This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Disability/Style advice page. |
|
![]() | Disability Project‑class | ||||||
|
I've watchlisted this. My only interest in autism is through some acquaintances and a niece. I advocate for awareness/understanding about circadian rhythm disorders which are invisible and can be debilitating. See the non-profit organization Circadian Sleep Disorders Network. -- Hordaland ( talk) 16:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit by Roger (Dodger67) removed "scare quotes" in favor of italicizing key phrases. Although I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's general formatting guidelines, I would like to express a disagreement about one instance: "symptoms" of autism. The reason quotes were originally used is that autism is not a disease or disorder and therefore should not be discussed in terms of symptoms. Rather there are different autistic traits or tendencies that each autistic person may present at varying intensity or not at all. Muffinator ( talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This is shaping up really well. Would it be a good idea also to tackle the question of language for the opposite of a disability, where this too may also have the right or the wrong connotations? The sort of thing I mean is words like: able-bodied, seeing/sighted, hearing. What is the opposite of autistic, and what do we call someone who isn't an autie? And so on. -- Stfg ( talk) 21:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a subsection of autism to talk about functioning labels. Does the high/low-functioning dichotomy apply to any other disabilities? Perhaps the mild/moderate/severe scale of retardation also deserves a mention. Personally, I'm not familiar enough with retardation-related sentiments within the disability community to offer an opinion. Muffinator ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
We need to address in-group slang such as "crip". While "cripple" is practically universally deprecated the derivative "crip" is in-group slang used among (mostly mobility) impaired groups as a self identification label. Insiders use "crip" but outsiders and formal speech should not. The process is known as reappropriation. "Aspie" is another example. A well known example is the sometimes controversial use of "nigger", usually spelled and pronounced " nigga", by African Americans in informal speech and rap/hip-hop lyrics.
"Cripple" does however have currency as a metaphor in contexts unrelated to disability. It seems to be particularly used in business/ economics and sport news writing: "Mathis' absence is a crippling blow to an already inept Colts pass rush." and "Global steel glut may cripple U.S. industry". Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree and what happened to gimp? Wheelies, stickies, wobblies...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
We are currently throwing a lot of information about different aspects of disability and related topics onto the draft page, but are we writing an actual Style guide yet? The draft is beginning to resemble the Disability article. At some point we need to start distilling the information down to actual guidance and advice for WP editors. I'm not saying that collecting information is bad, it's an essential stage in the process. We just need to ask ourselves if what we are collecting on the page is really relevant to answering style and language use questions that WP editors may have. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have spent a lot of time professionally and personally in multiple costumer driven corporations mostly in the Southern California/Central Florida areas. They are very conscientious about treating all people with respect and dignity, as their business models' depend on it. All of these organizations train their employees to use Person First Language. While it may not work for Wikipedia I thought I would share a little of what they do.
As I said it is people first language:
These are not all the examples and the different companies have their own specific wording that they encourage, however I think this would give a good start if this is the way the community decides to go. VViking Talk Edits 00:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just saw this and must note their are huge national differences - UK uses disabled people not people with. UN discusses this. Article for "services for the disabled" I think is a general fail. One article uses persons with disability next sentence disabled people.
So far at least 90% of the edits to this page have been made by either Roger or myself. While I believe we have each made excellent additions, Wikipedia is community-driven and is constantly improved by the contributions of many. Does anyone know of any appropriate and effective ways to get more people involved? Muffinator ( talk) 06:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I find "non-disabled" a bit gross as it implies some sort of "normal" that "disabled" is therefore a deviation from. Having terms that don't reference each other for each of two possible conditions avoids giving undue preference of one group of people, as opposed to maintaining neutrality. However, I am not certain that "abled" meets the criterium wide use to be considered plain English. Muffinator ( talk) 20:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This page is important; I'm glad you are writing it. A couple of thoughts (and related anecdotes):
I don't know how people/children/parents react to calling someone a "special-needs kid". I don't care for it, but it is very commonly used in schools and often heard in other situations. The kids, both those who do and those who do not have special needs, hear it all the time. It replaces 'retarded', of course, and also autism, blindness & more. Worth mentioning -- or replacing?
Then there is the wheelchair. Above, "person in a wheelchair" is suggested. I don't care for that either. I think that's because it suggests being in that chair 'round the clock and always (like in a cage, almost). I prefer "person who uses a wheelchair" (John uses a wheelchair). That will also apply to the people who use a wheelchair only sometimes.
