Talk:Disability/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

new push on this and similar articles

WikiProject Disability members and other active contributors to disability articles on Wikipedia should definitely be fleshing out articles like physical disability to be a lot more robust than a few measly lines. Neither physical disability nor any other type of disability is ever a minor topic on any level. I refuse to believe that I'm always going to have to be the one to do such things myself. Come on, all-- I want to see those besides Roger, Mirokado, myself, and a select assortment of other die-hards, really try to buckle down for a bit and slug away at this stuff, at least concerning the major topics like physical disability, disability and so on. I know there are others besides us die-hards out there-- if there's one major tendency I wanna see growing, it's the intensity of this stuff picking up a little bit of steam. I know you all can do it, lurkers. Pardon my bluntness, but really-- it's time. Get to work. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the Sensory disability section necessary?

In my opinion the details in this section are covered in the other sections regarding types of disabilities and the other sections have links to specific articles. Removing this section might make the article look cleaner. Russell Dent (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a sentence making it clear that some of the disabilities listed are subsumed under sensory disabilities. I'll add one. --Danger (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't do exactly that, but I hope that it's clearer after the fiddling I've done. Danger (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the heading "levels". Subsections under a 3rd level heading - === Heading === - should have 4th level headings - ==== Subheading ====, not 5th level headings.
The "problem" is that the "Sensory disability" section is the only one that currently has any subsections. The other sections such as "Physical disability" and "Intellectual disability" have yet to be developed to a comparable extent. If you look at the table of Contents the structure of the article is quite clear - see the way sections, sub-sections and sub-sub-sections are numbered with "#", "#.#" and "#.#.#" respectively. (Note that "first level" headings are never used within articles as the article title itself is such a heading and is created automatically when a page is created.) Roger (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

External Link to WhatDisability.com

I believe that a link to this site www.whatdisability.com would be beneficial to all readers. It is full of information, news, resource for the disabled and those who would like to learn more about disabilities. It talks about education, employment, Social Security, health Insurance, parenting, traveling, sports, ADA design, cures, and more...

MykellaH (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only relevant to people in the United States. Roger (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to post the same thing. It would be perfect if this article was Disability in the USA. But it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This article uses DMOZ for external links so you can add it there. Roger (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is a lot of information geared towards those with disabilities in the USA. But there is also a lot of news, resources and self help articles that can help people anywhere. For instance, The top ten companies for hiring persons with disabilities have positions in many different countries, and the video on instructors for disabled parents is from a service provided outside the USA. Many of the sports and trip resouerces are out of the country. Many of the cures are developed, tested and being used only in countries outside the USA. There is information about prosthesis that are only provided to persons in third world countries. Also seeing persons who have accomplished things when they have the same disability as you is encouraging regardless of what country they are in. The issues faced by persons with disabilities are universal and this website helps everybody solve these issues.MykellaH (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:NOT then put the link in DMOZ, it will then be accessible from here anyway. Roger (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just realised you might not know how DMOZ works. Open this link, then add your site in the most apropriate subsection. (Please indent your replies so that the flow of this discussion can be followed correctly.) Roger (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanksMykellaH (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Poverty and Disability Article

Please continue this discussion at WT:WikiProject Disability#Addition of Poverty and Disability Article. This topic is not about this article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am a Rice University student interested in expanding information on disability as it relates to poverty. Currently information on this topic is entirely absent from Wikipedia. The relationship between poverty and disability is especially important to explore given the likelihood that an individual will have special needs is far greater in environments where resources are the least conducive to accommodating their needs. I hope to expand knowledge on this correlation through the creation of a new article entitled “Poverty and Disability,” which I intend on linking to the current “Disability” article. More specifically, in the demographics section I plan to detail recent statistics evidencing the positive correlation between poverty and disability. Within the article I will look at this correlation in depth, in addition to exploring the impact of disability in areas of concentrated poverty, structures in place to address the needs of these populations, initiatives targeting those affected, and strategies to curtail this correlation. Much of my research at this time is rooted in findings of the United Nations, the British Department for International Development, and the World Bank, alongside numerous country-specific studies. I would greatly appreciate suggestions on any additional resources you recommend. I am very grateful for any input you can provide! Avo92 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WT:WikiProject Disability#Addition of Poverty and Disability Article. It's best to keep the discussion on a single page - spreading it accross multiple venues creates confusion. The Project Talk page is also the better venue because the topic is not about this article specifically. Roger (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vehicle Adaptations

I added a section relating to Vehicle Adaptations that was reverted with the following explanation (I am new to editing Wikipedia).

