The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect will be made to Neurotypical as suggested. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypicalism[edit]

Neurotypicalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An almost complete copy of Aspergers Syndrome that purports to describe neurotypicalism; literally the normal mental state for a human being. Ignoring the copy issue for a second, this isn't really going to be an appropriate page; you don't have causes of neurtypicalism, mechanisms, screening, diagnosis, management and certainly not history (unless some religious user wants to point him in the direction of say, Genesis?) Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Causes of NTism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• You might want to review Neurotypical (AfD discussion) and its talk page, too.

  The problem here is one of set complements. A "neurotypical" person is anyone who is not on the Autism spectrum (no matter what other neurological problems they may have). It's the word used by those "on the spectrum" to describe people who are not. Trying to construct a syndrome out of this is like trying to have an article on non-French people. This is simply the "them" part of an "us and them" distinction. Even though there are plenty of sources documenting the appellation, there are no sources to support any of this article, because no source makes the leap from nickname to condition.

  There is a syndrome here. But it is, unfortunately, a syndrome that affects Wikipedia editors, and nothing to do with autism. Sufferers want to make the world, and human knowledge, "fair" and "balanced" by making up things to counter perceived unfairness and imbalance in the world, and writing about them in Wikipedia in order to redress the balance in some way — in order to "add the missing bits" that should be human knowledge, but aren't. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Human knowledge is unfair, uneven, incomplete, and inconsistent. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, we document it just as it is. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(not sure if this is the right place sorry)

"Copy" of Aspergers syndrome, yes, ive admitted to using the code of an exsisting page as a template because my wikipedia experience is limited, the data contained in this copy has been altered and only bares resemblence to its "parent" article in the area's it is true to.

• causes: simular to aspergers actually, its theorised as enviromental/genetic however, there's very little actual evidence of the "causes" of how the "normal" human brain is, there is a reason for the neurotypical brain to be as it is, just like there is for the atypical neurology to be as it is, if they find out in more detail i'll be sure to update my entry.

• mechanisms: again simular to aspergers in some instances, however differing in others

(accounted for in the article) the information on the mechanisms of the neurotypical brain is as limited as the information on the atypical brain, again should this change i will be sure to update the relevant entry (will you be proposing to delete the Aspergers Syndrome article as the same issues apply to both articles?). i will of course be looking at ways to improve the article.

• screening: the diagnostic criteria for Neurotypicalism doesnt exsist, simply because it would be largely pointless, over 85% of the GLOBAL population is NT, that it doesnt exsist yet, doesn't mean it shouldnt, to have a Neutral veiw wikipedia -must- contain information on "all parties", its not wikipedia's fault that majourity NT health professionals have'nt taken it beyond the "whats different to normal" approach and included "whats 'normal'".

• History: should there come a time it can be shown when the neurological arrangement of the NT occured i will gladly update the article, i'll also be interested to know of when atypical neurologies actually came about, genesis-era is quite possibly one answer however evidence for that is ambiqious.
• diagnosis: simular to screening really

• management: I dont really think i need to spell out the destructive traits of NT's, because what occurs in most peoples daily life is evidence of this, the same techniques used for other disorders have been shown to function just as well for a very wide spectrum of issues.

in short, yes it'll look like a copy of Aspergers, because there is simularity between the two neurologies, yes it will have roughly the same depth and amount of information as its parent article, because that's the information that's there (also a slight lack because where's the interest in studying "normal?"), it is a serious article and its also one that's trying to remain within Wikipedia's philosophy, that because it covers a pathology that is "common" and so largely ignored, is beyond the authors control.

