Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As rightfully pointed out, there are numerous sources which discuss terms with negative connotations. Also note that NOTDICTIONARY is about individual words, and not list of words (a fairly important distinction). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "list of terms" is complete non-neutral original research with one source. Utter mess that fails to prove why this list of supposed insults is noteworthy. Seriously, "potato"? Beerest355 Talk 19:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many governmental authorities, educational systems and public bodies have sought in recent decades to require "politically correct" speech by banning previously common terms for various conditions, so an educated person in North America and in other English speaking countries is likely to be corrected if he uses "deaf and dumb, crippled, retarded, Mongoloid, crazy, insane, idiot" or several other term previously in official use. Official guidelines have been issued which can be used as sources, so the "one source" criticism does not justify deletion.It is not just a US issue, and any local focus can be corrected through the ordinary editing process. The "Non-neutral" argument does not justify deletion, since the list can properly be described as terms which authorities discourage, or which are generally no longer (if ever) viewed as socially correct. Other sources: National Disability Authority, Ireland, US Department of Agriculture, Office for Disability Issues, UK, Open Road Australia, quoting World Health Organization, Queensland Government, Australia, California State University, [http://www.ycod.yk.ca/Terminology/tabid/59/Default.aspx Yukon Council on Disability, Canada, BBC. There are great commonalities in the PC speech guidelines across continents, even if they lean toward wordy euphemisms. Edison (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sources and POV can justify deletion. Multiple concerns of this page have arisen before at the talk. The lists' words should be cited and why they are offensive. If the list solely presents random words and says "this is offensive because x" then it is complete original research that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Point-of-view is also an issue, too. The list claims words are "offensive" - not considered offensive, just offensive. This is the POV of somebody and it's not neutral. "Retard" is always offensive? If I call Joe Smith a retard, and he doesn't find it offensive, then it isn't always offensive. In short, this list will never be able to satisfy anything. Perhaps a wheelchair-bound man will be offended if I call him a photographer because it might refer to the fact that he can't be a photographer anymore. So what? Beerest355 Talk 20:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs some serious work. When considering a deletion proposal, one has to separate the issue of whether an article on the subject in question should be included in Wikipedia (which is what AfD is for) from the question of whether the actual article content that is here at this point in time is of appropriate quality (which is what cleanup and many other editorial processes are for). The nominator raises some very valid concerns about article quality, but I haven't heard an argument which convinces me that this whole subject does not belong in Wikipedia. As Edison argues above, there is widespread recognition that some words can have negative connotations, even if there are differences of opinion over individual words, and there exist many attempts to change the behaviour of users of those words. Thus the phenomenon of "words considered to have negative connotations" certainly exists, and easily clears the notability bar. The nominator makes a valid point about how there can never be a single objective list, so a change to the article title to "List of ... considered to have negative connotations" is a change I would support. There are precedents elsewhere on Wikipedia for this kind of list e.g. "List of films considered the best". SP-KP (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But eliminate all the nonsense. The South Park episode calling it Ass Burgers was not offensive to anyone was it? Also, why would "batshit" be considered offensive? We need to list the actual things that are listed in government documents or those by non-profit organizations dedicated to the disabled, and get rid of the rest. Dream Focus 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a dictionary" should be enough policy to do that. Non-policy reasons would be that any list is going to have very little value due to the constant changes as neutral terms are used negatively and negative words are reclaimed and used positively. Besides that some readers might be offended reading the list, which is what it is intended to prevent. Or so it seems. Policy could also include "not a how-to" if the intention is to tell us what not to say. But regardless, "not a dictionary" is enough to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Not a valid list, entirely subjective basis for inclusion or exclusion. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title of this article begs the question of whether there are any disability-related terms that don't have negative connotations for some people in some circumstances. I don't believe that there are - even the word "disability" itself is often used in a negative way. Context is what makes a term negative, not the term itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with trimming, sourcing and editing. The subject is notable, there are sources on what various organization/cultures consider generally offensive terms -yes, this may depend in every single case from individual context, but there are words that are generally (and verifiably) considered offensive. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.