Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability/Style advice

Thanks for the invite.

I've watchlisted this. My only interest in autism is through some acquaintances and a niece. I advocate for awareness/understanding about circadian rhythm disorders which are invisible and can be debilitating. See the non-profit organization Circadian Sleep Disorders Network. --Hordaland (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hordaland - This isn't about Autism per se, it's about disability in the broadest sense. I think there is room for guidance on writing about invisible disabilities in general - insofar as it differs from the general case. Do people who have invisible disabilities have particular preferences about how they and their conditions are referred to and discussed? Please feel free to jump in anywhere you feel you can contribute. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Derived from invisible disabilities is the concept of coming out or in some cases being outed without permission. It is similar to the idea of coming out as gay. The general rule is "never out someone without their permission." Muffinator (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Symptoms

A recent edit by Roger (Dodger67) removed "scare quotes" in favor of italicizing key phrases. Although I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's general formatting guidelines, I would like to express a disagreement about one instance: "symptoms" of autism. The reason quotes were originally used is that autism is not a disease or disorder and therefore should not be discussed in terms of symptoms. Rather there are different autistic traits or tendencies that each autistic person may present at varying intensity or not at all. Muffinator (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did strip out the quotes in a somewhat wholesale manner, so I would not oppose returning one if it is really justified. Perhaps using traits or tendencies instead of "symptoms" would be better? (I think traits would fit the sentence.) The article Scare quotes explains their use and abuse quite well. BTW, I'm off to bed now, it's been a long day for me. I've had fun editing here with you today. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"When discussing autism, one should avoid referring to traits as symptoms because doing so frames autism as if it were a disease" Is this point worth mentioning on the main page? Muffinator (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes it is - but it's actually true of many impairments/disabilities, not only autism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Opposites

This is shaping up really well. Would it be a good idea also to tackle the question of language for the opposite of a disability, where this too may also have the right or the wrong connotations? The sort of thing I mean is words like: able-bodied, seeing/sighted, hearing. What is the opposite of autistic, and what do we call someone who isn't an autie? And so on. --Stfg (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

While this idea of opposites may not warrant its own article, I definitely think it's appropriate to include in a style guide. I believe there is some debate over whether able-bodied is acceptable, as well as the more general abled. Another derived term is able-passing, in other words concealing one's disability. Hearing as an adjective is definitely an accepted term in Deaf culture to refer to the non-deaf, and it would stand to reason than sighted (not seeing) would work the same way. The opposite of autistic is allistic, although it's worth mentioning that neurotypical is often used mistakenly when the speaker means to say allistic. The opposite of neurotypical is neurodivergent or neuroatypical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinator (talk • contribs) 07:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "able-bodied" is deprecated by, amongst others, the NCDJ style guide but (strangely IMHO) the International Paralympic Committee style guide calls it an acceptable term. BTW, "temporarily able-bodied" (often abbreviated to "tab") is used as an intentional put-down by disabled people against people who discriminate against them - it is used to remind them that they could easily join the group they are discriminating against. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what the NCDJ or APA suggest as an alternative to able-bodied? Muffinator (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The NCDJ offers "non-disabled" as an acceptable alternative. (I was mistaken about the APA guide, it doesn't mention the term at all.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree with Muffinator that this doesn't need a separate article, but "neurotypical" is a good example of why this style guide could usefully address opposites (perhaps just a brief note in each section): a poor choice of opposite can (usually unwittingly, I'm sure) say something unintended about the impairment/disability itself. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Functioning labels

I'm working on a subsection of autism to talk about functioning labels. Does the high/low-functioning dichotomy apply to any other disabilities? Perhaps the mild/moderate/severe scale of retardation also deserves a mention. Personally, I'm not familiar enough with retardation-related sentiments within the disability community to offer an opinion. Muffinator (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Retardation is one of the most contentious of all the issues we need to discuss here. In some countries laws have actually been passed to ban the use of "retarded" and "retardation" in government documents. Here on WP the debates around related articles have been long drawn out affairs. These developments are quite recent so many style guides have not yet caught up.

I'm not sure about the general application of "high/low functioning" but we should say something about quadriplegia/tetraplegia. Many people are under the impression that quadriplegia necessarily means that the person has no functioning at all below the neck (Christopher Reeve is an example), however the actual definition is a person who has any impairment in at least three limbs. Injuries to the lower neck result in loss of function in some arm and hand muscles - some people whith such injuries can even walk to some extent. This misunderstanding has been at the root of edit wars about the rules of Wheelchair rugby - with uninformed editors simply not believing that only quadriplegic people are allowed to play in serious competition. One of the well known players Mark Zupan has a low neck injury, he can walk to some extent and his hand impairment involves only the fourth and fifth fingers of both hands (controlled by the ulnar nerve). It seems the more we do here the more we still need to do! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what medical sources say, but OED online defines quadriplegia as "Paralysis of all four limbs; an instance of this." [1] and tetraplegia as a synonym of this [2]. Considering the standing of the OED and the obvious etymology, I think we're going to find it hard to persuade people to write as if it meant anything less than paralysis of all four limbs. Even if we do, we're writing for readers who don't read the style guides, and most readers will understand those terms as meaning at least all four limbs; many will think it means total paralysis from the neck down, as you warn. Is there a general issue here about how we deal with terminology that professionals use one way and the general public understands in another, and does Wikipedia have an approach to it? I'm not aware of one. --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be touching on the subject of disability binarism, the misconception that a person is either affected completely by a disability's most extreme form, or not disabled at all. This page's wheelchair section already addresses this in a general sense. The deafness section might be improved as well. All the lay-reader needs is an explanation to go along with the technical term. The article on Mark Zupan states "Zupan has incomplete quadriplegia and is able to walk for short distances with crutches." and I believe this is the style we want to encourage. Muffinator (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The words you added about that a few minutes ago are very good. Roger said above that the number of limbs for quadriplegia is at least three, but the OED says all four (as does the Wikipedia article), and I wanted to be clear whether this was a typo or something else. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry! It's the rules of wheelchair rugby that say "at least three". (Note to self: Proofread before hitting the "Save page" button.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the terminology, Muffinator. When I fed "disability binarism" into Google it gave me this - http://thatcrazycrippledchick.blogspot.ca/2013/12/this-is-what-disability-binarism-looks.html - the title of the blog is of course an example of appropriation as discussed in the next section below. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That blog is full of good stuff! About "inspiration porn", [About "cripple"] and so on. It's really worth a leisurely browse when you have the time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Cripple, crip, etc.

We need to address in-group slang such as "crip". While "cripple" is practically universally deprecated the derivative "crip" is in-group slang used among (mostly mobility) impaired groups as a self identification label. Insiders use "crip" but outsiders and formal speech should not. The process is known as reappropriation. "Aspie" is another example. A well known example is the sometimes controversial use of "nigger", usually spelled and pronounced "nigga", by African Americans in informal speech and rap/hip-hop lyrics.

"Cripple" does however have currency as a metaphor in contexts unrelated to disability. It seems to be particularly used in business/ economics and sport news writing: "Mathis' absence is a crippling blow to an already inept Colts pass rush." and "Global steel glut may cripple U.S. industry". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsection of "Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill" perhaps? Muffinator (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree and what happened to gimp? Wheelies, stickies, wobblies...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Information about disability ≠ Style guide

We are currently throwing a lot of information about different aspects of disability and related topics onto the draft page, but are we writing an actual Style guide yet? The draft is beginning to resemble the Disability article. At some point we need to start distilling the information down to actual guidance and advice for WP editors. I'm not saying that collecting information is bad, it's an essential stage in the process. We just need to ask ourselves if what we are collecting on the page is really relevant to answering style and language use questions that WP editors may have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is why I tried to emphasize specific terminology in my last contribution. There is a lot of value to explaining why certain terminology is preferred, but I agree that individual sections are getting verbose. In my opinion we should continue adding until the page resembles some state of completion and then start cutting out unnecessary exposition. Muffinator (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time professionally and personally in multiple costumer driven corporations mostly in the Southern California/Central Florida areas. They are very conscientious about treating all people with respect and dignity, as their business models' depend on it. All of these organizations train their employees to use Person First Language. While it may not work for Wikipedia I thought I would share a little of what they do.

As I said it is people first language:

• Person with a non-apparent disability
  

• Person who is autistic
  

• Person who is dyslexic
  

• Person with a auditory disability

• Person who is deaf
• Person who is hard of hearing

• Person with a visual disability

• Person with limited site abilities
• Person who cannot see
• Person who is blind

• Person with a mobility disability

• Person who is in a wheelchair
• Person who requires mobility assistance
• Person who utilizes a walker

These are not all the examples and the different companies have their own specific wording that they encourage, however I think this would give a good start if this is the way the community decides to go.VViking_TalkEdits 00:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this and must note their are huge national differences - UK uses disabled people not people with. UN discusses this. Article for "services for the disabled" I think is a general fail. One article uses persons with disability next sentence disabled people.

Request for comments? Signal boost?

So far at least 90% of the edits to this page have been made by either Roger or myself. While I believe we have each made excellent additions, Wikipedia is community-driven and is constantly improved by the contributions of many. Does anyone know of any appropriate and effective ways to get more people involved? Muffinator (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitations to participate have been posted to a variety of WikiProjects and other pages - we can't force people to come. Maybe we should ping everyone who has posted at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide before the two of us got started on the draft itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think a small number of drafters is better than a large number potentially pulling in different directions, having edit conflicts, etc, at least at the initial drafting stage. Committees and camels, and all that. That's one of the two reasons why I haven't edited the page directly (the other being that I'm not an expert on the topic, but a potential user of this guide, as I do a lot of copy editing). It will need tweaking later, I expect, but you guys are doing pretty well at this stage, imo. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have university exams to attend to for the next few weeks so I'm not going to be around for a while - please do continue. We need to start looking directly at what other style guides say (I listed a few on the Project Talk page) and source some material directly from them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I just drafted some language about categorization here. My suggestion is, we work the categorization guidance into the EGRS guideline, and then have a short reference and link out to it from this style guide, since the categorization guidance is very similar to how we treat gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Can we use "abled"?

Personally, I find "non-disabled" a bit gross as it implies some sort of "normal" that "disabled" is therefore a deviation from. Having terms that don't reference each other for each of two possible conditions avoids giving undue preference of one group of people, as opposed to maintaining neutrality. However, I am not certain that "abled" meets the criterium wide use to be considered plain English. Muffinator (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your uncertainty ;) The Oxford English Dictionary recognises "abled", but it has rather a feeling of jargon about it, doesn't it? Perhaps we shouldn't object to it, but could encourage the use of alternatives where possible without awkwardness. For example: "This impairment is translated into disability only when the person encounters a situation that prevents them from doing something that non-disabled other people can do, such as entering a building with steps but no ramp."

