Talk:List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

message: Just thought I'd add some background to explain my reasons behind creating this page, on the basis that not all Wikipedians will agree with me or understand. This page is inspired by experiences with otherwise intelligent & articulate people who seem unaware of the effects their language have, until you point it out to them. Obviously there are differences of opinion among both disabled and non-disabled people about the offensiveness/inappropriateness of (some or all) of these terms; hopefully my intro text makes this clear and is sufficiently NPOV - if not, please do change it. I added a few terms which I can think of to get the page going; please add more - the intention being that this page should eventually stand on its own as a comprehensive guide about "terms to avoid" - SP-KP 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This list is not very usefull without replacement terms. 
An example would be wheelchair-bound. It was in common use until recently, what term should be used instead? 
Ravedave 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page may not prescribe "replacement terms" - Wikipedia is not a guide. Roger (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct terms 

message: The above looks good, except I wonder if the word "correct" is too proscriptive. "Accepted" or something like that might be a better way of putting it. 
For wheelchair-bound, "A person or people with a disability" seems to be accepted, likewise for slow/retard " He is intellectually and developmentally disabled" 
--SP-KP 17:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "correct" 

message: In at least some cases, the "negative connotations" appear to be original conclusions. Am I wrong? - Jakew 19:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the contributions I made to this page are original research; all are taken from other sources; don't know about material added by other authors though. If there are any that you're specifically concerned about, please feel free to list details, and if I can I will provide a source - SP-KP 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No specifics. I only comment because I saw the list and thought, "well, I agree that they have negative connotations, but has anyone else declared them as such?". It's not a big deal, and I'm certainly not about to start deleting content, but it might be a good idea to cite sources for the sake of thoroughness. - Jakew 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't have spare time to hunt for citations myself, but style guides - the Chicago Manual of Style for example - should include some examples, as would in-house style and usage guides for major publications. Feyandstrange 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs. A Google search for "disability language etiquette" will give you lots of sources. - SP-KP 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOR]]

message: The problem was with "it should be assumed."  That's an opinion, even if it has been listed by etiquette sources.  The word "should" reflects the opinion.  I've re-wored the sentence to make it sound more neutral, and still more-or-less make the same point.
Although some of the terms listed are obviously inherently degrading (e.g., retard and wheelchair-bound), others more reflect some people's political needs than respect for disabled people.  There are many disabled people who would be offended by this article.  It needs to be re-written and expanded to explain the myriad of different views on the subject by both disabled and non-disabled people.  I'd do it myself, but I'd fear it would be reverted by people who need to make themselves right.24.64.223.203 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hashing it Out 

message: I originated this article last year, and thought then that it might attract POV-pushing comments. That seems to have happened. Before deleting them, I thought I'd open a discussion here to establish consensus. Any views? SP-KP 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would do better to first examine your own bias.  The original article as you wrote it supports a particular point of view on language, as do your comments at the top of this page.  For example, "otherwise intelligent people" is a strong judgement, while the idea that their language has "effects" is an opinion.  It's an opinion that people should avoid using particular terms, and it implies an opinion as to how to interpret them.  Not every disabled or non-disabled person will agree with those interpretations; and many will not accept that the some of the terms have negative connotations at all.  Having a disclaimer about there being different views doesn't eliminate the bias that is inherent to this kind of article.Roger 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to disagree, Roger; there are strong sources for "accepted language use" available, and this article should reference them (cf. other comments about referencing some manuals of style and usage). You are right in that the existing text shows bias, but the concept is sound. Feyandstrange 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Should the term "brain damage/damaged" be added? I see there's a WP article for brain damage which mentions injury as a synonym but was a little surprised that the fact it's viewed at least by some(?) as insensitive wasn't mentioned. I thought for example, most head injury charities were just that (this could apply to spinal injuries as well).  MEspringal 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain Damage-->Injury 

message: Either disabled people are overly sensitive, or 90% of this list is bullshit. Wheelchair-bound is offensive because it is akin to being "bound" to chains, like a slave? Really? That had never, ever occurred to me prior to reading this list. Bound means to be forcibly confined to something, which is literally the case for wheelchair-bound people. Unless you mean to tell me a person confined to a wheelchair can occasionally get up if they so choose? Because that's the only way I would see wheelchair-bound as being incorrect. This list also claims "lame" is "universally offensive", which is absolutely incorrect. Yes, lame was originally used to describe people who can't walk, but now its popular usage is as an adjective, to describe something that is boring or pointless. The same way "idiot" and "dumb" were terms used to describe people who were mentally disabled and people who were mute, now they're just used as insults towards people thought to be intellectually inferior. Disability groups don't make a stink about that. Handicap shouldn't be on this list either. I can understand terms like retard, cripple, midget, and Mongoloid being on this list, there is legitimate controversy surrounding those terms being used and to a certain extent they are somewhat offensive. But for the most part, a word can only become offensive if you allow it to be. Most of this list will confuse a reader who uses terms like wheelchair-bound and handicap to describe someone who is genuinely disabled, I don't think most people even know that those terms are considered offensive. Someone needs to find sources supporting the inclusion of such words, otherwise it lacks credibility in every aspect. And I'm somewhat surprised that "invalid" didn't make this list, since I'd imagine it'd be more insulting than "handicapped". I mean, being told that you're not valid because you're disabled. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are wheelchair users who can, in fact, get up and walk certain distances. Some people who use wheelchairs alternate between wheelchairs and electric scooters. Some people who use wheelchairs use them only when their conditions are in flare. Some people who use wheelchairs only use them outside of their homes. Some people who use wheelchairs only use them when their plans are not compatible with walking with an assistive device such as a cane or walker. Not everyone who uses a wheelchair is paralyzed. To characterize every wheelchair user as "wheelchair-bound" is as incorrect as characterizing everyone who walks as "shoe-bound" or young toddlers who cannot walk long distances safely as "stroller-bound." Wheelchairs are tools, no one is required to use one, even someone with a paralyzing condition. No one is confined to their wheelchair, they can sit in a chair, or on a sofa, lie in a bed or on a chaise, they can ride a ferris wheel if they so choose. The wheelchair is but one way people can choose to get around.Aecamadi (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh God 

message: Imbecile, moron, idiot, cretin, lackwit, halfwit, and dim bulb are all terms that could profitably be added to this list.  The first four were once medical terms, but have fallen out of fashion as being pejorative; the last 3 are slang.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.14.242 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more suggestions 

message: I understand that little people are people that are...well short, but is "short stature" really a correct label?
Isn't anyone who is shorter than average height of 'short stature', not just persons with dwarfism?
Dwarfism covers many other medical/structural anomalies that include but aren't limited to being of short stature. The inclusion of the 'short stature' label is unfairly medicalizing being of below average height.
Also, if 'handicapped' is derogatory what are parking spaces that have blue signs with wheelchair users on them to be called? We can't really go about naming them after their main users, "persons with obesity parking spaces". Mobility impaired parking?  
Blahmos (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Short stature' is not the same as being affected by dwarfism 

message: this list is highly problematic.  it's uncited, does not present a global point of view, and seems to inject OR in a number of places.  I've cleaned it up a bit, but it needs more.  Remember, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are non-negotiable pillars of the project. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic 

message: Don't all disability related terms have negative connotations, at least potentially? Sure a word like "blind" can be use as a neutral description, and even have positive connotations in phrases like blind justice. But when a heckler yells, "Hey ref, are you blind?" the implication is that the referee is making blunders so elementary that they can only be justified by a disability that would ordinarily disqualify him from a career in officiating sports. Kilopi (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The term "disability" itself has negative connotations for some people in some situations, and I can't think of any disability-related terms that don't. If this article is to reflect that situation then it might as well just be called "List of disability-related terms". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear scope 

message: Tentatively, I eliminated terms that had “disabledfeminists” as its only source, the nonacademic nature of the site, and the questionable content (Intelligence as a ‘disability-related term with negative connotation’ is probably the most obvious) were my base for this decision.--181.52.35.90 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable source