Indented line. "I have noted there that the edits you made were not deleted as such, but rather reverted, the edits you made are still in the article history. The reason your edit was reverted was a concern over original research, that is, content that you have found out yourself, but which lacks sourcing or references. In most cases, adding relevant and "encylopedic" content that is in line with the policies of verifiability, no original research and neutrality will not wind up reverted, but adding reliable sources is important, often essential. You might want to discuss or propose changes at Talk:Disability, that is the "talk page" of the article that you edited.


I would like to provide some background to my "disability experience" & technical knowledge on this subject.

I am the father of a 30 yr old son born with Spina Bifida & hydrocephalus, he also has learning difficulties due to the hydrocephalus; curvature of the spine; Arnold Chiari malformation; Syrinx in the spinal canal; right side paralysis mainly of his arm; has had cronic cellulitis and now has Primary Lymphoedema of both legs and abdomen, apologies for this extensive list but I hope it explains my knowledge of a wide variety of Disabilites.

I am a Mechanical Engineer by qualification, although i now work in the IT dept of the same company, I have worked for one of the big three international automotive companies for 40 years. I am chairman of the companies UK disability & accessibility and am recognised internally in UK, EU & globally as an expert in disability for IT reasonable adjustments and also for vehicle adaptations. I have initiated a WEB centre of excellence internally for it developments to ensure accessible websites, and various other initiatives that I cannot mention here. I represented my company at the 2007 EU mobility debate organising by Motability, with UK & EU government support and keynote speakers http://support.car-adaptation.org/news/news-EMD.html

I have also been commitee member & treasurer of a local Spina Bifida organisation & have been involved with the ASBAH (now shine) national office & organisation over many years.

Through personal experience of getting my son through his driving test & getting a vehicle suitably adapted for him to drive independantly I believe I am uniquely qualified to contribute to this subject area, as I also have many contacts in the Vehicle Adaptation Business across EU & USA I can also get these specialist technical experts to potentially contribute to the topic of "Vehicle Adaptations".

I am proposing the inclusion of a section relating to Vehicle Adapations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability&diff=530588374&oldid=530580615

I would gladly start a new topic titled "Vehicle Adaptations" and link this into the disability article if it is felt more appropriate.

I would therefore like to get feedback from people interested in the Disability subject as to how best to move forward to initiate this topic area & even how one might best structure this, particularly if you are an experienced Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbridge276 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia ought to have an entire article about this subject. I'm sure that it would not be difficult to find sources for it. (You can see your previous edits to this article by looking at the bottom of the list at Special:Contributions/Dbridge276.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see the draft at WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Automobile modifications for drivers with disabilities and please feel free to work on it. Although there isn't much content in the draft there is quite a lot of discussion on it's talk page. You're also welcome to join WP:WikiProject Disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected citations

This edit attempted to add the following citation to the article, but I can't find anywhere for the corresponding inline. I have corrected the article by restoring the previous citations. Other editors could consider whether this would in fact be helpful here or elsewhere (with or without the sfn stuff as appropriate).

{{sfn|RAND|1998}}
* {{cite web |author=RAND |year=1998 |title=Compensating Permanent Workplace Injuries |url=http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9029/index1.html |publisher=RAND |accessdate=January 3, 2014 |ref={{sfnRef|RAND|1998}} }}
RAND (1998). "Compensating Permanent Workplace Injuries". RAND. Retrieved January 3, 2014.

--Mirokado (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Added Info

Dear Editor,

I've been working on a page gearing specifically to employment and disabilities, I think I have some information to expand on the employment section. Link to page employment (disabilities). Since a page on topic already exist, the page I had created breaks on the laws of disambiguation. Any suggestions on what to do with information, comment on the page's talk page. Thanks.

