Talk:Intellectual disability/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"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)

Can't believe this has stayed up for so long. I'll go ahead and tag it with RFD.  Aar  ►  01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see it spelled this way. "R-tard" is the only satirical mispelling of this word that I've encountered. 12.71.155.26 (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2009 (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)

---

NEWBORN METABOLIC SCREENING FOR METABOLIC DISORDERS THAT CAN CAUSE MENTAL RETARDATION Mental retardation is also caused by metabolic disorders at birth. It is required in most if not all states in the US that newborns be tested with metabolic screens, between 1-3 screens,after birth; newborns are tested for metabolic disorders like PKU. When newborns do have a metabolic disorder, if not treated immediately, they could easily become mentally retarded. Parents are required to sign a Refusal if they do not want their newborn tested for metabolic disorders.--- SEE ANY STATE WEBSITE for verification of newborn metabolic screens.

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)

'African American' is probably on that list because it is another group that is often stereotyped. JackSlice^Talk _Adds 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's sickening, indefensible racism. Abductive (reasoning) 00:08, 21 January 2010 (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 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".—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

While the OP's opinion goes further than mine, I must support him in that the articles on e.g. Autism and Asperger are prejudicial and do not match the opinions of the auties and aspies. Further, that attempts to improve this situation is usually met with a less than cooperative attitude.188.100.201.34 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

no objections after a month - so I've removed those references Dom Kaos (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.158.124 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 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

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] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.159.229 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

External links (again!)

This is one of those pages which tempts people to add links to external organisations. Although certain large, internationally significant agencies may warrant having links from this page, there is the danger that everybody will start posting links to local groups. There are probably thousands of organisations around the world involved in this field, and Wikipedia simply isn't the place to list them all: this is, after all, an encyclopedia page, not a directory or link farm. I have removed one such link, which was also posted on several other pages related to disability rights and empowerment: I think that before anyone adds any similar links, they need to ask themselves whether the organisation in question stands out from all the other countless agencies in the world and is internationally significant. If not, any such posting may well breach Wikipedia's guidelines on spam. Dom Kaos (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They can't learn

Should we add in the article how people that are mentally retarded can't learn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if it were true. Which it isn't. - Eron^Talk 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They can learn, and they do learn, but (as an example) someone with a retardation would learn what we learned at the age of four at the age of thirty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.96.32 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive impairment

Cognitive impairment points here. As I followed that link from mental confusion, I didn't expect it to be related to mental retardation. Should cognitive impairment point to cognitive dysfunction instead, or is it commonly thought of as a synonym for retardation? Perhaps a dab would be an option. WnC? 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As nobody seems to have had any thoughts on this, I looked at what linked to cognitive impairment. Since none of those pages seemed to be about mental retardation, I changed the redir to cognitive dysfunciton instead. WnC? 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move page

Surely NPOV means this page should be moved to a less offensive term...?andycjp (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a diagnostic label, and is not used to be offensive - see above discussions --Vannin (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Leading Causes of Mental Retardation

This section needs more references, and may be inaccurate. Information on prevelence and incidence for each of the causes of mental retardation would be very helpful. To get you started:

The leading cause of mental retardation in the USA accoring to the CDC is Fetal Alcohol syndrome, with prevalence rates ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 per 1,000 births. This approximates that up to 1 in 667 births in the USA results from fetal alcohol syndrome, a conservative statistic considering that fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, which can result in mental retardation, and are three times more common than fetal alcohol syndrome, are not included in this statistic. Fetal Alcohol syndrome causing mental retadation is 100% preventable.

The number 2 cause of mental retardation in the USA may be CMV infection. According to the CDC, the incidence of cytomegalovirus CMV infection affects 1 in 750 births. Congenital infection commonly causes mental retardation; it is known to be the number one cause of infectious mental retardation. Although CMV infection may have relatively nonspecific and minor symptoms in a pregnant mother, the results on the fetus can be devestating. Because of the vague symptoms in an adult, many CMV infections go undiagnosed, and this can account for a proportion of the mental retardation cases with no known attributable factor. . Precautions can be taken to screen for and reduce the chance of CMV infection during pregnancy.

Down syndrome, according to the CDC, would then rank as the number 3 cause of mental retardation in the USA with an incidence of 1 in 800 births. It is interesting to note, however, that a recent study in the USA calculated pregnancy termination with findings of Down Syndrome at rates of 72.9%, reaching up to 90% in the USA (see citations below and the Wiki citations in Down's syndrome Ethical issues for references). It is approximated at 92% in the UK. This indicates that the genetic frequency of Down Syndrome would actually be much more prevelant in the population, certainly more frequent than 1 in 800 births, if it were not for in utero intervention. .

The prevalence of mental retardation was estimated to be 1 in 83 amongst all 8 year olds in Atlanta in 2000, which may or may not be indicative of the entire nation. Despite what may seem like a low probability of having an infant afflicted with Down syndrome (1 in 800) or Fragile X syndrome (1 in 4000 in males, 1 in 6000-8000 females) the overall prevelance of a child having mental retardation is quite high and common.

76.198.137.52 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Emily G

"Sub-Average"?

Note the text in the beginning--it refers to "sub-average" cognitive function. But that's quite false--"average" is the 50th percentile, and mental retardation doesn't actually start until something like the 3rd percentile. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "significantly delayed" or something along those lines? Simply being below average is still quite a long way from cognitive disability.--24.164.85.127 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

It was listed for deletion i had to put it somewhere!! Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

update request: genetic causes

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please could someone add the following to the section "Causes" before the sentence "In the rarest of cases,...":

..., and Siderius type X-linked mental retardation (Template:OMIM6) as caused by mutations in the PHF8 gene ((Template:OMIM6).

21user (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Archaic terms POV

The section "Archaic terms" is highly POV. I note for instance that the author takes a condescending hyper-PC standpoint, e.g. by statements like

There have been some efforts made among mental health professionals to discourage use of these terms. Nevertheless their use persists.

Further, that the section is US centric, e.g. through statements like

Today, the term "retarded" is slowly being replaced by new words like "special" or "challenged."

Some statements, e.g.

There are competing desires among elements of society, some of whom seek neutral medical terms, and others who want to use such terms as weapons with which to abuse people.

are more or less inexcusable. Not only is this example of highly dubious truth (outside of elementary school yards), it is also a cheap rhetorical attack on those who would rather have the process of euphemism treadmills and political correctness (in the sarcastic sense) stopped.

(The article is edit protected, and I am not able to improve this on my own.) 188.100.201.34 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved contributor with access to the book finds no duplication of content. The article has been restored pending specific identification of problematic text by the correspondent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

developmentally challenged

Could someone add that one in an appropriate place. plse.? It's a common designation. I don't know enough to DIY this. THKS 99.11.160.111 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation for IQ range chart?

In the context of this article, is anyone citation-checking the chart showing IQ ranges with different labels in the below-100 range of scores? The chart that is now in the article is contrary both to sources that I have at hand (which I am using at the moment to edit other Wikipedia articles) and to the sourced parts of the article text. If no one can confirm that chart it would be best to delete the chart from section in which it is included. For articles like this that have medical implications, it is especially important to rely on reliable sources for medicine-related articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Intelligence Quotient Citation

Whether IQ was actually scientifically valid anymore or not, the first website cited is NOT a valid source.

http://www.2h.com/about-this-site.html

It's just a collection of online IQ Tests and conjecture by the web authour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.173.157 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tkeys95, 21 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to request that the page titled 'Mental Retardation' and all like terms on this page would be changed to 'Intellectual Disability'. This statement is no longer politically correct and no longer accepted in society. All appropriate organisations and developed governments now refer to these disorders as Intellectual Disabilities. It is offending to many viewers and educates many people wrongly about the disability.

Tkeys95 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus in the past has deemed that political correctness is no reason to change the name of an article. Numrous examples from this page's archives include this discussion. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"cretin"

I think further research may reveal that this word does not come from the French for 'christian' but is actually derived from the word 'Crete', which is an island near Greece. People from one region usually use the natives of neighbouring regions as the butt of jokes about stupidity. Greece also used Beotians, and in some languages 'beotian' is a synonym for 'idiot'. It may well be the case of 'cretin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.93.39 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of the original meaning of "cretin" may be illuminated by the following anecdote, lifted from the Wikipedia page about the composer Moritz Moszkowski, which tends to support the former use of "Christian" as a collective term for people with disabilities:

Moritz Moszkowski once underscribed an autograph book which had been previously inscribed by the great German conductor, virtuoso pianist and composer Hans von Bülow, who had written the following words: "The three greatest composers are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. All the others are cretins." When Moszkowski saw this, he added underneath: "The three greatest composers are Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer and Moszkowski. All the others are Christians!"

NRPanikker (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (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)

Pure bullshit, without even a bad reference to back it up, the numbers are nowhere near 50%. Mean IQ for African-Americans is around 85, and an IQ below 70 is more than 1 SD below this. Around 15% of AfrAms should have an IQ of less than 70 (a nice empirical source needed). Furthermore, there are big differences in functioning among those with IQ less than 70, depending on the reason for their low IQ (see for instance Familial and Organic retardation).212.85.89.247 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (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)

There is sometimes confusion, because retardation has several components. One of these is a reduced IQ, and a significant portion of (at least the US) black population tests in an IQ range that matches or borders the diagnostic range for retards. This, however, does not automatically make them retarded, unless they satisfy other criteria too. (Additional reservations must be made for the often claimed possibility that IQ scores of black and white people are inherently incomparable.)188.100.201.34 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki to Indonesian Page

The link to Indonesian page should be id:Retardasi mental instead of id:Tunagrahita. Stepanus David Kurniawan (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition: internationalization

The first word "Intellectual Disability" is OK. But am I mistaken or the following "Developmental disability (previously known as Mental Retardation)" only applies to the U.S.? If I understand the article correctly, only the U.S. decided to use "Developmental disability" instead. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that someone is trying to make the page less offensive, at the cost of being less precise. Perhaps an explanation of the differences would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's a medical term (and it is), then we should use the terminology in standard medical sources, it seems to me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not merely a 'medical condition'; it's also a social situation. So the docs talk about "MR", and the community workers use a variety of other terms. This isn't unique to this subject: Pregnancy, birth, aging, death, grief, etc. are all "medical" and "non-medical" (and overmedicalized). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I think we've got a major copyvio problem in the terminology section. Everything sourced to mhcinc.com (ref 16) -- and a good deal that is apparently from there, but isn't cited inline -- needs to be checked to see whether it's WP:CIRCULAR or just a plain copypaste violation. If someone can get to this before I do, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... I'm not certain, but I think it's a circular reference. I base this in the slow appearance of the material in the article over the space of a couple of years. This means that there's no copyright violation -- but also that the link cannot be used as a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Change in perception of people with intellectual disabilities

There has been a change in the perception of people with intellectual disabilities over the past generation. People with intellectual disabilities were routinely excluded from public education, or educated away from other typically developing children. This changed in 1975 with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This mandated that all children be educated, and that be educated with typically developing children. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html This gave children the same education and opportunities as their non-disabled children received, giving these children with intellectual disabilities not only comprable skills to their peers, but the same dreams and aspirations as their non disabled peers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16672037

These educated people with intellectual disabilities are now working together to change the perception of people with intellectual disabilities in the society. They are part of a new movement called the self advocacy movement. Some of these organizations have been effective in lobbying the legislature to make changes to laws that effect people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.massadvocatesstandingstrong.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2 The campaign led by people with intellectual disabilities to ban the “R” word, http://www.r-word.org/ succeed and Federal Legislation was signed into law by President Obama. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s2781enr.txt.pdf

This has also led to the concept and policy of self direction, allowing people with intellectual disabilities to make decisions about their own lives.TomSannicandro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Possible source (free)

This source:

• Daily DK, Ardinger HH, Holmes GE (2000). "Identification and evaluation of mental retardation". Am Fam Physician. 61 (4): 1059–67, 1070. PMID 10706158. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

might be useful for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I can put this to use soon in other places on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Insults

I am concerned about the second paragraph above and feel that it does not belong at all in this section. The language and focus of this paragraph is so painful and so hurtful, and it does not add to the general knowledge of the topics. It appears to be just some type of antiquated laundry list on how to insult someone with an intellectual disability.

This paragraph in itself is an indication of how people with intellectual disabilities are not valued in our society. I would be shocked if any other minority group had a section of its Wikipedia articles devoted to hate speech against that individual group. TomSannicandro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I've moved your comment down here, because it's easy to overlook comments added to the middle of a two-year-old section.

I assume that this explains your removal of several sourced statements about insulting terms in the "Society and culture" section.

As for your assertion that this type of information would be unacceptable in articles discussing other minority groups, see African-American#Terms_no_longer_in_common_use for one example, or more generally, the several pages linked at Lists of disparaging terms for people. There are whole articles dedicated to individual insults. As a general rule, whenever a term redirects to an article, we try to place that term somewhere in the article—and that is relevant for one of the "painful" terms you removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My last edit

The edit I made to this article was reverted and I understand the rationale used for the revert. While I may have been incorrect describing Intellectual disability, I don't think I was wrong for prominently stating it in the lead. The article should begin by describing Intellectual disability or be titled Mental retardation. Am I wrong about that? Also see this and WP:SOFIXIT. My76Strat 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO the article should be titled "Mental retardation", because that is its actual subject. The page was moved, with zero discussion, last month. It needs to be moved back, but it requires intervention from an admin—which means, of course, that I can't just "fix it".

In the bigger picture, the problem is that ID is the current American euphemism of choice for MR, and Wikipedia has done a poor job of explaining the subtle differences between the two terms (the last paragraph in the lead is new). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to check the sources I have at hand in my office, which are considerably more numerous than those I have already logged in on my source list to see what they say about terminology. I can't tell yet if there is an older term versus newer term issue here, or a professional term versus euphemistic term issue, or even an American English versus world English issue here. In any event, it's hardly to be expected that there would be two articles on Wikipedia, one with each term as the title, for two terms so closely corresponding to one topic, so the eventual article text, under whatever title, will have to discuss both terms and any distinctions in usage they have. Feel free to suggest other sources if you know of those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have informed input as to what might be the best title for this article. A discussion would have been best practice. My comment only implies that as the article is titled, the lead is not reflective. It was that aspect I tried to improve, and it is that aspect which still remains to be fixed. My76Strat 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the mismatch between the first sentence and the article title needs to be fixed—but by changing the article title, not the first sentence.

WBB, I wish you luck with your search for sources. It's not amenable to a quick internet search, because child/education advocacy is so much more prominent/marketable than the other types. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I was alerted to the issue by these talk page paragraphs, I've been looking at the dead-tree professional sources I have in my office, published both in the United States and in Britain (with contributing authors from all over the world), and my preliminary impression, which I will attempt to source better before editing on that basis, is that "mental retardation" was the former very standard worldwide term, which is now being supplanted all over the world in the professional literature by the term "intellectual disability." Definitely the lead paragraph of this article, whatever the facts are, should make the facts about terminology clear to Wikipedia readers before launching into discussion of the many other related issues that deserve treatment in article text. My hope for the Thanksgiving weekend in the United States is to finish logging in to my source lists all the more than 200 book-length sources I have in my office from three library systems in my state, and then to begin adding a lot more source citations to a lot more Wikipedia articles, including this one. I may leave to other editors the main heavy lifting of revising article text here on the basis of sources I am able to share here, as there are a few dozen Wikipedia articles that have caught my eye as articles to revise sooner rather than later, including at least one other article pointed out to me by editor WhatamIdoing. Over time the sources will help tidy up these issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reorganised the lead a bit so it is consistent with the current article title and added some refs supporting the alternative terms. This or similar is essential unless the article is moved back to MR, which nobody has initiated in the two months since the move. Mirokado (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Note that the introduction will need some editing. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Intellectual disability → Mental retardation — Per discussion above, and several others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is needed, but just in case, I also request that, after the move, the article should be protected from further moves for a while. This article was moved from MR to its current title basically by one editor acting unilaterally without consensus. We now have a clear consensus. Cresix (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Since it is the legitimate medical term, and this article is about a specific kind of "intellectual disability", it avoids the confusion of people thinking that this article is about all intellectual disabilities in general. There is no need for euphemisms here. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: help a layman out; what other conditions are described by "intellectual disability" but excluded by "mental retardation"? Powers ^T 16:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Medically, that's a moot point because "Intellectual disability" is not a medical term; specific diagnoses, such as MR, have specific medical terminology. Outside of medicine, see the lead for the article, as well as Intellectual disability#History of the terminology for some examples of non-MR conditions (I'm referring only to the current usage; ignore the outdated historical terms), such as learning disability and pervasive developmental disorder. There isn't 100% agreement about what should be included by non-medical professionals. Cresix (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Draft for new Intellectual disability interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• support per my comments above. Colin°^Talk
• Support per my comments above (I really don't think we need votes in this section. The previous section has a clear consensus.) Cresix (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(It is better to set a new section for move requests because the point of them is to have a semi-new discussion with a wider group of people; they are supposed to be somewhat seperate.) --WikiDonn (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Support MR is more well known. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

It is beginning to be difficult to see current conversations on this page, and one thread has just been moved from top to bottom for clarity. Archiving appears to have been done manually so far. I have enabled automatic archiving after 180 days with at least ten threads left on the page. The first run of this will just do what I would otherwise have done manually but with less effort. Since the first archive is already nearly 100K I have created a second for these and further moves. I suggest we see what the page looks like after this and adjust the parameters as necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

extrem hatred expressed in this article

"Mongolism was a medical term used to identify someone with Down syndrome. For obvious reasons, the Mongolian People's Republic requested that the medical community cease use of the term as a description of mental retardation. Their request was granted in the 1960s, when the World Health Organization agreed that the term should cease being used within the medical community."

What are those "obvious reasons"? Extreme hatred for less "bright" people? The term "obvious reasons" would not be used when describing why hitler started the holocaust, and should not be used here. 213.115.68.109 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Because people of mongolian descent did not want to be associated with mental retardation, of course. This is a case in which it IS obvious why a mongol, whose race has not been shown to have any mental deficiencies, to be associated with mental retardation. --75.73.171.70 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the wording quoted by 213.115 is not very encyclopedic. If the reasons are obvious, there's no need to say so; if the reasons must be pointed out, then they should be explained in full and cited. Powers ^T 13:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"small typographical error"

There is a small typographical error in the second paragraph below the heading "Signs and Symptoms". The error appears in the first line after the five bulleted points. The fifth word in the first sentence, "to", should be deleted. I would have done this myself as a minor edit but the page is protected and I cannot access it. Please delete this comment after correcting the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.78.159 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and taking the trouble to post. No need to delete this. (Moved the new section to bottom of the talk page) --Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename from Mental Retardation

The following discussion is an archived discussion related to a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm closing this discussion, related to the subsequent move, for clarity. See #Move Request for the move discussion and closure. --Mirokado (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Was this move ever discussed? "Mental retardation" is still the medical term, and the article is concerned almost exclusively with mental retardation rather than the broader term "intellectual disability". There are already articles for other intellectual disabilities, so this name change creates a lot of confusion. In any event, the move should have been discussed. Andycjp (talk · contribs) has a history of making unilateral decisions without consensus. The article needs to be restored to its original name until consensus is reached otherwise. Cresix (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... There have been long-running discussions about this, including here #intellectual disabilities which started two years ago and from Andycjp #Move page also some time ago suggesting the move. Previous responses have been against as you can see, but the latest comment from an IP was more favourable.
Andycjp certainly acted against consensus in this case and without following a correct procedure for such a move, but: Rosa's law fundamentally changes the basis for such a decision since (in the US at least) I imagine no funding will be available for programs labelled "mental retardation", few if any doctors will use the term in a diagnosis and authors of papers will increasingly be expected to use other terms if not already doing so.
A particular problem in this case is that the new preferred term ID is already in use for another closely-related concept. I think that simply moving this article back to MR is not an option as it would leave the wider aspects of ID uncovered. I suggest the following as the basis for a properly-managed proposal which of course would be discussed further once prepared:

• continue to improve the wording of the current ID article so that it harmonises with the substantially increased usage of the term ID for the medical condition MR, but being careful to make clear what is being referred to
• create a draft for a new article discussing the more general meaning of ID: perhaps... see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Draft for new Intellectual disability. This could include for example brief summaries of the articles currently mentioned in the lead and a section on legislation such as Rosa's law.
• more or less simultaneously once the draft is at least an acceptable stub:

• move the current article to Intellectual disability (medical condition)
• make the MR redirect point to the new IDMC article name
• move the draft article over the newly created ID redirect to create a new Intellectual disability article (needs a sysop)
• create Intellectual disability (disambiguation) with the normal list of possible resolutions
• update any links to ID which should refer explicitly to the medical condition rather than the general meaning

Comments etc of course welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points, but this article isn't written for the U.S. Congress, or strictly for Americans for that matter (I assume from your spelling style that you are British or Canadian; if I were you I would be offended at an America-centric attitude). As for what doctors will do (I am a doctor), we will continue using "Mental Retardation" as long as it is used in the DSM-IV and ICD, because that is medical protocol and we don't get paid for diagnosing or treating conditions with non-medical terminology. The comment made by an anon in one of the previous discussions that "the new DSM is using intellectual disabilities" is grossly premature; DSM-V is a long way from being finalized. In any event, this is Wikipedia, which doesn't have to do what either doctors or the U.S. Congress does. You make some good points above, and I want to see what others think, but the name of the article needs to be determined by consensus, not by Andycjp or any other single editor. I still favor moving the page back to "Mental retardation" pending a real consensus. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I support renaming the article to MR again, and to protecting the move and adding a FAQ about the name at the top of the page, so that this won't keep happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Being from the UK, I don't find either term particularly helpful, but was resigned to Wikipedia having MR on an WP:ENGVAR basis. Cresix has a good point about current medical usage (which WP:MEDMOS supports) and looking at "what links here" shows overwhelming support for restoring MD and rejecting ID for now (as practically nothing links directly to ID). The large number of redirects to this page shows that the world has a wide variety of terms for similar concepts and there is a danger that folk will persistently rename this to their preferred term. Colin°^Talk 08:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can also support the move back to MR in conjunction with a new ID article. I have prepared an initial draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Draft for new Intellectual disability. --Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC), changed location of the draft --Mirokado (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC), update --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your initial draft, and I think it's a decent (if currently undersourced) summary. That suggests moving this back to MR, and moving the draft to ID. However, in doing this, we're pretty much dooming some readers to ending up at the wrong page, since people searching for ID are most commonly looking for information on MR. That's probably okay... we are, after all, already doing that to people who are searching for "DD" when they mean MR.

And even if the draft goes nowhere, the fact is that there are very few people who support the current name, and a clear majority who want the old name back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Developmental delay

(Moved from now-closed move discussion to new section.)

Some doctors, teachers and parents/caretakers use the term "developmental delay" in place of mental retardation, especially in North America. I believe that the term developmental delay should never be used as a synonym for mental retardation, intellectual disability yes, this term is becoming very standardised as a replacement for mental retardation throughout English speaking countries, but not developmental delay. My reason for saying this is that the term developmental delay is too broad, it refers to any significant lag in speech/language development, fine/gross motor skills, social/emotional development, cognitive development or sensory development.

At least 8% of children have some developmental delay. They may have one specific delay e.g. speech delay or they could have a more global developmental delay (delays in most or all areas of development). Often with appropriate intervention e.g. speech, occupational, physiotherapy, psychological intervention, special education, children with developmental delays can catch up to age appropriate or near age appropriate development.

Mental retardation has very specific criteria, significantly delayed cognitive development, measured by an IQ approximately 70-75 or below with concurrent deficits in adaptive behaviour (ability to take care of oneself and function in society), present before the age of 18. Mental retardation is one of many conditions which presents with developmental delays. Mental retardation occurs in approximately 1-3% of the population, developmental delays occur in at least 8% of children and have many other causes than mental retardation and the term developmental delay should never be used as a synonym for mental retardation because it the term developmental delay is very broad and this can lead to confusion.

Developmental delays can be a part of many disabilities, disorders and illnesses including specific learning disabilities, language disorders/dyslexia, ADHD, mental retardation, hearing loss, visual impairment, physical disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida), autism, persuasive developmental disorders, genetic disorders, birth injury and traumatic brain injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.153.66 (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to sign talk page contributions using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MR is NOT a type of Intellectual Disability

I would like to propose significant changes to the following paragraph:

"Mental retardation is a subtype of intellectual disability, although that term is now preferred by most advocates in most English-speaking countries as a euphemism for MR. However, intellectual disability is a broader concept, and includes intellectual deficits that are too mild to properly qualify as mental retardation, too specific (as in specific learning disability), or acquired later in life, through acquired brain injuries or neurodegenerative diseases like dementia. Intellectual disabilities may appear at any age."

Mental retardation (MR) is absolutely not a subtype of intellectual disability (ID). ID is simply a new terminology for MR; the two are interchangeable. Additionally, to call specific learning disability an intellectual disability is also grossly inaccurate. By traditional definition, a specific learning disability (SLD) actually assumes NORMAL intelligence with problematic academic achievement; therefore this statement completely contradicts the concept of SLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghibellina (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the section you quoted again. Roger (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded this section in the lede slightly, to clarify the 'political correctness' point. Obscurasky (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the Needs of All

This page seems to suffer from an excessive focus on the needs and views of doctors, what the uncharitable might describe as Doctor As God Syndrome, with the concerns of actual disabled people and non-Americans dismissed out of hand, if not with utter contempt. Wikipedia and this page do not exist solely for the benefit of doctors, the page needs to address all common reasons that people may end up here and the societal problems around the term will certainly be amongst the most common of those, if not the single most common. The R-word, whether it be 'Retard' or the even more offensive 'tard', is in widespread and increasing use as a term of abuse, I've just had to call someone -- a left-wing political activist of all people! -- on its use this morning and the existence of this page and the way that it is currently structured does little to work against that. This may be considered a 'medical' page by those in control of its padlock, but it is linked to from articles discussing disability discrimination and it does not currently address the misuse of the term in the way that those linkages need. The DSM-IV is raised with biblical fervour each time that a change is requested, but this is not the DSM-IV, it is a page in a general encyclopaedia intended to be accessible to all. If you won't change the name to something acceptable to everyone who needs to use it, then can we at least have the introduction modified to prominently note that the term is widely considered one of abuse, is actively and commonly used in that manner, that it comes with an associated history of abuse and that it should not be used outside of a narrow diagnostic meaning.

I would also propose the article be modified to have a separate Abuse section in a promininent position, touching on both contemporary use of the R-Word as one of abuse and on past historical abuses of people falling within, or alleged to fall within, the diagnosis, as seen with Aktion T4 and Buck v. Bell. There will continue to be concerns about this article until it addresses the needs of both the medical and disabled communitites, so doesn't it make sense to actually do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.241.31 (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article's structure and content is a reflection of the biases and interests of the editors that created it. It follows the "template" of the WP:MEDMOS because most of its contributors have come from the Medical WikiProject which adheres very much to the medical model of disability. The very small and new Disability WikiProject is trying very hard to broaden the POVs of many articles such as this one, but it has only a handfull of active partcipants and a very long list of articles to attend to. Members of the Disability project have even at times run into outright hostility from Medical project members when attempting to rectify the "doctors as god" POV of some of these articles. Roger (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Retard (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a retardation and I don't like the word 'retard' used as an insult because retard just means slow and if being slow is so wrong everyone should look at their own weaknesses because everyone is slow at something or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.248.227 (talk) 01:19, 16 Novembeher 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the word "retard", then why do you describe yourself as "retarded"? I see this as ironic. ~Excalibur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.186.97 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a student trying to edit this page for an undergraduate classroom assignment. I have cited the following material. Please inform me as to whether or not this edit is to be considered appropriate. I plan on editing this page tomorrow. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3SQrtpnHb9MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=DSM+diagnosis+of+mental+retardation&ots=XdHZX0nD0C&sig=n1L4OckLbScNxWe4myZT-OFD7RA#v=onepage&q=DSM%20diagnosis%20of%20mental%20retardation&f=false

Mental retardation is characterized by a significantly below average intellect accompanied by significant limitations in at least two of the following sets of skills: communication, self care, home living, interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety. bloop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.123.33 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed citation tags pertaining to "euphemism treadmill"

Honestly, I've had it up to here with people using citation tags whenever they don't like the implications of something that's glaringly obvious. "Your mom's the village whore!" "Oh yeah? Cite me a peer-reviewed medical journal that declares her a whore!" Eyeroll! A simple click on the euphemism treadmill link would show a bunch of examples pertaining to this exact issue and clear up any doubt. You don't need citations to prove that euphemisms get treadmilled. Okay, if everyone here agrees anyway and I'm just ranting now, feel free to remove this. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put back the one for "invented in the middle of the 20th century", as we definitely have to cite dates and date ranges. Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

History Section

This section contains some outdated factual innacuracies (such as Greeks identifying people with "mental retardation" as less than human- see Chris Goodey's recent work). Also, it seems a bit muddled up towards the middle, and I'm not sure why Civitans is singled out amongst the very large numbers of organisations such as Arc of the United States and Mencap which were bigger and emerged earlier. Finally, it seems typically US centric, and perhaps too long compared to the rest of the article. Who would object if I fixed it? Dave Earl (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Be bold, but cite your sources. Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I think it would also be worthwhile incorporating the "History of the Terminology" with this, as "the condition" is not neccessarily independent of the "terminology".Dave Earl (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History of the Terminology

I propose deleting most of what is currently there, and simply providing a list of historical terms such as idiot, imbecile, and moron. These terms already have their own pages which are well done. Mongolism and cretinism were always refering to the specific disorders so probably shouldn't be included in this more general page. Both pages have a history section included in them.

The sections on the United Kingdom and the United States seem to be discussing current and/or issues with or changes in terminology. I propose that we create a new section entitled "variations in terminology" (or similar). That section could explicitly address the varied terminology used today, and resolve many of the disputes in this talk page.

Thoughts?Dave Earl (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph: