To keep people updated - its back at peer review ideally looking for a physics expert (I've posted at the WikiProject) - I also wanted to mention how geninuely taken aback I've been by how helpful everyone on this wikiproject has been so far on this (slightly long) process. Thank you.Fayedizard (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
And again - the peer review is now complete - I'm bedding the article down for about 10 days or so to make sure that there are no particularly objectable changes and then I plan to send it back to FA. Fayedizard (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Ten days later, it's back at FAC. If anyone fancies being particularly watchfull for strange edits on it at this time, that would be lovely. Wish us luck. Fayedizard (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Various of us have taken turns battering at Assistive_technology over the last year (I've just railed at it a little more), and it's now actually reaching the point where it might be a nice little article eventually - if we can sort out the last couple of sections then actually we're not far of making a very summary-style article worth reading... just thought I'd throw it out there if anyone is looking for a little project... Fayedizard (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to work at expanding that one. I'll try to find some time this week. I'm still learning about what assistive technology is available, there's so much of it. It's interesting, though. Should be a fun article to work on, actually. I couple of weeks ago, I was working on assessing articles and adding WP Disability banners to the Talk pages, I discovered a lot of stubs for assistive technology devices and/or companies just by following links. I think there are a lot of stubs that still haven't been well-categorized. So they aren't necessarily easy to find.OttawaAC (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm more into assistive technology for couch potatoes, but that would make a terrific article too. lol. Will get a start on it.OttawaAC (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful! - I gave Assistive_technology another look today - and I think the only remaining thing for it to look more in same would be to redo the lede - once that's done I suspect it's not that far off the standard for GA... Fayedizard (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Please friends, the Paralympics articles need all the help they can get - there are hundreds of articles that need to be created and updated at a very high intensity over the next two weeks or so. Roger (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm around a bit more now - what do you need? (give me an article title - also I'm going to see the boccia this week so can do pictures and stuff if that would help). Also - I did some page creation for the last one - [2] and I can repeat if that would be in any way useful... Fayedizard (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Just start at 2012 Summer Paralympics, browse around and the redlinks will find you - particlarly in "<Country> at the 2012 Paralympics" pages. Existing pages also need constant updating as events happen - adopt a country or two that have aricles with a lot of gaps or else follow one or two sports and help keep their pages updated. The main source for results and stats is http://www.london2012.com - have fun! Roger (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Revision of Special Needs Article/ Creation of Children with Special Needs Healthcare (U.S.) Article
I am currently a student at Rice University working on a class project to either revise an article or create a new article in relation to my minor of Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities. My area of interest is in the article Special Needs, which is rated Top-Importance, but is dismal in terms of information given and lack of resources. Ideally I would like to completely revise this article, but the scope of this project is too much for me as only a single student with one semester to complete this project. Instead, my goal is to create a separate article about Children with Special Healthcare Needs, focusing on the policies, statistics, and definitions here in the United States. I hope that other editors will be intrigued by this project idea and work on different aspects of the scope of Special Needs so that eventually all of these subjects can be merged once more on the Special Needs article. This would create a broad and definitive resource for all those interested in or affected by Special Needs, and clear up misconceptions and confusion held by many.
I believe that my proposed specific article is very important. 11.2 million children in the U.S. have special needs, or in other terms, 1 in 5 households. This is a great percentage of the population and information needs to be known about the Healthcare available as well as medical and governmental definitions of Special Needs. I chose to focus specifically on children as there are vastly more resources on them than on adults. Resources I plan to use include Government documents (National and of various States), Journal articles found on JSTOR and other databases (specifically articles from Pediatrics and Family & Marriage) and statistical surveys conducted by the government and universities. Any help on locating other resources would be much appreciated.
My proposed outline:
Introduction
1. Definition of Children with Special Health Care Needs
2. Statistics
3. Insurance
3.1 Government Provided (link to Medicaid, SSI, SCHIP)
3.2 Private
3.3 Uninsured
4. Government Programs (link to Medical Home Model)
4.1 Nationwide
4.2 State
5. Special Needs Healthcare Providers (link to various types of doctors and therapists, AAMC)
6. Patient Advocacy (links to various advocacy groups, Patient Advocacy)
7. Transition to Adulthood
To conclude, I would appreciate any comments on resources for this article, interest in editing the current Special Needs article, or any other advice or comments.
Welcome on board. I think you need to also define the term "special health care needs" - if it is official jargon. The phrase "Special needs" is originally specifically educational terminology which has become abused as a (really poor IMHO) euphemism for "disability/disabled". Perhaps you could consider changing the title to "Healthcare for children with disabilities in the United States". Just a technical note - don't abreviate "United States" in the title and don't put it in parens, because on WP a perenthetical "appendage" is used for disambiguation. Roger (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Addition of Poverty and Disability Article
I am also a student at Rice University interested in adding to the information provided by Wikipedia on issues regarding special needs. I intend to create an article entitled “Poverty and Disability,” which will explore the relationship between and implications of the prevalence of disability in impoverished areas. Currently information on this topic is entirely absent from the Wikipedia community. The relationship between poverty and disability is especially important to explore given the likelihood that an individual will have special needs is far greater in environments where resources are the least conducive to accommodating their needs. I intend to look at this correlation in depth, in addition to exploring the impact of disability in areas of concentrated poverty, structures in place to address the needs of these populations, initiatives targeting those affected, and strategies to curtail this correlation. At this time I have researched the findings of the United Nations, the British Department for International Development, and the World Bank, alongside numerous country-specific studies. I would greatly appreciate suggestions on any additional resources you recommend I look to for beneficial information on the subject. I would love any input that you may have on the creation of this page and exploration of this topic. Thank you for your time!
Welcome to WikiProject Disability. Please see my comments about the term "special needs" above. Have you read Charlton, James I. (2004). Nothing about us without us : disability oppression and empowerment ([3. Dr] ed.). Berkeley, Calif. [u.a.]: Univ. of California Press. ISBN9780520224810.? I found it to be a very useful little book even though in some respects it is a bit dated - originally written in 1998. Roger (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there any Wikipedia guidelines on how disabilities, and disability provisions, should be phrased?
Here in the UK Political correctness, has all but banished the word "handicapped" and almost removed "disabled". Parking spaces, WCs and other facilities are described as "accessible", or if clarification is required, as "Wheelchair accessible" or "ambulant accessible". However, several US articles still use the word "Handicapped" e.g. "handicap-accessible trails" in the article Reeds Lake - I don't know if this is still acceptable in the US?
To returm to the question:- Are there any Wikipedia guidelines on such phraseology? and if not, should there be?
The WP:ENGVAR rule covers the use of different varieties and dialects of English. If the article is about a British topic you use British English and terminology, or US English for American topics, Australian English for Australian subjects and so on. If the topic is not specifically connected to any particular English speaking country, and it's a new article you are starting, you chose whatever variety you prefer, buy try as far as possible to use words and phrases commonly shared by as wide a variety of English dialects as possible. Once a particular variety is established in an article it should not be changed without a good reason.
Speaking just for myself, I would very strongly oppose the establishment of language guidelines based on political correctness. Roger (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware current US usage accepts both "handicapped" and "disabled" as synonyms but in much of the rest of the Anglosphere "handicapped" is deprecated. I'm South African but I interact online with disabled Americans, British, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Indians, and a bunch of other nationalities, on a daily basis - I manage a global disability support forum. Roger (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, all these sport classification articles should have a consistent naming "pattern" - the whole lot should be discussed as a single "class". Roger (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The above failed, and there are new Requested moves (not spayed around :)) at:
here covering the classification of disabilities for judo, sailing, lawn bowls, table tennis and golf;
So I think it would be nice if we as a project had a focal task to drive towards, and I've been looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability/Popular_pages - how do people feel about getting the top ten most popular disability articles to GA+ as a goal? Three are already done and several of the remaining seven are former FA/GA articles that just need a bit of guidance... Discuss... Fayedizard (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Great idea! I'd never looked at that list before - turns out an article of particular interest to me, Blindness, is rated B, which I hadn't previously realised. It's not in the top ten, but I might have a play with that and see if I can then apply of of my (hopefully) newly acquired article-improvement skills to something higher-profile. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
So a couple of things - been looking at Bipolar disorder just now (Thread is Talk:Bipolar_disorder#Good_article and User:Mirokado has joined in, which is great). I've got a view to spend the weekend poking Bipolar and nominate on Monday (I've also posted to the relevant sharing projects).
Also, it turned out that Autism wasn't in the project, which I thought was surprising, I've added our banner (let me know if I'm overriding some long-term consensus), the reason this is particularly good is that it would be roughly our 5th most popular page and it's already FA - making this little goal that much easier...
