Talk:Ryan Gander

Inclusion of "disabled" in the lead
After reading more details provided by User:Frankeunice, I'm also concerned about why people felt it necessary to include "disabled" in the lead. It doesn't seem to be a critical part of Gander's identity, and so shouldn't be listed there. According to Frankeunice, while one specific work may reference that status, that appears to be the only one, thus making it not relevant to xyr overall depiction. Please note that, as one of the edit summaries implied, simply being verifiable is not sufficient to include in the article, and especially not sufficient to include in the lead. Now, if some sort of reliable source discussed the issue in great detail, it might be relevant, but otherwise it doesn't seem to belong to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and have revised the lede accordingly. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I note your comments. As Gander is an interactive artist, I would suggest from the information available and the links provided that his disability is central to his art - in fact, his USP (unique selling point). Should we ignore the fact that Chuck Close uses a wheelchair? The term 'disabled' is not derogatory, despite the objections raised by User:frankundeunice and User:Frankeunice-(COI perhaps as this is the name of Gander's website?).Mehmit (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's something he's only used in his art once or twice, and if he has explicitly stated (as I recall) that it's not so important to his arti, I don't understand why you're claiming its central. Can you provide any references that verify that it is his "USP"? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)