do raise anyother points with the actual exsisting contents if you please (from an impartial position) i am interested in improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeme2 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~Uncle G: valid points we're it not that the term "Neurotypical" -does not- apply to those "not on the autistic spectrum", since its adoption by the larger medical/scientific community it has come to its literal meaning, Neurotypical, a person with -any- mental condition, I.E Bipolar, is no longer "NT" by very definition (this information is on the wikipedia page Neurotypical), the article is not a piece of "original research", because as mentioned, its been seen before, the concept of Neurotypicalism isnt mine and research into Neurotypicalism is the mainstay of the field of psychology. your right human knowledge is unfair and uneven, in a vast number of things *shrugs* it happens and seemingly will persist, wikipedia is not a soapbox or a way to "redress" the none-exsistent balance, but apparently its a place for neutral information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeme2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect—aside from obvious original research, undue weight to the perspective of non-normal people, plagiarism of another article, and being utter nonsense, this article is perfectly fine. Sentences like "Neurotypicalism is one of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and normally repetitive but often short-term interests and behavior" are obviously false, and should not be on Wikipedia! If I did not respect the AfD process, I would delete this out of line. Here's hoping that the snowball clause or something else will let us delete this before the AfD is scheduled to end. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC), 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • read the [article] and have a think about the symptoms, ive yet to meet anyone "NT" who has not had difficultly using and understanding their own language, difficulty relating to people, I know plenty of normal people who get hung up on what people think of them so "fudge" their relationships in a variety of ways, "unusual play" doesnt need any explanation when you really think about somethings normal people play with, mild difficulty with changes in routine, definitely thousands are late for work each day especially when thier rota changes, sometimes it doesnt even need change to do that, repeative behaviours, plenty of normal people i know repeat sometimes unhealthly the same harmful behaviours over and over. you might not -like- it, but im afraid there's no lie here, ive already covered the "plagarism" accusation, yes, not being confident in wiki script i used another page as a template instead of making a random mess (maybe advise others to use templates) and i cant do anything about the simularities that -do- exsist between neurologies/neurological conditions.Freeme2 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neurotypical.

  With all due respect for Uncle G's very cogent points, the purpose of the AfD process is to determine whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. "Neurotypicalism" is the kind of word that people would be likely to look up in an encyclopaedia. Therefore, it should not be a redlink, which means deletion is inappropriate.

  I do have a certain amount of sympathy for autistic people, who live with a difficult condition, and I respect the motive behind creating this article. Perhaps there could be room within Neurotypical for a subheading called something like "Perception of neurotypicalism among autistic people".

  But I do agree with Uncle G's case insofar as it shows that this content can't remain under this heading.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree entirely, and have modified my comment to reflect that. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no disagreement with a redirect, if you're happy that people really will be searching for this title. My deletion opinion was based upon trying to look this up using Google Books and Google Scholar, and finding no occurrences of the word whatsoever. (I then went on to try variations, including "neurotypical", which led to reading what sources actually said, which led to what I wrote above.) Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I won't say that people will be searching for this title. My position is that I think it's at least plausible that someone might.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What a Google Web search turns up seems to support that. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Im very sure fifty years ago, "neurotypical"/"autistic", we're -not- words in the dictionary, today they are, advancement only comes with change, no you wont right now find "Neurotypicalism" in the dictionary, because ironically, even with what we all know looking around and seeing how other normal people are (in some cases) its -uncomfortable- to consider the normal neurology (inspite of histories and our own individual personal evidence on the matter) as fitting into the category of a disorder, it does fit, im sure those who came up with PDD-NOS didnt even give consideration that it would, but it does. Freeme2 (talk)
        • It's not that I didn't find it in the dictionary. It's that I didn't find it in use at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a joke; it does not belong on Wikipedia. Stickinsect2 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am infact, dead serious, have a read of it again, but from an "outsider" perspective, forget that you are "NT" or any other label you ascribe and honestly and truely ask yourself, does whats in the article actual apply to and in many cases define normal people you know. Freeme2 (talk)
    • That's not the point at issue here. The point at issue is whether this is a recognized, documented, acknowledged syndrome that is part of the general corpus of human knowledge, or whether it is an invention that has not been recognized, documented, and acknowledged, and that is not a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neurotypical, which is by far the more widely-used term. The concept of neurotypicality is unquestionably notable - the discussion of it as a positively defined mental condition, though, is a marginal position and arguably novel. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cant argue with the perception of this being a "fringe theory" (because perception is perception), but then so would ASD and a few other things be "fringe theory" there is a -much- larger body of evidence(history and most people daily experiences) for Neurotypicalism than there is for ASDs, even though the former is something only recently coming to be recognised (wood for the tree's syndrome perhaps). Freeme2 (talk)
• Delete. An obvious joke, and not an original one: the idea of mocking the mainstream in this way has been circling around the Internet for years. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sadly, might be hard to accept, but i -am- serious here and if any of you would like to help me improve the language of the article i would be quite grateful. Freeme2 (talk)

