Talk:Ableism

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is what the discussion page is for

This article seems rather opinionated and in its current state is not quite encyclopedic.

I tried to reword some of the more blatant POV statements. I am not familiar enough with the movement to add any more info, which seems necessary to make it truly encyclopedic. ---Noclevername 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The article is entirely one-sided with no mention of the fact that there are many who disagree with the "ableism" theories of the disabled movement. --Kasreyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.1.78 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone ever writes a criticism section, they should address all the ridiculous language policing, most of it promulgated by http://disabledfeminists.com/ (i.e., calling someone "stupid" is ableist, saying "What's your problem?" is ableist, blah blah blah).

cleaned up

The article appears to have gotten better over the past month or so, though it's certainly nowhere as good, i.e. as encyclopedic, as it could be.

I'm the Director of PR and Outreach for the Disabilities Network of New York City, so I'm intimately involved in the Inclusion movement and I think the article Ableism could fare much better if it were more closely connected with the 'Inclusion (disability rights)' article and similar articles that purport to encompass the Inclusion movement generally. However, it's going to take time and effort by all of us to ensure that happens. 124.120.5.239 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic considerations

The {{Fact}} tag in the linguistics section is about the Latin, not about the relative popularity of the terms. Can anyone find a source that shows that abilitism is the most obvious term, as derived from Latin?

Actually, can anyone find a source that says we should care what the most Latin word would be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section. I can't find any source that talks about this and I don't see why it's important. Also is this still a neologism if it has been in use since the 80s? I think we should remove the "neologism" stuff from the lead. It's just a word coined the in 80s to describe a concept that has been around a lot longer. Do you agree with that change? futurebird (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any relevant sources either, which is why I posted the note here. My own opinion is that the word probably still counts as being "new" at this stage. It can take more than half a century for some words to quit feeling new, especially if it's not a word in everyday use. (I'd be happy to hear other people's perspectives.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disablism?

The term Disablism re-directs here, but I didn't see any discussion of it. My hunch is that it isn't a simple negation of ableism...if that's the case, it seems worth mentioning just to prevent confusion. Or at least, to prevent my confusion. ;)--216.62.101.13 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating question. Disablism could be either a synonym for ableism, or a word for a prejudice against able-bodied/able-minded people. Either way, we should figure it out if we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the US and the rest of the English speaking world have settled on different words to mean similar things. 'Disablism' is in common use by the UK based Disablity movement to mean xenophobia directed towards disabled people, while 'Ablism' is unheard of. Personally I'd prefer 'Ablism' to redirect to an article on 'Disablism', but in the absence of that the article should refer to both terms in parallel: DWG