Talk:Reasonable accommodation

This article is unbalanced
It focuses on accommodation for ethnic and religious minorities; however, accommodation also applies to other grounds of discrimination. e.g. pregnancy, gender, age, disability or marital status.

The article unduly focuses on controversies arising out of Quebec.

Finally, several so-called "examples" mentioned in the article actually have nothing to do with reasonable accommodation in the legal sense of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.242.84 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe I should look at what was here fourteen years ago. Now it exclusively covers disability, aside from one mention of religion in the lead.  I came here trying to find out about what's considered "reasonable accommodation" for religious practices (especially in the US, but I didn't really expect there to be enough content to justify having a separate article just for reasonable accommodation of religion in US law).  I'm thinking we should split it into Reasonable accommodation (disability) with the current content of this page, and Reasonable accommodation (religion) with the stuff I was looking for.  There's also Accommodation (religion), which is about a theological concept. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's also relevant content at Accommodationism and Accommodationism in the United States. The term "reasonable accommodation" in US law is apparently from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although a ctrl-f on that page doesn't find any instances of "religion". --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"This article does not cite any references or sources"
It most certainly does, at the bottom. I want to remove the tag. Any objections?Toddsschneider 23:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection, you can remove the tag Sd-100 18:39 22 August 2007 (Eastern time zone) —The preceding  signed but undated.

Writing style
A lot of this entry is written in the style of a news story (e.g. "dominating the front pages", "agrees Mr..."). I somewhat suspect it was copy and pasted from a proprietary source at this point, although it could be that it's just been written by volunteers in this style. --Padraic 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected a number of sentences in a section which I think was very good, but probably written by a non-native speaker. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving examples
In the intro, we should give more examples, like what happened in some specialized colleges, where muslisms asked for rooms where they could pray. They also asked for places where they could wash their feet.

It talks mostly about herouxville in the intro, it takes the most part of it.. adding examples would give a better contrast.

Bouchard–Taylor Commission
I will not make the operation for now, but I think the Commission itself, especially when the final report will be made, will have to be separated to its individual article. It is definitely as notable if not more then the Johnson Commission on the Concorde Overpass failure. Anyone agrees for a split?-- JForget 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

8th Citation
Umm... the 8th citation is not working... what do you do? 99.237.118.215 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename: Reasonable accomodation debate (Quebec)
Not moved.Mdann52 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin)

Rename: Reasonable accommodation → Reasonable accommodation debate (Quebec) – The majority of the article is about Quebec. An article about RA as a general concept can be recreated after the move. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments – Why is the word "debate" included in the suggested title? Although there may be some debate about the topic or some of its applications, that does not appear (to me) to be the subject of the article. I also notice that there is a section of the article about the U.S. and there is also some material in the article that applies to Canada as a whole (not just Quebec) and some that applies outside of both Canada and the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as formulated. This could be accomplished instead as a split-off of a section into a new main article; however the title ought to be something like "Reasonable accomodate debate in Quebec", because the proposed disambiguation-style title is at odds with the fact that there is currently no Reasonable accommodation debate article. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a split per User:P.T. Aufrette. However, I also support a move of this article to some Quebec-related title, preferably one without a parenthetical (also per User:P.T. Aufrette), e.g.  reasonable accommodation in Quebec or reasonable accommodation debate in Quebec.  The current article has always been primarily about Quebec since it was created and the edit history should remain with the Quebec article.  To sum up, move this article to a Quebec-related title and split the other material into a new article called reasonable accommodation.  —  AjaxSmack   20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support split to Reasonable accomodation in Quebec or similar (but without parentheses), per above. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plain english
Thanks at least I understood it. Dennis Stoneham MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.43.205 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

language
The section on Canada starts with something that is not a sentence. And then this: so-called cultural communities. If the article is not going to explain the ambiguity or disagreement about the phrase "cultural communities" (who calls them that? And why don't I agree?) then what's wrong with just plain "cultural communities"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Reasonable accommodation" is about disability
In the global context "reasonable accommodation" is specifically about disability, not a grab-bag of issues unique to Quebec politics. So I've stripped out that content. If anyone feels upto it you're welcome to use that material for a seperate article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)