• Some jokes are serious jokes; but they are still jokes. Wikipedia is not the right place for joke articles that lack reliable sources and which (if taken seriously) are original research. Eubulides (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Neurotypical, omitting to merge the joke. The term is notable enough to admit encyclopedic discussion in its own article outside of Autism rights movement or Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typcial or wherever. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • please do see above comments to others, ta *s* Freeme2 (talk)
    • Worry not, I saw your comments the first couple of times you posted them. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, delete Causes of NTism; no need for a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neurotypical, and sooner is better than later. The current content is completely unsupportable here, and Wikipedia is not best served by letting this biased nonsense block a perfectly useful redirect for a week's worth of debate. The author may wish to "transwiki" the joke to Uncyclopedia. Causes of NTism may actually qualify for speedy deletion as a hoax. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • unfortunately, again not a joke, this is what'll happen if you actually detach, sit back and examine "normal" people, its not nice to know there are enough flaws in the NT to have a person classed as PDD-NOS but, i think if you've read the comments above, you've come to realise, this isnt a joke and is -far- from actually biased (skipping self-examination because its uncomfortable, is biased, applying the same weight and measure to oneself that one applies to all others, is not biased). Freeme2 (talk)
• Delete and/or redirect to Neurotypical per WP:OR and WP:NEO. I think it as a neologism. Junk Police (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • appears to be a Neologism, sadly its not, appeared as early as [1] 2001 coined (it seems) by william rogers in an article for O.A.S.I.S(gods one day i'll learn these wiki tags), it is in common use, ask a psychologist, ask someone "on the spectrum", it is a "specialised" term, much like Pathology is (ask most people, they may have heard it, but i doubt many will be able to tell you what it means). Freeme2 (talk)
  • by the by, thankyou for -actually- discussing this rather than taking arbitrary action against an article that possibly makes you uncomfortable. Freeme2 (talk)
• Redirect to Neurotypical, which is an okay article. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make a redirect the redirect would be useful, to a proper article.. Delete first, because what';s here is a mixture of plagiarism, and unsupported POV. Advocacy for non-neurotypicals and respect for them does not require writing nonsense. DGG (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make a redirect, per DGG. Delete Causes of NTism, no redirect, as not a probable search term. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neurotypical as a plausible search term. This is what I think of when Uncle G talks about "cargo cult article writing": an article which has all the appearances of an encylopedia article but none of the substance. This article, if it were true, might explain why there is so much conflict on Wikipedia (and in the rest of the world), but unfortunately this is just a parody of the Asperger's syndrome article. I am unsure whether the author actually intended it as a joke (and the apparently serious responses here are just a continuation of the joke on us), or actually thinks this is a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article, but either way, it is original research because none of the cited references have anything to say about "neurotypicalism", "neurotypical disorder" or "neurotypical syndrome". Rather, this article is based on personal observations of various aspects of human behavior from the apparent perspective of someone with Asperger's, and is advancing the contentious position that such "typical" behavior constitutes a "syndrome" or "disorder" (complete with citing the ICD codes which essentially mean "miscellaneous autism-like disorders"). There is, however, an obvious "source" for an article like this: The website of the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, a parody website which actually does get some significant coverage in reliable sources: news, books, scholar. Something about this website as an example of the documented Asperger persepective on "neurotypicals" might be worth a paragraph or so in the Neurotypical article. DHowell (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotypical acceptable, author was unaware terminology used must be explicitly stated in bodies of citied reference to qualify as encyclopaedic in nature and not violate "original research" terms, if article was parody/humour, it would have actually been funny and much more in line with DHowell's stated "sources" (would have been more efficient to copy the parody direct from website, however that would have been an inconsiderate waste of wikipedia resources), was not and is not joke or parody, even though in some circles it is "joked about", and yes DHowell, maybe the article actually does explain why "there is so much conflict on Wikipedia (and in the rest of the world)" as unsettling as such an article is. Freeme2 (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not primarily that it uses a term not explicitly stated in the cited references (which is a problem in and of itself, but by itself would be fixable); the problem is it describes a concept not even touched on by the cited references. It would be as if I wrote an article on Asperger's syndrome based on biographies of people who I personally think have Asperger's, though I have no reliable sources which describe them as such. You don't, for example, have any source that says that body dysmorphic disorder has any correlation at all with being "neurotypical". How do you know that such disorders don't occur in those with Asperger's to a proportionate extent? (By the way, though parody is often intended to be humorous, it is not necessarily so; I could rewrite the lyrics of a famous song to memorialize a friend who passed away, and although quite serious in intent, it would still be "parody". See parody music.) DHowell (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparison flawed, biographical works are primary/secondary source materials and -very- limited in scope, most (albeit limited) texts that focus on how a "normal" person is/works (few and far between, it is mostly left up to the individual to observe rather than analysed and recorded) do cover what is mentioned in the article, RE:BDD (minor) it is likely that BDD of varying degrees occurs in those with aspergers as well as Neurotypicals, however as cited, the degree of "normal" people suffering with mild/borderline BDD in the US is about 57%, conversely animals display no signs (self-mutilation/depression) of any degree of BDD at all, leading to the conclusion that BDD is a vulnerability of the NT and other Neurologies (human), yet again, contemplation by any individual will highlight exactly how prevalent minor BDD is in Neurotypical people (unaware "parody" was a broad term for plagiarism that is often but not necessarily humourus, thankyou for the update) Freeme2 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Mostly left up to the individual to observe" and "contemplation by any individual" is what makes this original research, especially in cases where mutliple individuals will not necessarily make the same observations. And when citing studies which say nothing about whether any of their subjects have autism or Asperger's or any other condition, one cannot make the conclusion that they are about "neurotypical" or "normal" people. If you had a reliable study which actually documented a correlaton (negative or positive) between Asperger's and any other disorder, you might actually have something to write about, though I would still say it belongs in the articles about the specific conditions documented, and not in an article about "neurotypicals" unless that term somehow found its way into the actual study. One could, based on similar "individual observation and contemplation", write an article about "Y chromosone disorder", describing disorders prevalent among males, or "melanin deficiency disorder", describing disorders prevalent among white people; I hope I don't have to explain to you why such articles would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disappointed but unsurprised ( subject too often joked over + new user + frequent idiocy in others) about (at points borderline insultive) assumptions made regarding myself and the article, but aware this is not moderators -actual- intent. Thankyou for your time. Freeme2 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people commenting here are not "moderators". Some have gained the use of administrator tools, but we are all Wikipedia editors, just as you are. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon contemplation (better/clearer explanation): while "the Sky" is incredibly common knowledge (to the point of being (by mainstream majority) assumed, ignored and taken for granted), even among none-sighted individuals, it still has an article on wikipedia that is "clinical" in nature, that is the spirit and intent with the article on Neurotypicalism (the end result of classification is it actually fitting under PDD-NOS) Aspergers page was used both because a "template" page was needed and because there are vast similarities in the Neurologies (with clinically very minor but by consequence noticeable differences) to the point that even use of FMRI technology has yielded little to no actual data on the "difference", points raised about wikipedia policy on articles still valid though, perhaps one more versed on sources than I could edit or produce a "clinical" article of NTs? Freeme2 (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point, though. Sources do not make the leap that you are making with this article. Whilst they freely document the fact that people "on the spectrum" call those who are not "neurotypicals", they do not make the conceptual leap from the use of a nickname to the existence of an actual syndrome. Feel free to prove me wrong on this by citing reliable sources that properly document such a syndrome, but when I went and looked for sources myself, right at the start of this discussion, I couldn't find anything beyond "they call us 'neurotypicals'"/"we call them 'neurotypicals'". That isn't documenting a syndrome. It's documenting a name. And it is not permitted at Wikipedia to take things beyond what is already documented as known in the world outside Wikipedia. We aren't here to redress some sort of perceived imbalance, by documenting things that the world ought to know, but actually does not. We may not fabricate a syndrome that the world has not recognized, properly documented, and acknowledged.

    This isn't a medical journal. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, written using a wiki by people who don't have to identify themselves. Wikipedia hasn't the mechanisms to perform primary medical research, based upon case studies, and take it through fact checking and peer review by people with accredited expertise in the field. Medical journals have. Our articles are supposed to be based upon human knowledge that has been through such processes of fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge — outside of Wikipedia, beforehand. That's the route that novel ideas should take. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and make a redirect per DGG. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would go along per the above discussion with delete and redirect per DGG. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.