![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Disease Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Disease |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
No one likes it when I bring up things like this, and I lack skill as an editor, but I need to ask: do we really want to redirect the only neutral term in use for "medically defined state of being" to "disease?" I realize in common usage, even by insurance agencies and the like, the terms are synonymous-but many misleading and pejorative terms have been in usage by groups that "should know better" and it has never been Wikipedia's policy to support bigotry and confusing language.
Yes, I often hear people claim "I have no medicinal conditions" or feel the need to qualify when they use the term to refer to states that are not indicative of illnesses or injury; ie. they say "benign medical condition" or "heathy, normal, medical condition." I find this highly problematic as it implies any and all non-qualified conditions are non-optimal, are diseases or disorders.
This becomes one more incidence in the growing trend for medical and scientific speech becoming a foreign and usually misunderstood language to the average user. This is why we have respected American news-anchors, who on hearing that a politician is in "stable condition" ask if he might pull through, or when states of being described as "conditions" will be cured.
I know we encounter much difficulty in neural-diversity circles because when you refer to something, such as dyslexia, arguably not a "broken" state, as a "condition," then listeners hear "disease" and "something in need of curing." (I am not claiming that I haven't encountered great difficulty due to my dyslexia, just that it has been persuasively argued that it is a difference that in other circumstance is adventurous. I have also had great problems due to being left-handed and I am not alone in thinking serious efforts to "cure" or "wipe-out" "sinisterism" were barbaric and wrong-headed.) If you lack a medical condition, you are not "healthy" or "normal," you are in fact not alive. I am the last person to promote P.C. terminology gone amuck, making meaning unclear, in this case, this is not the case; this is the opposite. Like it or not, Wikipedia is viewed as the arbiter of proper usage by many and this redirect is contributing to the general state of confusion and pejorative speech. 75.68.16.228 ( talk) 06:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Disease Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Disease |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
No one likes it when I bring up things like this, and I lack skill as an editor, but I need to ask: do we really want to redirect the only neutral term in use for "medically defined state of being" to "disease?" I realize in common usage, even by insurance agencies and the like, the terms are synonymous-but many misleading and pejorative terms have been in usage by groups that "should know better" and it has never been Wikipedia's policy to support bigotry and confusing language.
Yes, I often hear people claim "I have no medicinal conditions" or feel the need to qualify when they use the term to refer to states that are not indicative of illnesses or injury; ie. they say "benign medical condition" or "heathy, normal, medical condition." I find this highly problematic as it implies any and all non-qualified conditions are non-optimal, are diseases or disorders.
This becomes one more incidence in the growing trend for medical and scientific speech becoming a foreign and usually misunderstood language to the average user. This is why we have respected American news-anchors, who on hearing that a politician is in "stable condition" ask if he might pull through, or when states of being described as "conditions" will be cured.
I know we encounter much difficulty in neural-diversity circles because when you refer to something, such as dyslexia, arguably not a "broken" state, as a "condition," then listeners hear "disease" and "something in need of curing." (I am not claiming that I haven't encountered great difficulty due to my dyslexia, just that it has been persuasively argued that it is a difference that in other circumstance is adventurous. I have also had great problems due to being left-handed and I am not alone in thinking serious efforts to "cure" or "wipe-out" "sinisterism" were barbaric and wrong-headed.) If you lack a medical condition, you are not "healthy" or "normal," you are in fact not alive. I am the last person to promote P.C. terminology gone amuck, making meaning unclear, in this case, this is not the case; this is the opposite. Like it or not, Wikipedia is viewed as the arbiter of proper usage by many and this redirect is contributing to the general state of confusion and pejorative speech. 75.68.16.228 ( talk) 06:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).