So if we're looking for a top ten of GA+ articles, this is looking very achievable in a little while, Bipolar disorder is looking good for going to GA, although I've (embarrassingly) de-nominated down syndrome for the time being - I think I'd like to work on it for quite a bit more before it goes out... all help welcome there. :) Fayedizard (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Dyslexia article, there are two types of Dyslexia; Alexia (acquired dyslexia) for which there is an very poor quality article, and Developmental Dyslexia, which is what the content of the current dyslexia article relates. There is a need to have by way of introduction to dyslexia as brief description of what dyslexia is, and then to have the two main content articles regarding Alexia and Developmental Dyslexia. My main area of interest has always been Auditory processing disorder (APD), which is the underlying cause of my own developmental dyslexic symptom. Alexia is a vast area of issues which have not been properly covered on Wikipedia, so far. As I have discovered my copy editing skills are next to none due to my APD, but I can provide the support research links and information. dolfrog (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As an update - I've been a little distracted by the hawking article, but of the three remaining articles bipolar_disorder is being looked after by some very experienced people and I have every faith that it will slowly emerge to be a fantastic article after lots of loving polish. On the other hand both dyslexia and down_syndrome have a long way to go - I've been periodically hacking at them both and they're looking better (or at least more manageable)... Fayedizard (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Between removing, rewriting, and moving content into appropriate sub articles - dyslexia is almost half the size it was - I'm a little afraid I'm getting carried away with the rewrite so it would be great if someone wanted to look over my shoulder on it... Fayedizard (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been on a break for while, but I am thinking of participating here and there, but because of my lack of copy editing skills due to my auditory processing disorder disability, I can only provide supporting references, and advice regading current research. dolfrog (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As an update - I'm currently going over Chen_Guangcheng with a view to put it forward for GA, if other people want to muck in that would be glorious, but I'm hoping it won't need too much polishing. Fayedizard (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well that turned out to be optimistic - Chen_Guangcheng is currently being reviewed, the Hawking article will go back to FAC by the end of the week and down_syndrome has just gone for peer review (largely because it's a much more medical article than I'm used to. Fayedizard (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hawking has been promoted :) I've got plans for Down_syndrome as a next item, but I think it might be time I helped out with some Paralympic stuff. Fayedizard (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I see that one of the items on the to-do list is to improve the category of which is called Wikipedia: Disability. Shouldn't one of the things done to improve this be to add a sub-category of "Invisible Disabilities", which could include chronic conditions such as asthma,
diabetes mellitus or epilepsy? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Fragile X Mental Retardation Paper in science journal "Nature"
I don't know if i am even at the right place. The article on Fragile X might be edited to include new findings just published in the journal "Nature". They can be seen at www.pubmed.gov. I should say, an abstract from the paper is there.
Although it would not be good to give people false hopes, the paper is interesting in that it leads, as the abstract clearly states, to possible targets for treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.134.16 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The best place to discuss the matter would be Talk:Fragile X syndrome as it concerns the content of that particular article. This page is for more general issues relating to articles about disability in the braod sense. Roger (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on the article, uninformed editors often change "quadriplegic" to "paraplegic" in spite of the clear reference to the official rules of the sport. There is a lot of ignorance about what exactly quadriplegia/tetraplegia is, many people seem to believe that it means the person is always totally paralysed in all four limbs. Roger (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Assisting in the dissemination of technical information regarding robotics and rehabilitation robotics
We would like to assist in the dissemination of technical information regarding robotics and rehabilitation robotics by sharing text from published research papers on the technologies we have developed, in the hopes that it will encourage further research and development into the humanitarian aspects of robotics worldwide. With that motive in mind I would like to include in wiki’s robotic and rehabilitation robotics area the following:
Papers on Rehabilitation Robotic Technologies
1- Abstract; "Facial Feature Interfaced Cybernetic Experiments" published by and presented before RO-MAN 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Images are included in the paper by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell.
2- Abstract; "Interfacing Artificial Autonomics, Touch Transducers and Instinct into Rehabilitation Robotics", published by and presented before "ICORR '99 Sixth International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics". Images are included in the paper, by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell.
3- Abstract; “Robot Arm Controlled by Facial Features”, published by “CWUAAT” 1st Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology” 2002. Paper by John Siegel and Victoria Lee Croasdell. There were no images included in the paper; however we have images and video of the device being operated.
There could be greater clarity on why the word "ableism" is in the to-do list box - does this mean that some one should improve the article
ableism? Perhaps of the things that should go in the to-do list box is for some one to give more clarification of what having the word "ableism" in this box means! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The article does have a few "problem tags" so have a go at addressing the issues. If you believe the problems have been solved remove the tags and also take the article off the "to-do" list - which AFAIK has not been updated in years! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you feel that the word, "disability", has a negative connotation?
I noticed some time ago that there was no Wikipedia article on the technique used by the blind in the US, where they fold paper money in distinct ways by denomination so they can be identified by feel. Since American bills are shaped identically and have no raised marks, there is otherwise no simple way to identify bills if one cannot see them. Supposedly, due to accessibility lawsuit future versions of US bills will have raised markings which can be felt, so this convention might not live much longer, though I've seen mention of it in the US as early as 1913.
Though, or perhaps because, this method will soon die out, I've made an article on it. I'll try to make some photos later showing US currency folded into the shapes suggested by the American Foundation for the Blind. If anyone has any suggestions for improvement I'm open, and I simply could not find any clear "common name" term for what to even call this, so "blind bill folding" is what I used. If there's a better title, I'm certainly open to it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some editing of Disability in the arts and related articles when it struck me that we really need an article about Disability culture to tie together various articles about the cultural aspects of disability such as performing arts, fine arts, literature, etc and how these interact with popular culture, politics and the everyday experience of disability. Roger (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
After some searching I found that there is an article, created by a few editors who seem to be unaware of this project, so I invited them to join us. The article needs quite a bit of work, particularly by experienced editors who are familiar with article structure, the MOS, etc. Roger (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't totally forgotten about it, I was gone on a Wikibreak. (A longish one.) I'll have a look at the newer Disability culture articles that have been posted, and see where I can add content.OttawaAC (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on: we are a bunch of new wiki people, part of a disability culture class, who are taking on disability culture editing as part of the Women of Color Wiki-Edit-Thon: enhancing the amount of disabled artists out there who get talked about. We are all pretty inexperienced, though, and really appreciate getting hooked into the wider disability wiki scene. Thanks for clearing up the pages we are putting up, and making the appropriate linkages! I currently have an entry on Neil Marcus in my sandbox, I hope that gets approved soon, and I know others have similar projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyaonthewaka (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Does your disability culture class have a project page on Wikipedia? If not, your lecturer should sign up your class project at Wikipedia:School and university projects as soon as possible. I couldn't find anything about a "Women of Color Wiki-Edit-Thon" either. Roger (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to get editors interested in working on this article (and anything else connected to Alzheimer's) for some time. Unfortunately it appears to not be a "sexy" topic around wikipedia :-) XOttawahitech (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking for help merging a mix of definitions of Aspies into Talk:Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism
and temporarily undelete Talk:Aspies (then redirect to Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism#Terminology ) and de-plagurise (show and site origin and developmental history of the vocabulary and where the expressions derives), linking each expression into a subsection, linking Mundane expressions to Articles and their Sections and Subsections to cross-reference each, fror example a sub-section of Terminology called Mundanes with Neurotypical - thus work on the development of language of Terms like Aspies, Auties, Mundanes, regressive, and such in the context of development of language 1993-1998 from online cultural identity to commonly used dictionary words. AspieNo1 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Working on a piece on Damon Matthew Wise, biography with emphasis on Aspies and Disability culture
If anyone has any links on Damon's contribution to Aspies and Disability movement , please feel free to join in Damon_Matthew_Wise talk page ... any help will be appreciated. AspieNo1 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the article was at first a KEEP, and got reviewed as a Disability project and graded, it eventually got removed; fundamentally because the volume of "bullying" (many prepated inappropriate hostile reactions) from people against Aspies culture ... it is currently being reviewed and the process of why it was being deleted being looked at ...
Could the article, currently userfied and being edited in Sandbox be recertified ...
Claims of WP:COI and WP:OR being branded for people with disabilities in Ireland not being neutral and able to give both sides (even when they thought I was either one of the Aspies or Auties
Please help out on this article temporaily rehomed ...
You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-helpIRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.
The External links list of the Disability studies article is steadily growing with more and more links to individual college/university DS departments being added. I believe it is excessive because there are probably thousands of institutions that offer DS courses and qualifications, the list should only contain globally important organizations or publications. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I am intending to attend the InterACT Disability Arts Festival 2013 in Auckland, New Zealand and I'd like to contribute about it in a meaningful way on Wikipedia. I already intend to write a news article about the event itself for WikiNews, but I think there should also be something about the event here on Wikipedia as well, being that this is becoming a regular event, now into its third year. I'll be taking my camera along with me and will post lots of images on Commons from the event. The upcoming event has been reported on already in local media, and I'm sure I could find verifiable sources for information about the previous festivals as well, proving notability. I just need some help to "get the ball rolling", as I'm still quite new to Wikipedia. What categories should I apply to such an article? AugurNZ✐⌕22:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have created a sandbox for the new article, and began a discussion at the Teahouse about my first citation for the new article. I am starting to dig out some more references for it too, and I'd really like some input on them, as to whether they would support a claim of notability for the festival. This is what I've come across so far...
This is a bigger task than I had first thought it would be, trying to find verifiable sources. I hope these will be suitable as a start. AugurNZ✐⌕05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The sources look great, you've listed mainstream press and specialist media sources so notability will not be a problem at all. I've done a little fiddling in the sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, I saw your little fiddling in the sandbox, thanks for that. Any help would be most appreciated as I'm still learning about what should be on an article page. AugurNZ✐⌕10:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Just in case anybody interested doesn't have the WikiProject Accessibility page on their watchlist, see this thread about an ongoing Signpost interview with the project. Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about Kelvin Tan, a blind Singaporean Mandopop singer! All members of this WikiProject are invited to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at this article's ongoing peer review to help it achieve GA status! May you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The move will enable better collaborative editing and also bring their existence to the attention of editors not currently signed up to this WikiProject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Planned Article: Autism in Developing Nations
I am a student at Rice University and I am planning on contributing an article on autism in developing nations. This contribution is planned in collaboration with my Human Development in Global and Local Communities course as part of my minor. Currently there is a wealth of information about autism in the West, but there is hardly any information about developmental disorders in developing nations at all on Wikipedia. I believe that leaving this information out of Wikipedia means ignoring a vast number of children in the world who have autism. The information in my article will help to equalize information presented about autism from a cursory Internet search by explaining that people with autism exist in more places than only westernized nations. Diagnosis, treatment, and perceptions about autism are very different in developing nations than in the west, and I plan on explaining these differences based on scholarly research. I will focus on different areas of development, including Africa, South America, and Asia. Finally, I will explain the challenges that researchers often face when studying autism in developing nations. Any input or suggestions will be extremely welcome as I embark on this project!
Allisonshields (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Allisonshields Hello Allisonshields! What you are doing sounds great. The main advice that I would give you is to be cautious about making any medical claims about best practices for treatment. It sounds like you just intend to do epidemiological and society work, which would keep you clear of having to deal with that. Other than that, try to work in stages and post live content as soon as possible so that the Wikipedia community can comment on what you are doing. If you want immediate feedback, probably one of the best places to seek it for anything related to medicine is at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Thanks for contributing! Blue Rasberry (talk)21:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's not all immediately jump on the medical bandwagon, the medical model of disability is only one perspective, and is particularly current in the first world, which is precisely not the scope of the article. In the third world the sociology and even anthropological aspect would be more relevant than the purely medical/scientific/rational perspective. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like a potentially notable topic and worthy of an article in Wikipedia. However please be aware of WP:MEDRS. Don't let the article turn into an essay or a soapbox. Axl¤[Talk]17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've created a stub about the recently announced Invictus Games, which I feel will be of interest to members of this project. It's planned as an international event for wounded service personnel, with the same status as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, so I thought it was worth getting an article under way. I was quite surprised to see we had nothing on the Warrior Games, so we may need to start something about that too. Take a look anyway, and feel free to add or expand anything I've overlooked. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Invitation template
I have started working on an invitation template for this project - Draft:WP Disability Invite. I'm struggling with the code needed to include a signature in the template, if anyone here can help, please do. If you think something should be changed please feel free to contribute, or post your idea to the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that this project is several years old and has a fairly large number of articles in its purview, I think it's time we develop a style guide to help editors writing about disability-related subjects. The idea is to develop a guide that steers a "middle path" avoiding blatant offense such as "retarded" or "wheelchair bound" on the one hand while also avoiding the excesses of political correctness for its own sake on the other side. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
In my preliminary research I have found a few such guides published in various English-speaking countries:
(ec) Comment: It's a difficult issue for many people to know how refer to these things, so some kind of guidance would surely be useful. The big challenge would be to do it in a way that doesn't become a battleground for political correctness POVs, nor a rod for the language police to beat us with. Perhaps Athe best thing would be an essay giving generic advice as well as any specifics that aren't controversial. Several things strike me in your first set of documents:
Strong advice not to refer to people in a way that implies that the disability is the whole person, nor even the most important thing about the person, nor even very interesting at all in some cases;
Reminder that some terms are offensive;
Reminder that some terms are inaccurate (e.g. "wheelchair bound");
Reminder that any individual with a disability may have their own preference as to how that disability is referred to (e.g. some British deaf people's preference for "deaf"), and that self-identification is key;
all of which are great. But on the negative side, all these documents richly illustrate how easy it is to lapse into circumlocutions -- and circumlocutions are euphemisms by their very nature. All of those documents are full of them.
Very good ideas indeed Stfg. Avoiding excessively prescriptive guidelines is good - long lists of "naughty words" and "thou shalt nots" are inherently contentious and unstable. The euphemism treadmill and schoolyard slang insults are moving targets - trying to nail them down is pointless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We have WP:MEDMOS. I typically write "person with X" rather than "patient with X" of "X person". But yes some such as some who are deaf and some with autism wish to be referred to as "Deaf" with a capital D. And autistic. IMO following the majority of the best available literature is a good idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed "Deaf" references Deaf culture, a socio-cultural identity based on membership of a linguistic minority identified by the use of sign language. In this sense Deaf is almost an ethnicity. On the other hand "deaf" simply refers to the inability to hear - a clinical diagnosis. I'm not really familiar with the situation related to autism but it seems (from what I've read so far) to be based on the idea that autism affects the person so completely that it is an important part of identity, rather than just an attribute. Thus it makes sense that the guidelines we come up with must address these exceptions to the rules applicable to disability in general.
That thread on Talk:Autism has a lot of wise comments about the general nature of "people-first language", not only as applied to autism. To what extent are autistic and deaf people exceptions to a more general rule? To what extent do people with X really prefer to be referred to as "people with X" rather than as "X people"? To what extent is this not something that's foisted on us by "so-called professionals" who want to "preach" to us, as you put it so well below? If I write that tall people find it uncomfortable standing near the door of a carriage on the London Underground during the rush hour, which I'm told is the case, have I offended by calling them tall people rather than people with tallness, or people of above average height, or something? By using this syntax, have I claimed that their tallness is the most important thing to know about them, rather than merely the focus of this one sentence? I don't accept at all that "X people" prioritises the medical condition any more than "people with Xness"; people is the head word in both phrases. When people insist that artificial syntax is required and natural word order is wrong in a given context, it makes me feel most uneasy. To my mind, this linguistic artificiality is precisely the kind of thing that singles people out and treats them as different, and a great example of that "euphemism treadmill". --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The situation with autism (and Deaf) is indeed different from the mainstream disability rights movement - the same people who regard "autistic" as a component of identity reject the idea that autism is a disability/impairment at all. They contend that it is just another type of "normal". In some ways they draw parallels with race or sexual orientation, where "deviations" from the norm (white, heterosexual) were (and in some societies continue to be) pathologised as characteristics of otherness. Have you read People-first language yet for the other side of the argument? I would agree that straining grammar for the sake of political correctness is ugly and an obstruction to clear communication. The style guides I linked above all generally recommend people-first language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dodger67. I've read it just now. Just one more thing: a distinction can be made between writing about attributes and disabilities in a general way (as I was doing in the example of tall people on the London Underground), and writing about specific individuals. An example is the composer Joaquín Rodrigo. The opening sentence of that article says: "Joaquín Rodrigo was a Spanishcomposer and a virtuoso pianist." If it had said instead: "Joaquín Rodrigo was a blind Spanishcomposer and a virtuoso pianist", that would unacceptably change the emphasis, and it would be no better at all if it were to say: "Joaquín Rodrigo was a Spanishcomposer and a virtuoso pianist who lost his sight at the age of three." In fact, the information about his eyesight and how he dealt with it to be able to write his music are discussed, acceptably I think, later in the article, where we know we are reading about details. My point: the emphasis given to these things is affected by how we place them in context. Mere tinkering with syntax doesn't achieve nearly so much, and may even be counter-productive, as many cited in People-first language#Criticism are saying. (None of this implies that I want to be cavalier about how we phrase things. It was news to me that the term "hearing impaired" is unacceptable, and I value being informed of such things. I hope this exercise will give us more information like that.) --Stfg (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that how we mention and emphasise or de-emphasise disability in an article should be part of the guide. I'm just not at all sure how to formulate such advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The difference between being a wheelchair user and being autistic is that "uses a wheelchair" is not a description of your neurology. You could gain the ability to walk consistently and still be you. Autism is unique and difficult to compare to other disabilities. It is neither a disorder as (for example) schizophrenia is, nor an impairment in a specific function such as being deaf. The exact meaning of autism remains poorly defined in the field of psychology because the "symptoms" are vastly different for each person. Citing anything as a reference (e.g. a scientific study or a Wikipedia guideline) that speaks "in general" about disabilities or disorders is useless in understanding autism and serves only to derail an otherwise purposeful discussion. I would like to chime in regarding the comparisons to deaf culture by saying that there is some traction to spelling Autistic with a capital A to refer to it as a community rather than an individual. From Lydia Brown's FAQ on Autistic Hoya: "I capitalize the word "Autistic" as if it were a proper adjective, for the same reason the Deaf and Blind communities capitalize the respective adjectives "Deaf" and "Blind." We do it for the same reason Black people often capitalize that word. We capitalize it as a proper adjective or noun to represent our community and our identity."
Also useful to this discussion would be a list of terms other than "autistic person" commonly used by autistic people:
"Autistic" as a noun, synonymous with autistic person/people. Although it is often used to self-identity, it may also be considered offensive for the same reason as referring to black people as "blacks".
"Autist" also synonymous with autistic person. Unlikely to offend as "autistic" above would.
"Aspie" and "Autie" are informal but not derogatory. "Aspie" is sometimes used to refer specifically to Asperger's Syndrome.
Person/individual "on the spectrum" is sometimes used to avoid the "person" vs. identity debate. Those who are offended by convoluted political correctness may be offended by this terminology, but in general it is considered acceptable.
"Aspergarian" is less common than those above, and may refer specifically to Asperger's. It is derived from the also-uncommon referral to the autism community as "Aspergia".
"Allistic" is the opposite of autistic. It was invented to differentiate from neurotypical, because NT means the person has no mental disorders or other neurodivergence of any kind. A person can be allistic and also schizophrenic, bipolar, etc. Muffinator (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've not heard of people capitalizing "Blind" as an identity. I have heard of them objecting to having a complete loss of sight trivialized as merely visually impaired (as if a better pair of eyeglasses could solve the problem). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to comment that I work in communities which provide sensitivity training and diversity training. It would be ideal if professionals in these spaces would be able to partner with the Wikipedia community to help us make our own policies. However, I have experience working with professional organizations which provide these services in both New York City and Seattle, which are two cities which I would expect to be able to host experts in this field. It is my opinion that the number of people working in these spaces who actually wish to codify what they do rather than just give improvised training in a narrow area of interest is not as great as I would expect. For example, organizations who like to talk about one kind of discrimination rarely feel comfortable talking about others, and in all cases, it is hard to deconstruct what these organizations do to be effective.
I also think there should be a manual of style which includes disability, but I wish it would be possible to make a manual of style going beyond that and showing sensitivity to states of identity which are not always treated as disabilities, including autism, deafness, and others. I am here for conversations and comments but I cannot take a leading role in this. I am very sympathetic to this being done and managed and would join a committee to coordinate this. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, we must also address the "states of identity" issues related to deafness and autism - see my post above responding to Doc James. I'm not enamored with the idea of having so-called professionals "preach" to us, as if we're not competent to know what we want. The rejection of that idea was one of the major causes of the emergence of the Disability rights movement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy contains this statement: "The basic argument is that because the specialist literature on some topic is [usually] the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how to name or style articles about the topic and things within its scope."
It's good to be aware of fallacies. It's also important to keep in mind that just because disabled people are not necessarily reliable sources on disability, that does not mean that abled sensitivity trainers are. That would be a false dilemma. Muffinator (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to have something (anything) that shares an African and Asian perspective.
"Towards a barrier-free society – What every South African should know about disability rights" seems to be a South African booklet, but the page that mentioned it didn't have a link to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I happen to be South African, all I found locally were bits and pieces in general style guides copied from or references to British and American guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I just want to chime in here to report that I have been married for a third of a century to a deaf woman, ChesPal, and that we are the parents of a 24 year old son with learning disabilities (what used to be called "mildly retarded"), so these issues are ones I deal with every single day. I take a moderate position on the issues of terminology, and am able to distinguish between the hurtful "He's a retard!" as opposed to the descriptive "He has moderate mental retardation." I hope to contribute to this discussion. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's suitable, quite a few WikiProject's have a "Style guide" or "Manual of style" - WP:MEDMOS has been mentioned here and of course WP as a whole has TheWP:MOS. If you're not fully comfortable with it let's explore some alternative titles. I think using words such as "guide" and "advice" reduce the chance of it being interpreted as prescriptive rules. I believe the text I have added so far (most copied from other places) is avoiding being prescriptive.
Yes that is my thinking at present. An introduction that frames the issue: that disability is a target for hurtful language and discrimination, both deliberate and inadvertent; that many people are uncertain how to write about the topic without causing offence or committing a faux pas, etc. Then a section of style guidance for disability in general and finally the exceptions to the general case. I started composing those parts first simply because the material is so easily available and I find it a lot easier to write about specifics than generalities. One thing we must guard against is writing from the POV of the usage prevalent in only one country - so far I've used only sources from the US.
I recently came across a bunch of intersection categories for disability+job, in Category:Deaf_people and Category:Blind_people - I note that for most/all other disabilities, we don't have an intersection of disability + job, but we do have a set of occupations for these ones. We have a policy on WP:EGRS but that doesn't seem to cover deaf/blind, so a few questions:
Do we need all of these categories that intersect disability with job, or should they be focused on jobs where the disability is really significant to the job (this may be debated)? Should we extend this scheme to other disabilities and conditions? If so, which ones, and if not, why not?
Should these categories all be non-diffusing - e.g. presence in Category:Deaf artists does not mean you should not be in the other "artist" categories. My gut here is yes, and that we should perhaps change WP:EGRS to cover disabilities. Just because someone is a blind classical musician doesn't mean they aren't also a classical musician - however many of the cases I looked at, these people were "ghettoized", meaning they weren't in the parent categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Only those jobs where the disability is directly relevant - e.g. an amputee doing a "desk job" such as lawyer or bank manager does not qualify for such categorization.
The "Deaf ####" categories are particularly difficult because "Deaf" has at least two quite distinct meanings. The one is the inability to hear, what we're concerned with at this project - the other is Deaf as a linguistic/cultural identity. There are beauty pageants that are specifically for Deaf people. If there is doubt we should co-ordinate with WP:WikiProject Deaf. There are also pageants specifically for wheelchair users, particularly in the US, so such categories might be relevant. As for the rest we should follow the sources - if amputee company executives or one-eyed farmers (as a group/class) ever become the subject of significant media coverage, then we might need a category. I tend to err on the side of not creating a category unless it would be large enough to be useful for navigating the 'pedia. A category shouldn't exist simply because it can, there should always be a defensible "external" need for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dodger67: to me, that is all the more reason to embed the disability-related categories into WP:EGRS, as it clearly states intersection categories - whether of gender, religion, sexuality, or ethnicity - should only be created if this is a subgrouping regularly discussed. I think "Deaf musicians" and "Blind musicians" are examples that are regularly discussed, so we should have categories, some of the others are more debatable (like "Deaf business executives", which we don't have).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Disability At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
I noticed that WikiProject Disability has subcategories, or at least one in WikiProject Deaf. As autism is at least as broad of a topic as deafness, I have created a draft page for developing WikiProject Autism. I will be working on this sporadically, using WikiProject Deaf as a major point of reference. Anyone else is welcome to contribute, as I do not WP:OWN the page. I am also interested in tips and suggestions from anyone who may not work on the page directly. Muffinator (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's new. I've never been mistaken for an admin! I'm not an admin here (I do know my way around the tools Wikia admins get because I've admined a Wikia or two, but I'm not a Wikipedia admin in any sense of the word and don't know my way around any tools WP mops have that Wikia ones don't). I'm also not all that in on the technical side of Wikiprojects (I once was, but when I started getting busy, that was the first to go), though I can reacquaint myself with it. I'm autistic, and I've been drifting away from Wikpedia a little bit lately, but I'd be willing to contribute where and when I can. Just a note though, that a Wikiproject Autism proposal happenedtwice—I thought there was a third around 2011-12 somewhere but I cannot find it—and didn't gain traction (people opposing, worries about activism(!), not enough interst)—if the project can't get off the ground though, it could definitely be created as a task force, however. Participants, in any case, should be prudent to not allow any particular perspective to take over the project/taskforce (i.e. cure movement or rights movement taking over) and to present all perspectives within the autism/autistic communities without applying undue weight to any one of them. I have to get off, but I'll look into what I can do when I return. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that you have rollback privileges is what confused Roger. It seems to me that the previous proposals you mention had no opposition, but only a lack of follow-through. I believe this time will be different. Even if I am the sole editor of the draft page, it will probably get more attention once it becomes a full-fledged project page. In this scenario, it's still a wiki that anyone can edit, so if any issue arises as a result of me being a human with a single perspective, anybody can tear apart the problematic bits. Muffinator (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The best advice I can think of to anyone starting a new wikiproject is also to include in the new project a list of articles in reference works related to the topic, like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles. It is not at all unusual for any project in the early stages to have more energy than awareness of the topic, and having some sort of generally achievable and reasonable objetives tends to be a plus too. WorldCat indicates The autism encyclopedia by John T Neisworth and Pamela S Wolfe, Autism encyclopedia: the complete guide to autism spectrum disorders by E Amanda Boutot and Matthew J Tincani, The encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders by Carol Turkington and Ruth Anan, and Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders by Fred R Volkmar are all extant, and finding out what topics they give articles and subarticles to, and what sources they use, would definitely be good. I have access to the first three if some of you others don't, and would be willing to eventually create such lists from one or more of them if others here don't and some one asks me on my user talk page, but I am working on several other such lists already and might not get to them soon. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The one I said I couldn't find is one I remember having strong opposition, but I cannot find it at present. (I remember the strong opposition because I was surprised at it... but I don't think I thought the entire proposal up out of nowhere. Huh. I'll keep searching and try to also see what I can do to help build this one.) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It could be one of these, I dunno. But even some really bad reference sources can have decent organizational structure or have broader coverage of some areas than others. And, based on a question I asked some time ago, named subsections of large articles in reference sources can be used as one indicator of notability of that subtopic if needed, so even bad reference sources can be useful. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Several members of WikiProject Medicine have demonstrated a rigid adherence to the medical model of disability, which is understandable, but they defend that worldview very aggressively, edit warring on any attempt to give due weight to the social model or otherwise shift articles towards neutrality. What can we do to mitigate these sorts of disputes going forward? Muffinator (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WikiProject Disability is really interested in being dragged into a POV conflict between WikiProject Autism and WikiProject Medicine. However, I do agree that some members' of WPMED's inflexibility about this type of issue has presented as a problem during my editing on a few occasions. Pointing out the Social model of disability article to them might help, but do try to keep a cool head and AGF at all times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I put this here because the medical vs. social POV conflict applies to all disabilities, not just autism. Note that I've declared myself a member of both WP Autism and WP Disability. Muffinator (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Vital Articles index has sorted Disability under Medicine
I have started drafting Draft:Disability in South Africa, some help to expand and improve it would really be appreciated. In particular the section on demographics could use some expert input - a report on disability was published recently by Statistics South Africa. Unfortunately I am not good at exctracting and summarizing the essential elements of such reports, my ability to parse socioeconomic statistics is rather limited. Some of the other sections also need to be expanded before the draft will be ready for mainspace. The article structure is modeled on similar articles such as Disability in Australia and Disability in Sierra Leone. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
