Talk:Disability rights movement/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

January 2006

RE: "The question of whether severely mentally disabled persons should be allowed to have sex is a controversial one. In Germany, this topic is brought to the fore by Nina de Vries who offers paid sexual services to these persons."

Why is this topic covered on a page that relates to the Disability Rights Movement? Can somebody provide references for this topic? Why is this topic controversial? On what grounds does it relate to the article at hand? I will delete this section unless someone can provide a rationale for it by the middle of next week. --Nicholas 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to wrong John Tyler

The link in the personalities section goes to John Tyler, Jr. (1790–1862) who was the tenth President of the United States. I am new to wiki, and I do not know how to fix the link. QiamiCaang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.135.225 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no article for John Tyler thd disability rights advocate. The name has tehrefor ebene delinked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disability as a fundamental right?

Is there a fundamental constitutional or basic human right to be or remain disabled? That is let's assume some scientific team develops a pill or syringe that causes people's amputated limbs to regrow safely and perfectly. The government makes the treatment available to anybody crippled for free. Does the gov't have the authority to forcibly compel all medically suitable crippled persons to receive the treatment - or do maimed people have the right to refuse, remain un-whole and continue to live as is, potentially on social warfare support?

Considering christian techings it seems that preserving or regaining one's phyisical health and wholeness is a heavenly commandment (see the moral ban on suicide), therefore most white countries would probably legislate the pro-govt way in this regard. Also, where mandatory military service (conscription) still exists, gov't could force people to regain able-bodiedness so they can serve in armed forces and potentially die for the motherland.

In fact there was already an inverted case in Germany, where a mentally disturbed person wanted the court of law to compel doctors to chop his perfectly healthy legs off, because he felt the legs gave him bad karma and poor vibrations.

This issue could be discussed in the article. 91.83.12.110 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I think this is a very important basic issue. Owing to exponential advances in cyber-mechatronics and microbiology (genetics), either robotic or cloned near-perfect limb replacements will be widely available in a few decades and questions of mandatory whole-ness will appear. I admit this is not a practical issue right now, but could be a source of future contention. 91.83.12.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting debate, and one which I feel would benefit from being thrashed out here for a while before anyone incorporates it into the main article.

Surely it's an inaliable human right to refuse medical treatment? Medical professionals are generally expected to respect individuals' autonomy and self determination. There are a few notable and debatable exceptions, such as:

the treatment of those who are deemed to be mentally ill
the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike (although most doctors would refuse to intervene, citing the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta)
the treatment of people in comas or who are otherwise unable to communicate, or people who, because of perceived intellectual impairment, are deemed not to have the mental capacity to make informed decisions about their own treatment
situations where the needs of the mother is at odds with the needs of the unborn foetus (a topic which I should imagine creates more than enough heat over at the foetal rights and abortion debate talk pages and plenty of other places)

I'm sure there are a few other examples, but on the whole, doctors simply don't treat patients without the patients' consent: I like to remain optimistic that medical professionals wouldn't allow themselves to be dragged onto such an ethical battleground.

There is a separate (but connected) issue: if an individual is deemed unable to work (and therefore receives state benefits) and refuses to be "cured" in order to be more employable, would a society view it as morally justifiable for those benefits to be discontinued? Dom Kaos (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dreams for Kids

I've removed the link for Dreams for Kids. The rules regarding spam on Wikipedia are quite clear: "[a]dding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". Although the website in question is related to disability, it doesn't appear to be more notable in the disability rights movement than many, many other organisations: clearly they can't all be included or pretty soon the article just turns into a massive, unwieldy directory. If anyone can come up with a compelling reason why this particular organisation is exceptionally noteworthy and its link should be included, please feel free to discuss it here Dom Kaos (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of Rights

I would like for the potential for the abuse of rights to be talked about in this article. I come from a city in California, where a historic drive-in establishment had to be shut down when a person was using his disabilities to take establishments that didn't have handicapped this-or-that to court.

Upon investigation, it turns out that the drive-in had to shut down because it couldn't afford the law-suit that a person in a wheelchair was raising against it because the establishment didn't have ramps for disabled people according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though the restroom WAS handicap accessible, and it was business policy to take food out to guests that were disabled.

http://www.ksbw.com/news/3744545/detail.html

Turns out this guy was just using his disability to go around California specifically hunting out establishments that he could sue.

There was no discrimination going on there, just another product of our victim society with a sense of entitlement to what the world owes him for having been involved in a crippling car accident. Finally, 400 lawsuits later, the U.S. Supreme Court puts an end to this man's extortion, but not before my town was marred by his anger and greed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wheelchair18-2008nov18,0,2293830.story

Don't get me wrong, I think people with disabilities shouldn't be shut out of society, but what happened in my town has left me bitter, and I really don't want to hear any more people whining because there's no ramp to this or that, especially when owners of establishments are NOT discriminatory and are more than willing to help a disabled person out. Are they going to sue the country of Nepal for not providing an escalator up to the peak of Mt. Everest so that "everyone" can climb it? Is the point of rights and law so that disabled people can be treated equally? Or do they exist so that disabled people shouldn't ever have to be reminded that no, they CAN'T do everything everyone else can do, and that at some point or another, people are going to have to rely on help??? I'll recognize your disability as soon as you recognize my ability. I don't support disabled rights if this is what it means, sorry.

Please talk about this in your article, thank you.Kogejoe (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kogejoe, this isn't "our" article: Wikipedia is here for anyone (including yourself) to contribute to. You seem to be quite interested in this subject, so perhaps you'd like to add a paragraph about criticisms of the disability rights movement? I see from your edit history that you're quite an experienced wikipedian, so I'm sure you're familiar with the guidelines about maintaining a neutral point of view, citing your sources and avoiding the inclusion your own original ideas or research. If you're unsure about a particular line, you can always bring it here first for discussion before adding it to the main article. Go for it! :-) Dom Kaos (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalize

This subject is clearly of global significance yet the content of the article is almost exclusively written about and from the POV of the USA. Another issue I have is that the term "movement" is consistently used in the singular form throughout the article, thus implying that disability rights issues have been and continue to be driven by a monolithic organization - this is obviously not true. Roger (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The timeline

The timeline is getting very large. It is a very detailed "blow by blow" account of a myriad events - all in the US. It is dominating this article to the point of becoming hard to discern the actual topic of this article. I think it may be time to split it off to it's own page - Timeline of significant events in the disability rights movement in the United States or something similar. This article can then get back to focussing on its primary purpose of giving a global overview of the entire phenomenon of disability rights movements. (Note the plural - there never has been, nor will there ever be, a single monolithic global organisation). What say you all? Roger (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a source from UC Berkeley

See http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/index.html - It seems to have some very good source material to flesh out this article and restore some balance away from the simplistic timeline that is threatening to take over the page. We still need a lot of non US material too though. Roger (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:School-for-Deaf.jpg Deleted

An image used in this article, File:School-for-Deaf.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Adrignola for the following reason: Mass deletion of copyright violations added by Shabany

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pre-disability rights

Currently, this article lacks information on the state of disability discrimination before the disability rights movement. I was shocked, for example, to learn of "ugly laws" in the US. Could this be added to the timeline, perhaps? Pdxuser (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disability rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What are some legal successes and failures in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada?

United Kingdom and Canada have not been as thoroughly developed as well as the United States, so I would be interested in hearing why. Is it because Canada and the UK simply don't make disability rights much of a priority, or have Wikipedia researchers simply not made the effort to expand upon these countries? Celinewherritt (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography and New Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Celinewherritt/Disability_rights_movement/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celinewherritt (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content in History section

I've restored the Canada and U.K. subsections under the #History section, which had been removed earlier in good faith, apparently as part of a plan to narrow the focus of the article on the United States. Until that discussion takes place, this content should remain in the article, per the topic implied by the article title. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding @Celinewherritt and Shalor (Wiki Ed):. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, the paragraph added to the lead (diff) wasn't supported by the given reference. If it had been, I would have moved it to the body, as it appears to be new material not yet covered in the article. But, as it wasn't supported, I just deleted it (after fiddling with the reference to improve it a bit, and looking at page 14 of the source). If some other part of that source supports your content, feel free to put it back, but not in the lead, and with the correct page number. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Retitling the Article "Disability Rights Movement in the United States"

Per a few previous comments, the Major Events section is becoming extremely long, and nearly the entire article is from the POV of the United States. It goes against Wikipedia's virtue of reflecting all points of view to inequally reflect all other countries. Thus, it might be a good idea to move Canada and UK into its own new article. What do you all think? Celinewherritt (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support re-titling the article, but the Canada section has NO sources, so it does not qualify for its own article, and that content should be deleted unless it can be sourced, and the UK section has only two sources, and is also too small for its own article, but yes, this article is mostly US based. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to moving this page. Removing non-US content would effectively delete a global overview of the disability rights movement from WP. Creating a new article specifically about the DRM in the US is a better option, it can then possibly even "take over" some of the detailed content of this article. In any event this article needs to be expanded to better cover the global perspective. There might be useful content and sources in Disability in the United States (also corresponding articles about other countries). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Celinewherritt. Peer reviewers: Miaecampbell, Jerseryq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Hi. The Lockwood citation for this sentence (in the History - United states section) is not in the correct format and doesn't have a corresponding reference: On a global scale, the United Nations has established the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities,[10] specifically discussing indigenous people with disabilities (Lockwood 146).

I also don't think it's correct to say that the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities "specifically discusses indigenous people with disabilities." Even if it does, that is not its emphasis and so this sentence is misleading. I will be removing the citation and rewording the description of the convention so that it focuses on its primary mission.

Rscooli (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

why is "asperger syndrome" and "high functioning" used to describe autistic individuals in an article about disability?

one is not even a diagnosis anymore because it separated "bad" autistics from "good" autistics and has ties with a nazi and the other undermines struggles of low-support needs autistics and denies autonomy for high-support autistics Mercury.ascended (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)