Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

message: User:Aponoka removed certain longstanding text (that I had originally inserted) at this edit on 2 September 2014.  It appears that User:Aponoka is POV-pushing.  The critique made by The Onion article is notable, incisive, and accurate in that it correctly reflects the perception then and now of the ADA. (Notice how I am referring to the perception, not whether that perception itself is accurate.)  After all, the joke that they were trying to make would have made no sense if the perception of the audience were otherwise.  If I don't see any good reasons to the contrary, I will be putting that back in soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no objections, here goes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent whitewashing of issue of perception of ADA  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081218062400/http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml to http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section 3.1, title "Abuse," consists of a few sentences centered around an Onion article (seriously!) which is neither noteworthy nor particularly relevant.  Unless there is more that people can add under this topic, I suggest that the whole bit be deleted.  Any objections? Mgllama (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Realized that this was discussed earlier--will address it there.  Sorry.  Mgllama (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Deletion of Section 3.1 

message: IMHO the long list of External links is excessive, but I'm not sure which can be deleted and which to keep. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: * I would say everything but ADA.gov should go (or maybe this page from ADA.gov that gives a more welcoming historical text and easy links to the language of the law itself ) . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Was enacted during the Clinton administration, it wasn't signed into law by George W. Bush. If you can not publish factual information, then the validity of the informaiton on your site is questionable. Despite how you feel about the people responsible for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.173.249 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. The Amendment Act was signed into law on September 25, 2008 by President George W. Bush with changes effective January 1, 2009. President Bill Clinton was not in office in any of those years (he was in office from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  American with disabilities act 

message: There is an article ADA Litigation in the United States that is a stub of a couple of cases (well actually denials of cert) about the ADA.  Would it be more appropriate to move the more extensive list of cases here to that page (or simply redirect it here?).  Sorry I usually only ever edit math pages where this stuff doesn't come up as much.
The number of major cases described on this page is quite nice but if anyone happens to know of cases limiting ADA application it would be nice to include some limiting cases too if anyone knows some important ones off the top of their head.  Excepting the two cases about the internet none of the decisions limit the scope of ADA applicability and it seems like having both sorts of decisions would be more informative.  Of course I don't know what ADA cases are important hence the talk page post but some editor might.  Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/Move/? with ADA litigation in United States and More Limiting Cases and 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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/20111122142738/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Anti-disabled discrimination and anti-disabled policies are everywhere in America. And the government's own interpretation mandates discrimination, intead of prohibiting it: http://www.ada.gov/1991standards/1991standards-archive.html 108.48.94.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does prohibit discrimination against the physically disabled for newer structures. Doesn't mean that the government enforces it. epic genius (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sensory processing disorder. It mandates strobe lights. The particular frequencies might not be an issue for people with photosensitive epilepsy, but they definitely can be painfully disorientng and painfully incapacitating for some of us with sensory processing disorder. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Discrimination isn't the same as accommodation, though, and that's why I noted that this law is not particularly enforced. epic genius (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted an attempt to add an unsourced assertion about the ADA guidelines on strobe lights to the article. It's not enough to cite to the guidelines themselves and then trash them in the very next clause with no support cited for that criticism. Under WP:NOR, you must find a reliable source published elsewhere which specifically asserts that the Access Board made the wrong public policy choice in favor of other types of persons with disabilities and threw epileptics under the bus, then add a citation to that. You cannot use Wikipedia as a first publisher of original research. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  It doesn't effectively prohibit discrimination. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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/20131220065328/http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm to http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1866666%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705103922/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094028/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/barden_v_sacramento.php
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) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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/20090205192712/http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926 to http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=78926
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151206204300/http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/ to http://presidentialtimeline.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html to http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419075839/http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html to http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/bushspeech.html
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) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1499096.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.13.74 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to court cases 16 9 2018 

message: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf
https://www.levelaccess.com/ninth-circuit-reverses-robles-v-dominos-pizza-llc-holds-ada-title-iii-suits-dont-violate-due-process-rights/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-llc-v-robles/
http://www.adasoutheast.org/ada/publications/legal/Robles_v_Dominos-Pizza.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.111.174 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC V. ROBLES, GUILLERMO  

message: The list of "See also" links is excessive. Several items in the list should be (or possibly already are) linked within the article body text. Several others are only peripherally relevant, and some are simply trivial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "See also" list needs a trim 

message: Many of the cases listed in the infobox are redlinks, should they be removed? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A few cases have recently been added, so I think the links can be kept for now in case more will come.  23impartial (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court cases in the infobox