Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice
thoroughly vetted by the community . |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
This style guide is intended as advice for Wikipedia editors writing about subjects involving disability and related topics. People with disabilities are a diverse set of people; there are therefore many different facets and perspectives to consider.
As members of a minority group, disabled people are subject to discrimination. This often takes the form of language, via general attitudes as well as specific word usage. This style guide explores respectful language, the use of which helps to maintain a
.jpg)
When writing about a person who has a disability, first consider whether their impairment is actually relevant to their notability. If it is not, it may be best not to mention the disability at all, since mentioning it would give it
Basics
Disability can be described as limitations caused by a person's physiology, as a social construct, as a personal identity, or all of the above. The medical model of disability suggests that disabling conditions are inherent in an individual, while the social model suggests that disability is externally imposed. As Wikipedia is neutral, it does not have a stance supporting either model. Instead, due weight is to be given to both the characteristics of individuals and the social ramifications.
Disabilities of all kinds are frequently subjected to negative judgment and
In
Plain English
Some disabled communities have
Using the word disabled as a noun, as in the disabled, is widely deprecated, because it is perceived as implying that people with disabilities are "a homogenous group separate from the rest of society".
Assistive devices
Wheelchair users are a particularly notable group who generally prefer the uses / user constructions. The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. They are also factually inaccurate in most cases: wheelchair users are neither physically bound to their chairs (except if falling out is a danger) nor need to remain in them, and many are in fact capable of walking, just not great distances or not consistently. Many long-term users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement.
Assistive devices are often used temporarily (e.g., an athlete using crutches while recovering from an injury) or only near the end of life. The use of assistive devices in such cases is rarely worth mentioning in any Wikipedia article.
People-first language
The use of people-first language has come under criticism by some disability scholars as over-correcting. Some people experience the disability as an important component of their identity. By
Keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of retaining existing styles of writing; edit-warring or enforcing one's personal style without discussion on the article's talk page may be seen as disruptive. A mix of identity- and people-first language is acceptable, provided that the text is not confusing for the reader.
Social model of disability
The social model of disability contends that a distinction must be made between impairment and disability. According to this model a wheelchair user, for example, has an impairment such as paralysis that causes the inability to walk. This impairment is translated into disability only when the person encounters a situation that prevents them from doing something that most people can do, such as entering a building with steps but no ramp or other way to enter the building. The paralysis impairs the person, but the absence of a ramp disables the person. According to this model, impairments may be inevitable, but disability would cease to exist when society properly accommodates the needs of people who have impairments.
Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill
The language of disability has gone through many iterations on the path to
- While deprecated, the derivative crip is in-group slang used among (mostly) mobility impaired groups as a self-identification label. Insiders may use crip, but outsiders and formal writing – including Wikipedia articles – should not. The process of using an otherwise negative term as an in-group marker is known as reappropriation.
- Cripple is used as a metaphor in contexts unrelated to disability. It seems to be particularly used in business/economics and sports news writing: "Franklin's suspension is a crippling blow to the struggling team", and "Global platinum shortage may cripple motor industry".
- National varieties of English.
- Terms such as retarded and moron have been deprecated in favor of intellectual disability. While old terms still have medical definitions, in almost all cases it is inappropriate to equate an intellectual or learning disability with mental retardation.
- Special needs is widely seen as a dysphemism by disability rights advocates. It is deprecated by many style guides (including APA style) that prefer the non-euphemistic term "disability".[8] The language still appears in the context of schools, such as special education programs.
Invisible disabilities
There are many social reasons why a person who has an
Terminology for non-disabled people
In disability articles, it is often useful to provide contrast by describing the experiences of non-disabled people.
Able-bodied refers to someone with no significant or relevant physical disabilities. The term is derided in the disability community because it implies that there is something wrong with a disabled person's body.[9] The suggested alternative is the blanket term non-disabled.
Neurological and mental disabilities are collectively known as
For some disabilities, there are words for people who do not have that specific condition: In Deaf culture, someone who is not deaf is called a hearing person. One who is not blind is a sighted person; the word seeing is generally avoided because it has so many other meanings.
Exceptions to the general advice
Some groups of people who have or are involved with certain types of disabling conditions do not accept and adhere to the same ideas and language used for most disabilities and impairments. Notable among these are
Deafness and Deaf culture
The word
In Deaf culture, person-first language has long been rejected. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language since being culturally Deaf is a source of positive identity and pride.[10] Appropriate terms to use for this group would be deaf person or hard of hearing person.[11] The phrase hearing impaired is not acceptable to most deaf or hard of hearing people because it emphasizes what they cannot do. Other terms that should not be used at all are deaf and dumb and deaf-mute; both imply an inability to communicate, and dumb has an additional meaning as a synonym of stupid.[11] Many Deaf people do not consider their deafness to be a disability or an impairment.[12]
Autism
Many autistic people, as well as those in the
Some spell Autistic with a capital A to refer to it as a community rather than an individual. From Lydia Brown's FAQ on Autistic Hoya: "I capitalize the word "Autistic" as if it were a proper adjective, for the same reason the Deaf and Blind communities capitalize the respective adjectives "Deaf" and "Blind." We do it for the same reason Black people often capitalize that word. We capitalize it as a proper adjective or noun to represent our community and our identity."[13] This distinction is mostly relevant in BLPs, wherein it is best to use that person's preference if known, and otherwise default to the non-capitalized version.
Autistic as a noun is the most preferred term by some on the autism spectrum, and is commonly used to self-identify.[14] However, its usage as a noun can be offensive to some people, and is recommended against by groups such as the National Autistic Society in the UK, who support its use as an adjective.[15] Terms such as autist, aspie and autie should also be avoided, unless in direct quotes. Person on the autism spectrum is sometimes used to avoid the person vs. identity debate. However, avoid using the phrase on the spectrum if the meaning is unclear or could be misinterpreted.
Functioning labels
Functioning labels are the categorization of autism as either high-functioning or low-functioning, or as "mild" or "severe". Some autistic people who consider themselves high-functioning take pride in the term as it represents their capabilities. However, the autistic community and an increasing number of researchers overall reject the concept of functioning labels[16] for several reasons:
- Autistic people are too diverse to be categorized under a dichotomy.
- Referring to a person as low-functioning is insulting.
- Referring to a person as high-functioning de-legitimizes their disability by implying that they are only partially or insignificantly disabled.
- Autistic people are frequently denied proper accommodations on the grounds that they are too high-functioning to need them.
- Functioning labels are frequently used as a tool to exclude autistic people from discussions about themselves. A person is told they are either too low-functioning to be capable of having an informed opinion, or too high-functioning to relate to the challenges faced by low-functioning people.
- Whether a person is considered high- or low-functioning is usually determined by only one factor: their ability to speak verbally. In this sense, it is not really a measurement of one's intellect or capabilities, but rather of how visible their disability is, or how well they can pass as neurotypical.
A suggested alternative to functioning labels is to refer to an individual's level of support needs. However, even the terms "high support needs" and "low support needs" may not capture the full picture, as individuals often have high needs in some areas, but minimal support needs in others. It often helps to describe the specific aspect of the person’s support needs that are relevant to the situation at hand rather than making a blanket statement.
Historical context and points of view
When writing in a historical context, or describing the point of view of a specific individual or organization, it may be necessary to use outdated or inaccurate language in order to fully understand the subject. This is because opinions are expressed through syntax and word choice. Whenever possible, use quotation marks to indicate which literal words and phrases were used in a source but may not agree with current usage. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles describe but do not support any particular point of view.
See also
References
- ISBN 9780398074869.
- ^ "Supporting Students with Disabilities | Introduction". Retrieved 2016-09-05.
- PMID 30193352.
- PMID 28621486.
- ^ "Making information and the words we use accessible". NHS England.
- ^ "Disability Language Style Guide". National Center on Disability and Journalism.
- ^ "Disability". APA style. American Psychological Association.
- PMID 28133625.
- ^ "NCDJ style guide". National Center on Disability and Journalism.
- ISBN 9780840034434.
- ^ a b "Community and Culture – Frequently Asked Questions". National Association of the Deaf. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
- ^ Rashid, Khadijat. "Deaf and Disability Studies: Interdisciplinary Perspectives". Gallaudet Press. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
- ^ Brown, Lydia. "Autistic Hoya: Autism FAQ". Retrieved 2014-05-22.
- S2CID 46351702.
- ^ "How to talk about autism". National Autistic Society. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
- ^ Sequenzia, Amy. "Ollibean: More Problems With Functioning Labels". Retrieved 2014-05-22.
External links
- Griffith, Nicola (2016-08-23). "The Dos and Don'ts of Writing About the Disabled | Literary Hub". Lithub.com. Retrieved 2016-09-05.
- "Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities | ADA National Network". Adata.org. Retrieved 2016-09-05.
- American Psychological Association: Style Guide: Disability
- National Center on Disability and Journalism: Disability Language Style Guide
- "Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability". GOV.UK. 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2022-06-10.