Jump to content

Talk:Ableism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

Ideological issues

This section is predicated on a sentence tagged as unsourced since March 2008. Unfortunately if I removed the sentence now I would have to remove the whole section. Maintenance tags must be acted upon or the corresponding material may be removed. I will remove the section one week after any decision to keep this article unless this maintenance tag has been dealt with. Of course the content could be restored later with a proper reference. Since the sentence is rather verbose I have no idea on which source or sources it is based so it will be difficult for me to add a reference myself. --Mirokado (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The following text is a comment by 134.139.212.18 moved to the talk page. Yaris678 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

nazi's and the eugenics movement concerning disabilities are taken out of context. the relation between the two need to be explained more throughly and backed with verifiable evidence. you need to cite your references before posting random red herring statements.

original

Ableism only applies to physical disabilities?

I'm a person who uses the word ableism to refer to oppression of people with all disabilities including mental disabilities, and I know tons of other people who do the same. I feel a little silly saying that my personal experience should prove a Wikipedia article wrong, but this note isn't even footnoted/sourced: "The concept of ableism deals primarily with discrimination faced by those with physical disabilities. For details on the types of discrimination faced by those with emotional issues and similar, see Mentalism (discrimination). Discrimination against the developmentally disabled is not generally referred to as 'ableism.'"

Maybe the word mentalism is used by some people in the mad/psychiatric survivor movement but, as someone with a non-psychiatric mental disability, I've barely even heard that word. I know there is probably less published anti-ableism literature that is about mental disabilities, but that doesn't mean our experiences aren't included in the definition of ableism. I see no reason for this note to be in the article because no explanation is even given for why it is written or where the person who wrote it got this idea.

edited to add: if no one can answer me about this and explain where this idea is from, I'm getting rid of the note in a few days.Gorramdoll (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that notice wasn't right. I see in the end you only reworded it but I suspect it's right that it shouldn't be there at all. I thought they were really for when the exact same word was used for something else, to direct people to those articles or a disambiguation page. So I suggest it be removed after a while if no one disagrees.
I do think the issue needs to be summarised early on in the article though, to indicate there is some divergence of usage. I agree that terms like 'mentalism' and 'sanism' aren't in particularly widespread usage, but then neither does ableism seem to be in mental health (not sure about in the US but in UK the mh orgs just seem to go on at the public about 'stigma').
Also I think the lead needs to clarify that 'ableism' is a joining of able and ism, becuase it's really not clear to newcomers to the concept (or how you pronounce it). I did put that in a while back but it seems to have been taken out. EverSince (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ableism definitely applies to all disabilities. I'm involved in Disability Studies and I've noticed that it tends to focus on mobility and sensory disabilities, which could be how the impression came about, but ableism definitely applies. Developmentally disabled self-advocates often do refer to the discrimination they face as ableism. I've seen the term "neurotypicalism" used, generally on Tumblr, for neurological disabilities, but this article is the first time I've seen mentalism as well. Sanism I've seen in mad/psychiatric survivor communities. AlyHillary (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Campbell

The name "Campbell" appears in the article without any introduction. It cannot be assumed that everybody knows who Campbell is. 172.56.26.88 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to wrong page for Swedish language

The link to Swedish Wikipedia goes to "Diskriminering av personer med funktionsnedsättning", which translated is "Discrimination of people with disabilities". That article is not about ableism, not even remotely. It is only about discrimination with examples of how it can affect people with different disabilites and how it is defined in Swedish law. As there is no article for the Swedish equivalent of "ableism" on Wikipedia (the only possible - "funkofobi", roughly "disablophobia" - has been removed), I will remove this link if noone objects in 3 months. /140416

It's been almost 6 months and noone has objected. Removing the link now. /141009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.133.24 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Messy and hard to follow

Hi all,

This wiki page is really hard to follow along with, I would like to discuss some possible future changes to the page that we could work on to fix. For me the whole definition section doesn't really seem like a definition. Some of the references that are entered seem blocky and doesn't match the floor of the wiki page. I would like to make changes and edits to the page with discretion, I'll give a week for some options and if not I will just continue the edits myself. Some feedback and opinions would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetejerrett (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Handicapism

Two articles about a single topic, the only real difference is the terminology. "Ableism" is more commonly used in English, the Handicapism article was originally translated from German. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So in other word, ableism shouldn't be merged with handicapism but the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.133.24 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
They are about the same topic, and I also think mentalism should be merged under a subsection. But the "handicapism" article should be merged, definitely.
And yes, it should be that handicapism is merged into ableism. I've never heard the term "handicapism" being used prior to reading that Wikipedia page, so it wouldn't make logical sense to merge it the other way around. – Jordan Hooper (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard the term "handicapism". Many (but not all) people consider the term handicapped offensive and it's use is discouraged, by the American Psychological association[1]. On mentalism, while it is currently considered part of ableism, historically mental disabilities have experienced different forms of oppression, from people with physical disabilities and the idea that they should be seen as disabilities is relatively new. It might make more sense to create history section and link to mentalism there. Xttina.Garnet (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I just merged Handicapism into Ableism since it appears that discussion was had a while back. I do think the article needs some more adjustment though. Please feel free to jump in! Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the merge Jackiekoerner. I have done some cleanup but the article still has far too many "See also" entries, many of them are barely relevant, it should be trimmed down to only directly relevant links. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it right now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/nonhandicapping-language.aspx

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

Not convinced by this statement: 'However, ... most words employing the suffix "-ism" represent that the root of the word is that which is deemed privileged or superior in comparison with all other categories;' Sexism not that people with sex/gender deemed superior to those without gender. Racism / chauvism / transgenderism also fail to have root that reflects the group deemed superior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusgeek (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it ironic that a page about discrimination is so U.S./Eurocentric? JanderVK (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that's just Wikipedia. The majority of editors on the English Wikipedia are in the US or Europe and most editors will write about what they know. 108.171.128.169 (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ableism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Usage

Is it noted that instances of ableism may include equating disorders with characteristics of people without disabilities such as insults or directional evocations of frustration: "Cut the 'A.D.D.'!" or "You child with autism."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.229 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ableism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ableism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Review of Article

{@JButlerModaff} After reading through this article it was very difficult to follow. The article and the information in the article did not flow well to make it an easy ready. This is something that needs to be fixed. The article does seem to hold many opinions and emotion based arguments. The article could be edited to be more neutral in the information given. With the neutral will come more viewpoints that will be equally represented throughout the article. Most of the citations and links work, there needs to be cleaning up of the necessary links for the supported information. Some of the links are reliable neutral resources whereas there are a few that hold bias and are not stated within the article. This most definitely needs to be cleaned up. More information could be added on the background and the current up to date information as the article seems to be a bit outdated. The article is rated as a C and needs improvement but has a decent base. It is apart of a few wiki projects in accordance with the topic of the article. The article definitely needs some love, up to date information, cleaning up on the flow of the article and the checking of sources. Once edited it should be able to flow better so that readers, can easily read the article and better comprehend through the flow of the article. Those are some of the main needs I see for this article. Maddi.maas (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

CST 350 T/TH745: EVALUATING

The article hold relevancy as many organizations today are yet fighting for social equality among those disabled and abled. Overall it's pretty vague with historical context and definitions, and is in definite need of current information. The links within the citations worked. Viewpoints were lacking, very general, and more less favored the negative side of the topic than the proactive reform of today. References seemed ok, but could be improved. Current information and possible examples could be added. I saw that this page was almost deleted many years ago, and that many changes have already been made. There is not a lot of content, but what is available isn't organized optimally or pleasing for viewing. According to the rating standards, I would rate this page between a 0-1 as it provides a good frame of reference, but political correctness could be at risk.

Jacklyn B (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

After reading the article it seems there is a large focus on the history of ableism, such as legislation, but that history does not include recent relevant information. The article misses current research. The information jumps too from terminology to legislation, in no sensible way. Also as one of the previous links stated, this article could easily be combined with others to fit cohesively and broaden the information. As far as bias is concerned, the article does a good job not being opinionated however the number of links and cited sources could be increased. In general I think that the most important change that needs to occur is to have up to date research and information (of the past 10 years). Hennessy96 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

New pages involving ableism

Hello everyone! I'm Sanchu, and I'm a student at Rice University enrolled in a course about Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities. I am considering writing one of two articles: ableism in India, or ableism is the US health care system. For both of these articles, this page on Ableism would be a parent article. You can reference my user page for more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sraghuvir. Let me know if you have any suggestions! Sraghuvir (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Sraghuvir

Criticism

section urgently needed!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so too. Article need ARGUMENTATION, more powerful, than hints "nazi did so (ableism), that so is bad", and trend-"argumentation". Something about "unique value of each personality" and so on… Шао 666 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Trend is not argument: refrasing from Russian, "today this — trend, but tomorrow — Trump ;-) " Шао 666 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Internalised ableism

The article misses the concept of "Internalised ableism", where a disabled people oneself discriminate against oneself and other disabled by holding the view that disability is something to be ashamed of, or something to be hide, or by refusing to take accessibility or support. Internalised ableism may be a result of mistreatment with individuals with disability. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230245181_2 . It is a form of gaslighting from society. 2409:4061:70B:F80:E7:4F4A:12E7:2091 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent ableism

The article also misses a point that ableism often occur in a benevolent appearance where people treat the disabled person that they want well wish of the disabled person yet they may treat the disabled person like a child ("infantilisation") instead of considering them as full grown adults, ignoring disabilities, not respecting the life experiences of the disabled person, microaggression, not considering the opinion of the disabled person in important decision making, invasion of privacy or personal boundaries, forced corrective measures, unwanted help, not listening to the special needs, etc. Hostile, Benevolent, and Ambivalent Ableism: Contemporary Manifestations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:70B:F80:E7:4F4A:12E7:2091 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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).
FYI, I'm planning on doing a massive overhaul of this article over the next few months (it's one of my significant areas of interest) and I will be sure to address criticism. I think it's fair to present the disabledfeminists.com bloggers' concerns, since they are one of the main interest groups for this topic, but because this needs NPOV, I'll also discuss opposition to language policing. -- doorautomatica (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement is really clumsy: "An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’." By any definition non-disabled people are going to be considered standard or the norm, there's no getting around that. It'd make more sense to say that an ableist society generally fails to take the disabled into consideration, treats them poorly, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.195.151 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks criticism. It's an extremist point of view mixed with the actual consideration towards handicaped people. How can anyone compare a disability to an ethnicity as if it were a neutral or a good thing? 85.244.145.70 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is chock full of unsubstantiated opinion. The second paragraph is egregious:

  1. "In ableist societies, able-bodiedness is viewed as the norm": The vast majority of people are able-bodied, so able-bodiedness is the norm. This is a simple fact, not an opinion or viewpoint, and therefore not an indicator of an "ableist" society.
  2. "people with disabilities are viewed as deviating from that norm": people with disabilities do deviate from that norm. Again, this is a fact, not a viewpoint.
  3. "A disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix, for example through medical treatments.": If someone's quadriplegia could be cured through medical intervention, what kind of monster would not see it as something to overcome or to fix? On the flip side, many deaf people are happy being deaf, some even wanting to bear deaf children. But that doesn't change the fact that deafness is a disability that deprives the person of certain aspects of normal life and increases the hazards they face during daily living. How is it ableist to want to overcome or fix deafness?
  4. "The ableist worldview holds that disability is an error or a failing rather than a simple consequence of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.": Quadriplegia is not human diversity. It's a horrible condition that any sane person would see as a major impediment to a normal life, and which anyone with a shred of humanity would want to cure if at all possible. It's not at all like race, etc.
  5. The footnote is from a training manual for counsellors. There is no reference to any OR.
— Marcelocantos (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the statements need expanding or clarifying rather than removing completely as NPOV. For example for point 3 "A disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix" I think the part missing is something like "instead of finding ways to enable people to live with it". For an extreme (but genuine) example I've known some people to say that having wheelchair access everywhere encourages people to stay in wheelchairs instead of seeking treatment that might enable them to walk. For a more common and milder example if I tell someone my (mild) dyslexia makes the swirly fonts they like impossible to read and I would appreciate if they could use a clearer one on documents I need to read an ablist response would be "Well you need to work on that. Why don't you zoom in (FYI that doesn't work) or download the document, convert it to an editable format and then change the font?". Yes I can do that (I do use a number of coping strategies to help my reading), but it's putting all the onus on the disabled person to work around the barriers created, on the assumption that it will somehow help 'cure' their disability when in fact it's much more effective for someone else to put simple provisions in place. Basically it's saying there is no middle ground - the ONLY solution an ablist person will accept is fixing the disability, which leaves those people with incurable problems stuck. 108.171.128.169 (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I can conclude you, Marcelocantos, haven't studied or understood what for instance the medical model or social model of disability are. This is a simple fact, not an opinion or viewpoint, and therefor an indicator of that you should be more humble and study the subject before coming to a conclusion. Your long rant shows a lack of academic criticism.
Some examples:
"Quadriplegia is not human diversity. It's a horrible condition that any sane person would see as a major impediment to a normal life, and which anyone with a shred of humanity would want to cure if at all possible.": Of course it is a part of human diversity, just like being lefthanded, Asian, ignorant or (your choice) are. I'd say most of the persons with quadriplegia I know are leading good lives. Adaptation and transition is one thing, grief and giving up another. Do you honestly think people with disabilities go around mourning their situation? Here's EXACTLY one of the things you must learn from the difference between the medical and social model: Is the fact a person in a wheelchair cannot enter a store with a step in the entrance due to the wheelchair or the step? Is society built around that fictive norm you seem to like or not? Is society built for its citizens or for a white, 30-40 years old fit male, with no disability and a high salary?
You write "'A disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix, for example through medical treatments.'": If someone's quadriplegia could be cured through medical intervention, what kind of monster would not see it as something to overcome or to fix? On the flip side, many deaf people are happy being deaf, some even wanting to bear deaf children. But that doesn't change the fact that deafness is a disability that deprives the person of certain aspects of normal life and increases the hazards they face during daily living. How is it ableist to want to overcome or fix deafness?" > Second lesson on the medical model. The above does not talk about the view of the individual with a disability. It talks about how society - the ableist world - in error looks at/have looked at disability. You have misunderstood.
You also talk about norms as if they are "simply a fact". Did you know norms are not strict? They are relative. Anyway, here you have misunderstood once again. If we have a society which judges or treats persons out of that fictive norm I mentioned earlier, that society will not be for everyone. It will be a society where you encourage a "we" and "them" thinking, "we are normal" and "they are abnormal". People with disabilities are just one of the groups though. /161218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.23.138 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering disabled people as "normal" has a downside: it leads to invalidation of the struggles and rejection of support. It may cause internalised ableism. At some point it is necessary to "identify" (if not discriminate) the disability regardless its according to social model or medical model.

Basically society can do any 1 of 3 things.

1. identify but eliminate or pity (discriminate) (ableist) 2. Does not let identify and the special needs are "invisibilised" (Also ableist) 3. identify the disability and provide support and inclusion (not ableist)

2409:4061:70B:F80:0:0:1A4D:80A0 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeking employment

I wonder whether it can be more difficult for disabled people to find employment - I was informed recently that a recent Panorama programme was on this theme - and whether there should be a section on disability and job-seeking in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It definitely is- the U.S. government has statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm/ and http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/DisabilityEmploymentStatistics.htm are relevant and might be good as sources for the USA side of the problem. AlyHillary (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There have also been recent legal changes and updates around employers and disability - e.g. quotas in Argentina and Italy. References to these would help make the article more international as well. https://www.accenture.com/ar-es/careers/programa-sin-barreras for an example of an employer's response to society and government changes. Cesyavon (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I added content under workplace about accommmodation costs, including some research by my boss.MacResearcher (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

About the usage "the disabled"

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the current title of this article. The subject phrase "the disabled" is a poor construction for both grammatical and terminological reasons. A better construction would be "disabled people" or if people-first-language is preferred then "people with disabilities". Forcing a word that is normally an adjective "disabled" to function as a noun is poor grammar when alternatives exist that keep "disabled" as an adjective or else replaces it with the more standard noun form "disabilities". Roger (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have met lots of non-disabled people who thought that disabled people preferred "people first language," but I've never met a disabled person that actually did. I think the phrase "the disabled" is fine, both grammatically (an adjective can function as an implied collective noun like this) and otherwise. 2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:6FB7 (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ameliakeily.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddi.maas, Hennessy96, Jacklyn B.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adefr16, Megmccrady.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rustedmustard. Peer reviewers: Tanzakili1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caitisgr8. Peer reviewers: Kimchi Hart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Too much country-specific detail

This article is currently bloated with long paragraphs about individual countries, particularly the US. This article would be improved by moving most of such content out to more specific articles such as "Disability in <Country>" articles (see the list here) or perhaps entirely new "Ableism in <Country>" articles if there is enough content - Draft:Ableism in the United States is probably viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "too much" as much as "misplaced". A large part of the US and UK subsections of History seem to be lists of laws with brief descriptions of their stated purpose, but without the discussion of their actual effects on ableism, whether in mitigating it, enshrining some forms of it in law, or both. (BTW, your draft doesn't exist: is Abelism a typo for Ableism? They're not commutative.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
PauAmma Yes the US and UK sections content could be moved to Disability in the United States or Disability in the United Kingdom though much of it might already be there in some form or other. I fixed the draft link, thanks. No it does not exist yet, it's a deliberate WP:REDLINKredlink intended to prompt an interested editor to create it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
My sense is uneven, in many places too much, in others not enough, and parts would be clearer if moved to another place. I'd agree that some of the country-specific information might become separate articles rather than lists of laws, with perhaps other articles on India, Japan, China et.al. ([User talk: XFLQR [talk]]) XFLQR (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
XFLQR I agree, there is scope for much improvement of this article as well new articles or sections/paragraphs split out to other existing articles. Several of the "Disability in <Country>" summary articles already have sections on legislation and/or policies, but few if any discuss ableism as such.
New articles specifically about ableism in individual countries might be harder to justify, except perhaps in the US and a few other countries where disability activism is well established and the issues thoroughly examined, thus plentiful sources exist. Ableism is pretty much a universal issue though of course local culture influences the forms it takes in various communities - such as the differences between guilt, shame, and fear societies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyglisson, Brendalynfigueira, Nparbhu, Hmmitchellxo, Csheng88, Raineriskylar, Housnerisabel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jwendt22, Emgurrola33, Isabelleprimavera01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XFLQR (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Medicine, Race, and Gender

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyrensted, NesreenShah, Drh77 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: C7MP, Rennoelle.

Intended Edits:

We are planning to add two subsections under the "Healthcare" section in this article. The two subsections are going to be: "Ableism in Clinical Settings" and "Ableism in Healthcare Policy" which is going to include broad information as well as more detailed information on ableism in healthcare policy within prison systems and other systems of incarceration.

Ashleyrensted (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! We are also currently in the research and planning stage of our work for this article, and we expect to have a draft completed within the next three weeks. Please feel free to let us know if there are any questions or concerns. Drh77 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ashleyrensted @Drh77 @NesreenShah @Liliput000 Please see the section above about country-specific content as it (and bloat) remains an issue for this article. I'd be happy to give an "outsider" opinion about your draft. I'm a long-term Wikipedia editor with a particular interest in disability. (I'm one of the founders of WikiProject Disability - you are very welcome to visit the project page and participate in discussions there.)
Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you stay even after your current project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review of Ableism Page

I think this page does a good job of initially stating what ableism is as well as some of the common stereotypes and misconceptions there are in the world. At first glance there are a lot of different sections and the sections tie in well together to make a cohesive overview of the topic. I like the different sections comparing ableism in different countries and their policies. The section on ableism in the United States is also through and covers many different regulations and acts that were initiated. There is overall good tone and it remains pretty neutral with good sources as well! Jwendt22 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 105 SP 23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanaawest (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KeannaJEnglish (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ableism/Archive_1&oldid=1221502770"