Talk:Inclusion (disability rights)

message: I have moved the disability-centered version of Inclusion (value and practice) over to Inclusion (disability rights) so that it can be properly developed there. I encourage everyone, especially artists who are in-the-know on this kind of thing, to work on it with zeal and focus equal to that of any serious artist and activist. As for the Inclusion (value and practice) article, I have restored it to its previous state. I would hope that those interested in the subject of inclusion in organizational culture would do their best to improve that article far beyond its current state, since in my opinion, as an artist and a writer, the current state is just horrendous. :) Kiko 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is ridiculously and obviously biased. It makes rather outrageous claims about treatment of the disabled in the US, contrasting with treatment in other places of the world, all while employing weasel words and not one reference that would back up these assertions. All the links are to political organizations and such, most of them based in the US. I don't really have the time to edit this, so I've just added the NPOV tag to draw attention to this poorly-written piece of garbage.--24.22.234.213 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly written piece of garbage 

message: So you make the claim that this is a poorly-written piece of garbage, but you have yet to back up your assertions, as well as to make any attempt to edit the article to a state at which it would no longer be a poorly-written piece of garbage.
NPOV tag removed until you can do these things. 124.120.0.118 13:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  really? 

message: I would like to back up the NPOV tag (maturely). The article does seem to have an anti-US sentiment. Please provide reliable sources that explicitly explain how the US is lagging behind other nations in this area. Other disability rights articles on Wikipedia seem to suggest Americans have been pioneers in the movement. And I agree with Kiko above that the whole thing really needs to be re-written; it strikes me as informal and unorganized as is. 71.37.13.208 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please revise 

message: Just because the article "seems to have an anti-US sentiment" does not mean that other countries with similar attitudes towards the disabled-- Thailand, for example, which I am currently in right now -- cannot be added to even the article out. That's one suggestion.
Another suggestion for readers/editors of this article would be to consult the sources, especially the "Social Movement Left Out" article, and to consult articles on Wikipedia, for example the main Disability article, which has in it an example of how in Sweden, they've apparently recognized the disabled population as equals or at least more equal than the US views them, for years, whereas in the US the disabled are regarded by many as "almost a different species."
To me, a quote like that suggests that US activists are NOT pioneers in this field, but are in fact lagging behind, and actually, other similar activists in the UK and Canada have personally told me that Inclusion there has been reigning, more or less, for decades now, whereas in the US itself it is JUST getting started (which is how I originally wrote the article, to communicate that fact).
I dunno where the sources listed are gotten from. I cut and pasted them from the original Inclusion (value and practice) article rather than obtaining new ones to back up assertions made here, so by my view the article could be recategorized as unreferenced, although certainly the "Social Movement Left Out" article and the other articles referenced in the Disability article and the Ableism article could be good enough to copy to here as examples of what could back up many of the assertions made. -Kiko, current location 124.120.2.107 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you use an unverified, POV statement from another article to support an unverified, POV statement in this one? Uhh, okay.--24.22.234.213 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And now that I've looked over it more carefully... Palme was speaking in the 70s. What on Earth does that have to do with here and now?--24.22.234.213 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, the NPOV tag in the References section is good enough for me. Also, I just wanted to add that I definitely don't think the state of inclusion is all fine and dandy in the US, as it obviously isn't; I'm just having a hard time believing it's SO much better in Canada and the British Isles. (Scandinavia, sure, they're lightyears ahead of us anyway!) I haven't been to the British Isles, so it's just a guess. But Canada? I don't think so... Someone who's lived half their life in Canada and half their life in the US weigh in. :-) 71.37.13.208 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-US sentiment is not wrong 

message: This is the section I removed:
In Canada it is not unusual, for example, for a disabled person or group of people to need a ramp in a public place and to witness the government or the business in question install that ramp quite quickly -- within days, a week, or a month. The idea of inclusion ensures that disabled people are in these ways regarded as full and equal members of society from the outset, and that only proof to the contrary would impact the perception of nondisabled people in society or among those officials that make policy.
It's not that I doubt that this statement it true, but it is unsourced original research, not good for the WP. Also, the exclusion of other nations implies that it is difficult to get a ramp installed in the Europe or anywhere else. Is this true? I know that in the U.S. ramps have been required by the ADA for decades. I assume that other nations have similar laws in place.  Leaving these facts out gives the impression that the article may not have the NPOV required for an encyclopedia.--Knulclunk 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada curb cuts and ramps 

message: I killed the reference to disabled actors on the grounds that it's not really an example of inclusion.  A person with a disability can have a job -- even a glamorous, well-paid job -- without being truly included.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess

message: ...that have positive contributions to make, are encouraged to do so. I am thinking of disability studies and disability rights Wikipedia people especially. Kikodawgzzz (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any new contributors to this article 

message: From the article: However, the reasons for this phenomenon being more the case in the United States than in similarly industrialized countries such as Canada and much of Western Europe are not entirely clear.[original research?] Some say that the older architecture of the United States' more prominent cities makes structural adjustment for disabled people costly and supposedly impractical.
Older architecture in the US than in Europe?  Huh?  --Hordaland (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old architecture in the US 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inclusion (disability rights). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726183628/http://ataccess.org/ to http://www.ataccess.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Inclusion (disability rights). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107024634/http://www.equalemployment.org/publications/aguidetodisabilityrights.html to http://www.equalemployment.org/publications/aguidetodisabilityrights.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050421085524/http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-08/31russell.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-08/31russell.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This attitude of inclusion, which has a lot in common with the social model of disability, alleges that this entire approach is wrong and that those who have physical, sensory, intellectual, and/or development impairments are automatically put on a much more effective and fulfilling road to a good, complete, and 'full' life if they are, instead, looked at and valued by society from the outset as totally "normal" people who just happen to have these "extra differences" or are "differently-abled". 
Maybe the world has changed since I went through school, but I didn't know a single person in my own grade eight classroom who would have read a single word past the predicate "attitude alleges". 
Unless perhaps if the word "totally" caught their eye, because "totally" was totally a thing at the time. — MaxEnt 04:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grade-eight reading level?  

message: The problem with the current lead is neither the sentiment expressed, nor precisely the language (which drifts into the woolly and the ornate) but the overall effect of both forces combined. 
The bottom line is that there's simply not enough bones left over once you cut through the sentiment-first prose style. 
I tried to make my own synopsis (I do this a lot), but I basically deleted one sentence after another from my synopsis because few of the sentences are factual in an encyclopedic sense. 
I'm often guilty myself of supplying more transition language than might be appropriate, but I do try to land on hard statements every third sentence or so, at the very least. As it stands, this lead is not even managing that standard. 
I'm most definitely a drive-by editor because I live and breath comparative advantage. My energy is not best used on Wikipedia by my loitering around on talk pages. I cover a lot of ground, and generally make tiny punctuation fixes, only wandering into heavier editing when 1) I really know something about the topic; or 2) the article is in the kind of sorry state that less experienced editors would struggle to untangle. 
Since I'm in policy offense with my drive-by tagging, there will no complaints from me if my flag(s) are quickly reverted. But I think I've flagged a real problem here, and I'd prefer to see the article improved rather than hastily deflagged.
Specifically, this was the passage that finally did me in: 
The concept of inclusion emphasizes universal design for policy-oriented physical accessibility issues, such as ease-of-use of physical structures and elimination of barriers to ease movement in the world, but the largest part of its purpose is on being culturally transformational.
Inclusion typically promotes disability studies as an intellectual movement and stresses the need for disabled people—the inclusion-rights community usually uses the reclaimed word "cripple" or "crip" instead—to immerse themselves into mainstream culture through various modes of artistic expression.
Inclusion advocates argue that melding what they term "disability-art" or "dis/art" into mainstream art makes integration of different body types unavoidable, direct, and thus positive.
They argue it helps able-bodied people deal with their fears of being or becoming disabled, which, unbeknownst to the person, are usually what underly both the feelings of "inspiration" and feelings of pity able-bodied people may have when watching a disabled person moving in unusual way(s), or in participating in activities that obviously draw attention to the person's condition(s).
Inclusion advocates often specifically encourage disabled people who choose to subscribe to this set of ideas to take it upon themselves to involve themselves in activities that give them the widest public audience possible, such as becoming professional dancers, actors, visual artists, front-line political activists, filmmakers, orators, and similar professions.
The "unbeknownst" prose is shading into White Fragility, which is definitely a subject area where I'm liable to shed more heat that light. 
Toodles. — MaxEnt 05:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV lead 

message: I tried to fix this by rewriting significant portions of the introduction, creating a new "Approach" section to reduce confusion (the intro just meandered about without purpose), adding a bunch of citations, and removing inaccurate/biased information. I left the neutrality tag on the intro because the rewrites were so substantive that I wanted others to review to see if conditions were, in fact, met.
The section on the US still needs serious help. But I didn't want to continue until some others had a chance to weigh in on the current changes. Dax Kirk (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tried to fix this this. Need others to check and validate, please.  

message: — Assignment last updated by Sonia Grissel Hernandez (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Digital Citizenship