Jump to content

Talk:Neurodiversity: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Fenke, pls don't blank out other editor's Talk statements. This is only allowable in such extreme cases as personal slander. ~~~~
Fenke (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 265753358 by CeilingCrash Again, Not A Forum. Talkpage is for article improvement, the removed parts only invokes chatter
Line 37: Line 37:


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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.138.44.130|84.138.44.130]] ([[User talk:84.138.44.130|talk]]) 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.138.44.130|84.138.44.130]] ([[User talk:84.138.44.130|talk]]) 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This presumes that the neuro diverse credo/movement is worthy of opposition. They are only a small fringe group with a media presence, at best. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.45.25.56|75.45.25.56]] ([[User talk:75.45.25.56|talk]]) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Hehe. The site wrongplanet.net is a neurodiversity advocacy site. At 1:05 AM EST (when i happened to check), there were 384 ppl signed on. A total of 23,985 members.

:Ironically, many postings there (including by founder Alex Plank) portray wikipedia as a media channel of negligible credibility. Not worth talking to.

:Oh well. You know how dismissive these small fringe groups can be. [[User:CeilingCrash|CeilingCrash]] ([[User talk:CeilingCrash|talk]]) 06:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

::Look who's talking. Wikipedia also has or had some very strong proponents there saying exactly the opposote. Furthermore Wikipedia's credibility is questioned on many other sites as well, are they, as well as anyone posting there, all dismissive? [[User:Fenke|Fenke]] ([[User talk:Fenke|talk]]) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:22, 27 January 2009

WikiProject iconMedicine: Neurology Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

For older discussion, see
Archive 1 (2005-2007)

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)[reply]

focus on Autistic Spectrum

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)[reply]

I agree. This entire article smacks of pro-autism propaganda. Gimme a break! I reached this article through a link from eugenics. Perhaps that is what is needed. IchiroMihara (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originator of the term

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)[reply]

The first to print with the term was Harvey Blume. The popular press isn't an RS in this instance. The question of priority is simple : First to print wins. Unless a citation can be found that predates blume's article, it was blume that first 'put it forward.' Disputes over the origin, beyond that, are simply not sourceable.CeilingCrash (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition given here, that neurodiversity encourages the 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' of autistic mind-casts, is not what blume said. Blume said neurodivergence can be beneficial - in fact crucial - to the human race, "neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial to the human race ..." Of course, the entrenched wikipedia editors prefer to edit out any implied benefit of autism in the lead.
Nobody, anywhere disputes that any disability should be 'tolerated' and 'accepted', the alternative being intolerance and rejection. 'Neurodiversity' attacks the notion of disability itself.
But sources are just sources, right? You guys know better. "We say it, later in the article! The lead (link to WP policy) is just an overture, an encapsulation in more familiar terms, a prelude and summary ... blah blah blah." I know, I know. You don't care what the source says. You want the article just so, and you've got lots of friends waiting to just-happen-to-drop-by this discussion who feel the same way. I know. Bye.CeilingCrash (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this link, a parody of the many institutes and journals devoted to the study of autism:

http://isnt.autistics.org/

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)[reply]

What about opponents?

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)[reply]