I've been a public school teacher (K - 7) in Norway - that's where my anecdotes are from. I do not like at all the way wheelchair users are spoken of here. Words get said without considering what they actually say. Would you believe "person chained to a wheelchair"? I cringe whenever I hear it. Then there's special needs. In that, Norwegian is a bit better than the English, I think, at least re children. We say that a child has "learning difficulties" (either specific such as dysleksia, or general). Using that term, one is forced to use the person-first style. OTOH, adults who haven't gotten over their 'difficulties' are "psychic-developmentally handicapped".
[This got longer than intended...] -- Hordaland ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that terms like wheelie stickie are self referential like nigga and are used informally by people themselves but they are not generally informal terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
The assistive devices section currently states: "In most cases the construct <name of the device>-user is preferred." Thinking about the various possible cases: Walking frame user, crutch user, hearing aid user, white cane user. These sound somewhat odd. "Most cases" seems a little too bold. I believe that "person"-first language applies here, making "person who uses <name of the device>" more common. Muffinator ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
May be preference but avoid user? "service user" etc. Isn't it management jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
I've removed {{ Citation needed}} tags because this is a draft guideline, not an article. But the statement that autism is not a disorder is unsound. Please see ICD-10 F84.0. I realise that calling it s disorder may inflame some sensibilities, but we need to think of a way of handling this that doesn't contradict the medical literature. -- Stfg ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The current draft seems to cover every major subject. There is a respectable intro, and all editorial notes have been replaced with the content those notes called for. I think this page is ready to submit for review. Muffinator ( talk) 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This style guide has recently been moved (July 2014) after it was determined that the page was no longer a draft. Since it was developed by a small number of contributors, editors who take issue with any part of the page are encouraged to voice their concerns. Muffinator ( talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill.
The wording that may be appropriate for a modern topic may jar in articles about an historical topic for example articles on Elizabethan England "cripples begging at the entrance to the city" (see for example Cripplegate#Etymology ), or a topic about military munitions designed to cripple/maim not to kill (badly wounded people use up enemy resources that dead ones do not -- but the designers do not want medical treatment to be able put an enemy back in the front line). The danger with the latter is that softer wording such as "disable" can been seen as an euphemism to disguise the awfulnesses of the weapon system (you can bet that those selling this type of weapons technology use a lot of euphemisms when talking to politicians and the public).
It would be a shame if this style guide was to be worded in such a way that it could be used to support the placing words or phases into contexts where they are not usually used and so look jarring or euphemistic. -- PBS ( talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe this problematic construction is ubiquitous enough to warrant a specific mention: People with disabling conditions, both physical and mental, are frequently described as suffering from them. In many cases this is presumptuous (not sourced), judgmental (not NPOV), and inaccurate. While some disabling conditions, particularly diseases, are likely to cause suffering, the social model and especially the neurodiversity movement argue that disabled people suffer from ableist discrimination more so than from their impairments. The major exception is when a person self-identifies as suffering from whatever they have ("Jane Doe has stated that she considers herself disabled and suffers from blindess"). Muffinator ( talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
See here. Immediately making this page into a guideline instead of into an essay was a good idea in what way? Flyer22 ( talk) 09:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, 23W demoted the page to an essay. If this page is going to stay an essay, at least for a long while, it should be renamed as well...away from implying that it is a guideline. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where centralized discussion should be but Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Disability_guide_has_been_added_to_the_MOS is a duplicate discussion. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles → WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide – This page should be moved back to WP:WikiProject Disability where it will be developed into a WikiProject style guide. This was my original intent as the creator of the page. The move to the MOS was done without the consensus of the members of WikiProject Disability - the proposed move will effectively revert the situation to what it was before the move. The above discussion has stalled thus I think it's time to resolve this. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I change a citation from Gallaudet to one by the NAD because the previous one was dead and the new citation, I believe, is a good enough source for the same statement. Andrea Carter ( at your service | my good deeds) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved this topic to WT:WikiProject Disability#Disability Images because that page has far more watchers, this page has very few. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MOS:DISABILITY. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#MOS:DISABILITY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice – Same as other such
WP:PROJPAGES that are {{
WikiProject style advice}}
. There may be a few more to track down, but every one of these that I recall that has had "style guide" or "manual of style" in its name has been successfully moved to "style advice" instead, without incident, to avoid confusion that the page is a guideline and part of the
MoS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.
