Talk:Disability etiquette

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smataraz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge
It looks like no one has a problem merging the contents of the list into this article, so I will do that within 24 hours unless someone tells me not to. Jacqui ★ 14:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not, but happy to discuss SP-KP 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You were saved by the fact that I had to take a Wikibreak, so you have time to explain: why not? Jacqui ★ 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it some more, I don't mind if you want to do this SP-KP 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I object?
I do have a problem - The mixing of this article which, although simplistic, is positive would only confuse the 'uninitiated'. The 'language is power' mob have been having so much fun in the past few decades that even 'Disabled People', or should I use another contentious label, don't know what's in or out this week - if you include UK and USA terms gawds help us all!

For example the term 'stroppy crip' is seen by some as derogatory except when used to describe oneself amongst other 'stroppy crips' - I don't mean to upset anyone by this and if anyone is upset at me openly using 'power' wording I am sorry - it is the term I use to describe myself ........... as does my American wife to describe herself (after extensive priveat English as a second language tuition - JOKE)

--Welsh Fox 13:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
Seems some of the etiquette links are broken. I couldn't find the intended documents, can somebody help?? Rodrigo Novaes 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongolism Reference
I have a proposition for a change. Object if you want, but you folks last commented two years ago so I might just end up changing it if I dont hear anything anytime soon.

"Some of the terms, such as "retard" and "lame," are deliberate insults; others, such as "wheelchair-bound," are inherently negative; still others, such as "Mongolism," are based on stereotypical ideas of certain groups of individuals with disabilities."

how about

"Some of the terms, such as "retard" and "lame," are deliberate insults; others, such as "wheelchair-bound," are inherently negative. Others still, such as "Mongolism" are indicative of the intersectionality of disability and racism interlocking in the binary of ability/disability. "Mongolism" was coined as a term (for what later would be called Downs Syndrome) on the basis of racism and the assumption that the superior races were devolving, reverting back to an inferior "mongoloid race".

From wikipedia already:

English physician John Langdon Down first characterized Down syndrome as a distinct form of mental disability in 1862, and in a more widely published report in 1866.[52] Due to his perception that children with Down syndrome shared physical facial similarities (epicanthal folds) with those of Blumenbach's Mongolian race, Down used terms derived from prevailing ethnic theory.[53]

from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4420 Definition of Mongolism

Mongolism: Obsolete name for Down syndrome.

Down syndrome refers to the 19th century English physician J. Langdon Down who described the condition in 1866. In great error, Langdon Down attributed the condition to a "reversion" to the "mongoloid race." He held that evolution had been reversed and there had been a sort of backslide from the superior Caucasian to the inferior Oriental race. The misnomer "mongolism" is incorrect and racist and is to be avoided.

Flookster (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)flookster

Undeletion
See this message at User talk:Scientizzle for why I undeleted the article. The long and short of it: a history merge I did went horribly wrong. Graham 87 09:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Are there any reliable sources (especially not wikis, blogs or forums) that try to perform a meta-analysis of disability etiquette guides like this article does? If not, most of the article is original research. Most of the sources about disability etiquette I can find are lists of tips for working with people with disabilities, but it's hard to come up with a good search term. At the moment, I think the article should be merged with or redirected to disability, as there are few reliable sources and "disability etiquette" is quite a common phrase. There is no reason for the history of this article to be deleted. Graham 87 10:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Globalize
I've just added a "may not represent a global view' tag to this article.

I'm not a very widely travelled person so it's hard to guess in what regions this etiquette applies. I would think US and UK, and many other (but not all) western countries.

But certainly not, for example, China. Where the first catagory of assumptions to avoid: “...a person with a disability either wants or requires assistance.” does not seem to apply

Looking at the references, they seem to be mainly US references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusgeek (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)