Talk:Disability in the media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disability (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Disability in the media is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Useful Sources[edit]

Also various articles in the Disability Studies Quarterly

Copied from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#New high importance "core theme" article[edit]

I have just created a stub Disability in the media, please feel free to expand it. I listed a number of good sources on the Talk page. Roger (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article to have, but I question any overly-extensive use of Society for Disability Studies writings, or those of their closest allies, without ensuring that other sources from within the same circles but with differing viewpoints are also included. Otherwise this could all easily become a one-trick pony. Your newly-created article is going to have to eventually have "teaser sections" for larger articles the way disability in the arts does. One of the reasons I can already tell you why that would be necessary, in fact, is that the article I created long ago on inclusion (disability rights) could then finally, at long, long last, be broken up and most of its contents distributed to articles corresponding to the media organizations and grouplets themselves (such as the disTHIS! Film Series, which I do believe should have its own page, and also the Ouch! Podcast from the BBC). People here might not have thought I'd want to see the content of an article that is "one of my babies" distributed across several articles, but in fact I do, especially given the renewed vigor with which we all have been pursuing this stuff now. I believe that a proper (re)distribution would clear the inclusion article of clutter and make it much more easily readable to the average joe n' jane. If the content articles were created for these inclusive phenomena being described in the inclusion article, then we would automatically readily have several "media-based examples" of inclusive practices that we could then immediately incorporate into the disability in the media article.... see?. If done properly, then there would barely be any need at all for the article on inclusion except for its widely-accepted core definition. We could pare it down, if there were articles that corresponded to the phenomena introduced. That is the point I would like to see reached as a result of all this work being done on Disability on the wiki. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(End of copied section)

I agree that no article should rely too heavily on only one source. I am a complete "newbie" to the topic of Disability Studies. I was vaguely aware of its existence but only discovered the existence of the SDS and its publication a few days ago as a direct consequence of my involvement in the WikiProject. Thus I have no opinion about the "politics" of the SDS as I don't know anything about it. So far I have referenced the DSQ only once in this article. Please feel free to "redistribute" any material you feel is relevant and so expand this article. I never claim ownership of anything I do on WP - I welcome all constructive participation in anything I am involved in here. I have posted an invitation to participate in this article on WikiProject Journalism's Talk page. Roger (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes section relies on examples from fiction[edit]

This article is about the depiction of disability in the media in the sense of news and actuality. The Stereotypes section relies mostly on examples from fiction - it even references fairytales - which are not really useful or relevant in the context of this article. Roger (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view[edit]

Whilst constructed well, I believe this particular article lacks neutrality. The overall tone of the article feels opinionated and critical of representations of disability in the media and disabled activists and chooses to omit positive media support of disabled people. This is particularly evident in the first two sections and the photography and responses sections which provide niche viewpoints from apparent activists, but no counterbalance or evidence of these viewpoints from popular media. The line "This is seen by many disability rights activists as a way to, as some in these circles term it, "piss on pity", lack appropriate citation to justify the claim, and even the linked article only provides one citation from a niche website. The line is also written with opinion. Another example "The first photographer to become widely known for depicting the visibly disabled was Diane Arbus.[citation needed] Her photographs, which are in fact art photographs, have been, and remain, highly controversial", contains language that would suggest opinion "which are in fact". The title of the article also implies that it contains an overview of all representations in media, when the actual content largely tends to focus on negative representations only, characterised by the "stereotypes" section.

Overall i believe this article needs a wider reference base to support the statements made, and needs to be counterbalanced with both negative and positive aspects of media in relation to disability to fulfil the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMendonsa (talkcontribs) 08:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)