Talk:Intellectual disability/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Please trim "MR" from definition sentence

Why give added weight to an outdated designation[1] by crediting a disused (and superfluous) abbreviation in the definition sentence of the lead? Kindly trim. 86.186.120.243 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The weight in the article is appropriate. Some discussion of the term is important to understand from a historical point of view how the euphemism treadmill led to the term going from acceptable to unacceptable (just as other terms historically have done so, such as imbecile and moron). Adequate coverage of controversial parts of a topic aren't omitted simply because historically there has been misuse of the terms and related controversy. Minimizing or ignoring past problems in an objective discussion does nothing to make the problems better and, in fact, could do the opposite. Texts about intellectual disability written by any reputable scholar would cover outdated terminology with the same weight that is in this Wikipedia article. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to advocate for any attitudinal position or group of people. Our job is to report the facts in a balanced way. That's the goal of any quality encyclopedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I'm not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. I was merely requesting removal of the, by now, superfluous *abbreviation*, MR (maybe I didn't make that sufficiently clear?). Since MR is no longer a standard abbreviation, I can't see any good reason for its inclusion in the definition sentence. By citing it there as if it were a standard abbreviation, I believe the page adds extra weight to a term that is (correctly) qualified by "formerly". Quite rightly, I believe, there is no sourced mention of the abbreviation under #Terminology. As a (retired) medical writer, and a longstanding ip contributer to WP:MED, it seems wrong to me. Maybe WAID, Casliber (or Sandy, though I think she may be away or otherwise busy?) can provide an informed opinion? 86.186.120.243 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hum, I see the abbreviation "MR" is actually used in an unsourced sentence under #Terminology / #United Kingdom, which should perhaps also be trimmed. 86.186.120.243 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I misunderstood (didn't read carefully to be honest). In the lead I don't see how the abbreviation adds any weight since that was the commonly used abbreviation. Also, use of an abbreviation in parentheses is commonly done to inform readers the meaning of the abbreviation when used later. As for the other couple of uses of MR, I think that's simply done for convenience. I have no objection to spelling out the entire term. Sundayclose (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sundayclose. To be clear (I hope :), I believe the following unsourced (and dated) sentences should be trimmed from #United Kingdom:

For example, mental retardation in some contexts covers the whole field, but previously applied to what is now the mild MR group. Feeble-minded used to mean mild MR in the UK, and once applied in the US to the whole field.

Regarding the initial query (and the broader query below), I would be interested to hear any input from senior MED / PSY regulars. 86.186.120.243 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've removed the "MR" abbreviation from the article.

I have not looked for sources. The ==Terminology== section is missing a few sources, and none of the existing sources are from the present decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

And... thinking about the question more generally, I'm also wondering whether it could be preferable to move the term Mental retardation (bolded, presumably, because it corresponds to a redirect?) out of the definition sentence altogether - given that the term is no longer included in the current versions of either ICD or DSM - and move it into a (brief) new sentence (maybe towards the end of the lead?) summarizing the historical issues of terminology. 86.186.120.243 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. It might also be possible to move it to the infobox, which has room for a list of synonyms. (I'm also not sure if the GLD term is still in use in the UK.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing 216.200.84.89 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@86.186.120.243xn 😋😚😋 216.200.84.89 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge for tolerancy and acceptance

Wikipedia is a friendly, equal and tolerant community, and our task is to fight for progress and equality. Be a hero, embrace kindness and justice. Vote for merging the thought disorder article to the intellectual disability page — support people with disabilities. 31.8.121.54 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. No, our task is not "to fight for progress and equality". Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We can only report the righting of great wrongs, and even then only by citing what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)