BegbertBiggs (
talk)
23:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: If anyone feels inspired to
WP:PROPOSAL-ize this as an actual MoS guideline page, I should warn that the community has become increasingly skeptical of these ideas, for general
WP:CREEP and more specific
WP:MOSBLOAT reasons. The result has more often been the labeling of the page with {{
Failed proposal}}
. Very topical style advice is better retained (if at all) as an advice essay. Fairly recently at least two actual MoS topical pages have also been deprecated as failed proposals instead of guidelines. In the case that some particular line-item in this page is seen as crucially important, then it should be proposed at
WT:MOS (or
WT:MOSACCESS or whatever) for inclusion in the actual MoS guidelines –
iff there is evidence of an actual and recurrent problem to solve, and MoS does not already cover it specifically or as part of a more general rule. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Style guide" is simply confusingly, misleadingly similar to "style guideline", which is why such pages have been renamed. I'm RM-listing this one as a courtesy. While prior moves of this sort have been completely uncontroversial, including when just manually renamed without RM process, I've set up several wikiprojects myself, so I understand that project participants are going to want to have input when pages they've created are moved, merged, or whatever, even if pages of this sort now have a rather standardized naming pattern. (Back in 2014, when there was debate about making this actually be part of MoS, an idea that didn't gain consensus, naming and even categorization of the style essay pages was still in flux, which explains why this one ended up at "/Style guide").
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Failed proposal}}
. However, despite some 2014 (and maybe a little before and a little after) disputation about various bits of advice in this, I don't see any consensus that this page should be completely deprecated (like, say
WP:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal), which was excoriated as "not fit for purpose" down to pretty much every statement in it, and even the suggestion to merge a few points to another page was rejected). So, since this is a legit essay not junk, and we have a now-stable naming pattern for pages like this, it should fit that pattern. This RM is about nothing but, and can have no effect but, changing one word in the page name. You're reading something into it this that isn't actually there. :-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)To try to get some more input, I have notified talk pages of WikiProject Disability, Manual of Style/Accessibility, WikiProject:Accessibilty, and WikiProject:Council. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Last year, a logged-out editor changed the nutshell to say "Use identity-first language in most cases, but there are exceptions." The page names three circumstances in which identity-first language is generally preferred, and it does not seem to me that these three add up to enough people to constitute "most cases". Using the US as an example (because these are the stats I know best), about a quarter of adults are disabled. About 0.5% are legally blind. About 2% have autism. About 5% have hearing loss (and most of them previously had normal hearing). 7.5% of people isn't "most cases". Most disabled adults have mobility problems, and they typically don't want identity-first language: it's Grandma, not a rollator user; a person with MS, not an MS person, a neighbor who needs a knee replacement, not a damaged-knee person, etc.
I'm also a bit concerned about the "generally preferred" as applied to hearing loss. Most people who are deaf aren't Deaf; they're senior citizens who lived most of their lives with normal hearing. Seeing deafness as your identity seems to correlate with congenital deafness or early acquisition. The old factory worker who complains that everyone mumbles these days isn't likely to see deafness as part of his identity. I'm not sure if there's a need to add this sort of nuance, but it's not a one-size fits all.
I've reverted the nutshell change, and I'm leaving this here just in case anyone doesn't understand why. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to expand the section of invisible disabilities but I'm terrible at writing general guidance (I always go too intense). Currently, the text reads as:
There are many social reasons why a person who has an invisible disability may wish to conceal their disability and pass as non-disabled. One who is successful at this is considered able-passing, while one who is unsuccessful is considered visibly disabled. Intellectual, sensory, mental or sleep disorder disabilities tend to be invisible and allow passing, while physical disabilities are more difficult or even impossible to conceal. Able-passing people have the option to later come out or disclose their disability, a process that is analogous to coming out as gay. Sometimes disabled people are outed without their permission. Such outing should never be done on Wikipedia - see WP:AVOIDVICTIM for further guidance.
So it currently reads as a section about passing and coming out, not like a section on invisible disability - and even for that, I personally would like to see a mention that, just because someone previously seemed very abled, doesn't mean their coming out is less valid. I would also want to see a mention that people may continue to obscure some of their impairments even after coming out, to reduce the extent of the discrimination they face, or because they don't particularly want to discuss some parts of their lives that are impacted (e.g. many people don't want to discuss their bowel movements, for reasons other than disability).
My primary concern is that it doesn't mention the particular challenges that come with an invisible disability. For example, difficulties being dismissed, refusal to make any accommodations, or attributing difficulties they experience to the person's character (e.g. they're just lazy). I think it's important to explain here that editors needs to believe self-identification (unless there's a VERY good reason to do so) and avoid "blaming". Also, that So I think the specific advice I'd like to add here (along with the previous explanations) is essentially:
SEPARATELY, for the lead - I very strongly believe that unconscious bias by members of disadvantaged groups is a major issue (when people aren't scanning their behaviour for it) and contributes to a lot of dog acts. I would like to add something to this effect to the lead:
Is there anything else that should be added to the invisible disability section? And I would love some help to make this better. (please ping me if you respond) -- Xurizuri ( talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Grapple X, Persicifolia, Masem, Fowler&fowler, Colin, and WhatamIdoing: It seems pretty clear to me that the current RFC isn't going to come to a clear conclusion, so I'm inviting you to participate in creating WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2). Let us break the chicken and egg impasse and improve the style guide to a standard that might be worthy of inclusion in the MOS. Please invite any other participants you believe might make a positive contribution. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Inviting Xurizuri, you've expressed an interest in this process in the previous section above. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have begun the revision process at WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2), one section at a time, please join in. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
What's the status of this essay? Scanning through the threads above, I see a v2 which was started, a move from guideline to essay, and some effort to attract MOS experts to fix it up for a prospective RfC. Is that more or less where things still stand? Is v2 active? This strikes me as an area that could find consensus for promotion to guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for writing on this topic. I feel that disabled people are really overlooked in today's society. I was wondering about the topic that you had included about being "able-bodied" meaning someone who is not disabled. In my opinion, I feel this term is not a fair description of those who do no share the same traits as disabled people`. In my evaluation of this article, I feel that a different term would work better in its place. The term able bodied may come across as somewhat offensive to those are disabled. — Tatiwaxman ( talk) 04:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Disability/Style advice page. |
|
![]() | Disability Project‑class | ||||||
|
I've watchlisted this. My only interest in autism is through some acquaintances and a niece. I advocate for awareness/understanding about circadian rhythm disorders which are invisible and can be debilitating. See the non-profit organization Circadian Sleep Disorders Network. -- Hordaland ( talk) 16:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit by Roger (Dodger67) removed "scare quotes" in favor of italicizing key phrases. Although I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's general formatting guidelines, I would like to express a disagreement about one instance: "symptoms" of autism. The reason quotes were originally used is that autism is not a disease or disorder and therefore should not be discussed in terms of symptoms. Rather there are different autistic traits or tendencies that each autistic person may present at varying intensity or not at all. Muffinator ( talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This is shaping up really well. Would it be a good idea also to tackle the question of language for the opposite of a disability, where this too may also have the right or the wrong connotations? The sort of thing I mean is words like: able-bodied, seeing/sighted, hearing. What is the opposite of autistic, and what do we call someone who isn't an autie? And so on. -- Stfg ( talk) 21:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a subsection of autism to talk about functioning labels. Does the high/low-functioning dichotomy apply to any other disabilities? Perhaps the mild/moderate/severe scale of retardation also deserves a mention. Personally, I'm not familiar enough with retardation-related sentiments within the disability community to offer an opinion. Muffinator ( talk) 07:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
We need to address in-group slang such as "crip". While "cripple" is practically universally deprecated the derivative "crip" is in-group slang used among (mostly mobility) impaired groups as a self identification label. Insiders use "crip" but outsiders and formal speech should not. The process is known as reappropriation. "Aspie" is another example. A well known example is the sometimes controversial use of "nigger", usually spelled and pronounced " nigga", by African Americans in informal speech and rap/hip-hop lyrics.
"Cripple" does however have currency as a metaphor in contexts unrelated to disability. It seems to be particularly used in business/ economics and sport news writing: "Mathis' absence is a crippling blow to an already inept Colts pass rush." and "Global steel glut may cripple U.S. industry". Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree and what happened to gimp? Wheelies, stickies, wobblies...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
We are currently throwing a lot of information about different aspects of disability and related topics onto the draft page, but are we writing an actual Style guide yet? The draft is beginning to resemble the Disability article. At some point we need to start distilling the information down to actual guidance and advice for WP editors. I'm not saying that collecting information is bad, it's an essential stage in the process. We just need to ask ourselves if what we are collecting on the page is really relevant to answering style and language use questions that WP editors may have. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have spent a lot of time professionally and personally in multiple costumer driven corporations mostly in the Southern California/Central Florida areas. They are very conscientious about treating all people with respect and dignity, as their business models' depend on it. All of these organizations train their employees to use Person First Language. While it may not work for Wikipedia I thought I would share a little of what they do.
As I said it is people first language:
These are not all the examples and the different companies have their own specific wording that they encourage, however I think this would give a good start if this is the way the community decides to go. VViking Talk Edits 00:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just saw this and must note their are huge national differences - UK uses disabled people not people with. UN discusses this. Article for "services for the disabled" I think is a general fail. One article uses persons with disability next sentence disabled people.
So far at least 90% of the edits to this page have been made by either Roger or myself. While I believe we have each made excellent additions, Wikipedia is community-driven and is constantly improved by the contributions of many. Does anyone know of any appropriate and effective ways to get more people involved? Muffinator ( talk) 06:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I find "non-disabled" a bit gross as it implies some sort of "normal" that "disabled" is therefore a deviation from. Having terms that don't reference each other for each of two possible conditions avoids giving undue preference of one group of people, as opposed to maintaining neutrality. However, I am not certain that "abled" meets the criterium wide use to be considered plain English. Muffinator ( talk) 20:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This page is important; I'm glad you are writing it. A couple of thoughts (and related anecdotes):
I don't know how people/children/parents react to calling someone a "special-needs kid". I don't care for it, but it is very commonly used in schools and often heard in other situations. The kids, both those who do and those who do not have special needs, hear it all the time. It replaces 'retarded', of course, and also autism, blindness & more. Worth mentioning -- or replacing?
Then there is the wheelchair. Above, "person in a wheelchair" is suggested. I don't care for that either. I think that's because it suggests being in that chair 'round the clock and always (like in a cage, almost). I prefer "person who uses a wheelchair" (John uses a wheelchair). That will also apply to the people who use a wheelchair only sometimes.
I've been a public school teacher (K - 7) in Norway - that's where my anecdotes are from. I do not like at all the way wheelchair users are spoken of here. Words get said without considering what they actually say. Would you believe "person chained to a wheelchair"? I cringe whenever I hear it. Then there's special needs. In that, Norwegian is a bit better than the English, I think, at least re children. We say that a child has "learning difficulties" (either specific such as dysleksia, or general). Using that term, one is forced to use the person-first style. OTOH, adults who haven't gotten over their 'difficulties' are "psychic-developmentally handicapped".
[This got longer than intended...] -- Hordaland ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that terms like wheelie stickie are self referential like nigga and are used informally by people themselves but they are not generally informal terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
The assistive devices section currently states: "In most cases the construct <name of the device>-user is preferred." Thinking about the various possible cases: Walking frame user, crutch user, hearing aid user, white cane user. These sound somewhat odd. "Most cases" seems a little too bold. I believe that "person"-first language applies here, making "person who uses <name of the device>" more common. Muffinator ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
May be preference but avoid user? "service user" etc. Isn't it management jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 ( talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
I've removed {{ Citation needed}} tags because this is a draft guideline, not an article. But the statement that autism is not a disorder is unsound. Please see ICD-10 F84.0. I realise that calling it s disorder may inflame some sensibilities, but we need to think of a way of handling this that doesn't contradict the medical literature. -- Stfg ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The current draft seems to cover every major subject. There is a respectable intro, and all editorial notes have been replaced with the content those notes called for. I think this page is ready to submit for review. Muffinator ( talk) 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This style guide has recently been moved (July 2014) after it was determined that the page was no longer a draft. Since it was developed by a small number of contributors, editors who take issue with any part of the page are encouraged to voice their concerns. Muffinator ( talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill.
The wording that may be appropriate for a modern topic may jar in articles about an historical topic for example articles on Elizabethan England "cripples begging at the entrance to the city" (see for example Cripplegate#Etymology ), or a topic about military munitions designed to cripple/maim not to kill (badly wounded people use up enemy resources that dead ones do not -- but the designers do not want medical treatment to be able put an enemy back in the front line). The danger with the latter is that softer wording such as "disable" can been seen as an euphemism to disguise the awfulnesses of the weapon system (you can bet that those selling this type of weapons technology use a lot of euphemisms when talking to politicians and the public).
It would be a shame if this style guide was to be worded in such a way that it could be used to support the placing words or phases into contexts where they are not usually used and so look jarring or euphemistic. -- PBS ( talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe this problematic construction is ubiquitous enough to warrant a specific mention: People with disabling conditions, both physical and mental, are frequently described as suffering from them. In many cases this is presumptuous (not sourced), judgmental (not NPOV), and inaccurate. While some disabling conditions, particularly diseases, are likely to cause suffering, the social model and especially the neurodiversity movement argue that disabled people suffer from ableist discrimination more so than from their impairments. The major exception is when a person self-identifies as suffering from whatever they have ("Jane Doe has stated that she considers herself disabled and suffers from blindess"). Muffinator ( talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
See here. Immediately making this page into a guideline instead of into an essay was a good idea in what way? Flyer22 ( talk) 09:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, 23W demoted the page to an essay. If this page is going to stay an essay, at least for a long while, it should be renamed as well...away from implying that it is a guideline. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where centralized discussion should be but Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Disability_guide_has_been_added_to_the_MOS is a duplicate discussion. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles → WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide – This page should be moved back to WP:WikiProject Disability where it will be developed into a WikiProject style guide. This was my original intent as the creator of the page. The move to the MOS was done without the consensus of the members of WikiProject Disability - the proposed move will effectively revert the situation to what it was before the move. The above discussion has stalled thus I think it's time to resolve this. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I change a citation from Gallaudet to one by the NAD because the previous one was dead and the new citation, I believe, is a good enough source for the same statement. Andrea Carter ( at your service | my good deeds) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved this topic to WT:WikiProject Disability#Disability Images because that page has far more watchers, this page has very few. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MOS:DISABILITY. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#MOS:DISABILITY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice – Same as other such
WP:PROJPAGES that are {{
WikiProject style advice}}
. There may be a few more to track down, but every one of these that I recall that has had "style guide" or "manual of style" in its name has been successfully moved to "style advice" instead, without incident, to avoid confusion that the page is a guideline and part of the
MoS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.
BegbertBiggs (
talk)
23:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: If anyone feels inspired to
WP:PROPOSAL-ize this as an actual MoS guideline page, I should warn that the community has become increasingly skeptical of these ideas, for general
WP:CREEP and more specific
WP:MOSBLOAT reasons. The result has more often been the labeling of the page with {{
Failed proposal}}
. Very topical style advice is better retained (if at all) as an advice essay. Fairly recently at least two actual MoS topical pages have also been deprecated as failed proposals instead of guidelines. In the case that some particular line-item in this page is seen as crucially important, then it should be proposed at
WT:MOS (or
WT:MOSACCESS or whatever) for inclusion in the actual MoS guidelines –
iff there is evidence of an actual and recurrent problem to solve, and MoS does not already cover it specifically or as part of a more general rule. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Style guide" is simply confusingly, misleadingly similar to "style guideline", which is why such pages have been renamed. I'm RM-listing this one as a courtesy. While prior moves of this sort have been completely uncontroversial, including when just manually renamed without RM process, I've set up several wikiprojects myself, so I understand that project participants are going to want to have input when pages they've created are moved, merged, or whatever, even if pages of this sort now have a rather standardized naming pattern. (Back in 2014, when there was debate about making this actually be part of MoS, an idea that didn't gain consensus, naming and even categorization of the style essay pages was still in flux, which explains why this one ended up at "/Style guide").
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Failed proposal}}
. However, despite some 2014 (and maybe a little before and a little after) disputation about various bits of advice in this, I don't see any consensus that this page should be completely deprecated (like, say
WP:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal), which was excoriated as "not fit for purpose" down to pretty much every statement in it, and even the suggestion to merge a few points to another page was rejected). So, since this is a legit essay not junk, and we have a now-stable naming pattern for pages like this, it should fit that pattern. This RM is about nothing but, and can have no effect but, changing one word in the page name. You're reading something into it this that isn't actually there. :-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)To try to get some more input, I have notified talk pages of WikiProject Disability, Manual of Style/Accessibility, WikiProject:Accessibilty, and WikiProject:Council. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Last year, a logged-out editor changed the nutshell to say "Use identity-first language in most cases, but there are exceptions." The page names three circumstances in which identity-first language is generally preferred, and it does not seem to me that these three add up to enough people to constitute "most cases". Using the US as an example (because these are the stats I know best), about a quarter of adults are disabled. About 0.5% are legally blind. About 2% have autism. About 5% have hearing loss (and most of them previously had normal hearing). 7.5% of people isn't "most cases". Most disabled adults have mobility problems, and they typically don't want identity-first language: it's Grandma, not a rollator user; a person with MS, not an MS person, a neighbor who needs a knee replacement, not a damaged-knee person, etc.
I'm also a bit concerned about the "generally preferred" as applied to hearing loss. Most people who are deaf aren't Deaf; they're senior citizens who lived most of their lives with normal hearing. Seeing deafness as your identity seems to correlate with congenital deafness or early acquisition. The old factory worker who complains that everyone mumbles these days isn't likely to see deafness as part of his identity. I'm not sure if there's a need to add this sort of nuance, but it's not a one-size fits all.
I've reverted the nutshell change, and I'm leaving this here just in case anyone doesn't understand why. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to expand the section of invisible disabilities but I'm terrible at writing general guidance (I always go too intense). Currently, the text reads as:
There are many social reasons why a person who has an invisible disability may wish to conceal their disability and pass as non-disabled. One who is successful at this is considered able-passing, while one who is unsuccessful is considered visibly disabled. Intellectual, sensory, mental or sleep disorder disabilities tend to be invisible and allow passing, while physical disabilities are more difficult or even impossible to conceal. Able-passing people have the option to later come out or disclose their disability, a process that is analogous to coming out as gay. Sometimes disabled people are outed without their permission. Such outing should never be done on Wikipedia - see WP:AVOIDVICTIM for further guidance.
So it currently reads as a section about passing and coming out, not like a section on invisible disability - and even for that, I personally would like to see a mention that, just because someone previously seemed very abled, doesn't mean their coming out is less valid. I would also want to see a mention that people may continue to obscure some of their impairments even after coming out, to reduce the extent of the discrimination they face, or because they don't particularly want to discuss some parts of their lives that are impacted (e.g. many people don't want to discuss their bowel movements, for reasons other than disability).
My primary concern is that it doesn't mention the particular challenges that come with an invisible disability. For example, difficulties being dismissed, refusal to make any accommodations, or attributing difficulties they experience to the person's character (e.g. they're just lazy). I think it's important to explain here that editors needs to believe self-identification (unless there's a VERY good reason to do so) and avoid "blaming". Also, that So I think the specific advice I'd like to add here (along with the previous explanations) is essentially:
SEPARATELY, for the lead - I very strongly believe that unconscious bias by members of disadvantaged groups is a major issue (when people aren't scanning their behaviour for it) and contributes to a lot of dog acts. I would like to add something to this effect to the lead:
Is there anything else that should be added to the invisible disability section? And I would love some help to make this better. (please ping me if you respond) -- Xurizuri ( talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Grapple X, Persicifolia, Masem, Fowler&fowler, Colin, and WhatamIdoing: It seems pretty clear to me that the current RFC isn't going to come to a clear conclusion, so I'm inviting you to participate in creating WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2). Let us break the chicken and egg impasse and improve the style guide to a standard that might be worthy of inclusion in the MOS. Please invite any other participants you believe might make a positive contribution. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Inviting Xurizuri, you've expressed an interest in this process in the previous section above. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have begun the revision process at WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2), one section at a time, please join in. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
What's the status of this essay? Scanning through the threads above, I see a v2 which was started, a move from guideline to essay, and some effort to attract MOS experts to fix it up for a prospective RfC. Is that more or less where things still stand? Is v2 active? This strikes me as an area that could find consensus for promotion to guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for writing on this topic. I feel that disabled people are really overlooked in today's society. I was wondering about the topic that you had included about being "able-bodied" meaning someone who is not disabled. In my opinion, I feel this term is not a fair description of those who do no share the same traits as disabled people`. In my evaluation of this article, I feel that a different term would work better in its place. The term able bodied may come across as somewhat offensive to those are disabled. — Tatiwaxman ( talk) 04:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC).