Talk:Mental retardation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Mental retardation as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] there really should be a mention of race
According to the race and intelligence article, half of African-Americans are legally retarded. When you meet a black person, there's a 50/50 chance there are actually mentally handicapped. That surely warrants a mention, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.11.34 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where this determination to advance a racist agenda is coming from, but there is no such thing as "legally retarded" and there are no valid data supporting any such conclusion regarding African-Americans. --Drmargi (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] If the page is semiprotected, as it seems to be...
....could someone please add the {{sprotected2}} template to it? --128.12.103.70 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- So let it be written, so let it be done. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was very confused when I tried to revert a vandal and found that I couldn't, but there was no lock. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- So let it be written, so let it be done. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
AKA Kelsey Puckett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.70.90 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prominent link to "Half-Wit"
This article starts off with a prominent redirection from "Half-Wit." The computer whizz who placed it there explained (see Archive 1) his opinion that a half-wit was a person who was an idiot through being "sub normal" intelligence-wise. Do we really need to keep this link at the head of the article? NRPanikker (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think not. This article is rife with archane notions and errors - its basic definition of MR is at least 20 years out of date and unreferenced. Linking to terms such as half-wit is pointless, because the terms are far from equivalent. --Drmargi (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Half-wit redirects to this article and the dab notice is necessary otherwise no one will find the House episode. Cburnett (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the mention of the redirect and also redirected Half-Wit to Half-Wit (House). I believe this solves everyone problems. I don't know about other cultures but in Australia the term is considered very insulting for a person with a mental disability. I don't believe it's an appropriate or necessary redirect. --Roobz (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why the section on Archaic Terms?
Why long section on archaic terms... it seems unnecessarily insulting to give them so much prominence. Maybe a one-sentence mention but a whole section? --Calan (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Censoring history because you find it unpleasant is a really horrible rationale for removing it. You should *add* to the article to "drown out" the prominence of such a section, not delete. Cburnett (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we add an entry for "special"? - Denimadept (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "See Also"
Should "Flowers for Algernon" really be listed here? There are many fictional works about mental disabilities... why list just this one? The "see also" section has also been vandalized occasionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettP (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted 'African American' from the see also list. That seemed a tad offensive...69.118.212.71 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Standard Deviations for WAIS-III/WISC-IV, SB incorrect
I believe the SD's for the WAIS-III and WISC-IV (the most updated Wechsler tests used) are both 15. The Stanford-Binet is 16. I don't want to change it without someone else verifying this. The version of the test (III for the WAIS) should be identified as well. The discussion around the tests seems more than necessary for this topic too.
