| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Ponder Heart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from The Ponder Heart appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Mildy retarded?
editHi everyone. I'm not a medical professional, but, I noticed that the term "mildly retarded" was used in the DYK nomination for this article and I thought "wow, that's weird, isn't that an outdated term?" After reading the article about mental retardation and reading this article, I think we need to change that. The citation used for the term, I assume, calls the character "mildly retarded" but it does not appear in quotes in the article. You can read more about how English speaking medical professionals have started to veer away from the term here. I'm going to change it in the article, but, the worst part is that this has been used on the front page of Wikipedia and colleagues who have children and family members with "intellectual disabilities" are confirming it's not proper. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of assuming here is a search in the book. The reference is on page 143 and 144. Albacore (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see the point, but the term is nonetheless still in use by some medical professionals, comes directly from our source, and is also period-appropriate in discussion of the book. (It's also still used in Wikipedia's actual article in retardation, as you just saw). I don't know that it would be a big deal to change it, but I don't think it's a big deal to leave it as is, either. Khazar (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Other sources use the term "retarded" as well. Albacore (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! Thanks for your input. Perhaps it'd be better then, if people want to still use the term, to put it in quotes, since the man is being described there by a scholar, not by the author of The Ponder Heart. I think it's a better option. Also, IMHO just because a source uses a term, doesn't mean we have too! It just really doesn't seem appropriate. It's like using the term "Negro" to describe an African American person, it's an outdated term. The article link that I selected discusses how the term isn't really used in English speaking countries anymore except in certain occasions. But hey, what do I know! :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read the excerpt, but it appears to say that the term is changing, rather than has changed fully; I agree it's a narrow distinction. You might consider raising this issue at mental retardation as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion happens several times a day across the wiki, and I imagine many other editors like you and I turn to that article for guidance. I assume that since that article contains sentences in its lede like "a person with a below-average intelligence quotient (BAIQ) may not be considered mentally retarded" (without quotation marks), the consensus there is that this term is still legitimately in use along with intellectually disabled--but given the points you make, perhaps it's time their consensus be shaken up. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi all, I have to say I'm with Sarah with this one. And like her, I don't expect immediate change - but, IMHO it is particularly unfortunate for this to make a DYK. In the UK I'd say that as a term 'retard' with any prefix, suffix or qualification has been unacceptable for at least a decade (eg, this policy document from 1999 - check the last page for a glossary: []. It is also listed here List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations. PatHadley (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Disability rights organisations have successfully moved terminology on to using social rather than medical models to describe disability, I would urge people not to simply echo the terminology that the medical profession use, in our speech, and in non-medical contexts - such as here. I would use "learning disabled" here, but definitely not Retarded. Matthewcock (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi all, I have to say I'm with Sarah with this one. And like her, I don't expect immediate change - but, IMHO it is particularly unfortunate for this to make a DYK. In the UK I'd say that as a term 'retard' with any prefix, suffix or qualification has been unacceptable for at least a decade (eg, this policy document from 1999 - check the last page for a glossary: []. It is also listed here List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations. PatHadley (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read the excerpt, but it appears to say that the term is changing, rather than has changed fully; I agree it's a narrow distinction. You might consider raising this issue at mental retardation as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion happens several times a day across the wiki, and I imagine many other editors like you and I turn to that article for guidance. I assume that since that article contains sentences in its lede like "a person with a below-average intelligence quotient (BAIQ) may not be considered mentally retarded" (without quotation marks), the consensus there is that this term is still legitimately in use along with intellectually disabled--but given the points you make, perhaps it's time their consensus be shaken up. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! Thanks for your input. Perhaps it'd be better then, if people want to still use the term, to put it in quotes, since the man is being described there by a scholar, not by the author of The Ponder Heart. I think it's a better option. Also, IMHO just because a source uses a term, doesn't mean we have too! It just really doesn't seem appropriate. It's like using the term "Negro" to describe an African American person, it's an outdated term. The article link that I selected discusses how the term isn't really used in English speaking countries anymore except in certain occasions. But hey, what do I know! :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Other sources use the term "retarded" as well. Albacore (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see the point, but the term is nonetheless still in use by some medical professionals, comes directly from our source, and is also period-appropriate in discussion of the book. (It's also still used in Wikipedia's actual article in retardation, as you just saw). I don't know that it would be a big deal to change it, but I don't think it's a big deal to leave it as is, either. Khazar (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. It may be a UK/US English issue, then, as it's still in nonpejorative use in the US; see, for example, the number of times it's shown up in the NY Times in the past month.[1] (Many of these are older movie summaries, but there's current blogs and articles as well). Again, I don't mind if somebody changes it in the article if that's the way consensus is swinging; it's really a small deal either way. But if a newspaper with as strict a style guide (and as progressive a political slant) as the NY Times still uses the term, I don't know that we need to be embarrassed about having it as a DYK. That said, let's go ahead and change it here, and again I'd suggest that those concerned about the issue raise it at mental retardation as well; if we're going to stop using "mentally retarded" as a term for mental retardation on Wikipedia, that's definitely where the discussion should start. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)