Talk:List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just thought I'd add some background to explain my reasons behind creating this page, on the basis that not all Wikipedians will agree with me or understand. This page is inspired by experiences with otherwise intelligent & articulate people who seem unaware of the effects their language have, until you point it out to them. Obviously there are differences of opinion among both disabled and non-disabled people about the offensiveness/inappropriateness of (some or all) of these terms; hopefully my intro text makes this clear and is sufficiently NPOV - if not, please do change it. I added a few terms which I can think of to get the page going; please add more - the intention being that this page should eventually stand on its own as a comprehensive guide about "terms to avoid" - SP-KP 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Correct terms

This list is not very usefull without replacement terms. An example would be wheelchair-bound. It was in common use until recently, what term should be used instead? Ravedave 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Would this work as an update? Are these right? Ravedave 03:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Cripple used as a general term for a physically disabled person
    • Correct Term: Disabled person/Disability
  • Handicapped used as a general term for a disabled person, and Handicap as a generic term for a disability.
    • Correct Term: Disabled person/Disability
  • Joey used as a derogatory term for someone with Cerebral Palsy (see Joey Deacon)
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Cerebral Palsy
  • Spastic, referring to someone with Cerebral Palsy (shortened/altered forms such as Spaz, Spazzy, Spack or Spackhead are regarded as particularly offensive by many)
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Cerebral Palsy
  • Mentally retarded used to describe someone with a learning disability, a significantly low IQ, and/or developmental disability (and Mental retardation to describe their disability)
    • Correct Term: Physically disabled person
  • Midget
    • Correct Term: Little Person
  • Mongol or mongoloid for someone with Down's syndrome
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Down's Syndrome
  • Retard or Retarded used to describe someone with a learning disability (and retardation to describe their disability)
    • Correct Term:
  • Slow or Slow learner used to describe someone with a learning disability
    • Correct Term:
  • The Disabled, The Blind etc. are objected to by many.
    • Correct Terms: "Disabled people", "blind people" are considered slightly better; "people with disabilities", "people who are blind" are preferred instead. On the other hand, some use "The Blind" in a manner similar to Deaf_culture, as they see themselves as a valid subculture separate from "The Sighted", and "The Disabled" or "The Disabled Community" is used similarly as well. This is an area of some controversy.
  • Wheelchair-bound for someone who uses a wheelchair
    • Correct Term:
      • Both "wheelchair-bound" and its uglier predecessor "confined to a wheelchair" are no longer considered polite usage; the preferred language is generally "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair", as per edits I've made to the article itself. Feyandstrange 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "correct"

The above looks good, except I wonder if the word "correct" is too proscriptive. "Accepted" or something like that might be a better way of putting it.

For wheelchair-bound, "(person who) uses a wheelchair" seems to be accepted, likewise for slow/retard "(person who) has a learning disability"

--SP-KP 17:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

In at least some cases, the "negative connotations" appear to be original conclusions. Am I wrong? - Jakew 19:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

None of the contributions I made to this page are original research; all are taken from other sources; don't know about material added by other authors though. If there are any that you're specifically concerned about, please feel free to list details, and if I can I will provide a source - SP-KP 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
No specifics. I only comment because I saw the list and thought, "well, I agree that they have negative connotations, but has anyone else declared them as such?". It's not a big deal, and I'm certainly not about to start deleting content, but it might be a good idea to cite sources for the sake of thoroughness. - Jakew 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't have spare time to hunt for citations myself, but style guides - the Chicago Manual of Style for example - should include some examples, as would in-house style and usage guides for major publications. Feyandstrange 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No probs. A Google search for "disability language etiquette" will give you lots of sources. - SP-KP 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hashing it Out

The problem was with "it should be assumed." That's an opinion, even if it has been listed by etiquette sources. The word "should" reflects the opinion. I've re-wored the sentence to make it sound more neutral, and still more-or-less make the same point.

Although some of the terms listed are obviously inherently degrading (e.g., retard and wheelchair-bound), others more reflect some people's political needs than respect for disabled people. There are many disabled people who would be offended by this article. It needs to be re-written and expanded to explain the myriad of different views on the subject by both disabled and non-disabled people. I'd do it myself, but I'd fear it would be reverted by people who need to make themselves right.24.64.223.203 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I originated this article last year, and thought then that it might attract POV-pushing comments. That seems to have happened. Before deleting them, I thought I'd open a discussion here to establish consensus. Any views? SP-KP 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would do better to first examine your own bias. The original article as you wrote it supports a particular point of view on language, as do your comments at the top of this page. For example, "otherwise intelligent people" is a strong judgement, while the idea that their language has "effects" is an opinion. It's an opinion that people should avoid using particular terms, and it implies an opinion as to how to interpret them. Not every disabled or non-disabled person will agree with those interpretations; and many will not accept that the some of the terms have negative connotations at all. Having a disclaimer about there being different views doesn't eliminate the bias that is inherent to this kind of article.Roger 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, Roger; there are strong sources for "accepted language use" available, and this article should reference them (cf. other comments about referencing some manuals of style and usage). You are right in that the existing text shows bias, but the concept is sound. Feyandstrange 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural considerations

Future edits to this piece should take into account the diversity of English usage. As a quick example, a recent flap in the British press castigated a famous American golf player for describing himself on an off day as "a spaz", which horrified the average Briton and incensed the British disability community; however, the golfer, and most Americans, were bewildered, and had no idea that 'spaz' was even related to disability. Likewise, the use of "handicapped" versus "disabled" is different in US vs UK. I don't know if Australian usage more closely mirrors UK or not. However, polite disability language differs in different countries, and this article should reflect that.

Feyandstrange 09:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this needs an explanation alongside each relevent entry, or in a table, but then you'd have to decide how many countries to include.
Also some terms are seen as more acceptable in certain environments or professions such as medicine. For example I found out not that long ago to my horror that "cretin" was medically still in use (said WP article gives some mystifying cobblers about spellcheckers anc creationism being to blame for perceived offence. Huh?) There's also the case of disabled people "taking back" terms like cripple.MEspringal 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cretinism is a recognised but rather rare disease entity. I would be somewhat hesitant to apply the term "cretin" to someone with congenital hypothyroidism, though. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Damage-->Injury

Should the term "brain damage/damaged" be added? I see there's a WP article for brain damage which mentions injury as a synonym but was a little surprised that the fact it's viewed at least by some(?) as insensitive wasn't mentioned. I thought for example, most head injury charities were just that (this could apply to spinal injuries as well). MEspringal 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)