Talk:Neurodiversity/Archive 2

Hello and thank you all for your support. I've just completed a large edit and added updated information in two sections (History and Controversies). I have three questions:

New section names: Is there a place for a new section along the lines of Neurodiversity Organizations or something like that? I don't mean to be a promoter of specific organizations, but there are places people can go to learn more. I couldn't find a rule for section header names, and I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable addition.

Page references: When quoting sources more than once in a para, do you re-reference after quotes?

Controversies: I struggled with one subject that is controversial, but I'm not sure how to frame it. The DANDA reference at the bottom of the History section is important because it shows neurodiversity moving outward from the autism community. However, for some reason, UK neurodiversity sites present ND conditions in terms of disability, disorder, debility, difficulty, and problems (http://www.danda.org.uk/pages/neuro-diversity.php) ^[2] , which is the exact opposite of what Singer, Sinclair, and Blume intended neurodiversity to mean. This misuse of the term is an important controversy, and it separates the UK and US neurodiversity movements decidedly, but I could use some direction on how to frame it within the scope of this piece. Thank you again. KarlaMcLaren (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't repeat the article name in section titles, so "Organizations" would be better than "Neurodiversity Organizations". Describing organizations should be fine as long as you do it in a neutral way and as long as you can find reliable sources of information that are independent of the organizations themselves.

Regarding page references, this is always a challenge. On one hand, having citations densely scattered through the article is annoying to the reader -- on the other hand, the reader needs to be able to figure out which reference is the source for the particular thing that the reader is looking at. Basically you should just do what seems best to you, and allow it to be copy-edited later if necessary. Also, be careful about over-using quotes. Ideally they should only be used when it is specifically important that the information comes from a particular person or was worded in a particular way.

Regarding the controversy you mention, the main principle to keep in mind is neutrality. You should feel free to say that a discrepancy exists and to describe the views and actions of both sides, but you shouldn't use the voice of Wikipedia to pick a winner, unless one of the two sides is overwhelmingly dominant in the mainstream of opinion. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article have been polluted with the disability view which is contrary to the initial intention. It's even liked to various disability categories. Rdos (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On section names, please see WP:MEDMOS. On the idea of including a list of organizations, please see WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory, not for advocacy, etc). Unless an independent secondary source discusses the connection of advocacy organizations to the concept of neurodiversity, including a list or section here would be original research and a breach of WP:NOT.

On sources, all quotes should always be directly cited right after the quote. Text gets moved around and citations may be lost-- in fact, that seems to have happened in your edits.

Regarding your question on controversies, you seem to be engaging in original research (quite a bit of which has crept into this article over the years). Writing for an encyclopedia is different than writing a university paper, or even a scholarly journal paper: we only publish conclusions of independent secondary sources, and we can't string together unrelated sources to publish our own, original thoughts -- which is what your paragraph above on "controversy" is. By the way, I don't believe a "controversy" section is warranted here (I agree with Wikipedia:Criticism that all content should be worked throughout the article seamlessly, to avoid creating POV or giving undue weight to any one view-- as the article stands now, one view-- published by an independent scholarly source-- has been marginalized by referring to it as a "controversy"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:MSH, WP:MEDRS, and please also take care with primary sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, weasel words, over-quotation, accurate representation of sources, and to avoid plagiarism and copyvio. I have tagged and cleaned up some of the issues in the article-- there are more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The current article has a too big focus on non-scientific definitions of neurodiversity as well as a sociological model. There is a recently published scientific definition of neurodiversity in the peer-reviewed journal Sage Open (http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158244013497722.abstract). Conclusions abount neurodiversity as well as the scientific definition should be added. Rdos (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, "open source" appears to mean "self-published" (by the author of the concept)-- there is no other reliable mention anywhere. I have just been through this article and found the use of many primary sources, misrepresentation of sources, uncited text, WP:MSH issues, weasel words, and multiple items needing clarification. I have tagged and checked only a small portion of same-- there is much more to be checked (and the article is overquoted). I also found plagiarism, so the entire article should be more carefully checked for accurate representation of WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "self-published". Sage Open is peer-reviewed (look it up). Your opinion of a concept you dislike has no importance here. I have no idea why you even frequent this article as you obviously only deal with the disorder view. Your claim about plagiarism is ridiculous as SageOpen has extensive anti-plagiarism detection. It just shows that you don't know what you talk about. Rdos (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So has the disease people scared-off all the neurodiversity advocates here as nobody seems inclined to read the study and add important content? Rdos (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