message: I recommend deleting this page entirely under the basis that it is absurd to even discuss or list.  This is nothing short but a Political Correctness fanatical webpage. There is no such thing as a disability-related term that does not have negative connotations. And those few that dont, perhaps, one day will.  Retard is not negative. The dictionary definition simply means malformed, deformed, not on par with the standard. That is precisely what a mental handicap is, and it is the best term to use in the most generic sense.  No word has negative meaning but the meanings we choose to give it. Any word or phrase or sentence can be taken negatively, based on context, sarcasm, intent, etc.  Used innocently and accurately, retard is simply an adjective describing the condition of being malformed. Most of us are not medically qualified enough to be any more specific than that. Ergo, regard is the most accurate term anyone can use given that they dont know and cannot diagnose a more specific condition.  If anyone can show me one disability-related term that does not have a negative connotation and does not become offensive when used against someone who either does not possess the condition, or whose ego stands in the way of it regardless of accuracy, I will eat my shoe.  All the words listed were at one time innocent and PC, and have become anything but BECAUSE of their misuse and abuse and the malicious intentions of those who use them.--98.247.135.86 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These terms are mentioned by reliable sources as being negative. Please use this talk page to discuss the article, not your personal views. (WP:NOTFORUM) EvergreenFir (talk) Please  03:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. 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/20150511071056/http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person_first.htm to http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person_first.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112123214/http://www.hw.ac.uk/welfare/disability-service/staff/disability-etiquette.htm to http://www.hw.ac.uk/welfare/disability-service/staff/disability-etiquette.htm
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) 07:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to edit this article as the claim that "these words may offend some people but not others" implies that these words are not harmful to use, whereas, words such as "fucktard" and "autistic" shouldn't be considered in this category. Fishmr (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . This is supposed to be a request for a specific edit. It's not a request for permission to edit. You've established what you'd like removed. What do you want to see in its place? City</span>]]OfSilver 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. 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/20110916052857/http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC1101/ENC1101guidelinesforavoidingableistlanguage.htm to http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC1101/ENC1101guidelinesforavoidingableistlanguage.htm
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) 09:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added the word 'dotard' to this list, since it qualifies as such a term. Can we redirect that page to this one, linking it to that entry? Just a thought. Johnnysama (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please? I'd love see the 'dotard' page redirect to the entry on this list. Johnnysama (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from being on the list, this does not say anything about dotard. It is more informative for the reader to be directed to Wiktionary. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I came up with a good, simple solution: Put a wiktionary link to "dotard". Can we have it redirect to this site now, now that I put in the wiktionary link to it? Johnnysama (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That just makes the reader have to go through another click to get to the needed information. I am still opposed to linking the redirect to here. But it is good to link the . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'dotard' 

message: (Refactored from User talk:Richard-of-Earth#Drongo)
"The word drongo is used in Australian English as a mild form of insult meaning "idiot" or "stupid fellow". " Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it is an insult, but the article states it is a list of term "used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities that may be considered negative". In other word, terms created to describe such people without intentionally being pejorative, but later acquired pejorative connotations. Basically, if we can include "drongo" then we could include most insults on the list and it become indiscriminate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word, used in that sense, is clearly pejorative and related to (mental) disability. If words which also have other meanings are to be excluded from that list, I think the guidance needs to be made clearer. Are you  suggesting that "Mongol" should also be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right after I wrote the above comment I was thinking that the lead to the list was not clear enough. "Mongol" was used by the medical community as short for Mongolian idiocy that then became offensive. It acquired pejorative connotations followed by taboo status after being used neutrally. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds rather similar. I guess the actual race Mongols is comparable with the bird family Drongo. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Drongo" did not go through the phase of being a non-pejorative disability-related term. When used to refer to people to say they are stupid, it had and was intended to be pejorative. That is the difference that keeps this from becoming simply a list of insults. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That's quite a subtle distinction. I think the description of article content could perhaps be made clearer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at that as well. It is an alteration of retard which is on the list. The citation given has the quote "Pharmacy organisations have warned their members against careless use of social media after a pharmacist referred to a patient as a 'fucktard' on Facebook... Both the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and Calder Pharmacy's local health board, NHS Lothian, have said they are considering the incident 'unacceptable'." I guess who ever added it thought that justified adding it to this list because it was used by a pharmacist. I am going to remove it and see who objects. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Note: FuckTard still redirects here, but curiously not fucktard. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Drongo#Insult|Drongo]] 

message: Some of the words on there are definitely not supposed to be there. "Blind" is not a slur. Neither is "epileptic." There are some valid points on this list, but honestly most of these should be removed. Some of the terms on here are not relevant at all, and are entirely context dependent. Also, saying "idiot" has the same levels of negative connotation as  "cripple" is... so wrong. This list seems very US centric as well with no consideration for slang. There should be actual legitimate resources for whether something is actually considered harmful, such as research papers or articles, not blog posts or the opinions of editors. The list is very biased. It also definitely seems that a lot of the terms here could be included in Person-first language, and most of the sources seems to point to that as well. This article is definitely a POV nightmare. Disaposi (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Every one of these has a citation to research papers or dictionaries. I oppose removal of a cited entry on the basis of "I don't like it" or a non-specific "doesn't belong". So you need to take each one up. On the other hand if someone wanted to nominate the list for deletion, it is just a list of words. There is little to no content about these words and very few have articles linked that expand on why they are on the list. Come to think of it, we could specify a list criteria that a term must have a mention in a Wikipedia article expanding why it is on the list. Then I would support removing such words that fail that criteria. As for being US-centric, editors just need to add more words that are from other cultures. I do not see what POV is being pushed here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list needs a revamp 

message: * https://www.google.com/search?q=TARDIS+RETARDIS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4111:600:AD98:A801:2911:CED4 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  pun, retard section 

