Talk:Intellectual disability/Archive 1

Source

First draft adapted from Fact Sheet 8, National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). "This publication is copyright free. Readers are encouraged to copy and share it, but please credit the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY)." US-specific references removed. -- April

Should this be locked?

I was looking over previous edits of this page, and to be frank, it's outrageous. People need to get a kick out of something else. But, that this page should be locked. Yanksox 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lets lock it already! --Shultz IV 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, needs locking. Too irresistable a target. FTW article is about Yanksox.

As this article is locked, how can one add citations to all the "facts" that clearly lack them? 69.139.75.80 19:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Create an account and wait a few days. Graham87 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an accidental pun. "Editing of this article is currently Disabled" Ha ha ha, disabled!

"Unfortunately"

Unfortunately, English statute law uses "mental impairment" elsewhere in a less well-defined manner implying that mental retardation is meant. Sounds a bit POV. Can we explain why this is "unfortunate"? 86.142.150.252 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the middle of 2005, the introduction to the article had implied that "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment" were UK synonyms for mental retardation, defined in the "UK Mental Health Act". I added the legal definitions to show that these terms applied only to the small number of MR people subject to legal controls, either by guardianship or by detention in hospital in England and Wales, because of their behaviour, as distinct from mental illness. (The same end was achieved by Scots Law without using any such expressions.) Having cleared up this misconception, I should have moved this paragraph towards the end of the article, as it is a minor matter in the context of the article.

The "unfortunate" aspect I alluded to was the use of the term "mental impairment" in other contexts, such as to exempt mentally handicapped/learning disabled people from the Poll Tax introduced in the 1980s. At the time, some alarmists raised the objection that getting a certificate from a family doctor to gain exemption from that tax would lead to detention in hospital. That could never have happened - since nobody could be detained without going through a complex procedure involving two doctors and a social worker - but it might have deterred some families from getting the tax exemption. NRPanikker 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

learning disabled

I suggest a move to "Learning disability", which is the more accepted term. -- Tarquin 18:38 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I heartly concur. I'm stunned that the term 'mental retardation' is still used by anyone in the year 2002... quercus robur 18:40 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with the term 'mental retardation' their isnt any shame attached to that word in any dictionary I can find. You can't be afraid of honest language that speaks truths you may be uncomfortable with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.68.59 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly fleeing to euphemisms for euphemisms for euphemisms is silly. Mental retardation is a logically constructed compound whose literal meaning fits the illness -- some of the victim's mental abilities are developing more slowly than most of his peers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.246.122 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

In fact this whole article needs a major re-write having just looked at it.... quercus robur 18:41 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a little backward in the area of disability. I gave disability a complete rewrite some months ago -- have a look, it's quite stubbish -- Tarquin 18:43 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

turns out that Learning disability already exists. I'm going to turn this page into a redirect, and place its content on LD's talk page for eventual cleaning up & integration. -- Tarquin 15:41 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

You guys have been vetoed. enjoy. Sam [Spade] 02:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know, there are other Learning Disibilities, besides MR. MR deserves it's own article.

You're all to politically correct!

I disagree, leave the page on its own, it is a separate condition from learning disabilities. Onthost 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's equate ADD with mental retardation in the name of politcal correctness. Science doesn't stop for idiots or people who falsely displays being easily offended. 66.229.182.113 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.SZadeh 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term 'learning disability' refers to a much broader range of disabilities in the UK, including mental retardation (a term not used at all). This is an old discussion that has long been resolved. Natgoo 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the term Mental retardation in any official english oxford dictionary, therefore its not even an official word, a more appropriate and much more commonly used term (worldwide) is 'Learning Disability'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yatamazuki (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 December 2006.

How could anyone say that mental retardation should be classified as a learning disability? Obviously you have limited psychoeducational knowledge. Yes, it doesn't sound "nice" but, it exists! We typically classify people with low IQ's in this category...."mentally disabled" or "mentally/cognitively handicapped". The "learning disabled" would be very insulted by your tie. Learning disabled individuals typically have a "normal/average" or "above/average" intelligence with specific processing or attention difficulties that cause them not to succeed as well as they are cognitively capable. Get your information right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.147.188 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, but you need to understand that the terminology used in the US isn't worldwide, so I would suggest further reading before getting so angry. 'Learning disability' is the term used to describe 'developmental disability', including mental retardation, in the UK, as many other people on this talk page have already stated, and which you would know if you took the time to read. Natgoo 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Old article

Mental retardation, abbreviated as MR, is a term used when a person has certain limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children with mental retardation may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school. They will learn, but it will take them longer. There may be some things they cannot learn.

Causes of Mental Retardation

Doctors have found many causes of mental retardation. The most common are:

• Genetic conditions. Sometimes mental retardation is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. Examples of genetic conditions are Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and phenylketonuria (PKU).
• Problems during pregnancy. Mental retardation can result when the baby does not develop inside the mother properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the baby's cells divide as it grows. A woman who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol syndrome) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also have a baby with mental retardation.
• Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have mental retardation.
• Health problems. Diseases like whooping cough, the measles, or meningitis can cause mental retardation. Mental retardation can also be caused by extreme malnutrition (not eating right), not getting enough medical care, or by being exposed to poisons like lead or mercury.

Mental retardation is not a disease. Mental retardation is also not a type of mental illness, such as depression. There is no cure for mental retardation. However, most children with mental retardation can learn to do many things. It just takes them more time and effort than other children.

How is Mental Retardation Diagnosed?

Mental retardation is diagnosed by looking at two main things. These are:

• the ability of a person's brain to learn, think, solve problems, and make sense of the world (called IQ or intellectual functioning); and
• whether the person has the skills he or she needs to live independently (called adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning).

Intellectual functioning, or IQ, is usually measured by a test called an IQ test. The average score is 100. People scoring below 70 to 75 are thought to have mental retardation. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals look at what a child can do in comparison to other children of his or her age. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior. These are:

• daily living skills, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, and feeding one's self;
• communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer;
• social skills with peers, family members, adults, and others.

To diagnose mental retardation, professionals look at the person's mental abilities (IQ) and his or her adaptive skills.

Signs of Mental Retardation

There are many signs of mental retardation. For example, children with mental retardation may:

• sit up, crawl, or walk later than other children;
• learn to talk later, or have trouble speaking,
• find it hard to remember things,
• not understand how to pay for things,
• have trouble understanding social rules,
• have trouble seeing the consequences of their actions,
• have trouble solving problems, and/or
• have trouble thinking logically.

About 87 percent of people with mental retardation will only be a little slower than average in learning new information and skills. When they are children, their limitations may not be obvious. They may not even be diagnosed as having mental retardation until they get to school. As they become adults, many people with mild retardation can live independently. Other people may not even consider them as having mental retardation.

The remaining 13 percent of people with mental retardation score below 50 on IQ tests. These people will have more difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. A person with more severe retardation will need more intensive support his or her entire life. Every child with mental retardation is able to learn, develop, and grow. With help, all children with mental retardation can live a satisfying life.

–

I, as a person with a learning disability, have experienced every single one of those "signs" that you've mentioned. No offense, but the fact that you'd brand me as being mentally retarded doesn't impress me at all. =/

What I'm trying to say is, just because a person may display some or all of those symptoms, doesn't make them "mentally retarded."

