Talk:Midget

Midgets are little people too!!!

Once again, I'm asking for this to be locked from being edited by new or unregistered users. This is getting vandalized repeatedly. Trocisp 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone said something about monkeys on crack! See if Mushroom can do anything about it. He is quite kind in situations like this. How about a temporary lock?--Editor510 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very un-pc of you. We're little persons, not monkeys on crack. It sounds like you people have consulted Mr Mushroom a little too much allready.--(talk) (UTC)

No, no, no, sorry if you mistook what I was saying! A vandal said something silly about the future and monkeys on crack. I would NEVER insult anyone like that. We are all the same, no matter what we say, think, do, or look like. I apologise if you felt a bit insulted, I was just complaining about the vandals.--Editor510 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it though. Vandals attack everything! I mean Weird Al fanboys, them all!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS sorry! --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article really should have a link to "Jerry Springer", as this show has practically defined the word "midget", and describes it much better than the contents of this article.

Continuing on, have we protected it yet? Oh, and though I really do respect magnoliasound, he/she really should have looked at the previous message to mine. I'm not sizeist and neither is Mushroom. In fact, when you think about it, magnoliasound's theory doesn't make sense unless they didn't read the original comment...--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 08:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life. Thanks.

Agree

It would be nice to join the conversation without Trocisp editing it. Big Brother (or perhaps Little Brother) is watching you!!! User:3MTA3 (UTC)

I just edited this back to a previous version, someone has been vandalizing this page. I'm not sure how, but I think that this page should be locked from being edited by anon users. (Edited my own post to clarify) Trocisp 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe there should be a request for protection. There wasn't any vandalism today though..-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page wouldn't get vandalized so often if you guys raised the computer keyboard up a little bit. .--Prosfilaes 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.243.231 (talk) [reply]

Protected.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the little things...

Move to Wiktionary! -- Tarquin 20:20 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC) I agree -- Taku 20:43 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, It needs to be cleaned and expanded. --Bran 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Just saying it needs to be cleaned up doesn't help if it's not obvious.--Prosfilaes 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be organized, it goes from talking about people the straight into talking about "small things," where are the headers and all? --Bran 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To user who redirected: your redirect eliminated the content specific to this word. Midget and dwarf are not always synonymous. Please don't do this again without proposing and discussing. Thanks. Alteripse 13:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me how many people still have no idea what the politically correct term for a "person of small stature" is. Here in Houston we got the message loud and clear in 1999. Director of Affirmative Action Lenoria Walker, an African-American, referred to City Councilman Joe Roach as a midget. She was forced to resign over the remark. The correct term is neither "midget" nor "little person", but "dwarf", as Mr. Roach pointed out.

I've never heard that in my life, everyone either says midget or little person. Dwarf would just get laughed at.

If you ask me, 'little person' is rather impolite as it draws attention to the condition, while 'midget' is a harmless nonce word. creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Seriously,you tall people, please stop vandalizing articles. You have been warned several times now. More unconstructive edits from your account, like you did to Teeny Geenie, will probably get you blocked from editing. Seriously- stop looking down on us! - ^Ariel♥Gold 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, I realize many people have been taking care of this page. That's good, but it shouldn't interfere with the fact that under Wiki standards, there really should be a redirect for synonymous terms from the more "slang" term to the more correct, accepted term. -Aixo 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aixo. I agree with you.... to a point. That is, those who are looking up midget in reference to a short-statured adult should be redirected to dwarf. But there are other uses of the term. Perhaps a disambiguation page is appropriate here? Anyone else have thoughts on this?? Figma 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height in the article

In this article, it says: "According to the Little People of America, dwarfism is "a medical or genetic condition that usually results in an adult height of 5'2" (147 cm) or shorter, among both men and women" But in the dwarfism article, it says: "The Little People of America (LPA) defines dwarfism as a medical or genetic condition that usually results in an adult height of 4'10" (147 cm) or shorter." Since the metric heights are the same, I'm assuming the mention in this article is wrong (or a typo) and will change it. --clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

Just thought that this could use a citation needed and might be vandalism so wanted to bring it to attention 24.60.249.119 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is often frequented by trolls. Do not feed the trolls by attempting to argue with them User:24.203.182.78 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical stub?

This article seems to be about the use of the word midget and doesn't really cover the medical subject whereas the dwarfism article is more technical, medical articles use the current official (if that can be decided!) medical term with pseudonyms and previous names redirecting to it. Since there is history concerning the use of the word 'midget', a straightforward redirect wouldn't be correct, but the article does not emphasize the technical article related to the term (in my opinion), any thoughts? Leevanjackson (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Midget is a descriptive term, just like calling someone a white person. Terms go in and out of fashion quickly, so this article should redirect to a PC terminology page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.25.12 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for that should be the dwarfism article. This article could use an expansion of the history of the use of the word, and maybe a little more of the medical side of it, but the main medical article should be at dwarfism. Dwarfism is already linked to in the article so there's no reason for the see also to it. And the stub template should not be deleted because it categorizes the article as a stub, which it is. It's not a big deal if the stub is a medical stub, if you can find a better stub category you can change it, but don't just delete the stub template entirely. I think this article should mainly be about the history of the use of the word and the background to it. And also the derogatory implications the word has now. There can be a section about the technical medical side of it but it shouldn't just be copyed from the dwarfism article, rather it should be a summary of it I think; at the top of that section it can have a main link to dwarfism. If you're interested in this subject feel free to expand the article yourself, I've been meaning to expand this article but I've been busy and haven't had time yet. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, Leave medical terms in dwarfism, leaving article as one on the usage of the word, don't think I would have stumbled on the euphemism treadmill article otherwise. ! have found stub category to match ... - This category is for stub articles relating to the meanings and usages of words and phrases.Leevanjackson (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

I don't know how common this practise is, but I've known some baseball leagues to classify some lower age groups of baseball as 'midget' league. Does anyone know if this is widespread enough to warrant a disambiguation? Tyciol (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene(s)?

"Unusual shortness of stature is caused by an inherited gene" I feel the statement in this article is a bit too assertive. I know a bit about genes (though not an expert) but I'd like to know how well sourced this is. I'm thinking about putting up an unsourced tag, or altering the statement to reflect a broader range of possibilities for the genetic causes behind midget/dwarf. For example, it may not be caused be a single gene (as the lack of pluralization indicates) but rather, be an affect of more than one gene, or perhaps in certain combinations. Seriously, if someone has isolated ALL cases of people being shorter to a SINGLE gene, then I'll drop it, but I'm thinking this is actually just a generalization of people being able to find a genetic association with it. Furthermore, it is not always the presence of a gene that causes a condition, but sometimes the lack of other genes. Sometimes it is the lack of some in combination with the presence of others. A really wide variety of things can affect broad physical characterstics like height. If we were talking eye colour or something then sure, that's more of a discrete issue, but with height it's not a matter of blue or green, it's a matter of specific measurements, which are pretty much continuous without any discrete divisions at all. Like if you look here: "Their short stature is generally caused by one of the more than 200 medical conditions known as dwarfism. " [1] that sounds like more than one gene to me. Tyciol (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]