Talk:Disability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

new push on this and similar articles[edit]

WikiProject Disability members and other active contributors to disability articles on Wikipedia should definitely be fleshing out articles like physical disability to be a lot more robust than a few measly lines. Neither physical disability nor any other type of disability is ever a minor topic on any level. I refuse to believe that I'm always going to have to be the one to do such things myself. Come on, all-- I want to see those besides Roger, Mirokado, myself, and a select assortment of other die-hards, really try to buckle down for a bit and slug away at this stuff, at least concerning the major topics like physical disability, disability and so on. I know there are others besides us die-hards out there-- if there's one major tendency I wanna see growing, it's the intensity of this stuff picking up a little bit of steam. I know you all can do it, lurkers. Pardon my bluntness, but really-- it's time. Get to work. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the Sensory disability section necessary?[edit]

In my opinion the details in this section are covered in the other sections regarding types of disabilities and the other sections have links to specific articles. Removing this section might make the article look cleaner. Russell Dent (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a sentence making it clear that some of the disabilities listed are subsumed under sensory disabilities. I'll add one. --Danger (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't do exactly that, but I hope that it's clearer after the fiddling I've done. Danger (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the heading "levels". Subsections under a 3rd level heading - === Heading === - should have 4th level headings - ==== Subheading ====, not 5th level headings.
The "problem" is that the "Sensory disability" section is the only one that currently has any subsections. The other sections such as "Physical disability" and "Intellectual disability" have yet to be developed to a comparable extent. If you look at the table of Contents the structure of the article is quite clear - see the way sections, sub-sections and sub-sub-sections are numbered with "#", "#.#" and "#.#.#" respectively. (Note that "first level" headings are never used within articles as the article title itself is such a heading and is created automatically when a page is created.) Roger (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

External Link to WhatDisability.com[edit]

I believe that a link to this site www.whatdisability.com would be beneficial to all readers. It is full of information, news, resource for the disabled and those who would like to learn more about disabilities. It talks about education, employment, Social Security, health Insurance, parenting, traveling, sports, ADA design, cures, and more...

MykellaH (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only relevant to people in the United States. Roger (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to post the same thing. It would be perfect if this article was Disability in the USA. But it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This article uses DMOZ for external links so you can add it there. Roger (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is a lot of information geared towards those with disabilities in the USA. But there is also a lot of news, resources and self help articles that can help people anywhere. For instance, The top ten companies for hiring persons with disabilities have positions in many different countries, and the video on instructors for disabled parents is from a service provided outside the USA. Many of the sports and trip resouerces are out of the country. Many of the cures are developed, tested and being used only in countries outside the USA. There is information about prosthesis that are only provided to persons in third world countries. Also seeing persons who have accomplished things when they have the same disability as you is encouraging regardless of what country they are in. The issues faced by persons with disabilities are universal and this website helps everybody solve these issues.MykellaH (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:NOT then put the link in DMOZ, it will then be accessible from here anyway. Roger (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just realised you might not know how DMOZ works. Open this link, then add your site in the most apropriate subsection. (Please indent your replies so that the flow of this discussion can be followed correctly.) Roger (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanksMykellaH (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Poverty and Disability Article[edit]

Please continue this discussion at WT:WikiProject Disability#Addition of Poverty and Disability Article. This topic is not about this article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am a Rice University student interested in expanding information on disability as it relates to poverty. Currently information on this topic is entirely absent from Wikipedia. The relationship between poverty and disability is especially important to explore given the likelihood that an individual will have special needs is far greater in environments where resources are the least conducive to accommodating their needs. I hope to expand knowledge on this correlation through the creation of a new article entitled “Poverty and Disability,” which I intend on linking to the current “Disability” article. More specifically, in the demographics section I plan to detail recent statistics evidencing the positive correlation between poverty and disability. Within the article I will look at this correlation in depth, in addition to exploring the impact of disability in areas of concentrated poverty, structures in place to address the needs of these populations, initiatives targeting those affected, and strategies to curtail this correlation. Much of my research at this time is rooted in findings of the United Nations, the British Department for International Development, and the World Bank, alongside numerous country-specific studies. I would greatly appreciate suggestions on any additional resources you recommend. I am very grateful for any input you can provide! Avo92 (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WT:WikiProject Disability#Addition of Poverty and Disability Article. It's best to keep the discussion on a single page - spreading it accross multiple venues creates confusion. The Project Talk page is also the better venue because the topic is not about this article specifically. Roger (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vehicle Adaptations[edit]

