Talk:Intellectual disability

"artard"

I don't think that "artard" should redirect to this article. Doing so seems to imply that the word is a legitimate synonym for "retard", bypassing the fuller explanation of the word's origins.

Urban Dictionary's definition of artard: An inncorect way to spell /r/-tard which is a reference to certain people on the 4-chan boards. Referenced in South Park and correctly spelled if you had captions on. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=artard)

"Artard" seems more appropriate to be directed to a page about 4-chan, or internet slang, or its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.172.193 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

there really should be a mention of race

According to the race and intelligence article, half of African-Americans are legally retarded. When you meet a black person, there's a 50/50 chance there are actually mentally handicapped. That surely warrants a mention, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.11.34 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this determination to advance a racist agenda is coming from, but there is no such thing as "legally retarded" and there are no valid data supporting any such conclusion regarding African-Americans. --Drmargi (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

there is such a thing as legal mental handicaps in many countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.0.223 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to have legal standing as a person with a disability, depending on a country's laws. That's a far cry from some imprecise notion of being "legally retarded" as you noted above. ADA, which would govern Africa-Americans, does not in any fashion define anything remotely like "legal retardation" or establish any criteria for a given disability label. That's limited to P.L. 108-446, and only for the purposes of special education eligibility, and only then after a battery of assessments that cannot include any IQ test, precisely because of the bias inherent to them that leads to the ludicrous conclusion presented in the first posting. --Drmargi (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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. --Kbh3^rdtalk 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)

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)

I removed the mention of the redirect and also redirected Half-Wit to Half-Wit (House). I believe this solves everyone problems. I don't know about other cultures but in Australia the term is considered very insulting for a person with a mental disability. I don't believe it's an appropriate or necessary redirect. --Roobz (talk) 07:09, 26 May 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)

Can we add an entry for "special"? - Denimadept (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The heading "archaic terms" has been restored. Traditional does not accurately reflect the status of these terms in contemporary usage, particularly in the field where they are viewed as both highly archaic and highly pejorative. The link from Idiot has been fixed accordingly.

It may seem insulting to list these terms, but they are still out there, and if not discussed, will not be given appropriate treatment in the common parlance. The use of "retard" as an insult reflects the need for kids and adults alike to understand what is and isn't acceptable. Far better we discuss, and demystify these terms than try to pretend they don't exist. Special, on the other hand, is just a euphemism that's grown out of the use of "special education" and "special needs" in the schools, at least in the US. Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "retard" is used today as a derogatory term to refer to somebody or something that is stupid. Originally the verb from of the word according to the Oxford English Dictionary means to slow the progress of. In a neutral medical and legal context the noun retard developed in reference to the mentally disabled. The words “stupid” and “retarded” do not mean the same thing. People with mental handicaps acquire a lot of discrimination about being “stupid” when it is undeserving of them. In other situations where an offensive word is targeted at a specific group of people (labels), the targeted group is the first to speak up and protect themselves and to advocate for change. In this case, often the mentally retarded are unable to speak up for themselves, so it is very difficult to rid the American English language of the prevalence of the epithet and distinguish it from its medical/ legal context. On top of that the word is out there, everywhere! On the radio, TV, Music, The Internet. The R-word renaissance in pop culture has gone mainstream. It was the title of a Black-Eyed-Peas hit song, “Let’s get retarded”. According to Songfacts.com, the song was changed to “Let’s Get it Started” to become more marketable and acceptable for the radio. Before, the title was changed, the band played it to enormous congregations as “Let’s Get Retarded” since it is a fashionable term that is “chanted at clubs and dances and used in everyday slang” and “means to go crazy on the dance floor (synonyms are "Go Dumb," and "Get/Go Stupid.").” Millions of people listen to the song, which implies acceptance of the word and almost certainly, the word “retard” gains even more approval. There definitely is some advocacy for the mentally disabled who speak out against offensive labels and slander. Its just, there aren't enough, the advocacy efforts are not tallied in mass numbers. The most important and influential advocates in this case would be those who are the straight from the source: the mentally retarded. The Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) of the United States is more outspoken about the derogatory use of the term “retard” in pop culture and the media. ARC was the group that objected to the Black Eyed Peas song “Let’s Get Retarded” mentioned prior and made sure it was changed to “Let’s Get It Started”.

"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)

Standard Deviations for WAIS-III/WISC-IV, SB incorrect

I believe the SD's for the WAIS-III and WISC-IV (the most updated Wechsler tests used) are both 15. The Stanford-Binet is 16. I don't want to change it without someone else verifying this. The version of the test (III for the WAIS) should be identified as well. The discussion around the tests seems more than necessary for this topic too.

Last I looked it was 14 for the WAIS-III and WISC-IV, and 15 for the Stanford-Binet. The difference is inconsequential, either way since their all largely worthless. --Drmargi (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1 sd = 15 on the WAIS, soon to be WAIS-IV--Vannin (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the WISC-IV and the Stanford-Binet V have a standard deviation of 15 points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.95.235 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Editing

Contrary to what people think, Mental Retardation will begin with intelligence quotient of 67>below. Also, Wikipedia has been making VERY dangerous comment that connects Autism to Mental Retardation when in reality, studying and recent investigations that looked at Autism proved opposite, not mentioning Autism is NOT connected through MR! Listen close, because Wikipedia has mentioned the hints saying most Autistics require longer term cares and will never be independent! Wikipedia is a VERY dangerous information source for Autism AND for Mental Retardation, not mentioning the editors may have tendencies to create blocking devices for whoever the editors are thinking created problems in Wikipedia when the truth is opposite. And unfortunately my partners were among these people who fell victims to Wikipedia blocking by stupid editors who are really hateful, prejudice and very contempting!

L2English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.6 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

mcmlxxxviii 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a source for the lack of relation between MR and autism, then by all means. And, if you have any hard numbers on what proportion of autistics need long-term care, add them here and someone will change the article. I don't see how this makes Wikipedia "VERY dangerous".

"Triachic Disorder"

This word does not belong in the opening statement of this article. No one in the field uses this phrase, or even knows what it is supposed to mean. Sternberg's theory is simply his own theory, it is far from mainstream and has many critics. I edited this word out, but then somehow the page became locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.6 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Add pictures!

Pretty please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.40.128 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, because you asked so nicely. --The High Commander (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

intellectual disabilities

the name should be changed from mental retardation to intellectual disabilities first off because it is politically correct. for example, you wouldn't call a person who is African American colored. Style manuals, including the one produced by the ARC use the term intellectual disabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevitogodfather (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But mental retardation is still commonly used, and best known. Intellectual disabilities is a growing term, but hasn't come close to replacing MR in common parlance or in the disability field. Drmargi (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree: political correctness is no reason to change an article. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should absolutely not tailor our content to whatever language is most fashionable among activist groups. I don't believe I have even heard the term intellectual disability except in the last day or so. If the word gains traction among the general public and media, then it would be appropriate to rename the article. By then, the activists will be saying "disability" is too negative and will have moved on to "intellectual differbilities" or some such. Fletcher (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The title should remain "mental retardation". Political correctness is not recognized by Wikipedia as a reason to favor one term over another. In fact, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the more commonly-used term should be the title of an article. On another note, African American and "colored" are not the same thing, because most black people in the world are NOT American. Only a politically-correct idiot would call Nelson Mandela an African-American. --JHP (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This field has been very vulnerable to "euphemism creep" in which one term replaces an older term deemed to have negative connotations, and then the newer term eventually comes to have the same negative connotations. We are in the process of making one of those switches right now - but it is not yet completed in North America, and there is not yet agreement on what the new term will be. In the UK that switch has already been made, but confusingly they use the term learning disabilities which has a completely different meaning in North America. I recommend that until we know what the new term is (when the next DSM comes out) that we stick with the appropriate term. I find that when I explain the label properly to people with the condition, and make it clear that they do not have to make it part of their identities but can use it when they need to to get services, that they are accept it, and indeed they have often already labelled themselves in order to explain their differences, and they may well be using much worse terms.--Vannin (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have tidied up the external links section, removing links to sub-national organizations and sites where notability is not established. I have also corrected the names of the linked organizations. In particular, please note that the name of The Arc is "The Arc" or "The Arc of the United States." It was originally called the Association of Retarded Children, but that is no longer its name. It has never been called the "Association of Retarded Citizens". - Eron^Talk 02:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are both Associations of Retarded Children and Associations for Retarded Citizens.--The High Commander (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There were two Arc links in the external links section. This one is to The Arc of the United States. There is nothing on that site to indicate that its current name is anything but The Arc. This one is to The Arc of Florida. Again, there is nothing on the site to indicate that its current name is anything different. (And, as the organization is subsidiary to The Arc of the United States, I've deleted it as an unnecessary link.) - Eron^Talk 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Block?

I can't help but wonder why this isn't blocked. It's a major subject about a thing that is mocked (unfortunantly)in our culture. i vote for a lock on this article. --Mackilicious (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar issues

Run-on sentence in the "IQ Below 70" section:

Factors other than cognitive ability (depression, anxiety, etc.) can contribute to low IQ scores, it is important for the evaluator to rule them out prior to concluding that measured IQ is "significantly below average".

Taking into account its context, I have edited the sentence to a)fix the run-on issue; b)remove redundancy; and c)clarify that the sentence is about disparities between IQ scores and actual intelligence, not IQ scores and "measured IQ" (which are the same thing!). Here is my version:

It is important that the evaluator rule out factors other than cognitive ability—such as depression, anxiety, etc.—prior to concluding that a low IQ test score indicates "significantly below average" intelligence.

Blaming youth

There are multiple points in this article (the very first paragraph and in the intro to the arcane terms section) where youth and teenagers are blamed for being the primary users of derogatory words. I don't see anything in the article that validates this claim. As well, it's most likely true that teenagers are the primary users of slang of any type, so if they do in fact use these terms more than other age deographics then that's the reason more likely than any teenaged tendency to pick on this suffering from mental retardation, which is what this article begins to suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Wombat (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have an entirely valid point, Wombat: young people are demonised enough, and I'm sure there are people of all age-groups who trade insults this way. Unless anyone raises an objection, I think you're justified in changing/removing such references Dom Kaos (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Use as offensive term?

should their be something about the way 'retard' is used in an offense way. The article on spastic seems to have said a lot about this and has a reference saying that retard is considered more offensive

Use as offensive term?

should their be something about the way 'retard' is used in an offense way. The article on spastic seems to have said a lot about this and has a reference saying that retard is considered more offensive

The current connotations of the word are well-illustrated by a BBC survey in 2003, which found that "spastic" was the second most offensive term in the UK relating to disability (retard was deemed most offensive) [2]. In 2007, Lynne Murphy, a linguist at the University of Sussex, described the term as being "one of the most taboo insults to a British ear".[1]