Talk:Intellectual disability: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by EverettP - "See Also section" |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== "See Also" == |
== "See Also" == |
||
Should "Flowers for Algernon" really be listed here? There are many fictional works about mental disabilities... why list just this one? The "see also" section has also been vandalized occasionally. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:EverettP|EverettP]] ([[User talk:EverettP|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/EverettP|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Should "Flowers for Algernon" really be listed here? There are many fictional works about mental disabilities... why list just this one? The "see also" section has also been vandalized occasionally. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:EverettP|EverettP]] ([[User talk:EverettP|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/EverettP|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Deleted 'African American' from the see also list. That seemed a tad offensive...[[Special:Contributions/69.118.212.71|69.118.212.71]] ([[User talk:69.118.212.71|talk]]) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:10, 28 April 2008
If the page is semiprotected, as it seems to be...
....could someone please add the {{sprotected2}} template to it? --128.12.103.70 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- So let it be written, so let it be done. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was very confused when I tried to revert a vandal and found that I couldn't, but there was no lock. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- So let it be written, so let it be done. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
AKA Kelsey Puckett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.70.90 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Prominent link to "Half-Wit"
This article starts off with a prominent redirection from "Half-Wit." The computer whizz who placed it there explained (see Archive 1) his opinion that a half-wit was a person who was an idiot through being "sub normal" intelligence-wise. Do we really need to keep this link at the head of the article? NRPanikker (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think not. This article is rife with archane notions and errors - its basic definition of MR is at least 20 years out of date and unreferenced. Linking to terms such as half-wit is pointless, because the terms are far from equivalent. --Drmargi (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Half-wit redirects to this article and the dab notice is necessary otherwise no one will find the House episode. Cburnett (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the section on Archaic Terms?
Why long section on archaic terms... it seems unnecessarily insulting to give them so much prominence. Maybe a one-sentence mention but a whole section? --Calan (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Censoring history because you find it unpleasant is a really horrible rationale for removing it. You should *add* to the article to "drown out" the prominence of such a section, not delete. Cburnett (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"See Also"
Should "Flowers for Algernon" really be listed here? There are many fictional works about mental disabilities... why list just this one? The "see also" section has also been vandalized occasionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettP (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted 'African American' from the see also list. That seemed a tad offensive...69.118.212.71 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)