By the way, you're doing great work here. Thank you for it. --Stfg (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I can definitely polish the draft with that in mind, although I'm not sure how to advocate for observing the practice elsewhere, or if that should even be done. Muffinator (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Abled" is gruesome English, and it's not our job here to advocate for anything. Where I come from (Australia) "able bodied" is the common alternative to "disabled". Does it not work elsewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Abled" and "able-bodied" are not the same. "Able-bodied" refers only to physical disabilities. An abled person is both able-bodied and neurotypical. Muffinator (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

People/children with special needs

This page is important; I'm glad you are writing it. A couple of thoughts (and related anecdotes):

I don't know how people/children/parents react to calling someone a "special-needs kid". I don't care for it, but it is very commonly used in schools and often heard in other situations. The kids, both those who do and those who do not have special needs, hear it all the time. It replaces 'retarded', of course, and also autism, blindness & more. Worth mentioning -- or replacing?

Then there is the wheelchair. Above, "person in a wheelchair" is suggested. I don't care for that either. I think that's because it suggests being in that chair 'round the clock and always (like in a cage, almost). I prefer "person who uses a wheelchair" (John uses a wheelchair). That will also apply to the people who use a wheelchair only sometimes.

I've been a public school teacher (K - 7) in Norway - that's where my anecdotes are from. I do not like at all the way wheelchair users are spoken of here. Words get said without considering what they actually say. Would you believe "person chained to a wheelchair"? I cringe whenever I hear it. Then there's special needs. In that, Norwegian is a bit better than the English, I think, at least re children. We say that a child has "learning difficulties" (either specific such as dysleksia, or general). Using that term, one is forced to use the person-first style. OTOH, adults who haven't gotten over their 'difficulties' are "psychic-developmentally handicapped".

[This got longer than intended...] --Hordaland (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the current state of this draft already addresses the issues of wheelchair-related language. The replacement of "confined" and "bound" with "user"/"uses" is advocated.

Anecdotally, I believe I've read some criticism of "special needs" stating that everyone has different needs, so calling one group special is discriminatory. However, this doesn't appear to be a highly prioritized or hot-button issue, so I don't know how many sources you can find on it. Muffinator (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Wheelchair user" or the abbreviation "wheelie" work well in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "wheelie" used formally or informally? If it's formal, it should definitely be mentioned in the guide. Muffinator (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's just informal, but very common. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in Australia, but not in the UK. It also has another, unrelated meaning and a use in wheelie bin. Better avoided. --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A term that is only used in one country is still useful to mention, with a note about which country it's from. On the other hand, motorcycle stunts and garbage containers may cause some confusion. I recommend reading the policy on National varieties of English. Muffinator (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Muffinator, I'm very familiar with WP:ENGVAR, but please also see the immediately following subsection WP:COMMONALITY and also note WP:COLLOQUIAL. There should be no need to mention one country's informal term specifically, when the general-purpose guidelines already cover it. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope my earlier comment didn't come off as patronizing. I happened to find ENGVAR through a search and thought it might be useful to mention the appropriate guideline. The reason I say term could be mentioned is one of the following sections, Strong national ties to a topic, which suggests that we might use wheelie in an article with a title along the lines of "wheelchair access in Australia". Muffinator (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. But if we try to catch and document all such informal terms that occur in all significant national varieties of English, we'll be here for the rest of the decade, and the guideline will become massive. Worse, we'll be inviting never-ending debates on every fine detail of terminology, and contributing to instruction creep. By the way, WP:STRONGNAT, to which you've just linked, is part of MOSNUM, and only applies to dates. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that terms like wheelie stickie are self referential like nigga and are used informally by people themselves but they are not generally informal terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

"Assistive device user"

The assistive devices section currently states: "In most cases the construct <name of the device>-user is preferred." Thinking about the various possible cases: Walking frame user, crutch user, hearing aid user, white cane user. These sound somewhat odd. "Most cases" seems a little too bold. I believe that "person"-first language applies here, making "person who uses <name of the device>" more common. Muffinator (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, and have changed that sentence to read "In most cases, constructs such as <name of the device> user or people who use <name of the device>s are preferred." I don't think we should be prescriptive about what syntax to use in any of the cases. Better to let the writer choose the phrasing that best suits the rest of the sentence. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

May be preference but avoid user? "service user" etc. Isn't it management jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 12:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Treating autism as a disorder (or not)

I've removed {{Citation needed}} tags because this is a draft guideline, not an article. But the statement that autism is not a disorder is unsound. Please see ICD-10 F84.0. I realise that calling it s disorder may inflame some sensibilities, but we need to think of a way of handling this that doesn't contradict the medical literature. --Stfg (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the autism guideline should be a separate page. The section is becoming very large compared to the rest of the page. The "it's not a disability/disease" POV (widely prevalent within Autism advocacy orgs) further reinforces the point that perhaps it doesn't belong here. Perhaps the new Autism WikiProject could take it over and develop it further. It might be a good way to get that Project up and running. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If and when the Autism wikiproject gets off the ground and if they then want to take it over, we could replace the present version with a summary of theirs, with a {{Main}} pointing to it. Until then, there's some good material in the present draft which we shouldn't lose. Another point to recognise it that there's a difference between writing about autism from a medical perspective, and writing about an autistic person. In the former case, since the medical literature refers to disorders, so do we, as in our Autism article. That fits with the ICD-10 reference above and with three of the titles listed by John Carter in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#New page: WikiProject Autism (draft). When writing about people, it seems best to avoid the term. How about some formulation such as: "When writing about autism from a medical perspective, it may be appropriate to refer to a "disorder". When writing about people or communities, bear in mind that many do not consider autism to be a disorder, and it is usually better to avoid that term." --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggested on talk:Autism that autism-first language be used for articles about the autism rights movement, because this appears to be the preferred language of the movement, similarly on BLP's, it seems we should refer to people as "autistic man" instead of "man with autism", if that is how the person prefers to be referred to; however, on articles about autism the medical diagnosis, or articles that just refer to autism in general, we should use people-first language (ie "children with autism"), because this is standard for diagnosed conditions, and this is the language used by reliable sources. Additionally, saying that members of the autism rights movement do not consider autism a disorder would seem appropriate, but simply stating "autism is not a disorder" would not seem appropriate, because this contradicts reliable sources, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready to remove "draft" status?