Okay, I'm finished. Zetco 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) zetco

merged

This is a good article! Some one should merge it w the current one. Why did you guys redirect this again? Sam [Spade] 03:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

successfully merged. Sam [Spade] 16:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not reverted but edited instead

• In colloquial language Noun: Moron; Adjective: Moronic

A stupid person; a dolt. Synonyms: addle-pate, ass, blockhead, bonehead, boob, cretin, dimwit, dingbat, dolt, dope, dork, dumbbell, dumbo, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fool, goose, halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, lamebrain, loony, loser, lunkhead, mental defective, muttonhead, nerd, numskull, retard, simp, simpleton, stoop, stupid, tomfool, zany

Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Remove offensive material

This afternoon I removed some offensive material -- use of the word "retard" as a appropriate way to refer to someone with this condition. Some of this material has been replaced, although I think it's unconscionable to have things like this:

Class                      IQ
Mongoloid                  below 20
Retard                     20-49  
Dumbass                    50-69
Borderline retardedness    70-79  

At the time I made the previous edit I had not created an account. Now I have. The bulk of this article is taken from a FAQ from the website of the National Assn. of Retarded Citizens. [ Jackmcc ]

Is "dumbass" really the term used in this scale? —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. Neither is the word "retard" which appeared in several places. Mongoloid is an archaic term for what we now refer to as Down Syndrome. It looks like some twit was having fun with this. Jackmcc

I'm not sure who's editing and all that, but at the top it says "also known as stupid retards in yellow shirts" - should be removed

Lol! Thats actually pretty funny.--Animasage 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

This article should not be merged w learning disability. Learning disability is a much broader catagory,. and there is more than enough content and potential here to warrent a separate article. Sam [Spade] 00:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outdated terminology

There is really no excuse for using a term as an enclyclopedia entry which is grossly offensive to the people to whom it refers without referring to the fact that it is an outdated term of abuse. The correct term is learning disability. Excalibur

At least in North America you are flat wrong. Learning disability refers to specific problems in types of academic learning in a school setting in a person whose overall intelligence seems to be within the normal range. A common example of a learning disability is dyslexia. The current preferred term for mental retardation among pediatricians, educational psychologists, neurologists and many parent and advocacy groups is developmental delay, which has exactly the same denotative meaning of global slowness in reaching learning and performance milestones. Some advocacy groups still use mental retardation (ARC, Association of Retarded Citizens, is one of the oldest and most respected). Your comment and failure to know the currently preferred term is perhaps the strongest reason for retaining at least an entry for mental retardation. You are probably aware that the term mental retardation was introduced for exactly the same reasons-- because older terms had acquired pejorative uses. My preference would be to use mental retardation simply to redirect to developmental delay, with a mention in the first paragraph that in many circles dev delay is the preferred term due to the acquisition of pejorative connotations in lay use. The problem of course is not in the words but in the attitudes of too many people with an undeveloped sense of empathy and an attitude that this is a humorous or shameful way for a person to be. Fight the attitude and ignorance, not the label. alteripse 19:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Please Note) There is error in the above paragraph. Developmental delay does not have the exact same meaning as mental retardation. Developmental delay(s) is when a child has not reached age-appropriate developmental milestones such as speech/language, fine/gross motor skills, cognitive skills, social skills and sensory development. About 8% of children exhibit some developmental delay(s) but with appropriate invervention many of these children will overcome these needs, e.g. speech, occupational, physiotherapy. Children with a more 'global developmental delay' or delayed cognitive development is suggestive of mental retardation or a persuasive developmental disorder e.g. Autism. Developmental delays can indicate other disabilities and disorders such as cerebral palsy (motor defecits), specific learning disabilities or ADD (Attention Defecit Disorder) or ADHD (Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disorder). Remember developmental delay is a very broad term which can range from slight developmental delays which with appropriate intervention enventually catch up to more serious disabilities or disorders such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, learning disabilities and ADD or ADHD. Many parents, physicians and educational psychologists use the term developmenal delay in place of mental retardation because the word mental retardation is an outdated term which can be offensive, but developmental delay is a broad term and is only linked to mental retardation some of the time. If the word mental retardation offends you, use the term mentally handicapped, cognitively disabled or intellectually disabled, as all these terms have the same meaning as mentally retarded, significantly sub-normal cognitive functioning (IQ approximately 75 or below(IQ 80-120 is normal) concurrent with significant limitations in 2 or more adaptive skill areas such as communication, daily living skills, self-direction, use of community resources, basic academics and social skills and the condition must be present before age 18. So someone write a wikipedia article on developmental delay, there is not one yet, as I find it offensive people using developmental delay as a synomous for mental retardation because I have a son who has had delayed development of speech and fine/gross motor skills and emotional problems and with appropriate intervention he has infact come a very long way, and he has an IQ in the "average" range and is totally independant, he has had prior developmental delays in childhood but he is "certainly" not mentally retarded.

I think there is a cultural divide here. In the UK retardation is not used and is considered offensive. Often the term learning dissability is used. I agree though, that learning dissability has much a broader meaning. I have inserted the term mental impairment as standard British English usage. The UK Mental Health Act (1983) refers to mental impairment and severe mental impairment [1].--Alun 07:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Many people in the US also believe that is an offensive term. My son is severly mentally handicapped and in the educational system, the term "mentally retardation" is never used. I still hear it used occasionally among some medical people. Rogerd 22:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I will insert the term mental handicap as well as this seems to be used in the USA and is the most common term used in the UK.Alun

See also Talk:Learning_disability#merger.3F. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not folks, Mental retardation is a specific medical term, with a specific meaning defined in the DSM-IV. It is NOT the same as Learning disability, and it is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the same as developmental delay. Fawcett5 12:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, Fawcett5, please explain (without YELLING) your understanding of the difference between developmental delay and mental retardation. 1.5 million google hits for developmental delay suggest you might be wrong. Here are examples from the first pages of hits: [2], [3], [4], [5] illustrating both medical and educational usages. The subject of these pages is exactly the topic of our article, and you could substitute MR for developmental delay in the vast majority of the sentences without changing the meaning. alteripse 05:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. In the UK mental retardation is not a specific medical term, with a specific meaning. Mental retardation is a regional variant, your reference to DSM-IV emphasises this point as it is an American book. I can equally refer you to the Mental Health Act (1983) with it's definition of mental impairment, there's a link on the article page. I think this is the heart of the problem. I agree that learning disability and developemental delay are not appropriate alternatives, but your assertion is just wrong. I think that an acceptable alternative should be found. Surely it is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to deliberatelly cause offence because some contributors are insensitive or regressive. There are many offensive words or phrases that could be used for other articles, should we include them all? This whole article looks like it was taken from some 1950's book on eugenics anyway. I mean talking about IQ and mental age went out with the Arc!!!!! The Traditional terms section should be scrapped altogether, it seems to exist for no other reason than to cause offence. Alun

Boo! PC doublespeak has no place on an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 15:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the offensive and inacurate? Would you are advocate racist and sexist edits as well? Because that's what it sounds like. There's nothing PC about saying that the term mentally retarded is offensive, just ask someone who has a mentally handicapped family member, or do you think it's all right to call someone with cerebral palsy a spastic? --Alun 16:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[6]. Sam Spade 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the DSM-IV is widely used outside the United States, but in any case, The ICD-10, which is sort of an international alternative to the DSM published by the World Health Organization uses the same term. As does every medical textbook I've seen. It is a *medical term*, in the US, Canada, the UK and elsewhere. Fawcett5 16:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Note however that one label sometimes seen in the medical literature is "intellectual disability" Fawcett5 16:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I recently saw the phrase intellectual disability here. It's not a term I'm familiar with, but I ceased to work with mentally handicapped people nearly 14 years ago, and it may not have been in use then. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Note, when I was a student nurse I was training for a RNMH qualification which stands for Registered Nurse for the Mentally Handicapped [7]. There are distinct differences in terminology in the English speaking world. As I say, British law refers to mental impairment and British nurses refer to mental handicap. I can't speak for doctors, I never saw a psychiatrist in the hospital for mentally handicapped people I worked in, and I was there for 5 years. We saw doctors when people got sick, if they could be bothered. --Alun 17:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the problem with terms such as "mental impairment" and "mental handicap" are that they (to North American ears anyway) sound as though they could cover a wide range of mental health issues distinct from retardation. In any case, I asked my wife, who is a pediatric occupational therapist who regularly works with people with a spectrum of disabilities what the preferred term is now in her field — apparently they now prefer the term "cognitive impairment", which seems to me quite specific and non-euphemistic, which is the objection that I have to several other of the proposed terms. How do people feel about adopting the term "cognitive impairment" as a compromise? Fawcett5 14:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

See above, Fawcett5. You still owe us an explanation for your EMPHATIC DENUNCIATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY ABOVE. So, without the caps, what is the difference between developmental delay and mental retardation? The 2 problems with your argument in favor of cognitive impairment are (1) cognitive impairment is not specific-- check the google hits: a large share of them refer to dementing conditions of the elderly---, and (2) all of the terms discussed here were originally "quite specific and non-euphemistic." Many medical terms acquire pejorative connotations by stupid lay misuse and prejudices, not because there was something shameful about the term to begin with. alteripse 15:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, what's your deal? Relax. The problem with the term developmental delay is that can and does refer to a whole spectrum of sensory, motor, language, social, and emotional issues that have squat to do with mental retardation. The specific term Pervasive developmental delay (also refered to as pervasive developmental disorder) is a term most commonly used for people somewhere on the autism spectrum. Other editors here have already stated that they agree that developmental delay is an entirely unsuitable term. Besides, it implies that people so afflicted will "catch up", which is, as you know, simply untrue. Please don't sh*t on me here for trying to find a compromise...personally, I still think that Mental retardation is the best term. 17:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the combination of your caps, your largely erroneous assertion, and your ignoring my request for explanation that "unrelaxed" me. Back to calm and rational mode. You have just correctly identified the single significant discrepancy between MR and developmental delay-- that MR does not imply a significant likelihood of catch-up, while developmental delay does not exclude such a possibility. Nevertheless, developmental delay is the term most commonly used professionally for the "chief complaint" of lagging behind milestones. Even when the diagnostic conclusion is that significant impaired cognitive function is likely to continue for a child, dev delay is a label that is preferred by many professionals and parents in the US (refs above), and at least has the encyclopedic advantage of being widely used without pejorative connotations yet. I actually agree with you that MR remains the most precise term in a professional context, but its main drawback is illustrated by the daily vandalism we have to revert from those who consider it shameful or derisive. No professional confuses dev delay and PDD. In summary, MR is most precise but has pejorative connotations to the public, especially readers with a personal interest in the subject matter, while dev delay is slightly less precise but preferred and used by a large number of professionals and parents. alteripse 17:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't ignoring your request. A shameful fact is that I have ~3500 pages on my watch list. Sometimes things fall through the cracks. Anyway, this medical school professor continues to dispute that developmental delay is a suitable term, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that account. By the way, its a shame that there is so much more activity on the talk page than on the article, which is still in pretty rough shape. Fawcett5 20:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to your "trump my credentials" ploy, I am guessing that if you are at a US school, you are not clinical, and certainly not pediatric, or you wouldn't be quibbling over this. Check the terminology used by those publishing through the AAP and you will see dev delay:MR:cognitive impairment in a roughly 3:2:1 ratio. Ask the pediatric people at your school what they prefer of the three terms for clinical usage and for an encyclopedia article. I know what they will tell you. alteripse 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC) PS, I agree entirely that we ought to be spending more time writing the article than arguing about terminology. I contributed some to the article but there is a long way to go and I am not a developmental pediatrician.

Fair enough, your point is well taken — I also am not a paediatrician. I will consult with some of my colleagues and see what they say. I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, although for the moment I still contend that developmental delay is in common use for a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with mental retardation. Fawcett5 23:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm going to upset you both (Alteripse and Fawcett5) because I really don't think medical diagnoses and medical credentials are relevant when it comes to deciding whether a term is offensive or not. I worked for 5 years as a nurse in a hospital for the mentally handicapped and the only use doctors had was for specific medical problems, or for the less progressive staff, the proscribing of neuroleptic medication to keep the boys quiet as a chemical cosh, the medical fraternity seemed quite happy to comply. Surely it's the primary carers who really understand what is offensive and what is not? Feel free to diagnose someone as mentally retarded, but don't expect primary carers to use the same stigmatising nomenclature.--Alun 22:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Alun, I can't say that this way of looking at things is exactly wrong - its indisputable that the medical profession hasn't always done the right thing in treating these patients. However, at the end of the day, it is still a *medical* condition, and a diagnosis that can only be made definitively by a medical professional. In some sense, whether some people find a specific term offensive is a collateral issue. For instance, the article for penis would never be named wee-wee. Actually, I did find an article that has a rather interesting perspective on the whole issue of the name [8] and explains a bit about the cross-Atlantic difference in usage. According to this article, Thomas Willis, who was one of the first physicians to describe the condition, called it simply stupidity. Fawcett5 23:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Mate, When I was training to be RNMH one thing they stressed above anything was that mental handicap definitely is not a medical condition. In fact one of the main things taught to us was that the medical model was a poor model for the care of mentally handicapped people, because the model is based on treatment, and mentally handicapped people cannot be cured. A model based on normalisation or social role valorization is more appropriate. How can such a vast collecion of disorders/abilities be a single medical condition? I don't mean to be contrary, and must admit to having left the profession some 14 years ago.--Alun 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I agree it might not **always** be a good model for care/treatment, but it certainly is appropriate for diagnosis. But even as far as treatment, it is important to keep in mind the frequent comorbidity associated with various forms of mental retardation (e.g. the heart problems accompanying Trisomy 21). More generally, medicine is full of such nebulously defined "syndromes" of related conditions. For many of these, we have no understanding of causation nor any treatment, but they are medical conditions nonetheless. No-one, for instance, would argue that the spectrum of conditions lumped as Motor neurone disease are medical conditions. Admittedly there is a grey area of what constitutes a medical condition... there are some that argue that conditions such as congenital deafness and Dwarfism (er, careful now....skeletal dysplasia and/or Growth hormone deficiency) fall within the spectrum of normal human variation, and that these things should not properly be considered a "medical" condition. It's certainly a minority viewpoint, but the argument has been made, and the philosphical question is interesting. Fawcett5 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Alun is arguing against a conception of his own imagination. The medical model for MR is exactly like the "medical model" for short stature, which is why I put that analogy into the article. It is a way of being human, it can be simply the end of the distribution of "normal", and it can be in some contexts perceived as a heartbreakingly severe problem. To a doctor MR or developmental delay is a "chief complaint", like shortness or fever, and doctors see their role as trying to identify a cause, exclude other suspected causes, predict future implications as best we can, certify qualification for special programs or educational status, and hook them up with appropriate other people for help. Look at any pediatric textbook and this is exactly what you will see. Wobble, what are you imagining that the "medical perspective" on MR is that you think will offend us if you criticize it? alteripse 23:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Does anyone have a gripe with intellectual disability? It's the best alternative I've heared. By the way Fawcet5 your assertion that the problem with terms such as "mental impairment" and "mental handicap" are that they (to North American ears anyway) sound as though they could cover a wide range of mental health issues distinct from retardation seems to confirm my stated (above) suspicion that in many ways what we are dealing with is a cultural/linguistic divide in the English speaking community. To British ears mental retardation certainly does sound offensive, and it does to many Americans (also see above). I suspect that many people who work with mentally handicapped people (even in the USA) never use the term in their professional lives. See the post above by the American father with a mentally handicapped son. I discount Psychiatrists as they are not qualified to provide care for handicapped people, they are merely doctors who make diagnoses, it's the carers who know what they are talking about as they deal day to day with intellectually disabled people.--Alun 17:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there may be a cultural semantic difference in usage. For those professionals in the US who do not use the term MR, developmental delay is the most commonly preferred. Intellectual disability has 2 drawbacks as an article title: it is not commonly used, and it would include those with dementing or neurodegenerative conditions not included in the concept of MR or dev delay. alteripse 17:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with developemental delay either as a general term. In the UK websites I've been visiting to do some research the most commonly used term is learning disability, but this is used mainly as an euphemism as far as I can tell, rather than as a technical term. One thing which has struck me with all the hoopla about not using terms which can be confused with other mental disorders, is that we are not really talking about a single disorder anyway. I mean mental retardation or mental handicap or whatever one calls it, is clearly non-specific in itself, as it covers such a vast range of dissorders, disabilities and learning/mental abilities.--Alun 19:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

One thing occured to me Sam. I'm not entirely sure it's true to say that a term is only offensive if offence is intended by the user. Offence can often be caused inadvertently. If a term is deemed offensive by someone who sees/hears it, then who is to say that they are wrong to get offended. By your standard then we should go back to the moron and idiot terminology because that's OK as long as we don't mean to be offensive when we use it, irrespective of wheather we inadvertantly undermine or destroy someones self respect when we do it. Just an observation.--Alun 09:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that. My point is more like "no matter what term you use, someone is going to use it as an insult". Just look at what happened to "gay". Sam Spade 19:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, though sometimes these words can be reclaimed. I don't think gay is at all offensive, doesn't it mean happy or homosexual? I asked a collegue of mine recently if he was a poof, as there was talk in our lab about him, I said it with a friendly smile, and he replied 'yes', we got on fine.--Alun 19:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN

Ahahahahaha!

Sam Spade 09:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

the move was a bad idea and the article has been trashed

User:andycjp, most of the article has been trashed! This was an arrogantly selfish thing to do. You saw the discussion on the talk page-- despite its problems MR was the term most people recognized as the topic of this article. You have chosen a vague and not entirely congruent term apparently preferred by a subset of people in a small geographic area. But you still left MR as the main term in the article! Even worse, why did you remove so much meaningful text? It's now down to a couple of vague paragraphs. Why didn't you just start this one with fresh text and leave the other alone with cross links? Go ahead and make this your own private article and put whatever you want in it, but don't for one second imagine that you have improved our coverage of this topic. You are worse than the random idiots who vandalized the article but were easy to revert. I will make sure I don't work on anything with you in the future. alteripse 11:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw that a lot of people were offended by the terminology so I did something about it. I am sorry if you feel I did wrong, but calling a person with a disability a retard is worse. But I am not responsible for all the changes. Alun is right. These vunerable people have become the targets of people with unhelpful ideologies far too often. Andy

As someone who blundered in via random page and saw this going on, I've taken the liberty of reverting to the last good version by Andy. The page I saw when I came in wasn't very good, and considering the subject matter it was rather puzzling that the quality was that poor. The anon who trashed it has done it before - Andy just worked with what was there after it was done. Hopefully whatever changes were made after the article was trashed can be easily reinstated (I didn't look too hard but they seemed pretty minor). StopTheFiling 18:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The page move has been reverted — absolutely no consensus existed for such a move, particularly to one so vague and little used. MR is the recognised medical term in both DSM IV and ICD-10, and is by far the most common key on which people are likely to search for the article. Fawcett5

I don`t think you realise how offensive that term is outside of North America.Andycjp.

• It is the term internationally recognised by the World Health Organisation. Fawcett5 15:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mentally Challenged

Somebody's got to put all the popular euphamisms (i.e. retardedly challenged, handi-man) in there. Mentally Challenged redirects here, but it doesn't list Mentally Challenged. Maybe somebody could move it. DyslexicEditor 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Why the revert

You link here to something considered racist filth outside the US. I quoted one particularly idiotic sentence from the source, not wanting to remove the link. The sentence was:

Ashkenazi Jews and certain East Asian ethnic groups regularly score higher than non-Hispanic whites, and nobody knows why.

Now which of the big kids here can tell me how the writerling expresses some considerable retardation of his own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.6.3.220 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Response: I just removed the link because it addressed the topic of race and intelligence, which is a major American taboo topic. As this writer of limited intelligence and charity demonstrates, a large number of people think that even acknowledging the repeatedly documented racial differences in test results constitutes "racist filth." We already have an article on this topic that is the subject of continual edit warring. As it is tangential to the topic of mental retardation, it might be best to avoid attempting to discuss it or reference it here as there are already plenty of sources of contention. This is the removed reference:

• Mental Deficiency Theories - from a criminology course, but provides a good overview

I don't think it is a particularly good overview, as it describes a variety of past and present theories on the relationship of low intelligence and crime. Many of the theories have been discredited but the presentation does not explain very well the changes over the last century in our understanding of these topics. Even apart from the race issue this makes this of limited value in helping a reader understand this topic. alteripse 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Can this be unlocked for some work?

There is some wikilinking, MoS and other work I would like to perform. Grika 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected it. I assume it was done for vandal fighting rather than edit warring, so please revert the expected vandalism when you see it. Thanks. alteripse 01:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

whats the right edit?

[9]

I'm tempted to revert, but I don't know what the hell is going on anymore... Sam Spade 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have reverted it. Maybe The Wookieepedian could explain what was so grossly wrong with the last version (after my true vandalism revert) that he changed it to one that looks much older and way less refined, labelling the edit as "rv vandalism"? Lupo 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wookieepedian did the same thing on September 11, 2001 attacks, labeling as "rv vandalism" though the last version was okay. --Aude 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see what happened. Some anonymous user had been vandalizing the main star wras page, and when I saw the guys history with all vandalism, I reverted several of those. Upon having a second look, I see that those are outdated from months back when the guy did the vandalism on them. Sorry if I caused any problems there! I was actually trying to catch the guy who did those edits in the first place! The Wookieepedian 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional terms

Someone wrote "They were originally used in English as simple forms of abuse" regarding idiot, imbecile and moron. I don't think that's a true statement. Wouldn't they only have become insulting terms if they started out as (neutrally-valued) descriptions of a certain condition? Sort of like "retarded" - it didn't start out as an insult. Beanluc 19:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional people wern't PC fascists, so they said what they ment. Think about what the word "Retardation" means, in its essense. Sam Spade 20:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Retardation originally meant nothing but "lateness". It was a clinically useful word that only became pejorative because many people find the condition something to mock. The attitudes of callous and ignorant people gradually imbued the word with negative connotations. People get hung up on forbidding use of words because fools have misused them, but they mistake the superficial symptom for the problem. The truly ignorant then blame the doctors for devising the term. alteripse 01:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So are these agreements or disagreements that the following is a false statement: "They were originally used in English as simple forms of abuse", regarding the terms idiot, imbecile and moron? Beanluc 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair question. Although I am not sure about their origin, I am fairly confident that in the 19th and early 20th centuries they were respectable medical terms, and suspect that is how they were introduced into English. I think at least 2 and maybe all three words have Greek/Latin origins, not Anglo-Saxon. In other words, I do not think they existed in English as "simple terms of abuse" before they became medical terms. I also suspect that I wrote the original version of the sentence containing that phrase. If it now says that they were "simple terms of abuse" before doctors used them, then the sentence has mutated into saying the opposite of what it orignally did and is likely incorrect. At least one of our commentators here has strange and inaccurate ideas of medical practice and attitudes related to this subject. alteripse 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it appears that Ed Poor wrote it, before mental deficiency was merged into this article. Beanluc 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed is welcome to the credit. More importantly, I may be mistaken about some of my assertions above. I did some dictionary checking. Moron and idiot are of greek, imbecile of french origin. Idiot and imbecile are attested as terms for simplemindedness at least 3 centuries ago, apparently before they were fitted out with more precise medical definitions in the late 1800s. Only moron appears to have been adopted from Greek for medical use in before making its way into general english use in the 20th century. Therefore neither simple version (of vernacular becoming medical or medical becoming vernacular) may be entirely correct for all three terms. Feel free to amplify the sentence in the article or leave as is. alteripse 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed ASR text

Per WP:ASR, I changed the following edit in Developmental disability from:

In North America this definition and condition are more commonly referred to as mental retardation in most academic and professional contexts, but this terminology is controversial in some locations, and considered so pejorative that some contributors have preferred to start a new article than contribute to the larger article with that title.

to

In North America this definition and condition are more commonly referred to as mental retardation in most academic and professional contexts, but this terminology is controversial in some locations, and considered by some to be pejorative.

--Rogerd 17:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I was aware of the self reference problem and would be happy for a more felicitous wording but I think the two articles should be connected for the sake of the reader. Because of the previous acrimony over choice of terms, I didn't want to just merge and redirect what is essentially a stub that presents a perfect duplication of the definition of MR. I do think that this is a situation where bending the ASR rule for the benefit of the reader might be appropriate. I certainly did not want to refer them to the morass of misunderstandings and recriminations above. I did not at all intend that my comment be derogatory but thought that an explanation for the existence of the apparent duplication is in order. What you left after your excision doesn't make it clear (1) that there is a much larger MR article that covers the same subject, or (2) that the reason this stub was started was apparently because of the extreme aversion some people have to the term MR. Part of my purpose in explaining it was to avoid some else coming along and thinking it was created by mistake and changing it back to a simple redirect. I would like to add something like that back in but let's find something agreeable here. Suggestions? 159.14.54.132 17:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Damned logouts. Anybody else having this problem more frequently? my comments above user:alteripse

vandalism

Question: Just why does this page get vandalized so regularly, and in such (pardon me) stupid methods? Also, is there any talk of freezing this page for a certain given length of time? ~GMH talk to me 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to wikipedia and i just wanted to let someone know that i edited the page. all i did was add the paragraph called "treatment and assistance"... i now realize i should have read the "discussion" before editing. i skimmed the discussion and my opinion is you need to call in an expert, and i don't mean a doctor or a professor, i mean someone who works with mentally retarded people in a professional capacity (and no i don't mean myself). and yes, "mental retardation" is a medical diagnosis, it is not a derogatory term. obviously, if you call someone a "retard" that is a much different story. my complaint with the article is the lack of anything that seems like real experience and more just an article that is desperately trying to be politically correct and then ends with a list of out of date terms that seems completely out of place. if anything, that list belongs in a complete section on the history of the discrimination and abuse of people with DD. that section could include everything from how they were treated throughout history, in different cultures, and should also include the "willowbrook tapes" which if any of you havent seen, i suggest you do. it was a story done by Geraldo in the mid 70s about the incredibly inhumane treatment of DD people in an institution called Willowbrook State School. anyways, i will keep this article on my watch list and help if i can. i have 6 years experience working with profoundly and severely mentally retarded adults, and i don't think that is enough to this article any sort of justice. as for the vandalism, it's probably uneducated children who google "retard" and think they are being funny. but, as i said, i'm new to this. i hope this helps in some way, and i continue to educate myself on DD and MR, so hopefully i'll be able to add more information. also, if someone could "wikify" my little paragraph in the article, i'd appreciate it! thanks.--Loosgroov 06:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, can you describe the "incredibly inhumane" Willowbrook affair in 3 sentences? alteripse 08:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is your wiki-fu broken, alteripse? Willowbrook State School. Natgoo 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I used to work with an agency that provided services for people with DD, and one of the training videos was the infamous "Willow Brook Tape," and let me tell you, that thing was disturbing! From what I was able to understand the patient to staff ratio was around 50:1, and most of the abuse came from neglect due to being severly under staffed. The people I worked with certainly were a handful at times, but still, NO ONE deserves what went on at Willow Brook! *shivers* Magnus 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In New York State's ARC and some of the smaller organizations (I'm not sure about other states), viewing of the Willowbrook tape is part of your primary training as Direct Care staff. The issue there was more or less about neglect created by a poor staff to client ratio, lack of funding, as well as a profound lack of life and skill goal strategies. I personally worked with one older man who lived at Willowbrook. He compulsively avoided bathing and attempted to wear the same clothing for a week straight. Did he enjoy doing this? Most likely not. This is a behavior he learned under the adverse conditions. Given all the problems created by Willowbrook, history will record its failings as abuses. On another note, I personally don't see what is wrong with the page content. Terminology is *always* changing in that field. The information is consistent with what we were forced to learn. All that's missing are details like history, SCIP, SIB, and so on. Why does this get vandalized so much? People who never have to work with or look at the MR population view them as another source of comic entertainment. That notion is dispelled quickly once you have to deal with the ups and downs of a child trapped in an adult's body on a daily basis. ~Accordance 08:05, 09 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is being frequently vandalised for reason of being redirected from "Retard" or any other synonym for dyslogism. O.o Vandals over the wikimedia probably might also have a form of mental retardation for the fact that they lose their ability to write\speak by reason of 1337\hacker\chat speak. - 69.157.190.222 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Difficulties in characterization" section

I've made a few modifications to the page today for clarity and organization. However, other than formatting, I only made trivial alterations to the content. But I did want to propose another change. Since it is more substantial, I wanted to bring it to the talk page first. The material in the "Difficulties in characterization" section doesn't seem to be useful, and I think it should be removed. Any objections? --Arcadian 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I had originally contributed that section as an extension of the definition because there had been a fair amount of arguing over what the term meant. Someone moved it and stuck the vague and unsatisfactory heading on it. I just changed the heading to a more accurate Heterogeneity of the condition, but if you think the section has no explanatory or illustrative value, delete it and I won't fight over it. alteripse 23:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the section, but I've copied it here in case anybody wants all or some of it back. I made some other minor adjustments -- most importantly, I clarified that the "three criteria" mentioned are from the DSM-IV. If anyone else knows of criteria that are used for other purposes, we could add those in as well, as long as we can be specific about their source and purpose. --Arcadian 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask what you didnt like about it? If you dont like the comparison structure, have you put the fundamental factual information into other sections? alteripse 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what information is actually in this section. Try this: think of a random medical condition that is general enough that laypeople know what it is. Then look through the eight bullet points, and ask yourself how many of them apply to the condition you're thinking of. Most of these bullet points describe most medical conditions, and in their current form, I'm not sure how they help the article. However, these are just my opinions, and if you wanted to put it back into the article, I wouldn't object. --Arcadian 15:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted content

Although it can be defined objectively, developmental disability does not represent a single condition. Some of the difficulties of characterizing it more precisely are illustrated by comparing it to the condition of short stature, with which it shares all of the following characteristics:

• Diagnostic criteria are defined statistically and arbitrarily.
• There are many subgroups with distinguishable developmental patterns.
• It is not a single, homogeneous disease; there are many known causes, both inherent and environmental, and congenital and acquired.
• Different diagnostic criteria are used for different purposes.
• More than one factor may contribute to disability for any one person.
• New conditions and causes are discovered or better understood each year.
• Treatments can be very effective, marginally beneficial, or ineffective, varying by cause and age of intervention.
• For a significant proportion of affected people, a cause cannot be determined.

Can I get approval from the admin.

Handicapped people are often teased callously, particularily by teenagers, who use retard as an insult. Can I add this? Is it NPOV??

Mental retardation

I've read the arguments above - this whole topic area needs a makeover. This article in particular is confusing, as it is titled mental retardation yet generally describes developmental disability. Quals first: I've worked in service provision in Australia and the UK for more then 10 years, and have read and studied widely.

Mental retardation is rarely used outside US journals and diagnostic definitions. In terms of service provision, it is obsolete even as a concept - none of the organisations I have worked for or researched have used IQ as a significant criterion since the early 1980s. The term as it is used in this article is offensive and inaccurate - many people receiving services have IQ's above 70; their disabilities are not necessarily related to their intellectual capacity as defined by the WAIS-R. This includes many people with Down syndrome and other diagnoses listed in this article.

This is simply not true. A Pubmed search for the term "mental retardation" yields 69,202 articles using that term. An ISI Web of Knowledge search yields 18,162 results. Now if we only consider those with "mental retardation" in the title, ISIS finds 7,524 results. Now, if we analyze the most recent 2,000 articles using "mental retardation" in the title, we'll find articles in which authors report themselves as originating from institutions in the USA, France, Italy, Netherlands, England, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Canada, Australia, Israel, Brazil, Spain, Turkey, etc. In fact, more than 50% of these articles originate from institutions residing in non-USA countries. Interestingly, if we ask what are the 10 institutions from which those 2000 publications most frequently originate, we find the following: Max Planck Institute (Germany), U Kansas (USA), Greenwood Genetics Center (USA), U Adelaide (Australia), Faculte de Medecine Rene Descartes (France), Ohio State (USA), Loisiana State (USA), Womens& Childrens Hospital (USA), U Illinois (USA), and Boston U (USA). One may argue, however, that these are all published in US medical journals. However, that's not true either. As the list includes articles published (from just the last two years) in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, European Journal of Medical Genetics, Nature Genetics (UK), Indian Pediatrics, South African Journal of Psychology, Monatsshrift Kinderheilkunde (German), Nervenheilkunde (German), Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, European Psychiatry, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, European Journal of Epilepsy, etc. In fact, articles can be found in the German, Spanish, French, Japanese, and Russian languages.69.248.2.135 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Developmental disability is used mainly in the US to refer to a range of social, physical and intellectual impairments effecting daily functioning (chronic, life-long and usually beginning before adulthood). Mental retardation is one such disability. This term is inclusive of people in need of support who do not have a diagnosis of mental retardation, such as (generally) those with Asperger's or Prader-Willi.

In the case of Prader-Willi syndrome, the OMIM, a database of human genetic disorders commonly used by the medical community, reports "The Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is characterized by diminished fetal activity, obesity, muscular hypotonia, mental retardation, short stature, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, and small hands and feet. It can be considered to be an autosomal dominant disorder and is caused by deletion or disruption of a gene or several genes on the proximal long arm of the paternal chromosome 15 or maternal uniparental disomy 15, because the gene(s) on the maternal chromosome(s) 15 are virtually inactive through imprinting." Asperger's, according the the OMIM, is defined as an autistic disorder, and forms of Asperger syndrome have been mapped to chromosome 3q (ASPG1), chromosome 17p (ASPG2), and chromosome 1q21-q22 (ASPG3). Two X-linked forms, ASPGX1 and ASPGX2, are associated with mutation in the NLGN3 gene and the NLGN4 gene, respectively.69.248.2.135 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Learning disability is used in the US to refer to disabilities specifically in relation to sensory processing and comprehension, while in the UK it is used as an all-encompassing term for disabilities described as developmental and learning disabilities in the US. Learning disability is used in this way in the UK because mental retardation is inaccurate and offensive.

Intellectual disability is the all-encompassing term used in Australia, in the same way that learning disabilities is used in the UK. The use of this term is growing internationally.

In light of the above, I propose the following:

• Mental retardation be rewritten as a diagnostic definition, with a brief overview of the subject, an explanation of why the term is no longer used (except within a very narrow range of US medical publications) and links to articles with accurate titles, as below.

• Developmental disability be rewritten and expanded to better reflect current usage, including service provision.

• Intellectual disability be created, with a brief overview and links to the other articles.

• The Learning disability#Contrast with other conditions section be rewritten to be less US and medically oriented, and a paragraph or disambig comment added for people searching for the term in the UK context.

There's also absolutely no mention of Medical model of disability and Social model of disability in relation to the topic, along with very big gaps where Positive risk-taking, Person Centred Planning, Social Role Valorisation, Normalisation (disability), Positive behaviour support and Challenging behaviour should be. At present, people with no knowledge of the topic area reading these articles are receiving information reflecting the attitudes and terminology of 20 years ago. This article gives a good overview/ case study of the changes in theory and policy - also note the authors use the terms developmental, learning and intellectual disabilities interchangeably.

Thoughts? Natgoo 14:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. With math and physics articles it's easy to say "OK, these two terms describe the same thing so the articles should be merged", but I guess it's much harder with this kind of science because people don't even agree how do divide up the spectrum of different disorders. —Keenan Pepper 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up the results of a survey I did for a project in Sept last year (original research, easily replicated if you had the inclination and an internet connection) - 37/50 US states use only 'Developmental Disabilities' in the title of the department/office funding and coordinating services. Of the 13 remaining, eight use 'Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities' and three use 'Mental Retardation' but write mental retardation/developmental disabilities every time the term is used in their literature. Only one (Texas) uses solely 'Mental Retardation' (Texas also has an 'Office for the Prevention of Developmental Disabilities' which I find interesting, but that's neither here nor there). Maine, the big anomaly, uses 'Cognitive Disabilities' in the title and refers to 'people in need of services' throughout their literature. The US federal govt funds the states' 'Developmental Disabilities Councils' through the 'Administration on Developmental Disabilities' and has the 'President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities'. I really can't see any argument for maintaining the bulk of the information on this topic at the page Mental retardation. I'm going to start making temp pages to rectify it - I've added heaps of links to my user page if anyone's interested in helping :) Natgoo 15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the US government's medical funding agencies (i.e. National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the NIH) continue to use the term "mental retardation." In fact, it defines "developmental disabilities" as a "complex group of birth defects involv[ing] a problem with the operation of a part of the body, a system in the body, or a process or pathway in the body." NICHHD lists "mental retardation" as one type of "developmental disability," defining the term as such, "The term 'mental retardation' describes a certain range of scores on an IQ (intelligence quotient) test. Mental retardation can result from a number of different birth defects."69.248.2.135 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been too busy to do any wiki work lately, but I'll get to it in the next few days. Natgoo 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done most of the above, and started working on some of the red links. Please contribute! Natgoo 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Swearword

Why isn't there any mention to the fact that calling someone a retard in the U.K is another way of calling them a "spaz". Wikisquared 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have included a sentence referring to a BBC survey that found retard and spastic to be the two most offensive disability related terms. This is effectively what you are saying and is verifiable. Sidefall 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Labelled as Mentally Ill

Once an individual is diagnosed as mentally ill - the individual will be mentally ill for life until their death. Mental illness destroys lives, from loved ones to friends.

Being labeled as mentally ill is the equivalent of rape.

There are many people who recover from mental illness, and go on to have happy and productive lives. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make? Mental illness is completely different to mental retardation BTW, some of the most intellectual people have been diagnosed with mental illness- I think you've got the wrong article.

Interesting, if debatable, perspective. What would you suggest?

1. treating mental illness as something too dreadful and shameful to be named or acknowledged? (E.g., "You seem to have a problem too shameful to even talk about"); or
2. acting as if there is no such thing as mental illness, and treating all manifestations of mental illness as if they are under the willful control of the sufferer (E.g., "You shouldn't be depressed. Just make up your mind to snap out of it!" or "It doesn't matter that you thought the devil was telling you to do it and your brain is controlled by the neigbor's tv control, you are spending the rest of your life in prison for what you did to your child.") So which sounds better? alteripse 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many people who recover from mental illness, and go on to have happy and productive lives. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make?

This article is about mental retardation, i.e. retarded people with low IQs. Not sad people or spastics. Think you've got the wrong article --Hayden5650 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Normal variation versus retardation?

Why isn' MR just a normal human variation, like Giftedness? Low IQ (70 to 85) is obviously part of human variation, as with the rest of IQs except, according to the article, IQs below 70. Can anyone answer this?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 08:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, except that the extreme low ends of normal distribution curves have a disproportionate number of people with identifiable diseases, and perhaps an even larger number with conditions which will eventually become identifiable diseases. In other words, you are simply arguing about labels. The low end of the height distribution has the same elongated tail and high proportion of identified and not-yet-identified pathologic conditions. alteripse 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But, using your analogy, why is the high end of of the height distribution usually associated with giantism and other "conditions", while the high end of the IQ distribution seems to be normal human variation? This is why the analogy you made is an incorrect comparison to my question. What is it that exempts the low end of the IQ distribution from natural variation, unlike the rest of the IQ scores (including the extreme high scores)? Evolution perhaps?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My analogy is exactly correct, and you are misunderstanding what I said. Both the low end and the high ends of the height and IQ distributions contain those who have no other detectable disease and are what you are referring to as "normal variation". However, in the low ends of the height and IQ distributions a large proportion have identifiable diseases. In contrast, the high end of height contains only a small proportion with identifiable disease than those at the low end. Note that disease means a condition that causes at least some other problem than unusual height. I know of no conditions at the high end of IQ that could be characterized as a disease. That is why the high and low tails of the distributions for both height and IQ are asymmetric.

I am not sure what your point is anyway. No one disputes that some of the people with IQ in the MR range have no diagnosable cause and could be described as simply the low end. It still represents a meaningful disability category in the sense that people with extremely low IQs cannot live and function in modern society as well as people with normal IQs. alteripse 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only since late in the 19th century that MR has been seen as an issue of great social concern requiring major legislative and administrative intervention. Most societies have seen children at the other end of the IQ scale, i.e. those showing cleverness, as the greater problem. Families, schools and employers were able to cope with this in most boys and almost all girls, but the cleverest boys often had to be sent away to religious institutions to be regimented and abused. This happened, without being mandated by law, in Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries. In parts of the world today most of those who are identifed as mildly mentally retarded in advanced industrial countries would not be singled out from their fellows. NRPanikker 14:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Riiiiiight..... Anyway, with regard to Alterprise's comments; I guess that assuming a normal variation for IQ, would then the IQ curve be "fattened" at the low end? Would the height curve also be "fattened" at the low end? I guess the moral of the story is that whichever side of the curve is the least advantageous to evolution is the side that all of the "conditions" will reside in, other wise, they would be conditions at all and would be absorbed into the general populace (since they would be evolutionarily successful).--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, why is Mental Retardation redirecting to the Elvis Presley page?

Infantile vandalism

Sorry, that insults infants. I've semi-protected the page; I'm getting tired of seeing it vandalized in the most puerile fashion five or six times a day. Oh, sorry, that insults boys. And vandals, come to think of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Terms

This is a very difficult webpage to write. Things have changed so much in clarification of Mental Retardation/Learning Disabilities. This url ( http://www.people-inc.org/museum/collection_glossary.asp )reflects the decades of changes in terms and ranges of IQ in determining what is a "mental deficiency" individual. When I was in the 7th grade back in 1967, I was told my IQ was 75. In 1967 you were classified as "mentally retarded" and the school administration pushed to get me in a Special Education class. My mother fought it and kept me in regular classes. That was the way it was in the 60's. I think the webpage is written well. One has to reflect the changes in society over time. Although it may affend some people. Brendad888 13:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remove insulting South Park picture

That is not a neutral-pov represenation "of a mentally handicapped person." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.117 (talk • contribs)

Picture removed, thank you for noticing it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

what the fuck is that picture of the apparently 'retarded' kid on a bike doing on this page?

What page? There isn't an image in the mental retardation article. Graham87 12:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note about vandalism

We've had an email in the OTRS system, which links to this forum post, giving us notice of this threat of continued vandalism (above post seems to be connected with this forum). I've blocked the user who left the image of the kid, but more could be forthcoming. Thanks, Martinp23 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing portions of the article to clarify, and also in response to 'antiquated' terminology

I suggest the article be edited at a certain portion, since the editors are so afraid the article will be 'vandalized' that they will not allow editing.

My editing suggestion would be near the bottom of the article, when the article discusses the methods that professionals use to determine mental retardation, specifically in "Significant limitations in one or more areas of adaptive behavior". It is simply a matter of redundancy on part of the author(s) and editors, and should be edited as quickly as possible to avoid vagueness and the appearance of poor composition.

The paragraph currently reads:

"To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use instruments that are actually structured interviews, with which they systematically elicit information about the person's functioning in the community from someone that knows them well."

It should, however, read:

"To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use structured interviews, with which they..."

The original paragraph is redundant and poorly composed. "Professionals use instruments that are ACTUALLY structured interviews"? No! Interviews are not 'instruments', they are interviews, which are methods, not 'instruments'. Therefore, professionals use structured interviews, they do not use 'instruments that are ACTUALLY structured interviews". To say that they use a "structured interview" is enough. Additional garbled nonsense, like in the original paragraph, is academic butchering and an attempt at wordiness to fool the average person into thinking the article's author sounds smarter than they really are by being verbose.

Verbosity is neither encyclopedic or intelligent, nor is it expedient, which all encyclopedic entries ought to be.

Onto another topic...

The usage of the word 'mental retardation' is not necessarily backward as much as it is interpreted (and I stress the word 'interpreted') by modern politically-correct people as offensive.

Etymologically speaking, 'retard' as a verb basically means to slow down, so something that is retarded is merely slow. For example, if I am driving on the road to an important meeting at the CIA and there is a traffic jam, then that clearly will retard my progress. Therefore, 'mental retardation' means 'a slow mind'. Not offensive at all, except for when people don't think outside of cultural and societal context.

People only consider the word 'retard' or 'mental retardation' offensive because they do not have a thorough understanding of language and word origin, and as such, they selfishly demand that we omit these words from the lexicon. I have retarded relatives, and they are just that; they are retarded in their mental development, plain and simple. Since when should an entire word be marginalized because of perceived and imaginary negative connotations?

To omit the phrase is equal to Newspeak, in my opinion. Mental retardation is a legitimate conglomeration of words, whether or not people are capable of recognizing the etymological history of the the term. If you have no experience with words or etymology, then stay out of it, because otherwise you are bringing personal opinions into an otherwise neutral argument.

It's a matter of connotation vs denotation. Clearly, the formal, dictionary meanings of 'to retard' or 'to be retarded'(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retard) are not offensive; it is only overly-sensitive and politically-correct people who are scared of offending people with a scientifically accurate term such as 'mental retardation'. By choosing to interpret the word negatively is a choice, not a fact. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.89.134 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I've removed the Logorrhoea in that sentence. Graham87 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

I see vandalism, but I can't fix it because the page is protected.

Could you be more specific? Which part is vandalism? BigNate37_(T) 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's gone now.

Does anybody know why the link for Profound Mental Retardation leads to the Vandalism page?70.65.6.167 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been fixed. Graham87 05:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a link that provides Jack Thompson as an example of mental retardation... If I had to guess a ytmnd user probably vandalized that portion. They currently have a sponsored site flaming him. It is in the beginning under the introduction portion of mental retardation.

Etymology

• • The origin of the word "retard" comes from intensive prefix re- and the Latin word tardus meaning "slow," e.g., being tardy. Mental retardation thus derives from the idea that someone is mentally slow.

I think this section should be deleted, as somebody did earlier. It really seems superfluous. The origins of the word retard are really not that cryptic and do not require an explanation. Do we go to the trouble of explaining the origin of the word mental? —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it some more I also decided the section wasn't needed. I tried to delete it but you had beaten me to it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Graham87 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Should a more scholarly definition be used? The reference to English law seems awkward outside of England.Skeat78 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah i agree its somewhat incongrous especially as the term "metal retardation" is no longer commonly used in the u.k. 3tmx 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

I really think that this discussion page could use a clean-up. A lot of things are being said multiple times. And some discussions are being put forward multiple times. Also since this is a apparently controversial subject. I would like to suggest that this is made clear somehow on the mainpage in order to prevent the "vandalism" some mentioned above. This is worth an encyclopedic entry, but I do think it needs some improvement. Anonymous 12 june 2007

Having stumbled across this page (wondering what an entry would say), I'd think that both the page and the discussion still need some editing. Summary (from UK): mental retardation really is both effectively unused in the UK and is where it were used would rank something like some racist words I'd better not write here. It is true that the phrase "mentally handicapped" used to be the phrase in the UK, and still probably is in some circles. This includes, I suppose, "Mencap". Mencap is one of the major UK charities in this area, and now describes itself as "Mencap is the UK's leading learning disability charity working with people with a learning disability and their families and carers." (quote www.mencap.org.uk). My lay understanding is that the UK professionals now try to distinguish "mental health" and "mental illness" (depression etc) from what was "mental handicap", and thus the phrase "learning disabilities" came in. Whatever, I'd see this as evidence that there will be tensions in a single English-language encyclopaedia, and there should be a standard way of dealing with it. Quite simply, it comes over as offensive here (I can't emphasise more) and there should at least be a statement on the page to say that in the UK this is seen so (perhaps noting it is an archaic form). I think the "mental retard" term best avoided on other pages too. Anonymous. London. 6th Sep 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.243.2 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean before people started using LD psychiatrists didn't distinguish mental illness from mental handicap! Except for the possibility that some of those with LD may have mental health problems mental illness and mental handicap are and have always been completely unrelated. I don't want to be rude but the why bother commenting on somthing when your (general) knowledge is so limited. We can all become mentally ill (severe depression for instance is a mental illness) but you either are or you arent LD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.35 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

I was wondering if anyone knew the varying levels of legal reposnibility people under certian IQ levels have? Is there a page on this or should something be included in the IQ table? Specificaly the rights to refuse medical treatment when the carer wants it to go ahead or other similar Carer Vs Patient issues. --82.45.121.74 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

serious references

If I look on the cited references (Websites, New York Times Article) I wonder if there exists any serious publications about this topic? Nulli 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion apparently is taking place without the sort of background knowledge that one would easily get by reading "Inventing the Feeble Mind" by James B. Trent subtitled "A History of Mental Retardation in the United States." 66.82.9.81 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Redirection from Half-Wit

The top of the article says: “Half-Wit” redirects here. For the episode of House, see Half-Wit (House episode). Very funny, but not true — there's no Half-Wit article at all; no redirection. Could someone remove the redirect template from this article? I would, but my account is too new. Spandrawn 11:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a mention of Half-wit which is indeed a redirect to mental retardation. Graham87 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no article at Half-Wit, shouldn't the Half-Wit (House episode) simply be Half-Wit? -- MacAddct1984 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Half-Wit should redirect to here since half-wit does. It would be unnecessarily confusing to have Half-Wit and Half-wit be different. (I created the redirect so it's no longer a red link.) Cburnett 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, there are a bunch of instances where the capitalized version directs to a different page, such as:

Critical mass - Critical Mass

Shoot 'em up - Shoot 'Em Up (although to be fair I moved that one)

Hat trick - Hat Trick (links to disambig)

Just cause - Just Cause (links to disambig) etc... -- MacAddct1984 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of how many? Cburnett 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well unless you decide to go poking around for examples that don't match his, I guess it makes it 4 out of 5. Or do you feel that he needs to try to prove your point as well as his own. 64.230.5.75 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was rhetorically implying that he stated only 4 examples and that those 4 examples are in a severe minority. My apologies for making my point too subtle. Cburnett 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I redirected my userpage to this hope you dont mind. --Taxidermy sunset 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think we do. Please stop with the vandal spree before it gets reported. Tarc 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the article about the TV programme indicates that it features an idiot savant with a hemi-syndrome, so it seems to be about a fantasy version of neurology, rather than about mental retardation. There is no point in linking it to this article, except for the sniggering schoolboys who infest this site. NRPanikker (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the show is irrelevant. The show is named "Half-Wit" and half-wit redirects here. It's easy to connect the dots on why the dab notice is there. I personally put it there so you can cut the "sniggering schoolboys" crap and directly call me on my standing as a wikipedian if you want to go that route. Cburnett (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We can see the explanation for the redirection in the above-named Senior Wikipedian's talk page, an extract from which follows: "Personally, a half-witted person is not just a "normal" person that's an idiot but just "sub normal" intelligence-wise which includes being an idiot. It's not a term I include in my daily vernacular though... Cburnett 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)." Well, you can't say plainer than that. NRPanikker (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And your point is what? And does that point counter anything about the facts? half-wit points to mental retardation and the episode is named "Half-Wit". My opinion and definition of words are wholly irrelevant to the dab notice, but thanks for caring enough to read my talk page. Cburnett (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

picture

i found a pic of a retarded woman i know--The Right Honourable 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a hilarious video for youtube once, with heaps of photos of mentally retarded people and the song 'Lets Get Retarded' playing in the background. The vid got kicked off youtube, but I still have the pics. Should I put some up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.47.190 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not, i reinstated my pic (tis not me)Phil Ian Manning (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (new account)

Traditional Terms

There is no reason for this section to exist IMO. Personally I find the article title offensive (yes, I am from the UK) and it's approach to the subject matter outdated. I am stunned to see people here on the talk page using the term "handicapped", but this is also beside the point. If we must allow the article to continue under the title "Mental Retardation", then that will suffice. There is no need to present a list of offensive synonyms.

Moreover, the statement "Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry, but have since been subject to the euphemism treadmill." is non-neutral POV. Words have fallen out of use, not because people are too lily-livered to stick to one term, but because over time, particularly over the last 50 years, the awareness and thus the sensitivity of medical health professionals to the concerns and vulnerability of disabled individuals has improved. This evolving change in public attitude and public health policies has necessitated an evolution of language, which is as it should be. To imply that this process is merely the effect of a bunch of PC loonies is erroneous, insulting and unbecoming to an intellectual publication. A footnote that the term "Mental Retardation" is considered offensive amongst a broad range of people would sufficiently replace this section.

I strongly suggest that someone with some authority takes this article in hand because it presently does Wikipedia no service. ~ NIGEDO (locked out of my account) 78.144.98.108 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

mental reatardation can be a very mild sometimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.174.131 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)