--KierraA. (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

Doesn't make sense -- something's missing:

  • "For example, in 2012, the World Health Organization estimated a world population of 6.5 billion people. Of those nearly 650 million people were estimated to be moderately or severely disabled."

--Hordaland (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hordaland - The way I read it: In 2012 the WHO estimated that nearly 10% of the world's total population had a moderate to severe disability. It seems quite clear to me, unless I'm missing something. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, thanks. I'll add a comma after "Of those". --Hordaland (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Aha! yes, the punctuation could definitely be better. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed entire "See also" list.

Per the guideline on "See also" lists nothing that is already linked elsewhere in the article should be included in a "See also" list. That disqualified most of the listed links. None of the remainder were globally significant articles of vital direct relevance to the subject of this article. Thus the entire list is now gone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disability and Identity

Hey everyone. I want to propose a new section I would like to add to the page titled "Disability and Identity". This section would be created with the intent of discussing the subjective experiences of marginalization faced by persons with disabilities that are currently absent from the page. Currently, most of the stuff on this page discussing marginalization of PWD focuses on concrete issues of accessibility. Instead, this section would concentrate more on the stigma often faced by persons with disabilities and how the media creates and reinforces harmful ableist stereotypes, e.g. through inspiration porn, supercrip stories, disabled villains ect. Also included would be subsections about how disability interacts with other social categories that PWD may belong to. These subsections would be "Disability and Race", "Disability and Gender"(which would replace the not really sociological "masculinity" and "femininity" sections under "Disability and Sociology"), and "Disability and Sexuality". Let me know if ya'll like or dislike this idea or if you have any suggestions! Mattokamagic (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this is an important section to add to the page. As of now the page itself is flooded with MPOV (Medical Point of View), and I feel that it is just as important to display the Social Point of View by it's side since earlier in the page it is mentioned that disability can be looked at in two ways the medical model, and or the social model. This section will create an interesting parallel to the pre existing medical pov sections. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disability rights and political issues

I am going to be adding citations and new sourced content to the sections at the bottom of the page, particularly those concerned with political issues and the disability rights movement. As I'm breaking these sections down, I'm having trouble finding a good reason to have "Discrimination, government policies, and support" and "Political issues" as separate sections as they overlap and both cover the same broad issues of discrimination and disability rights. I would like the community's opinion on combining these two sections into one, possibly titled "Disability rights and political issues." This makes things much easier as there is information I would like to add that does not go definitively into one section over the other as the page currently is. Thoughts? Amvrana (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I definitely feel that combining those two sections would be a good way to clean up the page.Mattokamagic (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to the 'Types of Disability' Section

Reading through this article I have come across a few issues that I would like to talk about fixing with this particular section of the page.I think it is necessary to make some changes concerning how the individual categories and sub categories of the 'Types' section are represented. Along with making changes to the categories, we also need a citation to the authoritarian source that has established these categories. I believe that it is crucial that this section is looking at these disabilities in the medical model, or add the social model as well so the section is inclusive. I also think it would do this section some good to add more uniformity to the language used. I have also noticed that some of the citations seem out of date and/or lacking and would like to update and add these.

I am also curious if anyone else believes that it may be a good idea to move the section down in the article?

Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section does not do enough to explain the particular model for disability categorization it is using. Also, Whitneywhirl, perhaps you mean "expert," not "authoritarian"?

Dr. red pill (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the need to be more clear about the model of disability. And there should definitely be better citations and a good source for the list of types of disability. If you have the sources, I say go for it Whitneyrwhirl. Amvrana (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The "disability" vs "impairment" terminology needs to be made more consistent. Often when we use the word "disability" (for example in the "Types of" section) we are using it in the medical model sense, as a synonym for "impairment." Other times we use it in the social model sense, as a consequence of impairment. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the niceties of the differences between the medical and social models are difficult to keep straight when writing for a general audience who are not familiar with the theoretical basics. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all thank you for the responses, I'm glad that we can agree that it needs to be clarified that we are looking at this from a medical point of view. At the moment I am researching the categorization issue. I am interested in the source that the categories came from because I am currently not seeing any sourcing. Can anyone point me in the direction of the expert source the types were drawn from? I have found the IDEA categories of disabilities (autism, deaf - blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments including blindness. My only issue with the IDEA categories is the fact that the types are based on children, and while this can be applicable to adults as well may not be the best source. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. I'll bet the types accumulated organically over the years as various editors swooped in and added their own pet type. I would urge you to be bold and re-organize this section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1 - the current hierarchical "taxonomic tree" structure of the section is largely my doing - I tried to sort them into a logical sequence by e.g. grouping the sensory impairments under a heading. However, as you've noted, the arrangement has suffered from some entropy since I sorted it several years ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Whitneyrwhirl are we sure we really want to approach the "list" from the Medical POV? In the post London 2012 Paralympics world maybe the general reader might be ready to grasp the essence of the social model? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to make a bold suggestion if I may. I have been reading 'Sorting Things Out: Classification and it's Consequences', where a strong point to the book is that often times a classification system is in place by societal standards and it may not be obvious or evident where the structure came from. I believe this is what has happened here in the types section. I would like to boldy suggest that we do away with the section all together. Although I believe people are ready for the social model, my thinking behind the idea is to let the individual on the page determine themselves what they consider to be a disability, considering individuals who view the page may have an issue with the types since they are not cited. Without a clear cut source of where the medical or social classification of the types came from I have a hard time wanting to leave it on the page since we can not cite it. I think we can take the types down and let individuals decide for themselves by using the rest of the page what they do or do not consider a disability in their mind. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I received no feedback, I assume my bold idea is not contested and deleted the entire types section. Personally I do not feel that it added value to the page without proper citation, along with the fact that depending on who is looking at the page, what is or is not considered to be a disability may be an issue. As previously stated I believe that individuals viewing the page can determine for themselves what they consider to be a disability without having to lay it out for them. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Whitneyrwhirl, this has removed a "blockage" that has hindered the development of this article for a long time. Removing the section has (imho) created an opportunity for us to work on improving coverage of the "contested concept" discourse, as discussed a couple of sections up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we consider moving the entire section about the medical vs. social model (and perhaps the accompanying list of models) higher up in the page? It seems to me many of us are noting that without clarifying this front and center, further down the page things get muddied. It might then help to prepare readers for what follows regarding terminology. I'm also not entirely understanding why the terminology part is located in the "sociology of disability" section. "Terminology" falls more under "rhetorics of disability" than it does under "sociology." Unless the point is that terminology reflects its sociohistorical moment -- but that then needs a better framing here. Dr. red pill (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disability and aging

This section exemplifies issues on this page where the medical and social models -- and that they grow out of ableism and healthism -- are not being explicitly named as such, and so it contains contradictory frames. The first part explains that because disability is denigrated and everyone experiences some diminishment in capacities as they age, aging and its accompanying diminishment are stigmatized. This implies that ablelism/healthism creates the condition for such stigmatization. Then the second part appears to give advice about how such diminishment can be avoided or decreased. Yet this is a healthist/ableist model itself. Can anyone see a quick fix to mitigate this conflict? Mattokamagic, perhaps you could address this? Dr. red pill (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Right, so the bit after the quote that you're referring to was added on March 29th. I'll just go ahead and undo that edit and fix the issue. Mattokamagic (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mental disability history

I had previously contributed to the history section. I added about 2k plus characters worth of mental health history which was then completely deleted from the page for the following reason: 

"Remove an WP:UNDUE paragraph about a single issue in only one country that was a third of the entire section, it was also chronologically misplaced"

This deletion of my contribution is completely uncalled for and frankly it feels like a personal attack on my ability to contribute to the page. I will address each problem: Mental Disability is a single issue true, I guess, but it is an important issue that needs attention and ought to have a place in the history section. The history I wrote is specific to the US yes that's true but have you read the rest of the history section? It is literally only about the US and Europe. What makes mine worth deleting for that specific reason and keep the rest of the history section? Finally, yes it is chronologically misplaced but that's because I did not want to interrupt the flow that the previous author had made and if this was truly an issue than why not just rearrange my contribution? It takes up a third of the page, yes I'm being thorough how is that a problem.

This feels like a personal attack on my ability to contribute to the page because there was literally zero effort at improving my contribution. Rather than ask me to address or try to fix any of the issues that were listed as reasons for the removal of my contribution the User simply erased my edit. You might as well tell me that my voice is not wanted on this page.

I want to re-add my contribution under a subsection on the history page because it has a place on this page and if you disagree please talk to me here. I currently rewriting the page so give me time and I will add the re-written section here before I put it up on the main page. silvalejandro (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@silvalejandro I believe it would probably be a better fit in either the Mental health or Mental disorders articles. This article is about disability in the broadest possible sense - it only very superficially mentions various specific narrower issues. Your contributions are indeed valued, but you must consider the broader interests of Wikipedia as a whole. We have more than 5 million separate articles and there's unlimited room for more, it is not necessary to cram everything into a single page. As it is this article is already getting close to the upper limit of article page length (100kB of readable text). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with Roger. There is already a section Intellectual_disability#History: please have a look at that too, for an example of range and depth of coverage and space allotted to each point made in an overview section. It also looks as if you would have to attribute any opinions stated to the author concerned and perhaps include other views of other experts for balance. --Mirokado (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dodger67 First of all thank you for written confirmation that you do not want my contribution on this page and for at least trying to give a real reason as to why. (rather than your previous list of random things you do not like about my edit) I'm glad you did a 360 on your reasoning for deleting my original contribution. That being said I still do not see your reasons as valid. If you genuinely have a concern for the length of wikipedia pages than why did you suggest I post my edit on pages that are longer than the disability page? and how is my contribution specifically an attempt to cram things on to the page yet no one else's contributions are considered in that manner? Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough but my edit is about how mental illness first became classified as a disability. It germane and important to this page and I will rewrite it to make it more clear and I will include it on the disability page.

[User:silvalejandro|silvalejandro]] (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with @silvalejandro here. I think that a historical outline of how mental illness came to be understood as disability is clearly noteworthy even within the broader discussion of disability. I don't see why ya'll would have a problem with with this being in the history section. Seems like an important topic to hit. Mattokamagic (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

More info for Demographics Worldwide needed

I am currently working on adding more information in the US subsection of demographics worldwide. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find status reports outside of the US so any information regarding disability in other countries is welcome and encouraged!J.carrillo (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Mirokado (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disability and the workforce

Is there a way to slim down this section a bit? I feel that there may be a little too much information in this one section alone, considering that this page is essentially trying to provide brief introductions of a broad range of information on the various aspects of disabilities. Also, why is "Disability and disasters" a subsection of this section? The content is completely unrelated to employment. I think it should have its own section. I am new and I really don't want to mangle anything so I won't touch it myself until I feel a little more confident, but I'd like to ask all the other, more experienced editors about your opinions regarding this matter. RelaxedBear (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. - Boldly closing as no valid reason has been presented for moving - In short we can't please everyone on the planet!. –Davey2010Talk 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Disability → Differbility – Title is offensive to people who are differently abled. It is saying that they are not able. 2602:306:3653:8440:1489:75F4:7B01:3AE6 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Please read up on our policies before proposing a move. Wikipedia doesn't change the title of an article just because it makes people "feel bad".  ONR  (talk)  17:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Opening sentence

Can someone fix the opening sentence of this article? It makes no sense: "Disability is conceptualised as the interaction between barriers and impairments." Maybe replace it with the one from the "Types of disability" sections: "The term "disability" broadly describes an impairment in a person's ability to function, caused by changes in various subsystems of the body, or to mental health." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Along with some other people, I started to edit this -- and quickly the whole entry began to fall apart. Our issues with the entry stem from the fact that it doesn't clearly explain that "disability" is a concept with a history; that the term means different things within different institutions and contexts; and that the community of people it refers to have generated their own body of knowledge about the concept itself. In light of that, we are editing the entry quite heavily. However, it probably won't be complete for at least a week or two, so please be patient with us. Dr. red pill (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill

I don't think your edits are an improvement so far. The WHO definition at least made sense, and matched what the article said. You may be going about this backwards. The lead should summarize the article. If you feel changes need to be made to the article, go ahead and do that, then write a lead that summarizes what you've said. As it is now you can't read the lead and have any kind of understanding as to what disability is. For example, there are plenty of things the medical community would view as needing to be fixed that no one would consider to be a disability, like gunshot wounds, heart attack, or insulin shock. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kendall, Thanks for your feedback. I'll be working on the entry some more tomorrow with a group of editors and we'll incorporate what you've said.Dr. red pill (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill
The "contested term" discourse should be in its own section, perhaps titled "Definitions", seeing as there are so many. The lead must comply with WP:LEAD, as a summary of the entire article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with following lead guidelines and summation needs, but I feel the lead does accomplish that, just in a manner that isn't formatted in the same order as the page currently is. For example, the "contested" discourse, while needing to be focused on the concept and not the term, can be see in the innumerable examples of disability models listed, etc. Seeing as the page has been marked for edits in various ways, the summary serves perhaps, as a more cohesive explanation of the fragmented page, as of this moment. Dinostarus (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as a person living with a mobility impairing disability, I see the word "normal" as a trigger which could have a maladaptive social effect because the first sentence of this article is the first definition you see when you search Google for "disability." The emphasis on lack of impairment as "normal" and the emphasis on "limited" or "prevented from participating in "normal" everyday society" reads as ablist to me. I would like to offer the following first sentence: "Disability is the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these that result in a necessity for adaptation to a less common and differing "normal" in order for an individual to participate for equal social and monetary gains in everyday society."Euphoriafish (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't like that because it makes no sense to me. Can we just go with the WHO definition? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted this because it makes no sense. I don't like the old wording either, because it doesn't say what "disability" is. But it does make sense. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My issue with the WHO definition is that it stresses the word "normal." My disability is completely normal to me; it wasn't an accident or sudden damage to my life that made me less than I ever was but is a slower progressive condition that occurs as I age. Like aging, which is itself normal. To define disability as a restriction that prevents you from being normal is damaging to disabled individuals and I don't think just because an organization defines it that way makes it the ideal or correct way. Organizations and definitions need to reflect the current time we live in where public perception is the biggest barrier to participating as normal in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.83.75 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could lead with the UNCRPD's definition given in Article 1:"Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." (My emphasis) It hits all the social model's "keywords".Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The opening line still appears problematic. The statement "A disability is an impairment", though in line with some definitions, does not definitively describe disability, as it doesn't accommodate the social model, and other models, as discussed later on the page. ClivePIA (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I tried an edit which acknowledged that this definition is widely held, but is not definitive? ClivePIA (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I know this has been dormant for a while but I would like to revisit this discussion. I have made some changes in the lead that I hope are constructive in improving this page. There is still a lot of inconsistencies across the article and info in the lead that is not found elsewhere. I think it is important to differentiate "impairments" vs "disability" and keep this consistent throughout the article as this is a central, well-accepted concept. I will continue to work on the readability of this but wanted to reawaken this discussion. Pattkait (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Invisible disability

I think that when the article talks about "Types of disability", it should make references to invisible disabilities, such as asthma, diabetes mellitus or epilepsy. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It does. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Interested in Adding

Greetings! I wanted to express my interest in expanding the "Race" section under "Intersections." I briefly outlined what revisions I hope to do on my user page, feel free to drop by at Asmaley! Asmaley (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Article Revisions

Hello! I have proposed expansions to the "Race" subsection in this article in my sandbox. Specifically, I want to extend the section to consider a more global lens rather than solely focus on how this intersectionality applies to the US. Please drop by my sandbox to learn more and offer any feedback!Asmaley (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds great! Intersectionality is incredibly important in discussions of disability. Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't a separate intersectional disability article. I don't have much experience evaluating how credible race/ethnicity sources are, BUT I can start looking for sources relating to Australia (where I am). Xurizuri (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

UN Convention

Couple points: 1. Despite the multiple references regarding the convention, all of them are 2ndary sources. Presumably at least some of these can be replaced with the primary source. I would do this myself but I'm not at all confident in citing. Theres a version of it online at https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html 2.There was a discussion about whether to use a medical or social definition in the lead. I propose another option: the definition used by the UN convention, "Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." The definition is in Article 1 - Purpose of the convention if anyone wants to doublecheck. The convention is mentioned multiple times throughout the article so I imagine it would be reasonable to use their definition in the lead. This definition I feel also has the benefits of not including terms which non-medical disability terminologies tend to avoid (such as "problem"), being shorter (35 vs 87 words), having less confusing structure (most people are frightened and confused by semicolons), referring to disabilites explicitly in the context of the person, and using less jargon (as indicated by the WHO definition containing sub-definitions e.g. of activity limitation). I feel they largely contain the same basic concepts of impairments, limitations, participation, and interaction with the environment. However, the UN definition does introduce the concept of disabilities needing to be long-term which I suppose could be controversial. Xurizuri (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been over a week, which I'm guessing is a reasonable amount of time to wait for concerns. Therefore, I will be bold and change it. Xurizuri (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to keep a hold of it, the definition before was:

"Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Disability is thus not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives."

— World Health Organization, Disabilities[1]
Xurizuri (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Disabilities". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2016-10-28.
Hi Xurizuri I think there's room for both. The WHO definition is slanted towards the medical model due to WHO's health/medical POV. The CRPD's definition is more slanted towards the social model due to the treaty's political/human rights orientation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Part of the benefit of this particular definition is that it's not particularly slanted towards a medical or social definition. It'd definitely be useful to have a place where major definitions are described, but I find having even one quote in the lead a bit messy. Picking one over the other to place in the lead could be WP:UNDUE (unless I suppose there's a strong case for why one is more important). So, does having a quoted definition in the lead actually provide anything useful? I possibly should've questioned this before changing it in the first place, but here we are. My sense from reading it now is that it doesn't, in which case I suggest the removal of any quote from the lead, and the addition of the WHO/other important definitions to the Theory section OR the creation of a Definition section (frankly I have no idea whether either of these are reasonable, sociology article structures are very unfamiliar to me).
While I'm here, now that I know how to do citations on WP I'll adjust sources like I described in my first point above. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Xurizuri I think a "Definitions" section makes sense, it would create a space to allow the context and history of various definitions to be described. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Heading

We don't' have to any right to call these people as disabled ones.Instead we have to call them differently-abled people. Biji mol (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

See Disability#Sociology. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we disabled people find the term "differently-abled" as a pathetic joke of a euphemism to try to make us feel better about ourselves Mrmeme05 (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes from person-first to identity-first

I'm not sure if this is what I'm meant to do, please advise me if this is incorrect. I'm putting this here because it's one of the central articles of the topic. User:Mrmeme05 has been going between disability-related articles changing all person-first language to identity-first. As far as I know, the consensus on WP is to allow both. The APA also says that both are fine (MOS:MED explicitly says to refer to their guideline). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Xurizuri WikiProject Disability's own style advice page also does not explicitly prefer one over the other, though it does note that person-first is more prevalent in various style guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that WP:MEDMOS only applies to specifically medical content, so it's not relevant to non-medical articles about disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that disability articles only partially fall under MOS:MED, but the next best MOS guidance is MOS:EUPHEMISM which just says "norms vary". Although Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability/Style_advice (which it looks like you actually had a big hand in writing, nice!) generally recommends that person-first is preferred (but not mandated), except in a few specific cases. This means a) MED:MOS is the most applicable guideline that gives proper instruction, b) no guideline-level consensus to prefer one over the other exists, and c) WikiProject Disability has in the past preferred the use of person-first. Basically, it ends up that User:Mrmeme05 doesn't have anything to support the streak of changes made, insisting that ID-first is the preferred option. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In a survey that I conducted, of 750 disabled people, 78% preferred identity first language. I believe that this majority, including me, and countless other disability advocates, are deserving of a shift from person first language to identity first language. We disabled people are the worlds largest majority of approximately 19% of the world's population. We will make our voices be heard and we won't back down. Mrmeme05 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) And if someone is not disabled, they have no right to plow over the preferences of disabled people Mrmeme05 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mrmeme05 your survey is the very definition of original research thus Wikipedia is not the right place for it unfortunately. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than the beliefs or desires of editors, no matter how heartfelt or sincere. Please look for alternative outlets where you'd be welcome to propagate your ideas. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We should not have to cater our language to fit what the pitiful ableds want to call us Mrmeme05 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mrmeme05 please read my previous reply carefully and also the policy and guidance pages I linked there. Wikipedia is not the right place to promote any cause. Please also moderate your language - referring to fellow editors as "pitiful ableds" is a violation of the civility policy. If you play by the rules you could be a productive Wikipedian, but treating it as a battleground could result in your editing privileges being revoked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I am sorry Mrmeme05 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Page length about to hit the limit

This page has just about reached the generally accepted length limit of 100 kilobytes. I think it's time some of the detail in the longer sections need so be trimmed or moved to relevant "subtopic" articles. This article is meant to be an introductory overview of the subject, not a textbook. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Upgrade this article

I think we really should do better than C-class for this article. I'd like to see it reach FA status sooner rather than later, but it's clearly not ready yet for FAC. I'd appreciate it if someone, less attached to the topic than myself, would evaluate it for B-class. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"The disabled" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The disabled. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#The disabled until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Divyang" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Divyang. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2#Divyang until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruby.ortega005.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janerhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asmaley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Js11323.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Collectiveworld23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CZuspan1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved country-specific content to the respective "Disability in <Country>" articles

I have moved quite large chunks of content from this article to Disability in the United States and Disability in the United Kingdom respectively. The content was fairly detailed (in the case of the US) exposition of various legislation and public policies. As such it is excessive and too narrowly specific for this global overview article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Diffabled" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Diffabled and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Diffabled until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 02:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Insurance

The insurance subsection only discusses examples of disability insurance in the US, Canada, and Europe. I think this could be split and moved to other articles where they could fit better, such as Disability in the United States, Disability in Canada, and Disability in Europe. ChaoticMusical (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Editing lead section

I have removed the following content from the lead section, as it does not belong. Can someone find a proper place for it?:


Disability is a contested concept, with shifting meanings in different communities.[1] It has been referred to as an "embodied difference,"[2] but the term may also refer to physical or mental attributes that some institutions, particularly medicine, view as needing to be fixed (the medical model). It may also refer to limitations imposed on people by the constraints of an ableist society (the social model); or the term may serve to refer to the identity of disabled people. Physiological functional capacity (PFC) is a measure of an individual's performance level that gauges one's ability to perform the physical tasks of daily life and the ease with which these tasks are performed. PFC declines with age and may result to frailty, cognitive disorders, or physical disorders, all of which may lead to labeling individuals as disabled.[3] According to the World Report on Disability, 15% of the world's population or 1 billion people are affected by disability.[4] A disability may be readily visible, or invisible in nature.


TechnoFem&DigitalRhet (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC) TechnoFem&DigitalRhet (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Linton, Simi (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press.
  2. ^ Dolmage, Jay Timothy (2014). Prothesis. Syracuse University Press.
  3. ^ Mugueta-Aguinaga I, Garcia-Zapirain B (2017). "Is Technology Present in Frailty? Technology a Back-up Tool for Dealing with Frailty in the Elderly: A Systematic Review". Aging and Disease. 8 (2): 176–195. doi:10.14336/AD.2016.0901. PMC 5362177. PMID 28400984.
  4. ^ Abidi J, Sharma D (May 2014). "Poverty, Disability, and Employment: Global Perspectives From the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People". Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 37 (1): 60–68. doi:10.1177/2165143413520180. S2CID 154676584.

Future edits

The lead section needs to provide a synopsis that lays the rest of the article.


In addition, the last three sections (Sports, Rights and government policies, and Demographics) need to covered by one of the other headings, as they are too small to stand on their own. Does anyone have any thoughts on where they belong?


TechnoFem&DigitalRhet (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Disability Rhetorics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TechnoFem&DigitalRhet, Pinkdragon55, ShakeZulaMicRula, Elsieguilty, ChaoticMusical, Other Friend, Different Hat, Adella854, Peppershaker00 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ChaoticMusical (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Science

Technology for person with disabilities 2402:3A80:1F83:5BD6:1CC:E4E3:F20C:8EAF (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

See the Assistive technology article, you might find useful sources there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disability/Archive_2&oldid=1218049074"