on how to frame it within the scope of this piece. Thank you again. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
References
On sources, all quotes should always be directly cited right after the quote. Text gets moved around and citations may be lost-- in fact, that seems to have happened in your edits.
Regarding your question on controversies, you seem to be engaging in original research (quite a bit of which has crept into this article over the years). Writing for an encyclopedia is different than writing a university paper, or even a scholarly journal paper: we only publish conclusions of independent secondary sources, and we can't string together unrelated sources to publish our own, original thoughts -- which is what your paragraph above on "controversy" is. By the way, I don't believe a "controversy" section is warranted here (I agree with Wikipedia:Criticism that all content should be worked throughout the article seamlessly, to avoid creating POV or giving undue weight to any one view-- as the article stands now, one view-- published by an independent scholarly source-- has been marginalized by referring to it as a "controversy"). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:MSH, WP:MEDRS, and please also take care with primary sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, weasel words, over-quotation, accurate representation of sources, and to avoid plagiarism and copyvio. I have tagged and cleaned up some of the issues in the article-- there are more. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The current article has a too big focus on non-scientific definitions of neurodiversity as well as a sociological model. There is a recently published scientific definition of neurodiversity in the peer-reviewed journal Sage Open ( http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158244013497722.abstract). Conclusions abount neurodiversity as well as the scientific definition should be added. Rdos ( talk) 08:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
So has the disease people scared-off all the neurodiversity advocates here as nobody seems inclined to read the study and add important content? Rdos ( talk) 08:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
From the conclusion of the paper: "The data from Aspie Quiz contradict the view that neurodiversity is a cultural or social construct, as all the traits are correlated to each other, pointing to an inherited rather than social component." This should be added as another POV. In addition to that, the scientific neurodiversity definition should be added "Neurodiversity was defined as the primary factor output by factor analysis of a data set of human behaviors which contains evenly distributed traits of all sorts that cover all of human diversity. Neurotypical function was defined as the second factor.". The validity of this method could be cited from Results - Factor stability that concludes that these factors were highly stable and independent of what exact neurodiversity issues are used. Support for the idea that personality is related to neurodiversity is presented in table 5 where extraversion and neuroticism is found to be highly correlated to neurodiversity Rdos ( talk) 09:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Among other things the journal "Dyslexia" is noted as "unreliable medical source". How could a journal with a focus on one of the components of neurodiversity which is not considered a disorder be unreliable in the context of neurodiversity? I'll just have to remind SandyGeorgia that this is not a medical article (despite falsely being categorized as such), but about the personality-aspect of several psychiatric diagnoses. Rdos ( talk) 13:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected the section head per talk page guidelines to remove the inaccurate personalization. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is synthesis, original research, weasel words, and puffery throughout ... I tagged some, removed some that was obvious, and this piece is pure synthesis: I've removed it to talk in case someone can cite it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Many conflicts over the neurodiversity approach focus upon the assumptions of people like Jaarsma and Welin (above), original research? who believe that neurodiversity activists don’t want any treatment or supports. However, this does not take into account the work of neurodiversity-focused organizations original research? such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Autism Women’s Network, [1] The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism, [2] and Autism Network International, all of which advocate for direct support (such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support). improper synthesis? [3]
Zad
68
20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Additional synthesis, original research, moved here for discussion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This clarification needed lack of attribution may be due to the possibility weasel words that Singer's conceptualization of neurodiversity had already been adopted by an international online community of people on the autism spectrum, to which Singer belonged, and which Blume studied for an article he wrote in 1997. citation needed original research?
Moving another to talk; sources claim weblinks, but there are none, and WP:SYNTH, and questionable WP:RS considering no source or publisher is given. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
However, the argument could be made weasel words that rejection of the broader claim on the basis of "low functioning" autism ignores the experiences of neurodiversity advocates who would be considered "low functioning," original research? some of whom directly address these issues [4] [5] [6]
References
I had a question about this specific section: "Additionally, as the term neurotypical refers to not having a developmental disorder; it could be argued that one is neurodivergent when they have been born without a neurodevelopmental disorder. Since most people with mental illnesses are born without a developmental disorder, they are considered predominantly neurotypical from birth. Mental illness could be triggered by environmental causes or traumatic events in one's lifetime, whereas developmental disorders are present at birth and continue into adulthood." I understand this section is informing about controversy in neurodiversity advocacy, but where is the source for this conclusion? Or did someone come to this conclusion on their own? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to provide information without forcing a connection or conclusion of our own making. JJlemus ( talk) 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"Autistic" is not a dirty word. Neither is "neurodivergent." You wouldn't call a Black person "diverse," so please give people with disabilities and divergences the same dignity. If the article uses the term, then the quote can be included as a quote.
Were the article more encyclopedic, I might not complain, but there's an obvious social justice bent and if we can't have an informative article, let's at least be reasonable and inoffensive. Individuals are not "diverse," communities are. 2603:7081:1603:A300:BDC7:731E:1907:FDAF ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add a section about neurodiverse psychiatrists, including individuals like Victor Kandinsky, who despite suffering from schizophrenia, made significant contributions to psychiatric science. What do you think of this? – Mariâ Magdalina ( talk) 20:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AddieGrace ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zafomby, LaDonna205, Aebner01, Cosmic Hypernova, Williabd, Ddmiller12, Jkp0103, Agreeves, Corri123, April Sala, Sbradbeno98.
— Assignment last updated by Mewallac ( talk) 22:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Kassiane Asasumasu is the person who coined the words neurodivergent and neurodiverence and should be credited. Dr Nick Walker on her website https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/ in her 2014 essay on neurodiversity terms and in her 2021 book Neuroqueer Heresies (page 38, publisher Autonomous Press) states both words were coined by Asasumasu in 2000. 107.77.205.126 ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"Neurodiversity" and "autism" are not synonyms, never were nor ever will be. What do we have a redirect link at the top? Why not we just make it a category page because there are literally several other neurodiversity movements and awareness days! Sheragirl10 ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Understandings of Autism and 'not autism' have been central to the history and spread neurodiversity concept (especially the neurodiversity movement online) but this article should be giving an overview of : -all sorts of neurodiversity -discussing the boundaries of neurodiversity - such as the history of whether certain things are included, & when/who says
Each section is very Autism-focused to the point it makes it confusing to read.
The article could provide and overview of how different labels in the neurodiversity umbrella have operated within the neurodiversity paradigm or not; and where they have or contributed to it. 78.149.120.57 ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Use of the word neuronormative is a way to circumvent the epistemological issues with the word neurotypical (and therefore neurodivergence) - that are raised in this article.- [ Neurotypical section - see 'reception']
Unfortunately sometimes the word neuronormative is misunderstood to be part of a framework where neurotypical is 'normal' and so-called neurodiversity 'abnormal'. What it actually means is that neurotypical behaviour and strengths have been positioned as social norms, and neuro-atypical people - ADHDers, Autistics, Dyspraxics, Dyslexics, the Learning disabled etc, have then had to navigate a world which has, to date, privileged people without those conditions.
It might require an understanding of the concept of 'normativity' (see Normativity & Social norm) to understand the idea, for those who do not already have an understanding of the constructedness of language and concepts.
The use of the word neuronormative inherently questions the current 'normalisation' of certain peoples ways of thinking and behaving (and 'abnormalisaiton' of others), and questions the status quo of aspects of our societies that are supportive and helpful to some neurotypes whilst being unhelpful and discriminatory towards others. It is therefore actually a progressive way of understanding neurodiversity and so-called neurodivergence. Use of the term is also a current trend - for instance the term is used in some academic papers about neurodiversity topics. So therefore I feel it should get at least some explanation or mention somewhere in this article. ee~~ 84.65.96.97 ( talk) 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent… first, "recent" has no place in an encyclopedic article. Recent when? Second, it doesn't make sense given that social media started text-based (Twitter, Facebook, and their grandparents were all (pure) text). Third, the abstract of the paper doesn't say so, as far as I could see. jae ( talk) 01:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
So in its current state the page seems to work from the idea that some people are neurodivergents whereas most are not, even if J. Singer earlier in the archives clarified that she did not intend "neurodivergent" to be a descriptor for individuals. Anyway, under Neurotypical/Term the text jumps from the classic inclusions such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia to include "mental and behavioral traits, such as mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, and eating disorders."
I believe this section needs stronger sourcing or argumentation for it to stay. The latter conditions are mostly considered treatable and curable to some point, while autism, dyslexia, and to some level ADHD are not. Seeing as most of the population will qualify for mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, or eating disorders at some point in their life it also seems to undermine the concept as explained earlier in the article, and sounds like overinclusion to the point of rendering the term useless. Autism not necessarily being pathological or suitable for a medical/psychiatric model is easy to understand, why the same would be true for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders is harder to understand and not explained in the article. I'd consider removing it myself if I was more well versed in the editorial process, hope someone more experienced will consider it. Evilfiredad ( talk) 08:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the "Within disability rights movement" section was lacking clarification and stronger sources. I edited this section to help it flow better and replace/add some stronger and more recent sources. Kassafrass ( talk) 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The well-meaning illustration at Double empathy problem ( /info/en/?search=Neurodiversity#/media/File:Autism_Double_Empathy_1.png) appears biased by showing the difference between the 2 as the neurodiverse person's mind being a rainbow and the other person's less interesting or even black and white, simply by the fact that it is representing what is typical. The reality is that what is typical is also a rainbow. :-D The entire point of neurodiversity is that there is inherent beauty in the way all of our minds/selves work and all ways are part of the creative good of the universe, including those which are present in more than 50% of the population (thus neurotypical). Please use a graphic that shows mutual communication difficulty without it looking like the graphic has an empathy problem itself. (this observation is being made by an autistic person) 76.114.197.177 ( talk) 08:57, 8 October 2023 (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. |
I wish to revive this discussion over the to concerns about objectivity, in my opinion this page has been "vandalised" over time by both pro and anti "neurodiversity camps" however the article in it's current cut down format does not reflect the true status of the term as it is used in UK effectively as an identity, whose epistemology originates within the disability movement and the debate around social models. This has nothing in particular to do with autism specific disputes but a wider conception of non medical identities for people stigmatised by medical model labelling. The concept did not arise with Harvey Blume, he was merely the first who gives it a citation, like many neologisms, before they make the grade as current usages to be included in dictionaries, the term had been around before then. It has obvious resonances of Biodiversity in it's coinage (Larry Arnold - go google me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.89.212 ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a focus on Autistic spectrum conditions in this article & I think it is unbalanced. -- 78.86.146.148 ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) For example the 'Autism rights movement' box! -- 78.86.146.148 ( talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This entire article smacks of pro-autism propaganda. Gimme a break! I reached this article through a link from eugenics. IchiroMihara ( talk) 10:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There has been some dispute in the past on this article about whether or not it was Harvey Blume or Judy Singer who coined the term. According to [1], "The term neurodiversity was put forward by Judy Singer, an Australian whose mother and daughter have Asperger’s and who is on the spectrum herself, and was first published by the American writer Harvey Blume." Q0 ( talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Judy Singer here: Maybe this will sort out the controversy. Haven't been back to wikipedia for years, to see what became of the concept that Harvey Blume and I collaborated on back in 1996-8, when I met him online while researching my Honors thesis "Odd People In: An exploration of a New Social Movement based on Neurological Diversity" at the University of Technology, Sydney. To sort it out, the concept arose out of dialogues between myself and Harvey. While Harvey was first in print, it should be borne in mind that he published in the media, with a short lead time. I published in an academic work, "Disability Discourse" [1] with over a year to publication. Our takes were slightly different too. Mine was rooted in the British based, social constructionist, disability rights, activist tradition. My aim was politicised and within the still popular ideas of identity politics. I wanted to empower people who were neurologically different to claim a space in the political sphere, by locating "neurological difference" as a social category on a par with "gender", "ethnicity", "class", "disability" etc.
Jsinger ( talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It isn't our role to adjudicate a "he-said, she-said" disagreement. The first to print is Harvey Blume. J Singer knows this, which is why the nebulous phrase "first put forward" is used in the newspaper article. Which is itself non RS since it's the popular press.
This isn't rocket science, folks. If you wish to abide by WP, you observe that the Atlantic article predates any other RS mention of the term. It doesn't matter if Blume scooped Singer unfairly due to publishing delays. We don't determine fairness, or even truth. Just verifiablity. And the Atlantic article is verifiable.
Anyone who wishes to contest the date need only produce a prior mention in a reliable source.
Any debate as to whether Blume stole the term from conversations with Singer is not for WP to decide. Let that debate occur and be decided (or not) in print in an RS. Then we can include it.
The current state of the article reflects a stark failure to observe policy. CeilingCrash ( talk) 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
CeilingCrash ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add this link, a parody of the many institutes and journals devoted to the study of autism:
I this early site is a pretty good example of the rise of an 'anti medical establishment' point of view. It is referred to in the New York Times article by Harvey Blume but the link is broken there. -- 79.78.150.200 ( talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides the proponents mentioned in the section "proponents and opponents" there is not being talked about opponents- what about them? Maybe somebody knowledgable in that field is able to contribute this part?! Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.44.130 ( talk) 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Proponents and Opponents" section remains inaccurately titled; there is no discussion of opponents and very limited discussion of proponents. I think that the section should probably be merged with another. Monstromash ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the main article as Monstromash suggested, since there hasn't been any contradiction and it's a stylistic cleanup (I merged the content into the remaining subsections). Overall, the article lacks a "Criticism" section, and is quite biased. I don't have the research in hand to write that section, but I think it's a serious lack. Ironphoenix ( talk) 21:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some criticism, one quote from the web: One went so far as to suggest that all proponents are pedophiles and neurodiversity is just their cover and means of obtaining victims. DS Belgium ( talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
What looks like opinion and original research was added in this edit by Stephv611 ( talk · contribs), subsequently removed [2] and later re-added [3] (edit warring). Will the original editor who added this text please place an exact quote from the source on this page so we can evaluate the text? Because of the curly quotes used, I am also concerned that this may be a copyvio. Thank you, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The first subheading, "Neurodiversity as an Ideology" seems a bit strange to me. The paragraph simply seems to be discussion differing opinions on the relevance of neurodiversity as a category of human functioning. And since neurodiversity is a relatively marginal movement (as it is still a developing and slow-accepted concept), it doesn't seem to fit the primary theoretical definition of ideology (as a set of internalized, assumed, or unquestioned beliefs; beliefs so deeply ingrained they are understood as being essentialist or natural law). The use of the word "ideology" isn't used anywhere else in the article, so its appropriateness to the conversation seems lacking. If no one is opposed, I would like to change the section to "Opinions on Neurodiversity" or something like that. Does anyone have a better idea, or is opposed? Madnessandcivilization ( talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an appalling section that has been written as an opinion and completely lacks both sources and neutrality. I'm not sure if it can be saved, but as I'm fairly new it may be better to get some other views. If it was up to me I'd take it out altogether, but a better writer might be able to save it because it might be a good issue to include. Aspie Lover ( talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This article should be downgraded to a C or to a start. It's really not a B class article. Here are some suggestions to help the page. Article needs to be reframed as a disability right issue NOT an autism rights issue. Correcting the history will help this a great deal. Controverseies needs to be made its own section and not in the introduction. If you want to talk about the specific ways that the autism spectrum community have appropriated it it needs to be included in the autism section. The rest of the article should be retooled to be more neutral. Sugarcoma ( talk) October 3, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, except that not everyone views Autism as a "disability"...did you not read the bit, for instance, about the push by those in the movement to remove pathologizing terms?--
74.132.26.248 (
talk) 07:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on a project that is somewhat related to the neurodiveristy movement. Some co-workers and I were talking about the article and how it could be improved. I took the liberty to begin by rewriting the introduction to be more netural. While there are controversies involved with the ND movement, an introduction should state simply and concisely what the concept is and its context. Controversies should be included in their own section or if they are nescissary for the introduction, given their own paragraph concisely summarizing the the nature of the controversy and leave the details for deeper in the article. Sugarcoma ( talk) October 3, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This section needs removing, perhaps with the content inserted in other sections. Nothing in it refers to controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.26.248 ( talk) 07:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm working from Sonoma State University in California on a Masters thesis which includes information on the neurodiversity movement. Part of my project this semester (Spring 2013) is to create or update a Wiki page on my topic. Since this page already exists, and because the neurodiversity movement is so active, I want to introduce myself before I make any changes. I've done research on the neurodiversity movement, including its history, controversies, the differences between the British and American concepts of neurodiversity, and the organizations which promote a neurodiversity framework. I also have a boatload of academic references for the page. Since this movement is growing and changing, my sense is that this entry needs to change as well. However, I don't want to step on any toes. Would it be preferable for me to create a page of my intended changes elsewhere (and link you to it for discussion), or shall I just enter boldly into this page? Let me know! I'd like to start posting in April, 2013. Thank you! Karla McLaren. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 20:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was somewhat bold in my first edit, but the formatting on Wiki is so convoluted that I didn't want to make larger changes until I saw what these ones did. Let me know how this flies before I become bolder still. Thanks KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 22:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Wikignomes is a fun term! I'll be adding more data and continuing my edit over the next week or so. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! After my second edit, I have two questions. First, the warnings on this page, about lack of balance and the need for a rewrite of the lead (which I rewrote) -- who decides when these issues have been dealt with satisfactorily? Second, a formatting question: The first Blume excerpt in para 3 of the History section is in a pull quote format, but his next excerpts aren't. Is this a convention, or an omission? Thank you! KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and your explanations. I wanted to understand the quoting convention before I added more quotes, and I agree with Sandy Georgia's decision to pull-quote where she did, since that is the first public mention of the term. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 05:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello and thank you all for your support. I've just completed a large edit and added updated information in two sections (History and Controversies). I have three questions:
New section names: Is there a place for a new section along the lines of Neurodiversity Organizations or something like that? I don't mean to be a promoter of specific organizations, but there are places people can go to learn more. I couldn't find a rule for section header names, and I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable addition.
Page references: When quoting sources more than once in a para, do you re-reference after quotes?
Controversies: I struggled with one subject that is controversial, but I'm not sure how to frame it. The DANDA reference at the bottom of the History section is important because it shows neurodiversity moving outward from the autism community. However, for some reason, UK neurodiversity sites present ND conditions in terms of disability, disorder, debility, difficulty, and problems ( http://www.danda.org.uk/pages/neuro-diversity.php) [2] , which is the exact opposite of what Singer, Sinclair, and Blume intended neurodiversity to mean. This misuse of the term is an important controversy, and it separates the UK and US neurodiversity movements decidedly, but I could use some direction on how to frame it within the scope of this piece. Thank you again. KarlaMcLaren ( talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
References
On sources, all quotes should always be directly cited right after the quote. Text gets moved around and citations may be lost-- in fact, that seems to have happened in your edits.
Regarding your question on controversies, you seem to be engaging in original research (quite a bit of which has crept into this article over the years). Writing for an encyclopedia is different than writing a university paper, or even a scholarly journal paper: we only publish conclusions of independent secondary sources, and we can't string together unrelated sources to publish our own, original thoughts -- which is what your paragraph above on "controversy" is. By the way, I don't believe a "controversy" section is warranted here (I agree with Wikipedia:Criticism that all content should be worked throughout the article seamlessly, to avoid creating POV or giving undue weight to any one view-- as the article stands now, one view-- published by an independent scholarly source-- has been marginalized by referring to it as a "controversy"). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:MSH, WP:MEDRS, and please also take care with primary sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, weasel words, over-quotation, accurate representation of sources, and to avoid plagiarism and copyvio. I have tagged and cleaned up some of the issues in the article-- there are more. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The current article has a too big focus on non-scientific definitions of neurodiversity as well as a sociological model. There is a recently published scientific definition of neurodiversity in the peer-reviewed journal Sage Open ( http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158244013497722.abstract). Conclusions abount neurodiversity as well as the scientific definition should be added. Rdos ( talk) 08:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
So has the disease people scared-off all the neurodiversity advocates here as nobody seems inclined to read the study and add important content? Rdos ( talk) 08:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
From the conclusion of the paper: "The data from Aspie Quiz contradict the view that neurodiversity is a cultural or social construct, as all the traits are correlated to each other, pointing to an inherited rather than social component." This should be added as another POV. In addition to that, the scientific neurodiversity definition should be added "Neurodiversity was defined as the primary factor output by factor analysis of a data set of human behaviors which contains evenly distributed traits of all sorts that cover all of human diversity. Neurotypical function was defined as the second factor.". The validity of this method could be cited from Results - Factor stability that concludes that these factors were highly stable and independent of what exact neurodiversity issues are used. Support for the idea that personality is related to neurodiversity is presented in table 5 where extraversion and neuroticism is found to be highly correlated to neurodiversity Rdos ( talk) 09:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Among other things the journal "Dyslexia" is noted as "unreliable medical source". How could a journal with a focus on one of the components of neurodiversity which is not considered a disorder be unreliable in the context of neurodiversity? I'll just have to remind SandyGeorgia that this is not a medical article (despite falsely being categorized as such), but about the personality-aspect of several psychiatric diagnoses. Rdos ( talk) 13:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected the section head per talk page guidelines to remove the inaccurate personalization. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is synthesis, original research, weasel words, and puffery throughout ... I tagged some, removed some that was obvious, and this piece is pure synthesis: I've removed it to talk in case someone can cite it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Many conflicts over the neurodiversity approach focus upon the assumptions of people like Jaarsma and Welin (above), original research? who believe that neurodiversity activists don’t want any treatment or supports. However, this does not take into account the work of neurodiversity-focused organizations original research? such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Autism Women’s Network, [1] The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism, [2] and Autism Network International, all of which advocate for direct support (such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support). improper synthesis? [3]
Zad
68
20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Additional synthesis, original research, moved here for discussion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This clarification needed lack of attribution may be due to the possibility weasel words that Singer's conceptualization of neurodiversity had already been adopted by an international online community of people on the autism spectrum, to which Singer belonged, and which Blume studied for an article he wrote in 1997. citation needed original research?
Moving another to talk; sources claim weblinks, but there are none, and WP:SYNTH, and questionable WP:RS considering no source or publisher is given. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
However, the argument could be made weasel words that rejection of the broader claim on the basis of "low functioning" autism ignores the experiences of neurodiversity advocates who would be considered "low functioning," original research? some of whom directly address these issues [4] [5] [6]
References
I had a question about this specific section: "Additionally, as the term neurotypical refers to not having a developmental disorder; it could be argued that one is neurodivergent when they have been born without a neurodevelopmental disorder. Since most people with mental illnesses are born without a developmental disorder, they are considered predominantly neurotypical from birth. Mental illness could be triggered by environmental causes or traumatic events in one's lifetime, whereas developmental disorders are present at birth and continue into adulthood." I understand this section is informing about controversy in neurodiversity advocacy, but where is the source for this conclusion? Or did someone come to this conclusion on their own? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to provide information without forcing a connection or conclusion of our own making. JJlemus ( talk) 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"Autistic" is not a dirty word. Neither is "neurodivergent." You wouldn't call a Black person "diverse," so please give people with disabilities and divergences the same dignity. If the article uses the term, then the quote can be included as a quote.
Were the article more encyclopedic, I might not complain, but there's an obvious social justice bent and if we can't have an informative article, let's at least be reasonable and inoffensive. Individuals are not "diverse," communities are. 2603:7081:1603:A300:BDC7:731E:1907:FDAF ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add a section about neurodiverse psychiatrists, including individuals like Victor Kandinsky, who despite suffering from schizophrenia, made significant contributions to psychiatric science. What do you think of this? – Mariâ Magdalina ( talk) 20:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AddieGrace ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zafomby, LaDonna205, Aebner01, Cosmic Hypernova, Williabd, Ddmiller12, Jkp0103, Agreeves, Corri123, April Sala, Sbradbeno98.
— Assignment last updated by Mewallac ( talk) 22:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Kassiane Asasumasu is the person who coined the words neurodivergent and neurodiverence and should be credited. Dr Nick Walker on her website https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/ in her 2014 essay on neurodiversity terms and in her 2021 book Neuroqueer Heresies (page 38, publisher Autonomous Press) states both words were coined by Asasumasu in 2000. 107.77.205.126 ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"Neurodiversity" and "autism" are not synonyms, never were nor ever will be. What do we have a redirect link at the top? Why not we just make it a category page because there are literally several other neurodiversity movements and awareness days! Sheragirl10 ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Understandings of Autism and 'not autism' have been central to the history and spread neurodiversity concept (especially the neurodiversity movement online) but this article should be giving an overview of : -all sorts of neurodiversity -discussing the boundaries of neurodiversity - such as the history of whether certain things are included, & when/who says
Each section is very Autism-focused to the point it makes it confusing to read.
The article could provide and overview of how different labels in the neurodiversity umbrella have operated within the neurodiversity paradigm or not; and where they have or contributed to it. 78.149.120.57 ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Use of the word neuronormative is a way to circumvent the epistemological issues with the word neurotypical (and therefore neurodivergence) - that are raised in this article.- [ Neurotypical section - see 'reception']
Unfortunately sometimes the word neuronormative is misunderstood to be part of a framework where neurotypical is 'normal' and so-called neurodiversity 'abnormal'. What it actually means is that neurotypical behaviour and strengths have been positioned as social norms, and neuro-atypical people - ADHDers, Autistics, Dyspraxics, Dyslexics, the Learning disabled etc, have then had to navigate a world which has, to date, privileged people without those conditions.
It might require an understanding of the concept of 'normativity' (see Normativity & Social norm) to understand the idea, for those who do not already have an understanding of the constructedness of language and concepts.
The use of the word neuronormative inherently questions the current 'normalisation' of certain peoples ways of thinking and behaving (and 'abnormalisaiton' of others), and questions the status quo of aspects of our societies that are supportive and helpful to some neurotypes whilst being unhelpful and discriminatory towards others. It is therefore actually a progressive way of understanding neurodiversity and so-called neurodivergence. Use of the term is also a current trend - for instance the term is used in some academic papers about neurodiversity topics. So therefore I feel it should get at least some explanation or mention somewhere in this article. ee~~ 84.65.96.97 ( talk) 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent… first, "recent" has no place in an encyclopedic article. Recent when? Second, it doesn't make sense given that social media started text-based (Twitter, Facebook, and their grandparents were all (pure) text). Third, the abstract of the paper doesn't say so, as far as I could see. jae ( talk) 01:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
So in its current state the page seems to work from the idea that some people are neurodivergents whereas most are not, even if J. Singer earlier in the archives clarified that she did not intend "neurodivergent" to be a descriptor for individuals. Anyway, under Neurotypical/Term the text jumps from the classic inclusions such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia to include "mental and behavioral traits, such as mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, and eating disorders."
I believe this section needs stronger sourcing or argumentation for it to stay. The latter conditions are mostly considered treatable and curable to some point, while autism, dyslexia, and to some level ADHD are not. Seeing as most of the population will qualify for mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, or eating disorders at some point in their life it also seems to undermine the concept as explained earlier in the article, and sounds like overinclusion to the point of rendering the term useless. Autism not necessarily being pathological or suitable for a medical/psychiatric model is easy to understand, why the same would be true for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders is harder to understand and not explained in the article. I'd consider removing it myself if I was more well versed in the editorial process, hope someone more experienced will consider it. Evilfiredad ( talk) 08:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the "Within disability rights movement" section was lacking clarification and stronger sources. I edited this section to help it flow better and replace/add some stronger and more recent sources. Kassafrass ( talk) 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The well-meaning illustration at Double empathy problem ( /info/en/?search=Neurodiversity#/media/File:Autism_Double_Empathy_1.png) appears biased by showing the difference between the 2 as the neurodiverse person's mind being a rainbow and the other person's less interesting or even black and white, simply by the fact that it is representing what is typical. The reality is that what is typical is also a rainbow. :-D The entire point of neurodiversity is that there is inherent beauty in the way all of our minds/selves work and all ways are part of the creative good of the universe, including those which are present in more than 50% of the population (thus neurotypical). Please use a graphic that shows mutual communication difficulty without it looking like the graphic has an empathy problem itself. (this observation is being made by an autistic person) 76.114.197.177 ( talk) 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)