Talk:List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments

Just thought I'd add some background to explain my reasons behind creating this page, on the basis that not all Wikipedians will agree with me or understand. This page is inspired by experiences with otherwise intelligent & articulate people who seem unaware of the effects their language have, until you point it out to them. Obviously there are differences of opinion among both disabled and non-disabled people about the offensiveness/inappropriateness of (some or all) of these terms; hopefully my intro text makes this clear and is sufficiently NPOV - if not, please do change it. I added a few terms which I can think of to get the page going; please add more - the intention being that this page should eventually stand on its own as a comprehensive guide about "terms to avoid" - SP-KP 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we should maybe examine if it is time to not cast identity first language as negative. Ceebisabird (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct terms

This list is not very usefull without replacement terms. An example would be wheelchair-bound. It was in common use until recently, what term should be used instead? Ravedave 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would this work as an update? Are these right? Ravedave 03:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cripple used as a general term for a physically disabled person
    • Correct Term: Disabled person/Disability
  • Handicapped used as a general term for a disabled person, and Handicap as a generic term for a disability.
    • Correct Term: Disabled person/Disability
  • Joey used as a derogatory term for someone with Cerebral Palsy (see Joey Deacon)
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Cerebral Palsy
  • Spastic, referring to someone with Cerebral Palsy (shortened/altered forms such as Spaz, Spazzy, Spack or Spackhead are regarded as particularly offensive by many)
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Cerebral Palsy
  • Mentally retarded used to describe someone with a learning disability, a significantly low IQ, and/or developmental disability (and Mental retardation to describe their disability)
    • Correct Term: Physically disabled person
  • Midget
    • Correct Term: Little Person
  • Mongol or mongoloid for someone with Down's syndrome
    • Correct Term: Person(s) with Down's Syndrome
  • Retard or Retarded used to describe someone with a learning disability (and retardation to describe their disability)
    • Correct Term:
  • Slow or Slow learner used to describe someone with a learning disability
    • Correct Term:
  • The Disabled, The Blind etc. are objected to by many.
    • Correct Terms: "Disabled people", "blind people" are considered slightly better; "people with disabilities", "people who are blind" are preferred instead. On the other hand, some use "The Blind" in a manner similar to Deaf_culture, as they see themselves as a valid subculture separate from "The Sighted", and "The Disabled" or "The Disabled Community" is used similarly as well. This is an area of some controversy.
  • Wheelchair-bound for someone who uses a wheelchair
    • Correct Term:
      • Both "wheelchair-bound" and its uglier predecessor "confined to a wheelchair" are no longer considered polite usage; the preferred language is generally "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair", as per edits I've made to the article itself. Feyandstrange 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page may not prescribe "replacement terms" - Wikipedia is not a guide. Roger (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"correct"

The above looks good, except I wonder if the word "correct" is too proscriptive. "Accepted" or something like that might be a better way of putting it.

For wheelchair-bound, "A person or people with a disability" seems to be accepted, likewise for slow/retard " He is intellectually and developmentally disabled"

--SP-KP 17:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR

In at least some cases, the "negative connotations" appear to be original conclusions. Am I wrong? - Jakew 19:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the contributions I made to this page are original research; all are taken from other sources; don't know about material added by other authors though. If there are any that you're specifically concerned about, please feel free to list details, and if I can I will provide a source - SP-KP 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No specifics. I only comment because I saw the list and thought, "well, I agree that they have negative connotations, but has anyone else declared them as such?". It's not a big deal, and I'm certainly not about to start deleting content, but it might be a good idea to cite sources for the sake of thoroughness. - Jakew 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have spare time to hunt for citations myself, but style guides - the Chicago Manual of Style for example - should include some examples, as would in-house style and usage guides for major publications. Feyandstrange 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. A Google search for "disability language etiquette" will give you lots of sources. - SP-KP 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hashing it Out

The problem was with "it should be assumed." That's an opinion, even if it has been listed by etiquette sources. The word "should" reflects the opinion. I've re-wored the sentence to make it sound more neutral, and still more-or-less make the same point.