I added a section relating to Vehicle Adaptations that was reverted with the following explanation (I am new to editing Wikipedia).

Indented line. "I have noted there that the edits you made were not deleted as such, but rather reverted, the edits you made are still in the article history. The reason your edit was reverted was a concern over original research, that is, content that you have found out yourself, but which lacks sourcing or references. In most cases, adding relevant and "encylopedic" content that is in line with the policies of verifiability, no original research and neutrality will not wind up reverted, but adding reliable sources is important, often essential. You might want to discuss or propose changes at Talk:Disability, that is the "talk page" of the article that you edited.


I would like to provide some background to my "disability experience" & technical knowledge on this subject.

I am the father of a 30 yr old son born with Spina Bifida & hydrocephalus, he also has learning difficulties due to the hydrocephalus; curvature of the spine; Arnold Chiari malformation; Syrinx in the spinal canal; right side paralysis mainly of his arm; has had cronic cellulitis and now has Primary Lymphoedema of both legs and abdomen, apologies for this extensive list but I hope it explains my knowledge of a wide variety of Disabilites.

I am a Mechanical Engineer by qualification, although i now work in the IT dept of the same company, I have worked for one of the big three international automotive companies for 40 years. I am chairman of the companies UK disability & accessibility and am recognised internally in UK, EU & globally as an expert in disability for IT reasonable adjustments and also for vehicle adaptations. I have initiated a WEB centre of excellence internally for it developments to ensure accessible websites, and various other initiatives that I cannot mention here. I represented my company at the 2007 EU mobility debate organising by Motability, with UK & EU government support and keynote speakers http://support.car-adaptation.org/news/news-EMD.html

I have also been commitee member & treasurer of a local Spina Bifida organisation & have been involved with the ASBAH (now shine) national office & organisation over many years.

Through personal experience of getting my son through his driving test & getting a vehicle suitably adapted for him to drive independantly I believe I am uniquely qualified to contribute to this subject area, as I also have many contacts in the Vehicle Adaptation Business across EU & USA I can also get these specialist technical experts to potentially contribute to the topic of "Vehicle Adaptations".

I am proposing the inclusion of a section relating to Vehicle Adapations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability&diff=530588374&oldid=530580615

I would gladly start a new topic titled "Vehicle Adaptations" and link this into the disability article if it is felt more appropriate.

I would therefore like to get feedback from people interested in the Disability subject as to how best to move forward to initiate this topic area & even how one might best structure this, particularly if you are an experienced Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbridge276 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia ought to have an entire article about this subject. I'm sure that it would not be difficult to find sources for it. (You can see your previous edits to this article by looking at the bottom of the list at Special:Contributions/Dbridge276.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see the draft at WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Automobile modifications for drivers with disabilities and please feel free to work on it. Although there isn't much content in the draft there is quite a lot of discussion on it's talk page. You're also welcome to join WP:WikiProject Disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected citations[edit]

This edit attempted to add the following citation to the article, but I can't find anywhere for the corresponding inline. I have corrected the article by restoring the previous citations. Other editors could consider whether this would in fact be helpful here or elsewhere (with or without the sfn stuff as appropriate).

{{sfn|RAND|1998}}
* {{cite web |author=RAND |year=1998 |title=Compensating Permanent Workplace Injuries |url=http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9029/index1.html |publisher=RAND |accessdate=January 3, 2014 |ref={{sfnRef|RAND|1998}} }}
RAND (1998). "Compensating Permanent Workplace Injuries". RAND. Retrieved January 3, 2014.

--Mirokado (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Added Info[edit]

Dear Editor,

I've been working on a page gearing specifically to employment and disabilities, I think I have some information to expand on the employment section. Link to page employment (disabilities). Since a page on topic already exist, the page I had created breaks on the laws of disambiguation. Any suggestions on what to do with information, comment on the page's talk page. Thanks.

--KierraA. (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence[edit]

Can someone fix the opening sentence of this article? It makes no sense: "Disability is conceptualised as the interaction between barriers and impairments." Maybe replace it with the one from the "Types of disability" sections: "The term "disability" broadly describes an impairment in a person's ability to function, caused by changes in various subsystems of the body, or to mental health." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Along with some other people, I started to edit this -- and quickly the whole entry began to fall apart. Our issues with the entry stem from the fact that it doesn't clearly explain that "disability" is a concept with a history; that the term means different things within different institutions and contexts; and that the community of people it refers to have generated their own body of knowledge about the concept itself. In light of that, we are editing the entry quite heavily. However, it probably won't be complete for at least a week or two, so please be patient with us. Dr. red pill (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill

I don't think your edits are an improvement so far. The WHO definition at least made sense, and matched what the article said. You may be going about this backwards. The lead should summarize the article. If you feel changes need to be made to the article, go ahead and do that, then write a lead that summarizes what you've said. As it is now you can't read the lead and have any kind of understanding as to what disability is. For example, there are plenty of things the medical community would view as needing to be fixed that no one would consider to be a disability, like gunshot wounds, heart attack, or insulin shock. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kendall, Thanks for your feedback. I'll be working on the entry some more tomorrow with a group of editors and we'll incorporate what you've said.Dr. red pill (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill
The "contested term" discourse should be in its own section, perhaps titled "Definitions", seeing as there are so many. The lead must comply with WP:LEAD, as a summary of the entire article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with following lead guidelines and summation needs, but I feel the lead does accomplish that, just in a manner that isn't formatted in the same order as the page currently is. For example, the "contested" discourse, while needing to be focused on the concept and not the term, can be see in the innumerable examples of disability models listed, etc. Seeing as the page has been marked for edits in various ways, the summary serves perhaps, as a more cohesive explanation of the fragmented page, as of this moment. Dinostarus (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as a person living with a mobility impairing disability, I see the word "normal" as a trigger which could have a maladaptive social effect because the first sentence of this article is the first definition you see when you search Google for "disability." The emphasis on lack of impairment as "normal" and the emphasis on "limited" or "prevented from participating in "normal" everyday society" reads as ablist to me. I would like to offer the following first sentence: "Disability is the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these that result in a necessity for adaptation to a less common and differing "normal" in order for an individual to participate for equal social and monetary gains in everyday society."Euphoriafish (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't like that because it makes no sense to me. Can we just go with the WHO definition? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted this because it makes no sense. I don't like the old wording either, because it doesn't say what "disability" is. But it does make sense. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My issue with the WHO definition is that it stresses the word "normal." My disability is completely normal to me; it wasn't an accident or sudden damage to my life that made me less than I ever was but is a slower progressive condition that occurs as I age. Like aging, which is itself normal. To define disability as a restriction that prevents you from being normal is damaging to disabled individuals and I don't think just because an organization defines it that way makes it the ideal or correct way. Organizations and definitions need to reflect the current time we live in where public perception is the biggest barrier to participating as normal in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.83.75 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could lead with the UNCRPD's definition given in Article 1:"Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." (My emphasis) It hits all the social model's "keywords".Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The opening line still appears problematic. The statement "A disability is an impairment", though in line with some definitions, does not definitively describe disability, as it doesn't accommodate the social model, and other models, as discussed later on the page. ClivePIA (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I tried an edit which acknowledged that this definition is widely held, but is not definitive? ClivePIA (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense[edit]

Doesn't make sense -- something's missing:

  • "For example, in 2012, the World Health Organization estimated a world population of 6.5 billion people. Of those nearly 650 million people were estimated to be moderately or severely disabled."

--Hordaland (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hordaland - The way I read it: In 2012 the WHO estimated that nearly 10% of the world's total population had a moderate to severe disability. It seems quite clear to me, unless I'm missing something. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, thanks. I'll add a comma after "Of those". --Hordaland (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Aha! yes, the punctuation could definitely be better. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed entire "See also" list.[edit]

Per the guideline on "See also" lists nothing that is already linked elsewhere in the article should be included in a "See also" list. That disqualified most of the listed links. None of the remainder were globally significant articles of vital direct relevance to the subject of this article. Thus the entire list is now gone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to the 'Types of Disability' Section[edit]

Reading through this article I have come across a few issues that I would like to talk about fixing with this particular section of the page.I think it is necessary to make some changes concerning how the individual categories and sub categories of the 'Types' section are represented. Along with making changes to the categories, we also need a citation to the authoritarian source that has established these categories. I believe that it is crucial that this section is looking at these disabilities in the medical model, or add the social model as well so the section is inclusive. I also think it would do this section some good to add more uniformity to the language used. I have also noticed that some of the citations seem out of date and/or lacking and would like to update and add these.

I am also curious if anyone else believes that it may be a good idea to move the section down in the article?

Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section does not do enough to explain the particular model for disability categorization it is using. Also, Whitneywhirl, perhaps you mean "expert," not "authoritarian"?

Dr. red pill (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the need to be more clear about the model of disability. And there should definitely be better citations and a good source for the list of types of disability. If you have the sources, I say go for it Whitneyrwhirl. Amvrana (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The "disability" vs "impairment" terminology needs to be made more consistent. Often when we use the word "disability" (for example in the "Types of" section) we are using it in the medical model sense, as a synonym for "impairment." Other times we use it in the social model sense, as a consequence of impairment. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the niceties of the differences between the medical and social models are difficult to keep straight when writing for a general audience who are not familiar with the theoretical basics. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all thank you for the responses, I'm glad that we can agree that it needs to be clarified that we are looking at this from a medical point of view. At the moment I am researching the categorization issue. I am interested in the source that the categories came from because I am currently not seeing any sourcing. Can anyone point me in the direction of the expert source the types were drawn from? I have found the IDEA categories of disabilities (autism, deaf - blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments including blindness. My only issue with the IDEA categories is the fact that the types are based on children, and while this can be applicable to adults as well may not be the best source. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. I'll bet the types accumulated organically over the years as various editors swooped in and added their own pet type. I would urge you to be bold and re-organize this section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1 - the current hierarchical "taxonomic tree" structure of the section is largely my doing - I tried to sort them into a logical sequence by e.g. grouping the sensory impairments under a heading. However, as you've noted, the arrangement has suffered from some entropy since I sorted it several years ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Whitneyrwhirl are we sure we really want to approach the "list" from the Medical POV? In the post London 2012 Paralympics world maybe the general reader might be ready to grasp the essence of the social model? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like to make a bold suggestion if I may. I have been reading 'Sorting Things Out: Classification and it's Consequences', where a strong point to the book is that often times a classification system is in place by societal standards and it may not be obvious or evident where the structure came from. I believe this is what has happened here in the types section. I would like to boldy suggest that we do away with the section all together. Although I believe people are ready for the social model, my thinking behind the idea is to let the individual on the page determine themselves what they consider to be a disability, considering individuals who view the page may have an issue with the types since they are not cited. Without a clear cut source of where the medical or social classification of the types came from I have a hard time wanting to leave it on the page since we can not cite it. I think we can take the types down and let individuals decide for themselves by using the rest of the page what they do or do not consider a disability in their mind. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I received no feedback, I assume my bold idea is not contested and deleted the entire types section. Personally I do not feel that it added value to the page without proper citation, along with the fact that depending on who is looking at the page, what is or is not considered to be a disability may be an issue. As previously stated I believe that individuals viewing the page can determine for themselves what they consider to be a disability without having to lay it out for them. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Whitneyrwhirl, this has removed a "blockage" that has hindered the development of this article for a long time. Removing the section has (imho) created an opportunity for us to work on improving coverage of the "contested concept" discourse, as discussed a couple of sections up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we consider moving the entire section about the medical vs. social model (and perhaps the accompanying list of models) higher up in the page? It seems to me many of us are noting that without clarifying this front and center, further down the page things get muddied. It might then help to prepare readers for what follows regarding terminology. I'm also not entirely understanding why the terminology part is located in the "sociology of disability" section. "Terminology" falls more under "rhetorics of disability" than it does under "sociology." Unless the point is that terminology reflects its sociohistorical moment -- but that then needs a better framing here. Dr. red pill (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disability and Identity[edit]

Hey everyone. I want to propose a new section I would like to add to the page titled "Disability and Identity". This section would be created with the intent of discussing the subjective experiences of marginalization faced by persons with disabilities that are currently absent from the page. Currently, most of the stuff on this page discussing marginalization of PWD focuses on concrete issues of accessibility. Instead, this section would concentrate more on the stigma often faced by persons with disabilities and how the media creates and reinforces harmful ableist stereotypes, e.g. through inspiration porn, supercrip stories, disabled villains ect. Also included would be subsections about how disability interacts with other social categories that PWD may belong to. These subsections would be "Disability and Race", "Disability and Gender"(which would replace the not really sociological "masculinity" and "femininity" sections under "Disability and Sociology"), and "Disability and Sexuality". Let me know if ya'll like or dislike this idea or if you have any suggestions! Mattokamagic (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this is an important section to add to the page. As of now the page itself is flooded with MPOV (Medical Point of View), and I feel that it is just as important to display the Social Point of View by it's side since earlier in the page it is mentioned that disability can be looked at in two ways the medical model, and or the social model. This section will create an interesting parallel to the pre existing medical pov sections. Whitneyrwhirl (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disability rights and political issues[edit]

I am going to be adding citations and new sourced content to the sections at the bottom of the page, particularly those concerned with political issues and the disability rights movement. As I'm breaking these sections down, I'm having trouble finding a good reason to have "Discrimination, government policies, and support" and "Political issues" as separate sections as they overlap and both cover the same broad issues of discrimination and disability rights. I would like the community's opinion on combining these two sections into one, possibly titled "Disability rights and political issues." This makes things much easier as there is information I would like to add that does not go definitively into one section over the other as the page currently is. Thoughts? Amvrana (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I definitely feel that combining those two sections would be a good way to clean up the page.Mattokamagic (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mental disability history[edit]

I had previously contributed to the history section. I added about 2k plus characters worth of mental health history which was then completely deleted from the page for the following reason:

"Remove an WP:UNDUE paragraph about a single issue in only one country that was a third of the entire section, it was also chronologically misplaced" 

This deletion of my contribution is completely uncalled for and frankly it feels like a personal attack on my ability to contribute to the page. I will address each problem: Mental Disability is a single issue true, I guess, but it is an important issue that needs attention and ought to have a place in the history section. The history I wrote is specific to the US yes that's true but have you read the rest of the history section? It is literally only about the US and Europe. What makes mine worth deleting for that specific reason and keep the rest of the history section? Finally, yes it is chronologically misplaced but that's because I did not want to interrupt the flow that the previous author had made and if this was truly an issue than why not just rearrange my contribution? It takes up a third of the page, yes I'm being thorough how is that a problem.

This feels like a personal attack on my ability to contribute to the page because there was literally zero effort at improving my contribution. Rather than ask me to address or try to fix any of the issues that were listed as reasons for the removal of my contribution the User simply erased my edit. You might as well tell me that my voice is not wanted on this page.

I want to re-add my contribution under a subsection on the history page because it has a place on this page and if you disagree please talk to me here. I currently rewriting the page so give me time and I will add the re-written section here before I put it up on the main page. silvalejandro (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@silvalejandro I believe it would probably be a better fit in either the Mental health or Mental disorders articles. This article is about disability in the broadest possible sense - it only very superficially mentions various specific narrower issues. Your contributions are indeed valued, but you must consider the broader interests of Wikipedia as a whole. We have more than 5 million separate articles and there's unlimited room for more, it is not necessary to cram everything into a single page. As it is this article is already getting close to the upper limit of article page length (100kB of readable text). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with Roger. There is already a section Intellectual_disability#History: please have a look at that too, for an example of range and depth of coverage and space allotted to each point made in an overview section. It also looks as if you would have to attribute any opinions stated to the author concerned and perhaps include other views of other experts for balance. --Mirokado (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dodger67 First of all thank you for written confirmation that you do not want my contribution on this page and for at least trying to give a real reason as to why. (rather than your previous list of random things you do not like about my edit) I'm glad you did a 360 on your reasoning for deleting my original contribution. That being said I still do not see your reasons as valid. If you genuinely have a concern for the length of wikipedia pages than why did you suggest I post my edit on pages that are longer than the disability page? and how is my contribution specifically an attempt to cram things on to the page yet no one else's contributions are considered in that manner? Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough but my edit is about how mental illness first became classified as a disability. It germane and important to this page and I will rewrite it to make it more clear and I will include it on the disability page.

[User:silvalejandro|silvalejandro]] (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with @silvalejandro here. I think that a historical outline of how mental illness came to be understood as disability is clearly noteworthy even within the broader discussion of disability. I don't see why ya'll would have a problem with with this being in the history section. Seems like an important topic to hit. Mattokamagic (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Disability and aging[edit]

This section exemplifies issues on this page where the medical and social models -- and that they grow out of ableism and healthism -- are not being explicitly named as such, and so it contains contradictory frames. The first part explains that because disability is denigrated and everyone experiences some diminishment in capacities as they age, aging and its accompanying diminishment are stigmatized. This implies that ablelism/healthism creates the condition for such stigmatization. Then the second part appears to give advice about how such diminishment can be avoided or decreased. Yet this is a healthist/ableist model itself. Can anyone see a quick fix to mitigate this conflict? Mattokamagic, perhaps you could address this? Dr. red pill (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Right, so the bit after the quote that you're referring to was added on March 29th. I'll just go ahead and undo that edit and fix the issue. Mattokamagic (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

More info for Demographics Worldwide needed[edit]

I am currently working on adding more information in the US subsection of demographics worldwide. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find status reports outside of the US so any information regarding disability in other countries is welcome and encouraged!J.carrillo (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disability. 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}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.
--Mirokado (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disability and the workforce[edit]

Is there a way to slim down this section a bit? I feel that there may be a little too much information in this one section alone, considering that this page is essentially trying to provide brief introductions of a broad range of information on the various aspects of disabilities. Also, why is "Disability and disasters" a subsection of this section? The content is completely unrelated to employment. I think it should have its own section. I am new and I really don't want to mangle anything so I won't touch it myself until I feel a little more confident, but I'd like to ask all the other, more experienced editors about your opinions regarding this matter. RelaxedBear (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. - Boldly closing as no valid reason has been presented for moving - In short we can't please everyone on the planet!. –Davey2010Talk 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)



DisabilityDifferbility – Title is offensive to people who are differently abled. It is saying that they are not able. 2602:306:3653:8440:1489:75F4:7B01:3AE6 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Please read up on our policies before proposing a move. Wikipedia doesn't change the title of an article just because it makes people "feel bad".  ONR  (talk)  17:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disability. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disability. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)