The current draft seems to cover every major subject. There is a respectable intro, and all editorial notes have been replaced with the content those notes called for. I think this page is ready to submit for review. Muffinator (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's good to go for review sooner rather than later. Would you be happy to remove the [dubious; see talk page] notes in the Autism section? Also, the term I've seen is autistic spectrum disorder rather than just autistic disorder. Good work, Muffinator and Dodger67. Kudos to you both for this. --Stfg (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The content tagged contains information contradicted by reliable sources, so tags shouldn't be removed until the tagged content has been removed or reworded. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Autistic disorder" refers to a specific disorder defined in the DSM-IV, which is no longer recognized in DSM-5. It does not refer to the entire spectrum. As I disagree with the premise by which the [dubious; see talk page] notes were added, I think it would be best (with consideration to NPOV) for me to leave the rewording to another editor. Muffinator (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We can't bluntly say "autism is not a disease of disorder" because RS contradict this. I slightly reworded (keep the claim intact but attributed it to the autism rights movement). I also added some info about BLP's, specifically that we are careful to refer to subject as they prefer/self-identify--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If the changes I made to the autism section are acceptable to others, I think it's ready to submit. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Where is the "submit" button, anyway? Muffinator (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed. Good job in the autism section, BoboMeowCat. --Stfg (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved

This style guide has recently been moved (July 2014) after it was determined that the page was no longer a draft. Since it was developed by a small number of contributors, editors who take issue with any part of the page are encouraged to voice their concerns. Muffinator (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical considerations

Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill.

The wording that may be appropriate for a modern topic may jar in articles about an historical topic for example articles on Elizabethan England "cripples begging at the entrance to the city" (see for example Cripplegate#Etymology ), or a topic about military munitions designed to cripple/maim not to kill (badly wounded people use up enemy resources that dead ones do not -- but the designers do not want medical treatment to be able put an enemy back in the front line). The danger with the latter is that softer wording such as "disable" can been seen as an euphemism to disguise the awfulnesses of the weapon system (you can bet that those selling this type of weapons technology use a lot of euphemisms when talking to politicians and the public).

It would be a shame if this style guide was to be worded in such a way that it could be used to support the placing words or phases into contexts where they are not usually used and so look jarring or euphemistic. -- PBS (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree - political correctness must not be allowed to trump historical reality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to historical contexts, this may also be applied to point of view. For example, the opinions of ableist organizations and individuals are expressed in their grammatical constructions and word choice, therefore it is easier to understand those opinions if the exact words and constructions are repeated. Muffinator (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"suffers from X" / "X sufferer"

I believe this problematic construction is ubiquitous enough to warrant a specific mention: People with disabling conditions, both physical and mental, are frequently described as suffering from them. In many cases this is presumptuous (not sourced), judgmental (not NPOV), and inaccurate. While some disabling conditions, particularly diseases, are likely to cause suffering, the social model and especially the neurodiversity movement argue that disabled people suffer from ableist discrimination more so than from their impairments. The major exception is when a person self-identifies as suffering from whatever they have ("Jane Doe has stated that she considers herself disabled and suffers from blindess"). Muffinator (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Making this page into a guideline without community-wide input?

See here. Immediately making this page into a guideline instead of into an essay was a good idea in what way? Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, 23W demoted the page to an essay. If this page is going to stay an essay, at least for a long while, it should be renamed as well...away from implying that it is a guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Best practices for writing disability-related articles" or something along those lines? 23W 10:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For a name change, I would recommend either "Essay:Disability-related articles" or "Disability-related articles (essay)" to reflect that the page is intended to eventually become a standard guideline in the vein of other sub-pages of the MOS, and to reflect the intended title. It's highly unlikely that any other page will compete for the same namespace. Muffinator (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where centralized discussion should be but Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Disability_guide_has_been_added_to_the_MOS is a duplicate discussion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

All discussion (RFC?) should be centralized right here on this talk page... Then, whatever happens (whether there is a consensus to promote to guideline, or consensus to have it remain an essay... or even no consensus at all) the record of the decision will remain attached to the page itself. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My original intent when I started the draft at WikiProject Disability (See WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide) was to create a guide with a status similar to WP:MEDMOS and similar topic-specific guides. The unilateral WP:BOLD move to MOS was premature, which is why I posted the "alert" at WT:MOS requesting further input/assistance. From a WikiProject Disability POV, if (as is the current consensus) this does not belong in the MOS, it would be preferable to make it a WikiProject guide rather than merely an essay. Thus I request that the page be moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide (draft), where further development and improvement can continue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this namespace is entirely appropriate given that original intent. It just should stay downgraded to "essay" status until there is a wider community input and consensus. It's much less likely to get that sort of attention if moved back to WikiProject namespace. Muffinator (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As an essay it will not be allowed to remain a sub-page of the MOS. Making it a mere essay would in fact "ghetto-ize" it into obscurity. As a WikiProject guideline it will get attention from a variety of editors with specific interest in the topic. When you (Muffinator) moved the draft from the WikiProject to the MOS, you did so without consulting anyone, not even the members of the Disability WikiProject, which until then basically "owned" the draft as a project sub-page. This is why I'm asking for a return to the state it was before the move to MOS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about ghettoization. I did add a discussion to this page (see "Ready to remove "draft" status?" above) but not to the main WikiProject Disability talk page or the MOS. I'm still trying to learn the ropes as far as which page a discussion should take place on. Part of the intent to make this a main MOS subpage is to give it some authority, but that requires a consensus discussion that hasn't happened yet. Given that this page is not written in a traditional essay style and was never intended to be an essay, I support the proposition to move it back to WikiProject Disability, although I don't think calling it a draft is necessary any more. Muffinator (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed any major addition to the MOS is a long complex process, which needs to have a very broad consensus - BOLD does not apply. MOS pages are not mere articles, the content has to be as close to perfect as possible before it gets the MOS imprimatur. As other's have commented (here and at the main MOS Talk page) the page needs quite a bit more work before one can really call it a style guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Return this page to WikiProject Disability

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles → WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide – This page should be moved back to WP:WikiProject Disability where it will be developed into a WikiProject style guide. This was my original intent as the creator of the page. The move to the MOS was done without the consensus of the members of WikiProject Disability - the proposed move will effectively revert the situation to what it was before the move. The above discussion has stalled thus I think it's time to resolve this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Tag the proposal with a WP:Requested move tag so that it can reach a wider audience. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the reminder. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as proposer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - it is clear from responses thus far that this is not about to be accepted as part of the MOS. Until it is, "WikiProject style guide" is a more appropriate classification. Muffinator (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support a sensible move. --Stfg (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly too early, move it back and have community wide discussion before moving it again.CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (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.

Explanation of change

I change a citation from Gallaudet to one by the NAD because the previous one was dead and the new citation, I believe, is a good enough source for the same statement. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disability Images

Moved this topic to WT:WikiProject Disability#Disability Images because that page has far more watchers, this page has very few. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"MOS:DISABILITY" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MOS:DISABILITY. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#MOS:DISABILITY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide → Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice – Same as other such WP:PROJPAGES that are {{WikiProject style advice}}. There may be a few more to track down, but every one of these that I recall that has had "style guide" or "manual of style" in its name has been successfully moved to "style advice" instead, without incident, to avoid confusion that the page is a guideline and part of the MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Support per nom Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Refactoring all this chatter into a discussion section. No one has actually !voted in the RM at all yet, so it'll probably need relisting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: If anyone feels inspired to WP:PROPOSAL-ize this as an actual MoS guideline page, I should warn that the community has become increasingly skeptical of these ideas, for general WP:CREEP and more specific WP:MOSBLOAT reasons. The result has more often been the labeling of the page with {{Failed proposal}}. Very topical style advice is better retained (if at all) as an advice essay. Fairly recently at least two actual MoS topical pages have also been deprecated as failed proposals instead of guidelines. In the case that some particular line-item in this page is seen as crucially important, then it should be proposed at WT:MOS (or WT:MOSACCESS or whatever) for inclusion in the actual MoS guidelines – iff there is evidence of an actual and recurrent problem to solve, and MoS does not already cover it specifically or as part of a more general rule.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish if I'm understanding it correctly this proposal implies that there are three tiers of style guidance. At the top the MOS is basically mandatory (with IAR exceptions) then comes "style guides" and lastly "style advice" which has only WikiProject-level "validity". What I'm not grasping is the distinction between "style guide" and "style advice"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, just two (I think my wording was potentially misreadable because of an "or" where "and" would have worked better; I've since revised it). There are style guidelines (MoS in its various pages, and some would argue that parts of WP:CITE also qualify conceptually, though it is tagged as a content guideline). And then there are style essays. The latter, when they constitute actual advice rather than op-ed commentary, are usually called style advice pages or more specifically wikiproject style advice pages, to agree with the wording of WP:PROJPAGE, of {{WikiProject style advice}}, and of Category:WikiProject style advice (sub-cat. of Category:Wikipedia essays about style).

"Style guide" is simply confusingly, misleadingly similar to "style guideline", which is why such pages have been renamed. I'm RM-listing this one as a courtesy. While prior moves of this sort have been completely uncontroversial, including when just manually renamed without RM process, I've set up several wikiprojects myself, so I understand that project participants are going to want to have input when pages they've created are moved, merged, or whatever, even if pages of this sort now have a rather standardized naming pattern. (Back in 2014, when there was debate about making this actually be part of MoS, an idea that didn't gain consensus, naming and even categorization of the style essay pages was still in flux, which explains why this one ended up at "/Style guide").
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Got it, thanks. Though I feel calling it a mere essay it somewhat dismissive. An essay is usually the work of a single editor and generally expresses his/her own opinion. A page such as this, whether called "guide" or "advice", is far from an individual rant. Multiple editors work on it, they consult and cite various sources, some quite authorotative such as media and academic style guides. Seeing it downgraded to "essay" is dissapointing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No dismissiveness is being applied at all. I'm not name-calling, I'm observing the result of the 2014 WT:MOS consensus discussion that resulted in this not becoming a guideline. And if you look at the history, this was not "downgraded" from anything. It was drafted, then it was improperly moved to an MoS name, categorized as MoS, given MoS shortcuts and templates, and slapped with a guideline tag, all without any WP:PROPOSAL discussion. After this was noticed and discussed shortly after those unilateral changes were made, it was simply reverted back to being being properly identified as the wikiproject essay it started as and has remained. Someone just didn't think hard about the name when moving it back out of the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/" tree. It's been tagged and categorized as a {{WikiProject style advice}} essay for ages. The other alternative would have been {{Failed proposal}}. However, despite some 2014 (and maybe a little before and a little after) disputation about various bits of advice in this, I don't see any consensus that this page should be completely deprecated (like, say WP:Manual of Style/Computing (failed proposal), which was excoriated as "not fit for purpose" down to pretty much every statement in it, and even the suggestion to merge a few points to another page was rejected). So, since this is a legit essay not junk, and we have a now-stable naming pattern for pages like this, it should fit that pattern. This RM is about nothing but, and can have no effect but, changing one word in the page name. You're reading something into it this that isn't actually there. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To try to get some more input, I have notified talk pages of WikiProject Disability, Manual of Style/Accessibility, WikiProject:Accessibilty, and WikiProject:Council.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 November 2020 (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.

Identity-first vs person-first language

Last year, a logged-out editor changed the nutshell to say "Use identity-first language in most cases, but there are exceptions." The page names three circumstances in which identity-first language is generally preferred, and it does not seem to me that these three add up to enough people to constitute "most cases". Using the US as an example (because these are the stats I know best), about a quarter of adults are disabled. About 0.5% are legally blind. About 2% have autism. About 5% have hearing loss (and most of them previously had normal hearing). 7.5% of people isn't "most cases". Most disabled adults have mobility problems, and they typically don't want identity-first language: it's Grandma, not a rollator user; a person with MS, not an MS person, a neighbor who needs a knee replacement, not a damaged-knee person, etc.

I'm also a bit concerned about the "generally preferred" as applied to hearing loss. Most people who are deaf aren't Deaf; they're senior citizens who lived most of their lives with normal hearing. Seeing deafness as your identity seems to correlate with congenital deafness or early acquisition. The old factory worker who complains that everyone mumbles these days isn't likely to see deafness as part of his identity. I'm not sure if there's a need to add this sort of nuance, but it's not a one-size fits all.

I've reverted the nutshell change, and I'm leaving this here just in case anyone doesn't understand why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing for the Deaf/deaf distinction a better explanation of Deaf culture might be useful.

In my (obviously OR) experience person-first is increasingly being rejected by (particularly long-term) wheelchair users - I'm one too. The fact that I'm a wheelchair user is part of my identity. I believe this trend is driven by the increasing awareness of disability rights and disability as a social identity, much like homosexuality moved from being a "deviant" phenomenon to part of "normal" society. This happens at the individual level as a person becomes used to being disabled they gradually undergo a "paradigm shift" away from being a "suffering victim" to "we crips are part of normal society" acceptance. "Person in a wheelchair" is also often just grammatically clumsy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that identity-first is the right choice when it's the person's identity, but not necessarily otherwise. The National Federation of the Blind in 1993 passed a resolution condemning person-first for making it seem like being blind was shameful, and I can see that perspective, too. (The resolution preferred identity-first language, but they also use person-first on their website.)

I think that assuming identity-first is a problem, especially when we're talking about people with multiple impairments (which one is supposed to be my identity?) or when those impairments appear relatively late in life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Particularly in light of Roger's shift in thinking about identity and wheelchairs, I think we should drop clause "unlike for example wheelchair users who generally reject the idea that wheelchairs define who they are." This seems to align with what Roger wrote on the project talk page in 2014, but not today. The APA guide expresses no preference between "wheelchair user" or "person in a wheelchair". I wonder if there are situations that fit either. For example, one might be more likely to use "wheelchair user" for a person who is in active control of the wheelchair, vs someone being pushed. And it probably isn't appropriate for someone who has just turned up at A&E with a suspect broken ankle and is being pushed to x-ray. We could just say "Some people experience the disability as an important component of their identity." and leave it at that. If there is a need for a counter-example, then I'd suggest epilepsy. -- Colin°^Talk 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Colin, would you please add a paragraph about epilepsy? I think it would be a good addition to this page. I could probably write a paragraph about cancer or HIV/AIDS, if that was wanted. A section on mental health conditions might be good, too.

The difficulty with the wheelchair example is the caveat about "particularly long-term" users. A person who starts using a wheelchair at a young age, and who is more or less healthy (or at least medically stable), might see it as a significant part of identity. But if you're using a wheelchair only for a few months or maybe a couple of years while you're busy dying of something else, it is not likely to be a significant part of your identity. I knew a couple of people who used a wheelchair while dying of cancer. They might have self-identified as "cancer victims", but the wheelchairs did not form any part of their identities.

And here is the fundamental problem with talking about acquired disabilities: there are far more elderly and dying people using wheelchairs than there are basically healthy long-term wheelchair users. It's the same with taking the views of the National Federation of the Blind as being representative. Most US adults who can't see now could still see when they were 70 years old. All of the NFB members I've met lost their sight early in life. Should we take the views of the majority, who don't self-identify that way, or the views of the minority, who do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a paragraph-quantity of material to write. A study of people with epilepsy (and their significant others, typically parents) here showed a strong preference for person-first terminology ("person with epilepsy") and strongly disliked labelling someone "epileptic" or using disability-first like "epileptic person". A WAID notes with deaf/blind/wheelchairs, there is a big variation in people's experience of epilepsy. By definition it isn't a transitory thing (however some kinds are present in childhood only). Just over half of people with epilepsy in the UK have not had a seizure in the last year.[3] Because of the stigma attached, many hide their condition.[4]. A hidden disability. But some others may have seizures extremely frequently. The actual seizure can also vary enormously. In childhood absence epilepsy one may appear to have daydreamed for a short period, giving problems for attention in school or in hazardous situations, but otherwise not particularly visible. There's effective treatment and one grows out of it. With other types, one might start talking gibberish or behave strangely for a period. With atonic seizures, one drops suddenly as though someone let go of your puppet strings, and that's where you might see children wearing crash helmets to protect them from harm. And there's the classic tonic-clonic seizure with a cry, a fall, convulsions and sometimes the additional embarrassment of soiling oneself. Only 15% of people with epilepsy have learning disabilities, though 30% of people with learning disabilities have epilepsy.[5] Those with severe learning disabilities tend to have severe epilepsy, and also tend not to have any voice: they aren't the ones writing blogs or ranting on Wikipedia talk pages. If your epilepsy is not well controlled (refractory epilepsy) then a sudden and unexpected death due to epilepsy has about a 50% chance of being recorded as the cause of your demise.[6]. Quite a variation.

Perhaps there is a little that could be said from Epilepsy Society: Epilepsy terminology and to note that despite what ILAE think, most people with epilepsy don't consider "disease" is an appropriate word,[7] perpetuating the misconception that it might be contagious. -- Colin°^Talk 20:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's a language-variant issue there. Do you think that Heart disease or Coeliac disease provokes the same "oh, if it's a disease, it must be contagious" feeling in the UK? I don't think it does in the US. (Also: Why didn't they ask about "medical condition"?)

Also, from my quick review, it appears that ILAE was using disorder to describe the general category, disease to describe a unitary medical condition whose cause was known, and syndrome to describe the various types whose causes are not understood. This is a pretty common pattern. In fact, I suspect that our article at Disease says something pretty similar, and that model is the basis for all of the discussions editors have on wiki about whether X or Y proposed something or another is "a" disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is the distinction you describe is from the 2001 definition. See this article. ILAE historically said "Epilepsy is a disorder of the brain ...." and now say "Epilepsy is a disease of the brain ..." It was changed here. As you note, there are diseases that nobody assumes are contagious. There are many studies looking at perceptions of epilepsy in countries across the world. One might assume that thinking it was a mental illness or was contagious would be something only found in countries with poor education. A study in 2001 in USA asked "Do you think epilepsy may be contagious?" (along with many other questions). While only 4% said Yes, only 51% said no. The rest were evenly divided between "Not sure" and "Don't know". The numbers for "mental illness" were 19% yes, 27% no. -- Colin°^Talk 10:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You have now made me wonder why they chose mental illness for their comparator. Also, the "yes" respondents are not entirely wrong. Some "mental" problems are caused by infectious diseases (e.g., advanced syphilis), and there's a hypothesis that schizophrenia is associated with toxoplasmosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That epilepsy is a mental illness is one persistent myth, along with being contagious or being possessed with evil spirits or cursed. I think the distinction that is important is whether X is an infectious disease or whether X might be a consequence of having caught an infectious disease in the past. Lots of non-infectious things follow from infectious disease, such as heart disease from bacterial infection in childhood. Epilepsy.com lists many infectious organisms that may result in epilepsy (neurocysticercosis is a major cause of adult-onset epilepsy in developing nations). Anything that harms or inflames the brain is bad news. The stigma problem is that if someone says "I have epilepsy" and if you think it might be infectious, you wouldn't kiss or hug them, or accept a meal from them, or might even shun them completely. You wouldn't want your son to marry them, or to employ them in your workplace. Are they "carrying a disease"? -- Colin°^Talk 09:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Invisible disabilities (and a little bit about the lead)

Hi, I would like to expand the section of invisible disabilities but I'm terrible at writing general guidance (I always go too intense). Currently, the text reads as:

There are many social reasons why a person who has an invisible disability may wish to conceal their disability and pass as non-disabled. One who is successful at this is considered able-passing, while one who is unsuccessful is considered visibly disabled. Intellectual, sensory, mental or sleep disorder disabilities tend to be invisible and allow passing, while physical disabilities are more difficult or even impossible to conceal. Able-passing people have the option to later come out or disclose their disability, a process that is analogous to coming out as gay. Sometimes disabled people are outed without their permission. Such outing should never be done on Wikipedia - see WP:AVOIDVICTIM for further guidance.

So it currently reads as a section about passing and coming out, not like a section on invisible disability - and even for that, I personally would like to see a mention that, just because someone previously seemed very abled, doesn't mean their coming out is less valid. I would also want to see a mention that people may continue to obscure some of their impairments even after coming out, to reduce the extent of the discrimination they face, or because they don't particularly want to discuss some parts of their lives that are impacted (e.g. many people don't want to discuss their bowel movements, for reasons other than disability).

My primary concern is that it doesn't mention the particular challenges that come with an invisible disability. For example, difficulties being dismissed, refusal to make any accommodations, or attributing difficulties they experience to the person's character (e.g. they're just lazy). I think it's important to explain here that editors needs to believe self-identification (unless there's a VERY good reason to do so) and avoid "blaming". Also, that So I think the specific advice I'd like to add here (along with the previous explanations) is essentially:

• Avoid MOS:WTW and any other words that imply blame, or that a disability or impairment may not be real. Remember that you are not aware of every aspect of another person's life and therefore you are likely not aware of the full extent of their impairments.
• And then ideally some examples of what people should do.