Although some of the terms listed are obviously inherently degrading (e.g., retard and wheelchair-bound), others more reflect some people's political needs than respect for disabled people. There are many disabled people who would be offended by this article. It needs to be re-written and expanded to explain the myriad of different views on the subject by both disabled and non-disabled people. I'd do it myself, but I'd fear it would be reverted by people who need to make themselves right.24.64.223.203 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I originated this article last year, and thought then that it might attract POV-pushing comments. That seems to have happened. Before deleting them, I thought I'd open a discussion here to establish consensus. Any views? SP-KP 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would do better to first examine your own bias. The original article as you wrote it supports a particular point of view on language, as do your comments at the top of this page. For example, "otherwise intelligent people" is a strong judgement, while the idea that their language has "effects" is an opinion. It's an opinion that people should avoid using particular terms, and it implies an opinion as to how to interpret them. Not every disabled or non-disabled person will agree with those interpretations; and many will not accept that the some of the terms have negative connotations at all. Having a disclaimer about there being different views doesn't eliminate the bias that is inherent to this kind of article.Roger 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree, Roger; there are strong sources for "accepted language use" available, and this article should reference them (cf. other comments about referencing some manuals of style and usage). You are right in that the existing text shows bias, but the concept is sound. Feyandstrange 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural considerations

Future edits to this piece should take into account the diversity of English usage. As a quick example, a recent flap in the British press castigated a famous American golf player for describing himself on an off day as "a spaz", which horrified the average Briton and incensed the British disability community; however, the golfer, and most Americans, were bewildered, and had no idea that 'spaz' was even related to disability. Likewise, the use of "handicapped" versus "disabled" is different in US vs UK. I don't know if Australian usage more closely mirrors UK or not. However, polite disability language differs in different countries, and this article should reflect that.

Feyandstrange 09:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this needs an explanation alongside each relevent entry, or in a table, but then you'd have to decide how many countries to include.
Also some terms are seen as more acceptable in certain environments or professions such as medicine. For example I found out not that long ago to my horror that "cretin" was medically still in use (said WP article gives some mystifying cobblers about spellcheckers anc creationism being to blame for perceived offence. Huh?) There's also the case of disabled people "taking back" terms like cripple.MEspringal 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretinism is a recognised but rather rare disease entity. I would be somewhat hesitant to apply the term "cretin" to someone with congenital hypothyroidism, though. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Damage-->Injury

Should the term "brain damage/damaged" be added? I see there's a WP article for brain damage which mentions injury as a synonym but was a little surprised that the fact it's viewed at least by some(?) as insensitive wasn't mentioned. I thought for example, most head injury charities were just that (this could apply to spinal injuries as well). MEspringal 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God

Either disabled people are overly sensitive, or 90% of this list is bullshit. Wheelchair-bound is offensive because it is akin to being "bound" to chains, like a slave? Really? That had never, ever occurred to me prior to reading this list. Bound means to be forcibly confined to something, which is literally the case for wheelchair-bound people. Unless you mean to tell me a person confined to a wheelchair can occasionally get up if they so choose? Because that's the only way I would see wheelchair-bound as being incorrect. This list also claims "lame" is "universally offensive", which is absolutely incorrect. Yes, lame was originally used to describe people who can't walk, but now its popular usage is as an adjective, to describe something that is boring or pointless. The same way "idiot" and "dumb" were terms used to describe people who were mentally disabled and people who were mute, now they're just used as insults towards people thought to be intellectually inferior. Disability groups don't make a stink about that. Handicap shouldn't be on this list either. I can understand terms like retard, cripple, midget, and Mongoloid being on this list, there is legitimate controversy surrounding those terms being used and to a certain extent they are somewhat offensive. But for the most part, a word can only become offensive if you allow it to be. Most of this list will confuse a reader who uses terms like wheelchair-bound and handicap to describe someone who is genuinely disabled, I don't think most people even know that those terms are considered offensive. Someone needs to find sources supporting the inclusion of such words, otherwise it lacks credibility in every aspect. And I'm somewhat surprised that "invalid" didn't make this list, since I'd imagine it'd be more insulting than "handicapped". I mean, being told that you're not valid because you're disabled. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are wheelchair users who can, in fact, get up and walk certain distances. Some people who use wheelchairs alternate between wheelchairs and electric scooters. Some people who use wheelchairs use them only when their conditions are in flare. Some people who use wheelchairs only use them outside of their homes. Some people who use wheelchairs only use them when their plans are not compatible with walking with an assistive device such as a cane or walker. Not everyone who uses a wheelchair is paralyzed. To characterize every wheelchair user as "wheelchair-bound" is as incorrect as characterizing everyone who walks as "shoe-bound" or young toddlers who cannot walk long distances safely as "stroller-bound." Wheelchairs are tools, no one is required to use one, even someone with a paralyzing condition. No one is confined to their wheelchair, they can sit in a chair, or on a sofa, lie in a bed or on a chaise, they can ride a ferris wheel if they so choose. The wheelchair is but one way people can choose to get around.Aecamadi (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I have multiple physical and psychiatric disabilities and I strongly believe that 90% of this list is bullshit. "Retarded" is a medical term, with a different and distinct meaning from "learning disability" or "developmental disability". Dyslexia is a learning disability. Mental retardation is just that, mental retardation. I can't recall ever meeting a wheelchair-bound person who thought the term wheelchair-bound was anything other than accurate. "Handicap" is otherwise used to mean anything that puts you at a disadvantage, which last I checked, a disability did. So why is that offensive? People need to take a chill pill! 12.172.168.176 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [comment from a lame retard] in my experience as a lame retarded spazz, the people surrounding a dissabled person are over protective and affraid the disabled personill be offended but cant react, THAT is a bigger insult because that person assumes because im slow and got a spastic arm i cant tell people to get lost, if someone insults me im happy to return the favor, when someone defends me i feel offended because that person asumes i cant defend myself, english has a lot more funny words for the disabled: rehab sounds better then revalidationand i can say i had a stroke of bad luck, cva caused by an avm im a dutch retard so i hope you can understand my english, my plea is stop overprotecting disabled people, overprotecting is worse then accidently insulting, this morning i desided i wanted to use lame retard as my nick as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation#Linguistic_reappropriation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.73.115 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more suggestions

Imbecile, moron, idiot, cretin, lackwit, halfwit, and dim bulb are all terms that could profitably be added to this list. The first four were once medical terms, but have fallen out of fashion as being pejorative; the last 3 are slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.14.242 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts, and it's certainly not as bad as many on this list, but the association of ADD/ADHD with being merely forgetful or distracted, I.E. "I couldn't find my car keys this morning. I swear, I'm so ADD/ADHD sometimes," or any similar misuse of the condition's name as a descriptive phrase. - WolfShadow

To echo @WolfShadow, I'm so ADD, people also say, "I'm so OCD." I have both ADHD and OCD, and people think it's all about hyperactivity, distraction, and cleanliness. Also, the word "sufferer" would fit on this list, since those who don't experience disability often view it as being tragic. It can be challenging, but in most cases, we adapt and live meaningful lives. I speak to this in relation more to my physical disability that requires the use of a power chair. LBeller7 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Short stature' is not the same as being affected by dwarfism

I understand that little people are people that are...well short, but is "short stature" really a correct label? Isn't anyone who is shorter than average height of 'short stature', not just persons with dwarfism? Dwarfism covers many other medical/structural anomalies that include but aren't limited to being of short stature. The inclusion of the 'short stature' label is unfairly medicalizing being of below average height.

Also, if 'handicapped' is derogatory what are parking spaces that have blue signs with wheelchair users on them to be called? We can't really go about naming them after their main users, "persons with obesity parking spaces". Mobility impaired parking? Blahmos (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

problematic

this list is highly problematic. it's uncited, does not present a global point of view, and seems to inject OR in a number of places. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it needs more. Remember, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are non-negotiable pillars of the project. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is POV by definition

Offensiveness is a matter of opinion, only correctly determined by a person who is offended. Even then, whether the thing is offensive or not, and to what extent, is a matter of subjectivity. In many cases an intended compliment can be interpreted as an insult and vice versa. Obviously many of the terms in this list can be deemed offensive but to declare them universally offensive across cultures is ridiculous. If this article is to stay it ought to be rewritten to reflect that its contents are not objective fact. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to distinguish between an objective statement about an opinion and the opinion itself. It is perfectly possible (NPOV and objectively factual) to report the existence, content and context of an opinion. An election result is an an objective fact that describes the collective opinion of the voters.
Something like "the word 'retarded' is widely condemned as offensive in the UK" is an objective statement about opinion. It must of course be backed up by a RS. Unfortunately most of the items in this list do not have such a contextual explanation, or cites. Roger (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear scope

Don't all disability related terms have negative connotations, at least potentially? Sure a word like "blind" can be use as a neutral description, and even have positive connotations in phrases like blind justice. But when a heckler yells, "Hey ref, are you blind?" the implication is that the referee is making blunders so elementary that they can only be justified by a disability that would ordinarily disqualify him from a career in officiating sports. Kilopi (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term "disability" itself has negative connotations for some people in some situations, and I can't think of any disability-related terms that don't. If this article is to reflect that situation then it might as well just be called "List of disability-related terms". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation-required tags

In my opinion, there is such a thing as an abuse of these tags. Use of these tags expresses that the tagger believes an assertion is controversial enough to need a defence. On the contrary, some knowledge is common enough, and noncontroversial enough, that there is no meaningful doubt involved, and so it need not be explicitly sourced.

Does anyone really doubt that some people (not even just those to whom it's actually applied) find the term batshit offensive? Derpy? Cretin? Diseased? Dimwit? Dumb? Freak? Fucktard? Gimp? Imbecile? Idiot? Insane? Loony? Maniac? Moron? Pinhead? Psycho? Retard? Schizo? Spazz?

I've just pulled out some of the most obviously, patently offensive terms, terms that are recognised as insulting by nearly all native speakers of English. (Basic test: Would you be offended if someone used this term on you? If yes, then the term is offensive.) But someone apparently thinks they require citations proving that they are offensive. Small claims do not require intensive support. This is a ridiculous abuse of the Citation Needed tag, and I'm having very great difficulty maintaining an assumption of good faith on the part of the editor responsible. Accordingly, I am removing the tags from all of the terms on the list. If someone wants to tag selected terms again, individually and judiciously, that's okay. But please use some common sense. Getheren (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the person who added the tags, I think I should speak up. This article needs sources to prove the terms are offensive. We can't just skitter around adding words here because somebody finds they are. In the AfD some sources were brought up. They should be added to the article. Note that the article also makes claims such as "it is always offensive" and others. I fail to see why you found them inappropriate - we can't ignore all rules for something this obvious. This is a very broad list, as such, sources need to be there. Take, for example, Stereotypes of Americans. Each entry is sourced, proving that it is considered a stereotype. The same should be done here. Beerest355 Talk 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then. Let us suppose -- I would of course never actually do this in earnest -- that I answer you by addressing you as "Fucktard", and refer to you as a "cretin", and your position as "batshit", in responding to others' comments. When -- not if, when -- I was called on the carpet for doing so on the basis of personal attacks and offensive language, I could offer a powerful defence: "Beerest355 does not accept that these terms are offensive without authoritative sources. Therefore, until someone provides such authoritative sources, what I have said to him cannot be demonstrated to be an offensive personal attack, and I have done nothing contrary to acceptable Wikipedia behaviour." I know that this defence would not fly, and I doubt that you imagine it might. Why? For the same reason I gave above: nobody has any serious doubt that fucktard, cretin, and batshit are offensive terms. This defence would fall into the category of "peeing on someone's leg and saying it's raining".
As I said in the last sentence of my comment above, I have no objection to selective, judicious tagging. Certain items currently on this list, in fact, seem dubious to me, for a variety of reasons. (It's also not clear to me that I'd support the article's survival in an AfD debate, but that's another matter.) I am perfectly prepared to endorse tagging such terms for citation, where there is a valid controversy over whether they are real terms in use, whether they are notable enough to be worth including (change swallower is an example of this), or whether a term's non-pejorative uses -- if any -- outweigh its pejorative uses. I share your apparent opinion of overstated claims ("all", "always" &c.), and I prefer qualified claims. I am equally prepared to support cite-tagging an item whose offensiveness or negative connotations, in general or to a certain population, are in reasonable doubt.
What I am opposed to is the act of cite-tagging every last item on the list on a wholesale basis, injudiciously -- including terms that are offensive on their face, according to any reasonable interpretation of contemporary community standards (such as fucktard). Do we really require an authoritative source to support the trivial claim that fucktard, a word with no apparent saving graces, has negative connotations (per the title of the article)? Is such a claim reasonably in doubt? And how does one cite a source for something so generally accepted that few, if any, reputable sources have occasion to explicitly support it?
I hope you will understand that such action gives at least the appearance of someone attempting to answer a perceived POV by pushing an opposite POV, as though two opposing POVs make an NPOV. The tactic of relentlessly demanding proof for what is not in reasonable doubt is much older than WP; the ancient Stoics recognised it as a particularly disagreeable form of sophistry unless accompanied by a reasonable argument for doubt. I doubt that you thought to yourself, "I'm going to do me a little fact-tag vandalism", and I prefer to think you acted from blindness rather than sinister intent. But the action so closely resembles innumerable cases of fact-tag vandalism that I hope that on reflection you will understand the appearance it raised. Getheren (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable source

Tentatively, I eliminated terms that had “disabledfeminists” as its only source, the nonacademic nature of the site, and the questionable content (Intelligence as a ‘disability-related term with negative connotation’ is probably the most obvious) were my base for this decision.--181.52.35.90 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I recommend deleting this page entirely under the basis that it is absurd to even discuss or list. This is nothing short but a Political Correctness fanatical webpage. There is no such thing as a disability-related term that does not have negative connotations. And those few that dont, perhaps, one day will. Retard is not negative. The dictionary definition simply means malformed, deformed, not on par with the standard. That is precisely what a mental handicap is, and it is the best term to use in the most generic sense. No word has negative meaning but the meanings we choose to give it. Any word or phrase or sentence can be taken negatively, based on context, sarcasm, intent, etc. Used innocently and accurately, retard is simply an adjective describing the condition of being malformed. Most of us are not medically qualified enough to be any more specific than that. Ergo, regard is the most accurate term anyone can use given that they dont know and cannot diagnose a more specific condition. If anyone can show me one disability-related term that does not have a negative connotation and does not become offensive when used against someone who either does not possess the condition, or whose ego stands in the way of it regardless of accuracy, I will eat my shoe. All the words listed were at one time innocent and PC, and have become anything but BECAUSE of their misuse and abuse and the malicious intentions of those who use them.--98.247.135.86 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are mentioned by reliable sources as being negative. Please use this talk page to discuss the article, not your personal views. (WP:NOTFORUM) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even define "retard" correctly. It means to slow. Medically, it is used to refer to delays in development usually. Connotations change the way we speak about things and individuals on a regular basis. For instance, the word "retard" causes the same anguish and pain because of its historical use as the word "nigger" or "cunt" would for other individuals. It has become a slur. Because people have less exposure to the history and experiences of disability, this is still argued to be untrue. People with disabilities are still fighting for recognition as basic functioning members of society. We are presumed incompetent from the get-go in many cases. If we aren't seen as equals, our treatment and the language surrounding it doesn't matter as much to those who are not impacted or who aren't actively engaging with the community and the dialogue.LBeller7 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

I would like to edit this article as the claim that "these words may offend some people but not others" implies that these words are not harmful to use, whereas, words such as "fucktard" and "autistic" shouldn't be considered in this category. Fishmr (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishmr:  Not done. This is supposed to be a request for a specific edit. It's not a request for permission to edit. You've established what you'd like removed. What do you want to see in its place? CityOfSilver 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'dotard'

I added the word 'dotard' to this list, since it qualifies as such a term. Can we redirect that page to this one, linking it to that entry? Just a thought. Johnnysama (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please? I'd love see the 'dotard' page redirect to the entry on this list. Johnnysama (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being on the list, this does not say anything about dotard. It is more informative for the reader to be directed to Wiktionary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I came up with a good, simple solution: Put a wiktionary link to "dotard". Can we have it redirect to this site now, now that I put in the wiktionary link to it? Johnnysama (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes the reader have to go through another click to get to the needed information. I am still opposed to linking the redirect to here. But it is good to link the . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drongo

(Refactored from User talk:Richard-of-Earth#Drongo)

"The word drongo is used in Australian English as a mild form of insult meaning "idiot" or "stupid fellow". " Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: yes it is an insult, but the article states it is a list of term "used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities that may be considered negative". In other word, terms created to describe such people without intentionally being pejorative, but later acquired pejorative connotations. Basically, if we can include "drongo" then we could include most insults on the list and it become indiscriminate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word, used in that sense, is clearly pejorative and related to (mental) disability. If words which also have other meanings are to be excluded from that list, I think the guidance needs to be made clearer. Are you suggesting that "Mongol" should also be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: Right after I wrote the above comment I was thinking that the lead to the list was not clear enough. "Mongol" was used by the medical community as short for Mongolian idiocy that then became offensive. It acquired pejorative connotations followed by taboo status after being used neutrally. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds rather similar. I guess the actual race Mongols is comparable with the bird family Drongo. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. perhaps this discussion would be batter moved to Talk:List of disability-related terms with negative connotations? Thanks.[reply]
"Drongo" did not go through the phase of being a non-pejorative disability-related term. When used to refer to people to say they are stupid, it had and was intended to be pejorative. That is the difference that keeps this from becoming simply a list of insults. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That's quite a subtle distinction. I think the description of article content could perhaps be made clearer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC) When did "Fucktard" have it's neutral phase?[reply]
I was looking at that as well. It is an alteration of retard which is on the list. The citation given has the quote "Pharmacy organisations have warned their members against careless use of social media after a pharmacist referred to a patient as a 'fucktard' on Facebook... Both the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and Calder Pharmacy's local health board, NHS Lothian, have said they are considering the incident 'unacceptable'." I guess who ever added it thought that justified adding it to this list because it was used by a pharmacist. I am going to remove it and see who objects. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Fucktard" and I put as the rationalization "remove cause it is not and was never formal terminology", I guess that is what I have in mind for criteria for this list and goes to the comment at the top of this talk page by SP-KP who created the article. These are words that at some point were used to refer to disabilities in some way as part of a formal terminology without pejorative intent and later became pejorative. Thus people using these term might not realize the negative connotations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FuckTard still redirects here, but curiously not fucktard. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list needs a revamp

Some of the words on there are definitely not supposed to be there. "Blind" is not a slur. Neither is "epileptic." There are some valid points on this list, but honestly most of these should be removed. Some of the terms on here are not relevant at all, and are entirely context dependent. Also, saying "idiot" has the same levels of negative connotation as "cripple" is... so wrong. This list seems very US centric as well with no consideration for slang. There should be actual legitimate resources for whether something is actually considered harmful, such as research papers or articles, not blog posts or the opinions of editors. The list is very biased. It also definitely seems that a lot of the terms here could be included in Person-first language, and most of the sources seems to point to that as well. This article is definitely a POV nightmare. Disaposi (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of these has a citation to research papers or dictionaries. I oppose removal of a cited entry on the basis of "I don't like it" or a non-specific "doesn't belong". So you need to take each one up. On the other hand if someone wanted to nominate the list for deletion, it is just a list of words. There is little to no content about these words and very few have articles linked that expand on why they are on the list. Come to think of it, we could specify a list criteria that a term must have a mention in a Wikipedia article expanding why it is on the list. Then I would support removing such words that fail that criteria. As for being US-centric, editors just need to add more words that are from other cultures. I do not see what POV is being pushed here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pun, retard section

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Change ""The Disabled" or "Disabled people" are considered offensive by some (who prefer "person with a disability"),[10][13] while others actually prefer this.[18][19][20]" to simply "The Disabled"


Additionally please insert under section 'P': "Person with a disability"

Reasoning: because the vast majority of disabled people reject the model of disability that led to the use of the phrase 'person with a disability' and this is a term created by and primarily used by non-disabled people who feel that there needs to be a separation between 'person' and 'disability', when in fact the majority of disabled people and disabled activists prefer 'disabled person' as it is an important part of their identity. Sources include:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd1/chapter/talking-about-people-including-deaf-and-blind-age-faith-family-origin-gender 95.147.204.126 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and sources. I'm not totally sure what you mean about the first point. What do you want it to say? 00:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources don't back up this addition. They recommend person-centered language, but don't say the other way around is in any way offensive (it says "many people don't identify with this term"). Even the sources themselves say "when communicating with or about disabled people" in a neutral manner. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name of the article

Unless there is an objection I am going to change the name of the article from List of disability-related terms with negative connotations to List of disability-related terms that developed negative connotation. Sadly, I can not think of a more concise way to put it. People keep interpreting the current name to mean a list of insults and this is not what the creator of the list intended. What we want are words that were meant to be neutral, but became negative over time. Hopefully the mew title will make that clear. While Wikipedia could have a List of disability-related insults it would be problematic as all the list of words are. What terms are notable enough for the list; finding suitable citations for recent words; terms for other languages; etc. are the type of problems encountered. I will wait maybe a week to give people time to reply. If it is contentious I will make a formal move request. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it and removed any word that did not start out as neutral. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object and I am reverting. I am sorry I missed seeing your notification for this earlier. I will also be reverting the changed instructions at the top which define what is on the page. As seen in the names of the many sourced used, it is a list of terms which negative connotations regardless of the origin of those terms. If you disagree further I suggest a RfC on the Disability task force. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amousey. The cited sources I checked state that the terms listed have negative connotations. There may be some sources that state a few terms developed negative connotations, but there would be many more sources that state those same terms simply have negative connotations. The version Amousey reverted to is correct. Ward20 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey and Ward20: I do not disagree that the items are sourced and correct for the list. My disagreement is with the list itself. If you look at the top discussion by User:SP-KP here it is not what was intended for this list. The items I removed were not terms, but just slurs. If you want a list of just slurs then create new article titled List of disability-related slurs or rename this one. However WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. Words that were neutral and became negative are more encyclopedic as they reflect a cultural change. Another list of slurs is just another list that belongs on Wiktionary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation Richard-of-Earth. In the top discussion by User:SP-KP, there is the wording "offensiveness/inappropriateness of (some or all) of these terms". I believe the majority of the terms are appropriate to that discussion of the title "List of disability-related terms with negative connotations". I reviewed WP:NOTADICTIONARY and concluded that what is meant in relation to this article is it should describe the concept and not be a usage guide. I agree this is complicated in regards to this article. I view the article as a concept, with examples, similar to the article "Unisex name". Honestly, I don't see how changing the name of the article to "List of disability-related terms that developed negative connotation" changes anything as far as WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Would you please elaborate?. I believe changing the title to "List of disability-related terms that developed negative connotation" would create a new article the present material and sources do not support because of the meaning of "that developed".
An issue that is relevant to WP:NOTADICTIONARY; the article wrongly suggests words that "should" be used.
The examples below, "drunkard, lazy, mutant" are interesting. Drunkard is a synonym for alcoholism,[1] and alcoholism can be argued a disability.[2][3]. Common useage leads me to believe "drunkard" is a negative connotation. The citations that were given for lazy could be better, but there are many results for a search for secondary sources for "lazy" and "learning-disabled" that implicitly indicate that lazy is a pejorative term for those with that disability.[4][5] I suspect that "mutant" has the same negative connotation for people who are disabled by genetics. Then there is pinhead.[6] Yes, the source could be better, but there are sources that do describe the issue.[7] To your question, each term should be supported by reliable sources per consensus.
Maybe it would be a help if [failed verification] or [better source needed] could be applied in the future.
Thanks, I learned a bunch thinking about your comments. Ward20 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original description does not backup your assertion that the list is about terms that "used to be neutral". There's no mention of history there. The list appears to be intended to include terms that many people are unaware / were previously unaware are offensive. So some terms could go based on always be used as a slur. Others you wanted to remove eg Yuppie Flu have been part of casual language / informal terms and there's no indication that they were originally intended to be offensive (Yuppie being a term for young high achievers in the past and Yuppie Flu simply meant burnout - it was not an attempt to say the person was not ill or would be better in a few weeks).
There is certainly an argument for removing lazy based on the original intention of the list.
I am very much in favour of clarification at the top of the article to explain that inappropriate terms should be included, and that terms which have always been used as slurs do not belong. Drunkard in the source I cited historically meant someone who drank a lot of liquid. - I miscited this - it remains a negative rather than neutral term for a person with alcohol addiction. Substance use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis involving impairment. User:Ward20 - please see the page cited in the book on Mutant - I also found modern references about the use of mutant in things such as the X-men.
Given the long history of the article and the fact most terms have been on the page for years, marking as better source needed or disputed should be done instead of immediate removal of what has been in consensus for some time. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. What is needed is criteria that limits what can go on the list and then enforce it. My concerns go beyond just this list to lists in general where people seek to assert some word or thing is more culturally significant then it is by getting it a mention on Wikipedia. The motivation for this kind of thing ranges from grand political agendas to simple desires to share. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkard, lazy, mutant

These terms were not originally referring to disabilities. If we include these we will be allowing the list to become too indiscriminate, too broad. Will we also add ugly, creepy and weird because these insult might be used against people with disabilities? How are these specific enough to add to this list? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the sources I added. The original intention of the page did not refer to history or changes in use. Mutant I sourced carefully although I could add more regarding the use in X-men which is not intended as a slur but is inappropriate. Drunkard clearly refers to an alcoholic and is not necessarily intended as a slur. Lazy I think is something that can go since not specific to disability. Please think twice before reverting when terms are part of an ongoing discussion. Edit wars are not helpful. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did spend a bunch of time deciding if I should remove these things or not. Seeing "lazy" pushed me over the edge. Regardless of what citations say, these words are not specific to a disability. The citation on mutant says we are all mutants, but some of us are more mutant then others. As for "drunkard", my thought is not everyone who drinks a lot has a disability; maybe I am wrong about that, maybe I am not. To a degree, having it on this list implies that anyone who drinks a lot has a disability and there is really no way to know if that is the case. Some people just decide to stop drinking in a moment and that is that. Not everyone has withdrawal or cravings. To me it is just an insult that might be used against anyone who drinks and not specific to insult a person with a disability or to imply a disability. I am surprised to learn that "drunkard" is from the early 1400s and "alcoholic" is the newer term from the later 1700s. I do not see how anyone could use it today and not realize it is a slur, so I do not see how listing it here improves this article's usefulness as a reference. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Why not leave the title as is and just add to this article? The terms that are appropriately listed as having a negative connotation can stay as they are. Where an WP:RS states a term's interpretation has changed from a benign connotation to a negative connotation over time, it can can be edited to explain the change. It stays one article instead of two, and has the benefit that the articles that wikilink to this one do not need editing. Ward20 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support : This is not a page intended to reflect historical changes in language Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered keeping it one article and having one section of "neutral terms that became negative" (Good Words Gone Bad?) and another for words that were always slurs (Words Born to Be Bad?). But I would be satisfied if we limit it to words specific to disabilities and some evidence of cultural significance. We could limit it by requiring words to have an article or be mentioned in an article as having negative connotations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand a need to segregate terms into groups "Words Gone Bad" vs "Words Born Bad". To my mind it just gives an arbitrary distinction without a current difference for editors to disagree over. The important point; here are terms that are disabity related that currently have negative connotations because... If sources indicate the useage weren't always considered pejorative then that information could be added and cited with a simple sentence.
How would any limitation be practical besides being a mainstream view published in a reliable source? I can't see limiting any term to being notable according to being in a Wikipedia article. It seems like it puts undue WP:WEIGHT on an unreliable source. Ward20 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article description as per the original intended purpose, which did not refer to changes in use. I hope this is clear now. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Add "Sped" - A portmanteau of "special ed" Add "The Short Bus" - References the smaller busses used by children with disabilities DrDocls (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please provide reliable source(s) that support this addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

DestroyerofHaram (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Delusional" to empty space

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retard is not a slur

Please remove "retard" from this list as it is not a slur in any way. 2A00:23C7:8200:4001:D5A:C06F:E985:CBAA (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Lots of cited sources to support it being a slur Cannolis (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Please, change the first line in the article to form a complete and grammatically correct sentence.

