PharaohKatt

"Wheelchair-bound"

Please refrain from mass editing articles to change the phrase "wheelchair-bound" to "wheelchair using" as you did on some 2-3 dozen articles this morning, including Magma: Volcanic Disaster. "Wheelchair-bound" is the more commonly used and professional sounding phrase, while using is less clear and implies the use of a wheelchair is somehow optional. Your edits making this change have all been reverted. Further, your change of "mildly deranged" to "mildly mentally disabled" is grossly inaccurate. The first is someone who is crazy, the second someone with a disability. Very different meanings. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Deranged" is very stigmatising and problematic language (as is "crazy", by the way). I have changed it to read "Has mild psychosis", as the wiki-page for "Deranged" references the condition known as psychosis. -- PharaohKatt (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a FICTIONAL character. It can not be insulted. As for your changes to reflect your idea of political correctness, please read this discussion regarding a similar editor who did a similar action, all of which were reverted -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but people with psychosis - a mental disability - can and are stigmatised by the continuing use of stigmatising language. -- PharaohKatt (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I can only presume a cause you are involved with. Wikipedia is not for soapboxing nor promoting your point of view on what is appropriate "political correctness". The language is not "stigmatizing" except to some people, and certainly not a fictional character which is referred to as "deranged" by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored and we do not change common, well used terms such as these to PC terms just because some people dislike them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy: Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

Also, List of disability-related terms with negative connotations, lists "wheelchair-bound" as an offensive term. --PharaohKatt (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And? You did not change anything based on how a person refers to himself. You changed primarily fictional article without any regard for how the characters refer to themselves in the work, nor on any reliable sources refering to them by some other term, but purely on your dislike of the term. Again, your changes were inappropriate. If a fictional work refers to black people as "Negros" then that term will be used in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But... you've reverted ALL the changes she made, not just the one referring to a particular fictional character. There's a wealth of links here demonstrating that "wheelchair user" is the preferred terminology of wheelchair users as a group, and WP:IDENTITY states that that is the terminology that should be used. If you've got a specific reference for that specific article, fair enough, but the generally used term should be the neutral, non-offensive, preferred by the group in question one. Hexyhex (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another friend? The edits were wrong. Period. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia user who disagrees with you. Policy is on her side. Wikipedia is no-one's personal soapbox, including those who have an odd vendetta against what they see as "political correctness". "Wheelchair bound" is an term perceived by wheelchair users as offensive and hence should not be used in encyclopedic articles. Also, this conversation should be occurring on an article's talk page, not an individual user's. Placing it here essentially ensures consensus cannot be reached through discussion. Hexyhex (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, policy is not. He/she mass changed dozens of articles without any regard for the appropriateness of the edits, purely out of some idea that "wheelchair bound" should not be used. It wasn't done to specific biographical articles, it wasn't done because someone was insulted. It was done to make a point and push a personal agenda. And there is no one article page this conversation can occur on because she mass edited so many articles. And sorry, but when the only people coming to "support" her view are new users or non-editors, the red flags go up, which is why there is an SPI case going now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Each change should be assessed individually, as using "wheelchair bound" across the board is clearly inaccurate and inappropriate language, but you've reverted ALL of them and declared the conversation closed. If you can provide any references that "wheelchair bound" is appropriate terminology over "wheelchair user" other than your own personal opinion, I'll be happy to accept that. And no, it wasn't done because "someone was insulted", it was done because Wiki users want the project to be as accurate as possible, which includes using preferred terminology instead of outdated phrasing perceived as insulting. I am neither a new user or a non-editor, incidentally. This is not my only Wiki account and my other is not in breach of WP:SOCK. You have, however, ensured that this conversation cannot be participated in by the general Wiki community, and that the only people able to participate are those likely to check this user talk page. Hexyhex (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I already pointed to a discussion where someone did the exact same thing, was reverted, and consensus agreed they should not have done it and that "wheelchair bound" IS a valid and appropriate term. No one else needs to participate in the discussion as the term is NOT an issue on any of those articles until PharoaohKatt randomly started changing them. It didn't have anything to do with being "accurate" else she would have used more care in doing the actions, rather than clearly just searching for all instances of the term and changing them. Further, per WP:BRD, my reverting was perfectly appropriate. The onus is on her, who made the change and declared it was wrong to make her case on each talk page of each article to support the change, not on those who disputed them. And as you are using this account in an editing dispute, that would seem to be a violation of WP:SOCK, but the SPI can sort all that out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A discussion in which there were also no cites. Now that references to back the terminology have been presented, they should be taken into account. I've completely down with WP:BRD, and am not objecting to your original revert. I'm objecting to the bit where you've declared the "D" bit doesn't get to happen, and that your decision is final. That's not how Wikipedia works. And no, as my other Wikipedia account has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, me chiming in with THIS account is not a breach of WP:SOCK. Using different accounts for different parts of Wikipedia is entirely permitted. Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with your personal views on this terminology of being a sock of someone else.Hexyhex (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

References are not required for discussion, thanks. And the only people who have disagreed have been several brand new accounts that have made no edits outside of this discussion on a term primarily edited on little visited pages, except you who claims to have another account yet you're chiming with one that has only 2-3 other edits. And I didn't claim the discussion was final. If she wants to go start a discussion on every last page and argue that the term should be changed, that's fine, but she also better be ready to accept it if no one agrees or cares and she should NOT run around making mass changes without community consensus deciding the term should be banned all over (which if you are an experienced editor, then you know that will never happen). And she sure as hell should run around changing so many fictional articles just because.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but they're definitely required for making decisions about terminology. You haven't presented any, merely stated your own opinion. Also, I never said (or implied) that I think the term should be "banned", even if I thought such a thing were likely to happen. There's a big difference between "I want that term banned" and "That term is not the most accurate or neutral, and here are some references to back that up". As I said before, the only people who have disagreed are people likely to check this page, which is an artefact of your choice to have this conversation here. You can hardly hold up as evidence the lack of people chiming in when A: this isn't an article talk page, and B: whenever someone DOES chime in you accuse them of being a sockpuppet. However, I am glad you have stated that changes made one at a time and mentioned on talk pages will not be automatically reverted, and encourage PK to do so. Hexyhex (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that "wheelchair bound" is the more professional term is completely incorrect. "Wheelchair user" is the professional choice. Please refer to the BBC style guide, Guardian style guide, and National Center on Disability & Journalism:

Guardian: "Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are "in a wheelchair" or "wheelchair-bound" – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/w

BBC: "When describing disability, make sure you use the currently acceptable terms as advised by the main national organisations, such as blind people, deaf and hard of hearing people, people with a disability. Ideas about what is acceptable can change and can vary among different groups.

Don’t use words such as ‘suffer’, ‘victim’, ‘handicapped’, ‘challenged’. Some alternatives:

   * suffers from, is a victim of - has
   * handicapped/challenged - with a disability
   * mentally handicapped (people) - with a learning disability / learning difficulties
   * wheelchair-bound - a wheelchair user
   * handicapped toilet - accessible toilet"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/branding/text/writing_style_guidelines_sep07.html

NCDJ:

"Confined to a wheelchair* (“wheelchair”) Avoid using “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound.” Instead, use “person who uses a wheelchair” or “wheelchair user.” "

http://ncdj.org/styleguide/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennapa (talk • contribs) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK is against Wikipedia policy. And wheelchair-bound is the term used by Wikipedia, not "wheelchair user". We do not follow the random style guides of other sites, not even the BBC, and this is not a UK sight which all of those appear to be from. Wheelchair-bound is a professional term and is not seen as "insulting" except apparently in the UK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet, as the IPs will show to whoever who can view them. You asserted that "wheelchair user" was "unprofessional", which is patently wrong. Also, the NCDJ is in the USA. If you prefer, however, you can check out the Illinois Attorney-General's office ( http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/rights/manualstyle.html ), UC Davis ( http://ucomm.ucdavis.edu/downloads/styleguide.pdf ), the New York State Law Reporting style guide ( http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/New_Styman.htm ), the World Health Organisation ( http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_IMD_PUB_04.1.pdf ), the New South Wales Disability Council ( http://www.disabilitycouncil.nsw.gov.au/archive/94/hume.pdf ), and pretty much any other Anglosphere style guide that addresses the issue.

Gennapa (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)gennapa