This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miriam Battista article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Miriam Battista appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 July 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I don't have a subscription to Variety, so I am not able to fill out the cites properly with a title. Can someone take care of that detail? Binksternet ( talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Ailemadrah ( talk), Binksternet ( talk). Nominated by Binksternet ( talk) at 19:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC).
@ Slp1: @ Binksternet: I do understand that this wording is a sensitive issue for many people. However, I firmly believe that Binksternet is correct in his earlier comment on July 8: " 'Disabilities' can mean mental or physical, but 'crippled' is specifically physical, having to do with the legs. In this case, 'crippled' is the more accurate term, and it is historically correct for the role." Slp1, you did specify "physically disabled" but with all respect, I would still stand on the historical accuracy of the term "crippled" in this case. Specifically, "crippled" refers to having insufficient use of the legs, so that walking isn't possible without assistance. This was the case with the character in Humoresque and "crippled" is, unfortunately, the word that was used in the original story by Fannie Hurst, in the 1920 film, and in writings about the 1920 film. -- Ailemadrah ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"Thank you for your suggested solution, Slp1, but I think the following change would be preferable and would avoid two traps: the first, having to bloat the text unnecessarily with a phrase like "a girl who has trouble walking," and the second, using the word "lame," which I would argue is more offensive than "crippled." I went ahead and changed the first use of "crippled" to "a little girl on crutches" and left "physically disabled" in the later text. I'm not crazy about the way this wording flows - or rather, fails to flow - in the text, but I think it's a good solution to our disagreement." Ailemadrah ( talk) 03:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I came by as a long-time watcher of Slp1's talk page, where I saw this dispute mentioned by Binksternet. For the record, I consider Slp1 to be an excellent and knowledgeable contributor, but I hold a similar opinion of Binkersternet and would have supported his RFA had I been paying attention (I have been very busy IRL). If I have any bias in this issue, it is as an editor of medical articles.
On this matter, I agree with Slp1 that we need not use a now-offensive term just because it was historically in use, and it reflects poorly upon Wikipedia to a) write or b) highlight on the mainpage a description of a person as "crippled". It looks like you all are coming to a compromise here, which makes me happy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to offend,but I changed it back to "crippled". No way is that word derogatory. It's also the only word that accurately describes the character - "physically disabled" is mealy-mouthed and inexact, "on crutches" is verging on plain silly. PiCo ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miriam Battista article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Miriam Battista appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 July 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
I don't have a subscription to Variety, so I am not able to fill out the cites properly with a title. Can someone take care of that detail? Binksternet ( talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Created by Ailemadrah ( talk), Binksternet ( talk). Nominated by Binksternet ( talk) at 19:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC).
@ Slp1: @ Binksternet: I do understand that this wording is a sensitive issue for many people. However, I firmly believe that Binksternet is correct in his earlier comment on July 8: " 'Disabilities' can mean mental or physical, but 'crippled' is specifically physical, having to do with the legs. In this case, 'crippled' is the more accurate term, and it is historically correct for the role." Slp1, you did specify "physically disabled" but with all respect, I would still stand on the historical accuracy of the term "crippled" in this case. Specifically, "crippled" refers to having insufficient use of the legs, so that walking isn't possible without assistance. This was the case with the character in Humoresque and "crippled" is, unfortunately, the word that was used in the original story by Fannie Hurst, in the 1920 film, and in writings about the 1920 film. -- Ailemadrah ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"Thank you for your suggested solution, Slp1, but I think the following change would be preferable and would avoid two traps: the first, having to bloat the text unnecessarily with a phrase like "a girl who has trouble walking," and the second, using the word "lame," which I would argue is more offensive than "crippled." I went ahead and changed the first use of "crippled" to "a little girl on crutches" and left "physically disabled" in the later text. I'm not crazy about the way this wording flows - or rather, fails to flow - in the text, but I think it's a good solution to our disagreement." Ailemadrah ( talk) 03:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I came by as a long-time watcher of Slp1's talk page, where I saw this dispute mentioned by Binksternet. For the record, I consider Slp1 to be an excellent and knowledgeable contributor, but I hold a similar opinion of Binkersternet and would have supported his RFA had I been paying attention (I have been very busy IRL). If I have any bias in this issue, it is as an editor of medical articles.
On this matter, I agree with Slp1 that we need not use a now-offensive term just because it was historically in use, and it reflects poorly upon Wikipedia to a) write or b) highlight on the mainpage a description of a person as "crippled". It looks like you all are coming to a compromise here, which makes me happy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to offend,but I changed it back to "crippled". No way is that word derogatory. It's also the only word that accurately describes the character - "physically disabled" is mealy-mouthed and inexact, "on crutches" is verging on plain silly. PiCo ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)