From: The following is a list of terms used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities may be considered negative or offensive by people with or without disabilities.

To: The following is a list of terms, used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities, which may carry negative connotations or be offensive to people with or without disabilities. Mighty Mighty Martin (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

Please, change the following sentence to be grammatically correct. Nobody will take the list seriously if they think the short introduction was written by a bunch of morons!

From: Some people believe that terms should be avoided if they might hurt people; others hold the listener responsible for misinterpreting terms used with non-intended to be harmful intent.

To: Some people believe that terms should be avoided if they might hurt people; others hold the listener responsible for misinterpreting terms used without harmful intent. 2.30.191.231 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I did the copyediting, but in the future perhaps leave out commentary like Nobody will take the list seriously if they think the short introduction was written by a bunch of morons! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkard?

L 84.61.180.12 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashhhleblanc's edits

User:Ashhhleblanc removed a bunch of posts and edited others on this talk page. They added this comment:

I have deleted some of these because they contain slurs that are not appropriate to be using, such as the r-slur and the m-slur (used for little people). If you don't know what language to use for a disabled person, you should always ask them, seeing as different people use different words. For example, the autistic community usually likes identity-first language like "I am autistic" as opposed to person-first language like "I have autism", but certain individuals prefer person-first. Thanks! Ashhhleblanc (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Ashhhleblanc

I have reverted their edits citing WP:TPOC. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

There is no real point in inventing new "politically correct" terms, because in few months they will be used "with negative connotations". Also, the use greatly varies between groups even in the same city. E.g., currently among my peers: "slightly less than average" means "complete idiot", while "average" = "idiot". "With special abilities" = "crippled" or "dimwit". There simply is no "cure" for this, inventing new terms is ridiculous, people doing that didn't really think this through, or it is not their goal to protect the weaker. 84.114.78.32 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are your suggestions for improving the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This phenomenon is often termed the Euphemism treadmill. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Almost as rewarding as the Wiki treadmill Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

The article states the term "special" is a derogatory term, but this is only the case in a negative connotation. For example calling someone special in place of the word dumb is offensive and derogatory, but telling someone that their special in positive way is wholeheartedly acceptable and should be accepted. I would like to change "special" to "special (with negitive connotations. Ex; replacing the word "dumb" with "special" when insulting somebody; saying it while only knowing the negitive connotations or actively aware and refusing to care.)" Krispydabell (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "The following is a list of terms, used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities, which may carry negative connotations or be offensive to people with or without disabilities." See also the example given at the beginning regarding the word "crazy". A lot of the words on this list are not derogatory per se, but can carry negative connotations under certain circumstances. Your suggested clarification is given in the beginning and implied with every word on this list; it does not need to be restated for each individual entry. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potato, tater, spud, "tater tot"

All four are modern terms used for someone with Downs, as are references to Chromosome 21, such as "chromosomally challenged".

The four main terms refer to the infamous Demotivational Poster featuring the picture of a girl with Downs taken when she was 4 with the caption I Can Count To Potato!. Recently, "potato" has become a catch-all term for anyone with developmental disabilities, as seen in a Tard Story named after it's last line, No Tomato For The Potato, which actually features a male child with autism*, not Downs.

  • -- they have their own term, "autismo" while the related Asperger Syndrome is the origin of the term "Sperg"ing out.

Any words in quotation marks should be added, in my opinion. 68.41.217.174 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reference to a reliable source to add this to the list. This would be probably a news article that mentions "potato" specifically as a disability-related terms with negative connotations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "simpleton"

The word "simpleton" belongs on this list 2A00:23C7:AF98:7E01:3D37:FE06:AC07:FD83 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

Add the following text to the end of the paragraph about person-first v. identity-first language.

In particular, the Deaf community and many within the autism community prefer the use of identity-first language both when talking about themselves and others in their communities. For instance they prefer the use of Deaf person or autistic child. [1] Batterymarie (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wooldridge, Shannon. "Writing Respectfully: Person-First and Identity-First Language". NIH. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
 Question: Where exactly do you think this should be added? I should point out, the second paragraph of this article currently says, "Some people consider it best to use person-first language, for example 'a person with a disability' rather than 'a disabled person.' However identity-first language, as in 'autistic person' or 'deaf person', is preferred by many people and organizations." Please ping me when you respond, so I know to return. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Without a response to my question about why this additional sentence is needed beyond the text that already exists in the article, I'm closing this for now. Please feel free to reactivate this request if you have further rationale. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kook?

what about kook? insane is on this article - but not kook? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kook "one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane " FunTruth (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sanism?

this article mentions "crazy and "insane". add Sanism to see also? FunTruth (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations"