Talk:Neurodiversity/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Concern about objectivity

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

No serious neuropsychologist considers Autism and Asperger's syndrome mental illnesses. Yes, they have DSM descriptions, but how else Autism spectrum people with them would get support for their problems? But I agree that the link list needs pruning. -Hapsiainen 22:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree about the article lacking objectivity. I don't understand the claim that it "reads like a brochure for some kind of politically correct mental health organisation" put it looks like a put down. As for the link list, I have categorized it so hopefully that will help. Q0 06:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think you have misunderstood a couple of things. Firstly, ABA, TEACCH and other therapies don't cure Autism. They modify Autistic people's behaviour and teach them new skills, but they don't remove the difference, "palsy" as you call it. Secondly, I have never heard of any Autism advocate who wants to stop such therapies. They have been sometimes criticised being not scientifically proven, but that is a completely different topic. You also don't realize, that this page tells about the whole Autistic spectrum. Asperger's and Rhett's syndromes are included. But you only talk about high-functioning and low-functioning Autistics.
Because you confuse some basic concepts, it is difficult to respond to your comment. However, I have to add that Cure Autism Now isn't about choice. They think is better that no people of Autism spectrum would be born. So they also want to prevent Asperger's syndrome, which causes only eccentric behaviour, not e.g. spinal pains or slow learning to talk. -Hapsiainen 20:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Now I've read the links and found people opposing ABA. But ABA isn't the only therapy for Autistics, although it is the best known. I think that the article gives too polarized view on the issue. If you view the Autism spectrum as plurality, the border between the Autistics and neurotypicality as a social construct, you have just to wait that an Autistic child learns to speak. If you interfere, you wish that such kids were never born. I don't recognize myself from either of these streotypes. I don't also believe that the situation in every coutry is so polarized.
I believe that when you can organize the child's environment differently, provide the therapies that you belive they help the child, and not force them to be someone else, you can still be a proponent of neurodiversity. Here is a text from a page under the proponent links. "Therapies we have used." I propose an extra paragraph under the "Who are the proponents" section: "There are different views among the proponents, which therapies help Autistics and develop their skills, and which only force them to act as desired and harm them." I sense that the article is controversial, so I first put the text here.

Autistics vs. Autistic spectrum

Not all Aspergers indentify themselves as Autistics. I identify myself only as an Asperger, although I know that the line between Autism and Asperger's syndrome is blurry, and in the future science it could be divided differently. If the article calls all the people of Autism spectrum as Autistics, it leads people to believe that there isn't Asperger's and Rett's syndromes. And then we forget their needs, obstacles that they meet, which are somewhat different from what the Autistics called Autistics have. So the article should describe the group as "people of Autism spectrum", or at least to explain that in this text the word autistic means all the people of Autistic spectrum. -Hapsiainen 11:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that I used word "Autistic spectrum" differently than it is used in Wikipedia. It is used there about the whole humankind. I thought that it was the same concept as "autismin kirjo", all the people that have an autistic spectrum disorder. But the literal meaning of those words is so similar. Fortunately I didn't add my confusion to the text. -Hapsiainen 14:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Braun

The only google hit for ["Nathan Braun" Neurodiversity] is his Wikipedia page, Nathan Braun, which only says that he "claims a commitment" to it, whatever that means.[1] What's the value of this "see also" link? -Willmcw 00:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps whoever added the link could answer that. Google is a poor barometer of notability in many, if not most instances. Having witnessed with dismay the unrestrained zeal of certain deletionists, this particular restoration may have been a bit too reflexive. The analogy of autoimmune disorders comes to mind. Deletionism seems all to easy to defend, and no organized effort to temper the evident problem has jumped out front and center. Ombudsman 01:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The editor who added the link is very likely Nathan Braun himself.[2] -Willmcw 02:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Opposing views

The article states:

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

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

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

Q0, saw your edit. It is better, though still seems a tad offensive. Here is an example of some wording I think is more Wiki-like:
"Because autistic people usually have some unusual (or unfamiliar) difficulties (or challenges, hardships, etc) in life, there are some people who think finding a cure for autism would be in the best interest of autistics. People who are interested in a cure for autism are predominantly neurotypical individuals; including physicians, therapists and parents of autistic children. Autistic people accept their condition as unique, and arguably, rewarding; despite the social and functional strains entailed. Autistic people feel the desire to cure autism demonstrates prejudice and intolerance.
Or something like that. What do you think?
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed dubious tag because it is not biased POV anymore; though still think it would come across better if slightly reworded. Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added your suggested changes to the article. Q0 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It is good now. I just took out the extra text that was in parenthesis - that was for you to choose which words you thought fit better :-) Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 13:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle Ground?

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

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

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

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


More Discussion off of where Middle Ground left off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neurodiversity vs. Autism rights

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

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

Judy Singer did not appear to coin the term

She claims she originated it in 1999, I found an article using it in sept, 1998. I made the correction to the main article. CeilingCrash 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Harvey and I were in regular email correspondence starting around 1996 or 7 and discussed the idea. I'm not sure which of us first came up with the actual term, but certainly we both chewed the idea around. I will try and find the correspondence. It first appeared in my work my Honours Thesis. "Odd People In", which I submitted in 1998 to the University of Technology, Sydney. Your date of publication of Disability Discourse is correct, but I wrote the article in 1997. Turnaround between writing and publication is much slower for books than magazines. I am trying to locate my correspondence with Harvey for further verification.
I went in and changed the wiki article to what I think is a more accurate version. I wouldnt like Harvey to get all the credit, in the meantime I'm trying to locate when the term first emerged in our private conversations. I still think I first used the term in our conversations but the ego can be misleading... Also I feel a certain colonial resentment - ie why should the USA end up with all the credit for new ideas - when they have all the major publications, are at the centre of things and can therefore be published much more quickly and easily - the fact is that it was very hard for me as an Australian to get the support and recognition that I think I deserve for pioneering a whole new discourse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For now, I will remove mention of the communication.

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

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

... exits stage left CeilingCrash 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

CeilingCrash utterly screws up, calls for Wiki backup

I have reflected further on this, and realize I have been trying to play Solomon rather than dutiful wiki scribe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CeilingCrash 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

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

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

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

Neurodiversity.com does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, also see WP:EL and WP:NOT. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss neurodiversity, and more that can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Consider (from WP:EL, emphasis mine):

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

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

Agree with Sandy, plus criterion 5. Seidel isn't a "recognized authority". Acording to Slate, she's "a doughty New Hampshire mother of a teenager with an autism-spectrum disorder". This is a personal web site that consists largely of a blog, and pages of weblinks that appear to be contributed by readers. There are lots of categorised pages of books, which are neither shortlist recommendations nor reviews. They seem to exist mainly to earn commission from Amazon. I don't doubt that neurodiversity.com contains some interesting info, but it is an amateur production.
However, the site might just be barely notable in itself (see the Slate link and this interesting article in the BMJ). If such sites could be considered a significant aspect of the neurodiversity movement, then perhaps it could be mentioned in the body text. You'd need to find multiple independent sources to prove notability, plus some independent sources (newspapers, magazines) discussing the use of blogs in the movement. The above two discuss the same issue and are more concerned with Seidel's letter to a journal than the site as a whole. Colin°Talk 23:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)