Talk:Neurodiversity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neurodiversity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disability

Neurodiversity is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Autism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dyslexia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

For the interested

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

? 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]