From the conclusion of the paper: "The data from Aspie Quiz contradict the view that neurodiversity is a cultural or social construct, as all the traits are correlated to each other, pointing to an inherited rather than social component." This should be added as another POV. In addition to that, the scientific neurodiversity definition should be added "Neurodiversity was defined as the primary factor output by factor analysis of a data set of human behaviors which contains evenly distributed traits of all sorts that cover all of human diversity. Neurotypical function was defined as the second factor.". The validity of this method could be cited from Results - Factor stability that concludes that these factors were highly stable and independent of what exact neurodiversity issues are used. Support for the idea that personality is related to neurodiversity is presented in table 5 where extraversion and neuroticism is found to be highly correlated to neurodiversity Rdos (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspie Quiz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the deletion or not of the Aspie Quiz article. Primary sources like this can be used in other articles without being notable enough to motivate their own article. Rdos (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Without an independent secondary sources that cites it, it cannot be shown that WP:DUEWEIGHT or even WP:FRINGE is satisfied. Zad68 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The paper is not WP:FRINGE in this article since it is about neurodiversity as human variation, the very topic of this article, and this has been found to be a notable subject. There can also be no WP:DUEWEIGHT as nothing from it is cited yet. More likely we have a WP:POV bias here by not citing evidence for neurodiversity being inherited. This is in fact a very common view on autism-related forums, so is not a minority view. Rdos (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68; without independent secondary sources that cite and discuss this article, we have no "evidence for neurodiversity being inherited". We have one paper, a primary source, written by you (please see WP:COI); autism-related forums are not reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Among other things the journal "Dyslexia" is noted as "unreliable medical source". How could a journal with a focus on one of the components of neurodiversity which is not considered a disorder be unreliable in the context of neurodiversity? I'll just have to remind SandyGeorgia that this is not a medical article (despite falsely being categorized as such), but about the personality-aspect of several psychiatric diagnoses. Rdos (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "vandalism" should only be used for edits that are deliberately intended to damage the encyclopedia. You will find that using the word to describe well-intended edits that you disagree with will greatly reduce the chances that other editors will pay attention to what you are saying. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK and alter the section heading above. Not only have you used "vandalism" incorrectly, but you have singled out an editor in a section heading. The reliability of those sources is not dependent on whether or not neurodiversity is a medical topic or a disorder or psychiatric or not; it has to do with statements about health. The source tagged is a primary source; it could be tagged with RS or MEDRS equally, but MEDRS does a better job of explaining the use of primary sources when discussing health matters. If you have a secondary review that discusses that primary source, it could be included without being UNDUE; when primary studies are unreviewed by secondary sources, any number of sourcing issues arise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Dyslexia" journal is owned by the Brisish Dyslexia Association, which has funding from the Orton Gillingham remedial program providers, and is similar to Orton Gillingham's main marketing arm the International Dyslexia Association which owns the "Annuals of Dyslexia" journal. dolfrog (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What you try to tell me is if somebody has done non-medical treatment programs of Dyslexia, they disqualify as a credible source. I suppose that if somebody invented a drug that would treat Dyslexia nobody would see any problem in including that as a reliable source, right? Rdos (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First you claim that it doesn't matter if neurodiversity is a medical topic or not, and then you claim that it is about health and that that would motivate requiring using medical sources only. That's really illogical. Do you claim that personality types should be referenced from medical sources also, arguing that any variation from typical personality traits (like being introvert, which in fact is a neurodiversity trait) is a health issue? Rdos (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the section head per talk page guidelines to remove the inaccurate personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is synthesis, original research, weasel words, and puffery throughout ... I tagged some, removed some that was obvious, and this piece is pure synthesis: I've removed it to talk in case someone can cite it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Many conflicts over the neurodiversity approach focus upon the assumptions of people like Jaarsma and Welin (above),^{[original research?]} who believe that neurodiversity activists don’t want any treatment or supports. However, this does not take into account the work of neurodiversity-focused organizations^{[original research?]} such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Autism Women’s Network,^[1] The Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism,^[2] and Autism Network International, all of which advocate for direct support (such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support).^{[improper synthesis?][3]}

Agree this is problematic content and correct to remove until sufficient sourcing can be found/improved. Zad68 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't make the citations on talk work, but the entire paragraph seems to be constructed as original research by the person who wrote it, stringing together unrelated sources to synthesize a conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I got the reflist-talks to work by adding required magic parameter "close=1" (why would a parameter like that be optional to specify but required to make it work??). Zad68 14:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a question about this specific section: "Additionally, as the term neurotypical refers to not having a developmental disorder; it could be argued that one is neurodivergent when they have been born without a neurodevelopmental disorder. Since most people with mental illnesses are born without a developmental disorder, they are considered predominantly neurotypical from birth. Mental illness could be triggered by environmental causes or traumatic events in one's lifetime, whereas developmental disorders are present at birth and continue into adulthood." I understand this section is informing about controversy in neurodiversity advocacy, but where is the source for this conclusion? Or did someone come to this conclusion on their own? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to provide information without forcing a connection or conclusion of our own making. JJlemus (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like someone just came to this conclusion on their own. The coiner of the term neurodivergent has stated that the term refers to anyone with a divergent brain, and a lot of the community would agree with that, in conflict with what the controversy section says. As such, neurotypical would simply describe someone who is not neurodivergent. That part of the controversy section should probably be removed or reworded. HaiFire3344 (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I have removed the segment. JJlemus (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Autistic" is not a dirty word. Neither is "neurodivergent." You wouldn't call a Black person "diverse," so please give people with disabilities and divergences the same dignity. If the article uses the term, then the quote can be included as a quote.

Were the article more encyclopedic, I might not complain, but there's an obvious social justice bent and if we can't have an informative article, let's at least be reasonable and inoffensive. Individuals are not "diverse," communities are. 2603:7081:1603:A300:BDC7:731E:1907:FDAF (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add a section about neurodiverse psychiatrists, including individuals like Victor Kandinsky, who despite suffering from schizophrenia, made significant contributions to psychiatric science. What do you think of this? – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's relevant. The article is specifically about the concept and framework. Including a list of individuals would, first of all, imply that they are definitely neurodivergent and implicitly treat the paradigm as accepted/accurate, both of which are pretty strong claims to make. Further, those people might actually object to the framework or not subscribe to it; in that case, listing them in the article would be pretty rude.

Finally, it would be very specific without any good reason why. This article is about a particular framework, not about contributors to psychology or psychology in general. Would the argument be that listing "neurodiverse" psychiatrists is relevant because they were notable neurodiverse people in psychiatry, and this is an article about neurodiversity which is a school of thought in psychology, and psychology is related to psychiatry? I would be more amenable to a list of proponents of/contributors to the model, but even that seems unnecessary as it would be too excessively detailed. Aos Sidhe (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AddieGrace (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zafomby, LaDonna205, Aebner01, Cosmic Hypernova, Williabd, Ddmiller12, Jkp0103, Agreeves, Corri123, April Sala, Sbradbeno98.

— Assignment last updated by Mewallac (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Kassiane Asasumasu is the person who coined the words neurodivergent and neurodiverence and should be credited. Dr Nick Walker on her website https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/ in her 2014 essay on neurodiversity terms and in her 2021 book Neuroqueer Heresies (page 38, publisher Autonomous Press) states both words were coined by Asasumasu in 2000.107.77.205.126 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I completely agree that they need to be credited. I'm not sure the best way to address this on this article myself, but I've noticed that Wikipedia in general is lacking a lot of information about the terms neurodivergent and neurodivergence, to the point where the concept has no dedicated page and just redirects here, where it is barely expanded on. This seems rather odd to me; considering the antonym neurotypical even had its own page at one point but was merged here. HaiFire3344 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the term "neurotypical" is significantly older (early 1990s) than either "neurodiversity" and "neurodivergent" and is also used to just mean "non-autististic" in mainstream academic research and clinical contexts, rather than denoting the opposite of "neurodivergent" or being associated with neurodiversity as a political position/world view. Hence, I believe that it makes sense to have a standalone article on "neurotypical".

The German Wikipedia's entry on "neurotypical" has just been largely rewritten and contains mostly English-language sources that could be used here as well: neurotypisch.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a few problems right now are that neurodiversity is often confused/conflated with neurodivergence, folks often think that one or both of said terms only include autism, ADHD, and maybe a few other conditions, and there isn't much information about the more general uses of neurodivergent and neurotypical where the former simply refers to having a brain that diverges and the latter refers to not being neurodivergent (this is how I tend to see the words used online). A lot of this has to do with the separate origins of neurodivergent and the way these terms are still used in mainstream academic and clinical contexts. If there is the possibility of giving neurotypical a standalone entry again at some point, maybe more information and sources can be found about the social aspects of neurodivergence, and then a separate section (and eventually a standalone article?) can be made about that as well. I wonder if the German Wikipedia entry has anything that expands on neurodivergent in particular. HaiFire3344 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that all terms surrounding neurodiversity are poorly defined and are used by different people with various different meanings.

The German Wikipedia does not say much about "neurodivergent". In the article on "neurotypical" it just states that "neurotypical" is sometimes used as the opposite of "neurodivergent" (just as you said in your first comment) and briefly discusses that "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical" are problematic concepts in the "Kritik" section. Almost all of this is based on English-language sources, in particular this book chapter, which you'll probably find interesting. The entire book is open access.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Neurodiversity" and "autism" are not synonyms, never were nor ever will be. What do we have a redirect link at the top? Why not we just make it a category page because there are literally several other neurodiversity movements and awareness days! Sheragirl10 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems wrong to me. Neurodiversity encompasses ADHD and other things too. That redirect should probably be removed, if there is not a separate article for the neurodiversity movement (and there probably does not need to be, since the neurodiversity article should cover advocacy efforts too). There are some other links in this article that seem to imply that neurodiversity and autism rights are synonymous, which is incorrect. Hist9600 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that this is a historical decision made by early Wikipedia editors. The autism rights movement fully formed in the 1990s and the neurodiversity movement for a large part grew out of it starting in the late 1990s but did not reach the mainstream until well into the 2000s, at which point Wikipedia already existed. Also, people that have been around when the neurodiversity movement first started might have the impression that it is but a sub-movement within the autism rights movement. (Similar to terms like "neurotypical" or "neurodiversity" itself which once were slang and are now relatively widely known and used in non-activist contexts.)--TempusTacet (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You can nominate it for redirects for discussion or propose a split for the article. Abby Pereira (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Understandings of Autism and 'not autism' have been central to the history and spread neurodiversity concept (especially the neurodiversity movement online) but this article should be giving an overview of : -all sorts of neurodiversity -discussing the boundaries of neurodiversity - such as the history of whether certain things are included, & when/who says

Each section is very Autism-focused to the point it makes it confusing to read.

• Other - dyspraxia, adhd, synesthesia .... etc
• debated - mental illnesses, life experiences that have neurological effects, other brain variation .... etc

The article could provide and overview of how different labels in the neurodiversity umbrella have operated within the neurodiversity paradigm or not; and where they have or contributed to it. 78.149.120.57 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the page is not protected/locked, you're welcome to edit and improve it.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Use of the word neuronormative is a way to circumvent the epistemological issues with the word neurotypical (and therefore neurodivergence) - that are raised in this article.- [ Neurotypical section - see 'reception']

Unfortunately sometimes the word neuronormative is misunderstood to be part of a framework where neurotypical is 'normal' and so-called neurodiversity 'abnormal'. What it actually means is that neurotypical behaviour and strengths have been positioned as social norms, and neuro-atypical people - ADHDers, Autistics, Dyspraxics, Dyslexics, the Learning disabled etc, have then had to navigate a world which has, to date, privileged people without those conditions.

It might require an understanding of the concept of 'normativity' (see Normativity & Social norm) to understand the idea, for those who do not already have an understanding of the constructedness of language and concepts.

The use of the word neuronormative inherently questions the current 'normalisation' of certain peoples ways of thinking and behaving (and 'abnormalisaiton' of others), and questions the status quo of aspects of our societies that are supportive and helpful to some neurotypes whilst being unhelpful and discriminatory towards others. It is therefore actually a progressive way of understanding neurodiversity and so-called neurodivergence. Use of the term is also a current trend - for instance the term is used in some academic papers about neurodiversity topics. So therefore I feel it should get at least some explanation or mention somewhere in this article. ee~~ 84.65.96.97 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent… first, "recent" has no place in an encyclopedic article. Recent when? Second, it doesn't make sense given that social media started text-based (Twitter, Facebook, and their grandparents were all (pure) text). Third, the abstract of the paper doesn't say so, as far as I could see. jae (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So in its current state the page seems to work from the idea that some people are neurodivergents whereas most are not, even if J. Singer earlier in the archives clarified that she did not intend "neurodivergent" to be a descriptor for individuals. Anyway, under Neurotypical/Term the text jumps from the classic inclusions such as autism, ADHD, and dyslexia to include "mental and behavioral traits, such as mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, and eating disorders."

I believe this section needs stronger sourcing or argumentation for it to stay. The latter conditions are mostly considered treatable and curable to some point, while autism, dyslexia, and to some level ADHD are not. Seeing as most of the population will qualify for mood, anxiety, dissociative, psychotic, personality, or eating disorders at some point in their life it also seems to undermine the concept as explained earlier in the article, and sounds like overinclusion to the point of rendering the term useless. Autism not necessarily being pathological or suitable for a medical/psychiatric model is easy to understand, why the same would be true for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders is harder to understand and not explained in the article. I'd consider removing it myself if I was more well versed in the editorial process, hope someone more experienced will consider it. Evilfiredad (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the "Within disability rights movement" section was lacking clarification and stronger sources. I edited this section to help it flow better and replace/add some stronger and more recent sources. Kassafrass (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The well-meaning illustration at Double empathy problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity#/media/File:Autism_Double_Empathy_1.png) appears biased by showing the difference between the 2 as the neurodiverse person's mind being a rainbow and the other person's less interesting or even black and white, simply by the fact that it is representing what is typical. The reality is that what is typical is also a rainbow. :-D The entire point of neurodiversity is that there is inherent beauty in the way all of our minds/selves work and all ways are part of the creative good of the universe, including those which are present in more than 50% of the population (thus neurotypical). Please use a graphic that shows mutual communication difficulty without it looking like the graphic has an empathy problem itself. (this observation is being made by an autistic person) 76.114.197.177 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree! I will go ahead and make this change to replace the illustration with one that is more suitable to help embody that section. Kassafrass (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caucasianangst (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Allyson103 (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassafrass (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MoFerqueron, Hhmilius, BerryERo.

— Assignment last updated by BerryERo (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The original "Clinical setting" section at the bottom of the article was lacking information. I added two topics underneath this section to expand on it: Medicine and Healthcare & Therapy. Kassafrass (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 22 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Garfinkie (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Garfinkie (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is fairly cautious in its attribution in any case, but it ought to be edited to reflect this correction to the historical record: The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory

It could also be good to add a bit more on recent signs of mainstream/establishment acceptance of the idea, like this special issue of the British Psychological Society's The Psychologist (magazine), or the General Teaching Council for Scotland's professional guides. Oolong (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are cool recent sources, thanks for sharing. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FormallyTrainedHomunculus (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Whitneyatwelle, Morrisse95, Sdavis81.

— Assignment last updated by Arianamarievasquez (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Unfocused" tag was placed a year ago without any talk page entry to explain its applicability. Seeing no justification in the current article content, I have removed it. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the tag was appropriate. The article focuses on many different subjects and is generally very messy. For example, Neurodiversity and education and Neurodiversity and the workspace seem to heavily overlap with subjects covered in Inclusion (education), Special education, and Inclusion (disability rights). These sections are more about disabilities in education and workplace settings. The article is longer than it needs to be and I feel it is overloaded with information. --Pinecone23 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this section:

""Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement", a 2020 review, raised two concerns regarding the term neurotypical"

Is this study particularly notable? Any study could be cherry-picked into this section if it supports the two concerns so perhaps this needs rewriting. 212.187.164.162 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Much of the article has issues with NPOV. Criticisms are often downplayed or ignored. There's a bit too much a positive spin on neurodiversity, especially when applied in a general sense (as opposed to specific cases related to autism). This is particularly obvious in the "In Social Media," which seems to be a cheerleading act for using social media among the neurodiverse without any serious discussion on issues related to social media. One of the key problems is that social media often encourages fraught actions such as self-diagnosis and attempts to doctor-shop a condition, which is often harmful for disabled people in collective sense (as many normies and high-functioning people are incentivized to play up a condition, which in turn marginalizes people with not-so-glamorous conditions).

While the larger article could benefit from an NPOV, I specifically applied it to this section because the writing is clearly non-neutral. Brokenwit (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Neurodiversity in education:
  • Rewrite introductory paragraph to better summarize the entire section.
  • Each paragraph feels randomly placed. I want to organize each paragraph so that relevant issues in education for neurodiverse students is displayed.
  • Plans: clear, concise introductory paragraph. Then, 1-2 paragraphs on experiences of neurodiverse students in education. Lastly, 1-2 paragraphs on how institutions view, adjust, and accommodate neurodiverse students.

• Neurodiversity in the workplace:
  • This overall section is not giving a clear and concise overview of how neurodiversity is experienced in the workplace, the implications of that, and how employment tends to handle neurodiverse individuals. Once again, the goal should be to provide a comprehensive review on how neurodiversity is experienced as a whole.
  • Introductory paragraph: some sentences can be saved, needs to be rewritten to provide a better overview of section.
  • In 1-2 paragraphs, describe the common experiences of neurodiverse individuals in the workplace. In 1-2 paragraphs, describe what the literature suggests on how employment accommodates and handles neurodiversity.

• Within disability movements:
  • The information itself is not bad, it just needs to be reorganized and slightly rewritten, so that it flows better.
  • For some reason, this section acts as a main header for the subheadings "neurodiversity in education" and "neurodiversity in the workplace." I think it makes more sense to leave "within disability movements" [title needs a rewrite] as a main section, with subheadings (if needed) pertaining particularly to neurodiversity movements and activism. The sections for neurodiversity in education and the workplace should be either a main section, or a subheading under a main heading that covers how neurodiversity affects various domains of life.

Disclaimer: I don't want to completely remove what is there. I think it could flow better. 2603:800C:1600:E8:543A:3BBD:659:D333 (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpignatti (article contribs). Peer reviewers: NickRec, Hmcmurrain, Ayen!no, Mbromano, AD543.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josiezettlemoyer (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maya Van Kanegan.

— Assignment last updated by Advancedpl12 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

I added the self-diagnosis controversy and removed the unbalanced tag from the social media section as I think the issue is resolved and nobody answered here. LogicalLens (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Re these edits 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)

Ohhkay I see how you're reading the sentence now and you're right, the quotation marks don't quite work in #1. The crux of the issue is that under the framework of neurodiversity, terms like “cure” aren't necessarily used in their normal literal sense, because deconstructing those terms is part of the foundation of the framework (i.e. like saying “cure” in ref to neurodiversity under this framework makes as much sense as talking about a “cure” for brown hair) My read of that sentence was that it was supposed to be a reference to that (hence why I said keep them), but Mitch is right, currently it does not. Since the sentence is already a little bit awkward, my suggestion is:

−

Neurodiversity advocates who support those who are autistic or have ADHD, dyslexia, or other neurodevelopmental conditions do not agree with framing medical interventions as a way to "cure" or "fix" these individuals. Rather, they promote support systems such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support.

+

Neurodiversity advocates promote support systems such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support.

Then since the next paragraph is already talking about nomenclature, we can add a little bit there about why words like cure don't really make sense under this framework. I think I have some more sources that talk about this, but I'm fairly busy lately so I'm not sure when I'll have the time to dig for them. I think the Bloomsbury chapter (the Chapman 2019 reference) talked about it a bit more too... CambrianCrab (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to "Neurodiversity advocates and organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) do not agree with using medical interventions as a way to remove neurodevelopmental differences." Do you agree? LogicalLens (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with - it's short and to the point. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

LogicalLens That looks great! In terms of adding to the next paragraph, the refs I had were easier to find than I expected (yay folders) but unfortunately don't mention neurodiversity so no good for this article. I re-read the Bloomsbury chapter though and found a paragraph that might be helpful CambrianCrab (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree with my change? LogicalLens (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It’s not true of all such differences, though. See for example:

Other forms of neurodivergence, like epilepsy or the effects of traumatic brain injuries, could be removed from an individual without erasing fundamental aspects of the individual’s selfhood, and in many cases the individual would be happy to be rid of such forms of neurodivergence. The neurodiversity paradigm does not reject the pathologizing of these forms of neurodivergence, and the Neurodiversity Movement does not object to consensual attempts to cure them (but still most definitely objects to discrimination against people who have them).
— https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/

Spidermario (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree with my change? LogicalLens (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Spidermario (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeliaJones (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Patrickpowns, I am not convinced by certain aspects of the two images you recently inserted.

First image: it creates the impression that the disorder narrative is debated within the neurodiversity movement where there is a clear consensus among highly involved members of the movement against it (at least for autism). Also, neurodiversity recognizes inherent difficulties but views only limited parts of autism as such and prominent academics in it do not usually use the word "impairment" other than for "language impairment".

Second image: Neurodiversity proponents accept certain interventions that increase self-determination, but presenting less autistic behaviors is definitely not an accepted goal. Also, the social model does not exclude research rigor. LogicalLens (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback :)

re: second point because it's quicker, I excluded "rigour" from the social model set because the social model doesn't really seem to wade into that argument; more of an "abstain" position than a "disagree position." That is the understanding I collected from the sources I consulted; Tom Shakespeare doesn't even touch on that area in the textbook chapter/his own book. Thoughts: I could clarify in the caption that exclusion of a position from the set implies disagreement *or* abstention?

re: first point, actually on consideration I also agree. I'll spare you my extended thought process, but I tried to encapsulate a thread of debate I've seen expressed where some ostensibly-NDM debaters try to distinguish that autism is a *developmental* disorder instead of a mental health disorder. I can't find this when combing through my sources again though, so I'm happy to re-upload this with "disorder" excluded from the Neurodiversity set. Do you think it would be useful to try and include this developmental/mental health disorder distinction, if I were able to find a reputable source for that? Or is that sort of hair-splitting something that should be dealt with in text?

Patrickpowns (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Patrickpowns 1) That argument with the distinction between developmental disorder and mental health disorder made by a few people is rooted in a complete lack of knowledge about either model. Even medical model proponents do not call autism a mental health disorder: the DSM-5 and ICD-11 manuals classify autism as a "neurodevelopmental disorder".

2) I still think that excluding the social model from scientific rigor in the graphic is misleading even if there is a caption that vaguely relativizes it. It is exceptionally difficult to explain the different models in a graphic, in part because three models are far more complicated to contrast than two. It is an interesting attempt, but I currently think about whether a table would be better. LogicalLens (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens

great, sounds like we're in agreement on #1 then

on #2, blah I think you're right. I'm annoyed that I spent this much time on making the euler diagram, but it *would* be easier e.g. for screen readers to just have it as a table without having a giant alt text.

I'm away from my computer for a couple more days, would you want to turn this into a table? otherwise I'll do it when I'm back.

Patrickpowns (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether this even violates WP:NOR if it is not backed up by a concrete reliable source. LogicalLens (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources are listed in the image descriptions, does that help? I intentionally summarize e.g. Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (Tom Shakespeare 2013) which I would say fits right into WP:PSTS

I've got some time today, I'll turn it into a table Patrickpowns (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patrickpowns/sandbox thoughts? I plan on improving the formatting with colour coding and font subtitling Patrickpowns (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that "colour coding and font subtitling" will necessarily be an improvement - other than moving the subtitles (eg "Autism is a mental health disorder ") to a separate row, not formatted as "title" (because it is an explanation, not a title). Sentence case, per MOS:HEADCAPS, would be an improvement. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources you used are generally appropriate. When I have more time, I will go into the details of the table. LogicalLens (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback :)

I'll do a formatting pass then replace the images in the Neurodiversity article for now, at the very least to correct the unsupported (and wrong!) claim that the ND movement has varied views on whether autism is a mental health disorder. Then, feel free to use your time to either edit it directly _or_ ping me to better-research a specific cell/detail Patrickpowns (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm toying with adding a section to the article for Martha Wells' classic Murderbot books. Prompted by the new Apple TV dramatization of the first book, "All Systems Red." Here's a nice writeup of that by a self-described neurodivergent person: https://reactormag.com/tv-review-murderbot-episodes-1-and-2/ Here's our page on the book: All Systems Red

Comments? The Reactor article is pretty cool. And I'm a big Martha Wells fan. This is one of her very best. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Being a fan of something is not a reason to include it in a Wikipedia article. In what way is this show/book more important than the many others that deal with neurodiversity? LogicalLens (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have made amendments to the recent addition of Travers's source. I also added a quote to this, though I still don't see why it seems to be a struggle to add criticisms of the neurodiversity movement for WP:BALANCE sake. This is the second scholarly paper that was removed, and I don't see what I am doing wrong here, especially considering that Travers is a scholar on autism. Not to mention the fact he is criticizing the main premise of the ND movement (that ASD is merely a neurological difference), though he doesn't mention it by name until page 290. Plasticwonder (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Simplified response here with regard to the content: Your edit was a WP:SYNTH of connecting two separate statements from a book 5 pages apart that has been reverted twice (revert 1 by @LogicalLens: and revert 2 by myself) as the edit failed our policies as pointed out in the respective edit summaries. You are welcome to add content and the reversion wasn't because you tried to add criticism, but because it was synthesizing statements to create a new inference and we don't do that on Wikipedia. We rely on reliable secondary sources who may do such synthesis, but not us as editors. Raladic (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. I closed the RfC to re evaluate the content I put forth in the future. Thanks. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The theory that autism is caused by neurological differences is not only shared by neurodiversity advocates but also by staunch medical model supporters. It is no surprise that the author only mentions neurodiversity several pages later, because it is not a criticism of neurodiversity.

You have been showing the following pattern over the past months, in this and in another article:

1) Inserting statements that associate neurodiversity with pseudoscience and misrepresenting sources to seemingly support these statements.

2) When the issues with your edits are pointed out, you accuse others of pushing a pro-neurodiversity agenda, without seriously responding to the objections.

3) When you realize that you are not going to succeed, you pledge to pull back and remove the content.

4) You wait a few weeks in the hope that vigilant editors move away in the meantime.

5) You come back and insert similar (or even the same) problematic statements in the same or another article, all while acting like you did not know that there is anything wrong with your editing.

This means that I or another editor will have to continually check your user contributions, because it is to be expected that you will try again next month or at another point. @Raladic has already complained about your incivility, and this is another kind of unacceptable conduct. LogicalLens (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with your terms. If I venture back here (which I more than likely will not, I am obviously not as versed), you will be the first one to know. Keep in mind I have been here for a little over a year and am still getting the hang of things. Plasticwonder (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit on 12 December 2024, @RIT RAJARSHI: added an image with caption "a hypothetical radar plot of spikey cognitive profile". This term, 'spikey cognitive profile', (still) isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, and needs an explanation, in my humble opinion. Could you, RIT RAJARSHI, or anyone else, provide more information, please? Thank you in advance, Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi {Ping|RIT RAJARSHI}} Since you didn't respond, I removed the image for now. Please only add it again with some explanation on the page. Thank you. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)