Talk:Neurodiversity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meganvanderwiele (article contribs).

Neurospicy

Neurospicy redirects here but is not mentioned in the article. Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It is now. Neurodiversity#Alternative_terms_used_for_neurodiversity. Raladic (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And referenced! Well done. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"Neurospicy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Neurospicy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20 § Neurospicy until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

For the interested

Discussion related to this article at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judy_Singer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit and reversion regarding phrenology

@Plasticwonder, I agree with @CambrianCrab that the mentioning of phrenology violates WP:UNDUE as well as WP:ECREE and should be removed for that reason. LogicalLens (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but even within the context of that paper, we previously agreed that the source itself says it’s not a new form of phrenology (“Though not a ‘new phrenology’ ”), yet you went ahead and changed the phrasing back to that. Could you perhaps clarify why? Spidermario (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping LogicalLens, I hadn't noticed that was restored. I've removed it for now per WP:ONUS. I searched for more people making that comparison when I made the first removal, but was only able to find various links to the chapter by Kristine Swenson. It looks like she's a professor of English (though please let me know if this is the wrong Kristine Swenson) which is well outside the area of expertise I would expect for an exceptional claim like "Neurodiversity is a form of phrenology". Looking at the book the chapter was published in (Progress and pathology), the editors similarly seem to be experts in English literature rather than any type of sociology or disability theory. I don't think the source is necessarily unusable, but it's definitely not sufficient for this claim. CambrianCrab (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems this article has editors with vested interests. I will withdraw from it. How the OP knew about that obscure edit being a new editor is another question in itself. Plasticwonder (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

? Plasticwonder What do you mean by editors with vested interests? Is there a COI here or something? It's not a terribly obscure edit, I'd imagine they just looked at the page history and clicked on the most recent ones in bold. That's what typically I do when I start making content changes to articles. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Plasticwonder, when I noticed your edit, it was just a few days ago. Obviously, I don't have the time to read through all changes anyone has ever made to the article but I looked at the most recent ones.

The fact that you are not replying to the criticisms here and accuse everyone else of having "vested interests" shows that it is far more likely that you are the one who is not interested in genuinely improving the article. LogicalLens (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Social media section unbalanced?

The social media section has a tag attached to it that states that its neutrality is disputed, which is from August 2024. What aspects of it are unbalanced and how do you think we can resolve this? LogicalLens (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

quotation marks around cure and fix

Re these edits [1][2] and the use of quotation marks around cure and fix ...

I maintain that the use of scare quotes is unnecessary and contrary to MOS:SCAREQUOTES. While I agree that the concept of curing or fixing is disputed, the words in the article, and in that context in each case, have their normal meaning (and are not words-as-words), so quotation marks are not required and ought not be used. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is more that the term "cure" is inappropriate outside the medical model, so using it is misleading and suggests an objectivity of neurodivergences being disorders that underlies the concept of curing something. You can have a disorder and still think it shouldn't be cured but if it is not a disorder then "curing" it makes no sense at all. LogicalLens (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think it's helpful to look at it as a case-by-case situation. (bold added for ease of reading)

1. Neurodiversity advocates who support those who are autistic or have ADHD, dyslexia, or other neurodevelopmental conditions do not agree in framing medical interventions as a way to "cure" or "fix" these individuals
2. Proponents of neurodiversity strive to reconceptualize autism and related conditions in society by acknowledging that neurodiversity does not require a "cure", changing the language from the current "condition, disease, disorder, or illness"-based nomenclature, "broadening the understanding of healthy or independent living", acknowledging new types of autonomy, and giving neurodivergent individuals
3. There is the medical model of disability that views people as needing to be treated or "cured".
4. Similarly, neurodiversity affirming therapy supports neurodivergent differences, rather than viewing them as something that should be "cured", and to offer ways to support the individual with difficult areas, while still appreciating their needs and strengths.

For #1 I can see an argument for keeping quotation marks, partially based on the way the Bloomsbury chapter used quotation marks (p. 373 In turn, this leads to seeing such problems as internal medical issues, and into questions regarding how to “treat” and “cure” such deviations.). I'm not completely how to articulate the grammatical justification, but I think it's something to do with the fact that in that sentence the concepts of "cure" and fix" are being sort of questioned, so they're sort of acting like MOS:WAW.

For #2, 3, and 4 I lean towards removing the quotation marks. Based on my read of other sources and my own interpretation of the sentences, I think those are a more clear-cut case of words not being used as words.

I don't feel super strongly about any of these in either direction, just my 2 cents CambrianCrab (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

For #1, I agree with @CambrianCrab that the scarequotes should be kept and rewrote the sentence in order to remove the weasel word tag and the misconception that neurodiversity was about changing the framing of medical interventions where it is actually about changing the interventions themselves. At least one source referring to other neurodevelopmental differences is needed as the sentence refers to ADHD, dyslexia and others and the ASAN source that I copied from below only refers to autism.

For #2, I changed it to "neurodivergent people don't need to be turned into neurotypical people".

For #3, I removed the scarequotes because it refers specifically to the medical model, but @Augmented Seventh reverted it.

For #4, I changed it to "eliminated" without scarequotes, which is a more neutral term than "cure", but @Augmented Seventh reverted it. LogicalLens (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The source I'm looking at says "cure".

perhaps i was mistaken.

thanks for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We are having a conversation here about the use of scarequotes around terms like "cure". In order to avoid that, I rewrote some sentences and have explained the reasons for my more complex edit above. Not every edit that changes a sentence without changing the source is wrong. LogicalLens (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

For #2 "neurodivergent people don't need to be turned into neurotypical people" seems a bit stilted to me. What about "neurodiversity is not something that needs to be cured" Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree but have changed "neurodiversity" to "neurodivergence". The previous version sounded like "people with neurodiversity" which is wrong because neurodiversity refers to the diversity of all minds while neurodivergence is a term that encompasses autism, ADHD, dyslexia etc. LogicalLens (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

if it is not a disorder then "curing" it makes no sense at all — That is not a reason to use quotation marks. In fact the sentences all make sense if you remove the quotation marks because the words are being used in their normal literal senses, and the [Wikipedia article] writer is not (or should not be) distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation. That being said, in the worst case of #1, perhaps we could resolve the issue by rewording it as "... framing medical interventions as means to what they perceive as an unnecessary cure or fix." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Leadbitter paper

@Augmented Seventh, why did you revert my re-insertion of Leadbitter's paper and two other changed made by me without giving reasons for it? LogicalLens (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I thought i did give reason.

I was looking at an article being edited against the source material, and noticed edits changing meaning of sentences without supplying a source.

Essentially, i saw unsourced changes to a topic with which i am unfamiliar, and reverted to last reliably sourced version.

thanks for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)