SEPARATELY, for the lead - I very strongly believe that unconscious bias by members of disadvantaged groups is a major issue (when people aren't scanning their behaviour for it) and contributes to a lot of dog acts. I would like to add something to this effect to the lead:

• This advice should also be followed by people with disability. No one is exempt from unconscious bias, and no one is an expert on every impairment or cause of disability.

Is there anything else that should be added to the invisible disability section? And I would love some help to make this better. (please ping me if you respond) --Xurizuri (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Style guide Version 2

@Grapple X, Persicifolia, Masem, Fowler&fowler, Colin, and WhatamIdoing: It seems pretty clear to me that the current RFC isn't going to come to a clear conclusion, so I'm inviting you to participate in creating WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2). Let us break the chicken and egg impasse and improve the style guide to a standard that might be worthy of inclusion in the MOS. Please invite any other participants you believe might make a positive contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel there's anything wrong with the current style advice page as is—the problem is trying to introduce it all at once. You can see the regressive attitudes to even small changes, so a proposal that tries to introduce several things at once will just face that same reticence across several fronts. Unfortunately the practical reality is that changes are more likely to succeed piecemeal, with the end goal of consolidating several related proposals together after they've gained acceptance. In the mean time I think what would be useful is to include examples of broader use and acceptance of each term or concept; the wheelchair-based language currently under discussion for example could be mentioned here as being used by the Associated Press, MLA Handbook, NY Times, etc in order to show that we're following, not leading, with each item. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X I agree with your idea of introducing it to the MOS one bit at a time. However, the guide clearly needs to be tightened up anyway and it is quite often criticized for being the work of too few people. The only substantial changes since it was first written in 2014 has been the addition of some detail about autism, which has not aged well as the whole autism spectrum was recently redefined in the textbooks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim to have any experience that would be relevant here but I can at least help summarise and cite any relevant literature that's presented. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for including me Roger (Dodger67). I have to say in terms of WP I feel out of my depth in all this (on the 'wheelchair-bound' issue, I set out to make a series of very small edits, thinking it might lead to some small discussions or reversions - nothing like this). I'm pretty new here and WP policy issues are complex from the outside. I hadn't formally joined any projects here until yesterday because I'm not able to be here reliably or dependably. (There are long periods of time in which I'm unable to type.) I have a great deal of respect for those of you who have persisted over years on this - especially anyone who like me is disabled, because I find some of the rhetoric on that MOS discussion hard to read, let alone engage with. I would like to be of any help when I can. But given the extent of the discussion over just one term - on which there actually is consensus in RS - I feel overwhelmed. Persicifolia (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Persicifolia I think you're doing really well, your contribution so far has been great. Please don't ever feel obliged to clock-in, we work on crip time here, and when you don't have the spoons you look after you first - it's a hobby, not a job. Even if you just fix a few typos, every contribution is valued. Look what's already come out of your small edits, we're going to revise the project style guide and just maybe we'll get a sentence or three added to the MOS. As for the rhetoric, I get the feeling that if this was 1963 some of the people would be arguing to the death against deprecating the n-word. In the long run it doesn't actually matter, history will leave them behind. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67 That message cheered me up enormously, thank you. I agree about history, and your 1963 analogy. It seems to me perhaps disabled people are the last group considered fair game, so anyone who's been forced to concede on eg gender and race will cling hard to their conviction that we at least can be described in any way they fancy. I'm pretty lucky in real life and on social media, in terms of having offensive language applied to me etc, so I guess that MOS discussion has brought me back down to earth and reminded me how we're still seen by many. Which has been a bit disarming. I'd love to do what I can here. Persicifolia (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Inviting Xurizuri, you've expressed an interest in this process in the previous section above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have begun the revision process at WP:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2), one section at a time, please join in. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I am quite thoroughly discouraged about there being any chance for progress wrt official MOS. The culture at MOS does not permit Wikipedia to align with best practice. It would need quite a culture change among editors who police MOS for them to reign in their egos and defer to experts on such matters. I think honestly you should either just write an essay, where you can freely explain your own opinions, or improve our articles that cover the issues. -- Colin°^Talk 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Status?

What's the status of this essay? Scanning through the threads above, I see a v2 which was started, a move from guideline to essay, and some effort to attract MOS experts to fix it up for a prospective RfC. Is that more or less where things still stand? Is v2 active? This strikes me as an area that could find consensus for promotion to guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites I would be really happy if we could get the stalled revision process restarted, with a view to promotion, in full or in part(s), to the MOS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I wonder if this is a good candidate for something of a "pre-RfC". By that I mean asking 2-3 open-ended questions to solicit feedback, with the aim of eventually proposing this as a guideline (or a subset of this as an addition to one or more existing guidelines). So asking about scope, whether the scope is wide enough to justify a dedicated page, whether there are specific things that would be more or less controversial than others (and how to ensure the more controversial items would find the widest possible consensus), what should be added, what should be removed, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites I'll need to sleep on your idea and get back to it later, it's almost midnight and way past bedtime at my end. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a great aticle!

Thank you so much for writing on this topic. I feel that disabled people are really overlooked in today's society. I was wondering about the topic that you had included about being "able-bodied" meaning someone who is not disabled. In my opinion, I feel this term is not a fair description of those who do no share the same traits as disabled people`. In my evaluation of this article, I feel that a different term would work better in its place. The term able bodied may come across as somewhat offensive to those are disabled. — Tatiwaxman (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC).