Talk:Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia.

Dear SandyGeorgia:

Thank you for monitoring the Neurodiversity article. You removed most of the Evaluative Diversity section as "off topic" because it has its own article. I appreciate edits, but please do not remove so much--it is not off topic: on the contrary, evaluative diversity may be the most important form of neurodiversity. 24.177.114.22 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Evaluative diversity has its own article, so does not need to be re-examined in depth at neurodiversity. Unless, if as you say, Evaluative diversity is the most important form of neurodiversity, then one of them should be merged to the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I will make a fuss about fairness if the topic of evaluative diversity is not considered on par with that of the autism movement which is another subset of neurodiversity and discussed in depth in the neurodiversity article despite having its own article. Evaluative diversity research makes significant contributions to our understanding of neurodiversity, so I think the neurodiversity article should include the following cited facts (though feel free to better phrase them):

• Neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity) has been shown mathematically and empirically to have social value.

Weisberg, Michael; Muldoon, Ryan (2009). "Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor". Philosophy of Science. 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786.

Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2001). "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents". Journal of Economic Theory. 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709.

Wilde, Douglass J (1997). "Using student preferences to guide design team composition". Proceedings of DETC ’97. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

• A survey of religious and philosophical doctrines finds all major doctrines to be on the side of neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).

Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Moral Ecology Approaches to Machine Ethics". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs (eds.). Machine Medical Ethics (PDF). Switzerland: Springer. pp. 111–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_8.

• The impact of discrimination against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) was recently measured to outpace both classism and racism.

Haidt, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Evan; Hom, Holly (2003). "Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02071.x.

• Bias against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) is implicit (i.e., we discriminate even when we try not to).

Mueller, Jennifer S.; Melwani, Shimul; Goncalo, Jack A. (2012). "The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas". Psychological science. 23 (1): 13–17. doi:10.1177/0956797611421018.

• Wage disparity has been found between certain neurological (evaluative) types.

Glomb, Theresa; Kammeyer-Mueller, John; Rotundo, Maria (2004). "Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials". Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (4): 700–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.700.

• Conflicts over neurodiversity are inevitably political because diversity of political orientations comes from neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).

Schreiber D1; et al. (2013). "Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans". PLoS ONE. 8 (2): e52970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052970. PMC 3572122. PMID 23418419. {{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)

Brandt, Mark; Reyna, Christine; Chambers, John; Crawford, Jarret; Wetherell, Geoffrey (2014). "The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (1): 27–34. doi:10.1177/0963721413510932.

These research achievements are tools and milestones for the neurodiversity movement. A neurodiversity article which lacked these citations would be incomplete. I also think it is important to diffuse the criticism that "neurodiversity" is poorly named: it is intended to refer to cognitive differences which happen to manifest neurologically in humans but manifest via other mechanisms in machines (i.e., what causes us to discriminate against people with Aspergers would also cause us to discriminate against artificial intelligences which lack empathy). Let's just admit that the name is historical, but may extend to computers as well. Langchri (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As just one (there are others) of the problems with the proposed text, PMID 23418419 is a primary source that shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, and it never mentions the word neurodiversity (original research). Evaluative diversity probably needs cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to add secondary sources. Do you agree that these ideas belong in this article? Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Langchri: Are these comments about articles on the science, or the social movements? Confusing the two is clearly not going to lead to good articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Thanks for teaching me to ping--that's useful! If you were researching the neurodiversity movement for a school report, you might turn to this article, and your teacher might expect you to report on both the history of the movement and whether you think it is likely to grow in the future, so you would want this article to include answers to questions like, "What evidence can you cite that neurodiversity is valuable?" and "What measurements have been made so far of discrimination on the basis of neurotype?" If the science has been done, then I think this article should indicate that it exists (and how to find it)--That's our goal: to make a useful encyclopedia.

The other part of what was removed (not copied above) was to mention evaluative diversity as a form of neurodiversity and link to the article (much as this article treats autism). I have not been able to find any sources indicating that there is any controversy over whether neurodiversity includes evaluative diversity--I think anyone familiar with both terms would think it does. Both terms are relatively new, so it is not surprising that we find no source that uses both, but we do find sources which contain both concepts: My original addition included: "Simon Baron-Cohen concluded that discrimination against Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism can be mere discrimination against evaluative diversity (e.g., against evaluation not swayed by empathy)."Baron-Cohen, Simon (2000). "Is Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism necessarily a disability?". Development and Psychopathology. 12 (3): 489–500. doi:10.1017/s0954579400003126. It also included sources to support the claim that evaluative diversity includes the disparity between evaluation that is swayed by empathy and not swayed by empathy, and other sources are already cited to indicate that neurodiversity includes Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism. Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry, but does that address my question? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: you asked if the removed material was about the science or the social movement. The part about evaluative diversity being a form of neurodiversity is not about the science. The other statements are about scientific achievements which are milestones for the movement. ...so both parts are about the movement. Langchri (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Langchri, from your recent edits at Evaluative diversity, it appears that a review of WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS may be helpful. For example, the entire sections on Genetics and Neurological in that article are also based on primary sources, without a single secondary review used. I am not interested in doing the cleanup over there, but this article has long been kept correctly sourced. Before adding content to this article, please be sure you understand sourcing policy and guidelines on Wikipedia, and please be sure to use sources that are actually about the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I thought the Baron-Cohen article is a notable reliable published secondary source making the argument that it would be better to protect people who have Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism from discrimination without actually forcing them to get diagnosed and labelled, but that such protection would be impossible without preventing discrimination against people on the basis of how they conduct the evaluative aspect of decision-making. In other words, preventing evaluativism should be a goal of the neurodiversity movement. That would make the evaluative diversity article relevant here. If the community here thinks this misrepresents the neurodiversity movement, however, I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here. I can understand why people who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement might serve as editors here, and I am not trying to compete with that. Langchri (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This concern is about COI, keeping article correctly cited and using due weight, but has also now become also about helping you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have you reviewed WP:MEDRS? This sample shows how sources are used incorrectly, generating synthesis and original research. The sample above on this talk page is another. You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches to be helpful.

The Baron-Cohen article is a secondary review; if it ever uses the term "Evaluative divesity" or "neurodiversity", please provide those quotes here. Otherwise, the use of that article in discussing "evaluative diversity" is synth/OR. "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, [1] as was happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not explanation tells us that we are allowed to explain a source in other terms. We are allowed to use the terms "neurodiversity" and "evaluative diversity" to explain what a source says, even if the source does not contain those terms. The question is whether the explanation is accurate, not whether it contains certain keywords. An accurate explanation of a cited source does not qualify as original research.

Baron-Cohen wrote: "This article challenges the received view through a subtle but important shift of emphasis. Rather than conceiving of autism as a deficiency, it instead considers if autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style. ...this small shift could mean the difference between whether the diagnosis of autism is received as a family tragedy, akin to being told that the child has some other severe, life-long illness like diabetes or haemophilia, or whether the diagnosis of autism is received as interesting information, akin to being told that the child is right or left-handed. In this millennium special issue of Development and Psychopathology, the intention is to highlight this as an issue for the agenda." Is it accurate to explain the article as "written by a prominent autism researcher to advance the neurodiversity movement"?

The Baron-Cohen article can be found at http://www.larry-arnold.net/Neurodiversity/Mission/disability.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langchri (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies: no, it would not be accurate to draw our own conclusion about what Baron-Cohen meant. It would be even less accurate to describe him in this article as a "prominent autism researcher"; we don't need puffery. Either something is sourced or it's not, and we don't need to puff it up. Anyway, Baron-Cohen never mentioned neurodiversity, and the evidence that even you seem to be unclear on exactly what he meant is that text opposing what is being advanced here was removed from Evaluative diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rights movements

The article says that there are many facets and that autistic rights are the most prominent but the ONLY specific group it talks about are autistic rights activists. Possibly since it's an article about neurodiversity in general, not just autism, there should be sections on activists for other disorders? such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia... I don't even know if those have rights groups but if they do they should be added or at least linked to. 50.129.99.10 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no organized rights movement for ADHD, bipolar and other mood disorders, dyslexia, dyspraxia, schizophrenia spectrum, sociopathy or any other atypical psycho/neurology other than autism spectrum. The idea of neurodiversity is inclusive but it seems like only autism spectrum gets a specific movement. Clr324 (say hi) 08:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome to the "See also" section for the moment. I think it would be useful to summarise the relevant parts of that article in this one, to show neurodiversity rights movements are not restricted to autism. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Neurological vs psychological

Should the first sentence be edited to say "neurological and psychological conditions?" Or should it remain as it because most people in the movement use neuroscience-based language and not psychology-based language (and besides everything psychological results from material processes in the brain, materialism of the mind is the scientific consensus). Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It also seems like most of what neurodiversity covers, with the exception of Down syndrome and narcolepsy which are sometimes included, is covered under psychiatry and psychology so I guess that is worth remembering. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

ND and the Anti-Psychiatry movement

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

A precursor of the sentiment

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neurodiversity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101015957/http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf to http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215181832/http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html to http://archive.autistics.org/library/dawson.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202254/http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/04_30/3_patients_practice05_8.html to http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/04_30/3_patients_practice05_8.html

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Disruption

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)

@Drmies: Not having that tool, I did not look closely at the IP's. On the one hand, the removed content looked like promoting an event, complete w/ a brief description of speakers's credentials. On the other, the edit summaries looked like "righting great wrongs". As an aut, I cringe at the thought of "normalizing" autism-- it isn't always a "normal" variant. I also cringe at the though of making it a matter of "identity". To me that can become self-limiting. It's one of several conditions I deal with/work around on a daily basis. It is often useful in activities that do not require an intuitive emotional response/interacting with others. My complex essential tremors is much more of an annoyance.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim, I have no real meaning on the content--I just noted that it seemed verified. As for CU, I used it only on one account, and since I suspected meating anyway I refrained from looking at others. Here's a thing: I have "taken over" protection. Moreover, there was real disruption. In other words, you are not involved at all--please feel free to edit in any way you see fit. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Let the IP's make their case here. It should be discussed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think I can explain the "meaty operation". Intent to edit the page was publicised on Twitter using an anti-Neurodiversity hashtag which people like myself sought to "correct". Does this get reported to you or via a specific administrator page? Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm things can get reported on WP:ANI or WP:AN if they get really out of hand, but in this case I have seen no evidence of such editing from your opponents, so to speak. The most recent big edits were made by User:Ylevental and they've been on Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:User:Ylevental may have been here a while but he did not disclose a three year friendship with John Mitchell or other persons he wrote about in the criticism section, nor that he's been name checked by John Mitchell in his blog posts (this is from the investigation into a COIN raised against Ylevental). Even after being told to disclose the COI on the John Mitchell page over a month ago he continued to edit the criticism section here without adding the COI notification. He's the person I was talking about in my last edit. As Ylevental didn't disclose his friendship with one of the critics he wrote about in the criticism section and the additions he's made to the article have all been negatively framed (NPOV concern) I politely ask that the upped protection covers Ylevental as well so that his edits come via this talk page. Mattevansc3 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't "protect" a person with a COI from editing a page, you tell them that they can only edit the talkpage with respect to the COI. Ylevental (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mattevansc3: I was the only one that was editing though. Plus, the "meaty operation" was actually quite a few IP addresses and new accounts blanking large content, also discussed on twitter. That action could be more reportable. Ylevental (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Social Media Advocates and Citation

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

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

Any guidance would be much appreciated.Mattevansc3 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

@Mattevansc3: Not true, check out the Amanda Baggs article for instance, she is a low-functioning autistic advocate. Also check out the sources in the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Ylevental (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm a bit baffled as to how any of the criticism section follows any of Wikipedia's guidelines whatsoever. It editorializes, it makes unsourced claims (e.g. Many people believe that...), it cites broken links, cites sources that don't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria... I'm struggling to understand why this section is here. It's been deleted once before, but I don't feel comfortable being the one to re-delete it. Nevertheless, I want to open up conversation for the section's deletion in the talk page, and would like to know if someone more experienced with Wikipedia content moderation could please weigh in. Thank you. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sleeplessbooks: It's not a perfect section, but Neurodiversity generalizes a lot of experiences that autistic people face. Given that there are three sections on this talkpage already about this debate with zero progress in actual editing or providing specific examples makes it more clear why a criticism section is needed. Ylevental (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, it shows that you don't understand what you are doing here. The section needs to be totally re-written, and frankly it's not you that should be doing this as you are clearly a biased editor trying to promote autism in a negative light rather than from a neutral point of view. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone actually going to do something about it or make edits then? Ylevental (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Done and awaiting review. A number of claims could not be supported and were removed accordingly. It was biased in those areas, and my changes may have resolved the issues noted with the tags. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm curious about who these people are and why they're credible sources. Please remember that anybody can be an author, but that doesn't necessarily make them a subject expert. I want to refer you to a Wikipedia page that will help improve your article writing: Wikipedia:Article_development -- This page has a lot of information, and also includes guidelines on citing quality sources. Also, to any would-be editors: if you have access to a public library, check in with the reference desk and they can help you with that. Just tell them that you're looking to edit a wikipedia article and need help with finding good sources to cite. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Added more details as requested - will add more later Ylevental (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the dead links, unsourced claims, and bias as needed. Best of luck from here on. Ylevental (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm reversing your last edit, since it does not appear to be constructive. Additionally, I do not believe that active topics that are still being discussed would qualify for being archived, anyways. It's clear that you're not a very experienced editor, and I would really appreciate it if you could seek out the assistance of someone who is before making major changes like this. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sleeplessbooks: He was trying to hide the whole issue - and if you were to look at his history he is keen to introduce a biased point of view on the autistic spectrum and promote it as all world bad. He's a promoter, and gaming the system IMHO. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:5D5A:C7BA:9194:757B (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sleeplessbooks: Okay, fine, but wanting an entire section with reliable sources deleted isn't constructive or evident of demonstrated experience in any way. I am giving you one week to make constructive changes or constructive suggestions, or I will re-archive this again. Ylevental (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

He's talking about this talk page, not the main page!!! 2001:8003:58DD:C700:EDCE:9B6F:49F3:DF40 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you re-archive this again too soon you will be reported. Looking at your history the IP above has a point. Stop hiding your behavior. Leave archiving to the experienced and unbiased. 1.136.111.33 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@1.136.111.33: I found this talk page in WP:DRN and wanted to chime in on this discussion. I believe the policy page is WP:TALKCOND rather than the one you cited, but the point is still valid. Archiving this unresolved discussion, as Ylevental did with Archive 3 (See [2] and [3]) two days ago, is disruptive to Wikipedia's purpose, and doing so deliberately to shut down discussion is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Doing so to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies is also gaming the system and talk page vandalism under WP:VANDTYPES. One week is not enough time to resolve this discussion, and Ylevental should not be so quick to archive, even if for a legitimate purpose. I would also refer Ylevental to WP:DISRUPT because even if the intention isn't to vandalize, the archiving of an ongoing discussion that they were part of is still prohibited under that behavioral guideline. I would suggest that this user refrain from archiving this page regardless of wait time, and leave it to another editor, because the purpose of archiving is only to reduce the size of talk pages about 75 KB in length or more, for the sake of faster loading, by moving only resolved discussions to a separate archive page, and it isn't strictly necessary for the purpose of the wiki. For reference, this talk page was about 31 KB immediately prior to Archive 3, far below that threshold, and Ylevental had edited this section less than 4 hours prior. --Tathar (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tathar: Okay, I understand. It's just that a lot of those editors aren't acting in good faith by wanting the entire section deleted (although admittedly, I might have gone too far too.) Ylevental (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ylevental: I'm glad that you understand. Looking at the content of the criticism section, I see the length of it gives the criticism undue weight per WP:WEIGHT by speaking of non-prominent individuals' criticisms at excessive length. Although there can and should be a criticism section for something that is controversial, the section must not give, per WP:NPOV more broadly, the overall article a non-neutral view of the topic. The criticism section is also about as long as the longest content section, and I'm concerned that WP:FALSEBALANCE might be violated by it. As an example, I don't see why Michael Fitzpatrick should be given any weight at all in the section, as his only claim to prominence is that he's a GP physician with an autistic son. He is neither more prominent than other GPs or psychiatrists, nor more prominent than other parents of autistic children, and if the view is held by a significant minority, then there should be other sources that would be a better choice. You can also have multiple sources cited for the same thing, and probably should have several for a criticism section because it helps establish the significance of the minority required by WP:WEIGHT. --Tathar (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

All good points. Weight is important. Ylevental (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

LOL at Jonathan Mitchell getting the entire final paragraph of this article to himself. I note that the user above has proudly posted about their anti-neurodiversity Wikipedia edits on Twitter, and seems to have a personal relationship with Mitchell. Someone with some energy and some understanding of neurodiversity should really have a look at this. --Oolong (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Neurodiversity is not a movement

(But, of course, there is a Neurodiversity Movement.)

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

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

COI - Criticism Section

User:Ylevental has a disclosed conflict of interest with Johnathan Mitchell, and has had a COIN Investigation about it. - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 01:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you use the COI section tag, you just write the word section, not the section name. Additionally, the section was already cleared up by someone else, as can be seen in the edit history. Ylevental (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfocused template

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

Removal of Jonathan Mitchel from Criticism Section

I recommend that the entry to Jonathan Mitchell be removed from the Controversy section.

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

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

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

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

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

Autism and science

I would like to add a section on the evidence that autism is associated with technical ability and skill in science. I am leaving this source here for later.[4] --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

[Re|Wikiman2718] I’d say no due to the age of the article (2011) and the following excerpt;

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

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

FC

Efficacy of facilitated communicated is disputed. It is widely claimed to be discredited pseudoscience, but there are many qualitative studies supporting its use. Link. I have debated this elsewhere and don't really intend to rehash the whole argument; however, removing an entire paragraph that is reliably sourced, I think, is inappropriate. Anomalapropos (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. While there may be some studies that support it's use, there are also studies which support the use of Extrasensory perception. The key is that no high quality studies (systematic reviews published in reputable journals) support it's use. See the page on facilitated communication to learn more. This makes all sources supporting FC unreliable. Per reliable sourcing guidelines, I am changing the articles back to reflect that FC is psudoscience. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have done extensive research on FC by myself, and I don't need the Wikipedia page to teach me. I provided you a review of FC that was published in SAGE journal in 2015 that support its use (on Amy Sequenzia's talk page). I will be asking someone to intervene, as removing large portions of peoples' biographies is surely inappropriate. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation about me

There's misinformation about me in this article. How can I get it changed? --Judy Singer (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Judy Singer: Just leave a message here stating what is incorrect and I'll see if I can fix it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Judy Singer: This appears to be a rather complex issue. I assume that the section you have a problem with is the History section? Please note that you have a conflict of interest, so you should not edit the article directly, but if you would leave a proposed re-write of this section here on the talk page myself and other editors would be happy to review it for inclusion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree. There are a host of issues with the article; misrepresentation of advocates, misrepresentation of both neurodiversity and social model of disability. There seems to be a lot of gatekeeping going on as well.

Random Acts of Language (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you make some specific suggestions, perhaps we can clean it up. I've been working at it for a while. One of the problems is that this article used to concentrate mainly on the neurodiversity "movement" rather than the word itself and duplicated multiple things from the autism rights movement article. I reworked it from that, but it's certainly not ideal yet.

I've been trying to use Neurocosmopolitan's definitions and stay consistent there. His interpretation of the resulting paradigm and social movement was published in The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry, which is probably one of the better academic sources I've found so far. But Ms. Singer's book is on my to-read list, of course!--anomalapropos (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)