message: Change ""The Disabled" or "Disabled people" are considered offensive by some (who prefer "person with a disability"),[10][13] while others actually prefer this.[18][19][20]" to simply "The Disabled"
Additionally please insert under section 'P':
"Person with a disability"
Reasoning: because the vast majority of disabled people reject the model of disability that led to the use of the phrase 'person with a disability' and this is a term created by and primarily used by non-disabled people who feel that there needs to be a separation between 'person' and 'disability', when in fact the majority of disabled people and disabled activists prefer 'disabled person' as it is an important part of their identity. Sources include:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability
https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd1/chapter/talking-about-people-including-deaf-and-blind-age-faith-family-origin-gender 95.147.204.126 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback and sources. I'm not totally sure what you mean about the first point. What do you want it to say? 00:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Your sources don't back up this addition. They recommend person-centered language, but don't say the other way around is in any way offensive (it says "many people don't identify with this term"). Even the sources themselves say "when communicating with or about disabled people" in a neutral manner. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020 

message: These terms were not originally referring to disabilities. If we include these we will be allowing the list to become too indiscriminate, too broad. Will we also add ugly, creepy and weird because these insult might be used against people with disabilities? How are these specific enough to add to this list? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the sources I added. The original intention of the page did not refer to history or changes in use. Mutant I sourced carefully although I could add more regarding the use in X-men which is not intended as a slur but is inappropriate. Drunkard clearly refers to an alcoholic and is not necessarily intended as a slur. Lazy I think is something that can go since not specific to disability. Please think twice before reverting when terms are part of an ongoing discussion. Edit wars are not helpful. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunkard, lazy, mutant 

message: Add "Sped"
- A portmanteau of "special ed"
Add "The Short Bus"
- References the smaller busses used by children with disabilities DrDocls (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Please provide reliable source(s) that support this addition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 

message: DestroyerofHaram (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021 

message: Please remove "retard" from this list as it is not a slur in any way. 2A00:23C7:8200:4001:D5A:C06F:E985:CBAA (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Lots of cited sources to support it being a slur Cannolis (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retard is not a slur 

message: Please, change the first line in the article to form a complete and grammatically correct sentence.
From:
The following is a list of terms used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities may be considered negative or offensive by people with or without disabilities.
To:
The following is a list of terms, used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities, which may carry negative connotations or be offensive to people with or without disabilities. Mighty Mighty Martin (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021 

message: Please, change the following sentence to be grammatically correct. Nobody will take the list seriously if they think the short introduction was written by a bunch of morons!
From:
Some people believe that terms should be avoided if they might hurt people; others hold the listener responsible for misinterpreting terms used with non-intended to be harmful intent.
To:
Some people believe that terms should be avoided if they might hurt people; others hold the listener responsible for misinterpreting terms used without harmful intent. 2.30.191.231 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the copyediting, but in the future perhaps leave out commentary like  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021 

message: L 84.61.180.12 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunkard? 

message: User:Ashhhleblanc removed a bunch of posts and edited others on this talk page. They added this comment:
I have reverted their edits citing WP:TPOC. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashhhleblanc's edits 

message: There is no real point in inventing new "politically correct" terms, because in few months they will be used "with negative connotations".
Also, the use greatly varies between groups even in the same city.
E.g., currently among my peers: "slightly less than average" means "complete idiot", while "average" = "idiot". "With special abilities" = "crippled" or "dimwit".
There simply is no "cure" for this, inventing new terms is ridiculous, people doing that didn't really think this through, or it is not their goal to protect the weaker. 84.114.78.32 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your suggestions for improving the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text: This phenomenon is often termed the Euphemism treadmill. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. Almost as rewarding as the Wiki treadmill Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation 

message: The article states the term "special" is a derogatory term, but this is only the case in a negative connotation. For example calling someone special in place of the word dumb is offensive and derogatory, but telling someone that their special in positive way is wholeheartedly acceptable and should be accepted. I would like to change "special" to "special (with negitive connotations. Ex; replacing the word "dumb" with "special" when insulting somebody; saying it while only knowing the negitive connotations or actively aware and refusing to care.)" Krispydabell (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "The following is a list of terms, used to describe disabilities or people with disabilities, which may carry negative connotations or be offensive to people with or without disabilities." See also the example given at the beginning regarding the word "crazy". A lot of the words on this list are not derogatory per se, but can carry negative connotations under certain circumstances. Your suggested clarification is given in the beginning and implied with every word on this list; it does not need to be restated for each individual entry. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022 

message: All four are modern terms used for someone with Downs, as are references to Chromosome 21, such as "chromosomally challenged".
The four main terms refer to the infamous Demotivational Poster featuring the picture of a girl with Downs taken when she was 4 with the caption I Can Count To Potato!. Recently, "potato" has become a catch-all term for anyone with developmental disabilities, as seen in a Tard Story named after it's last line, No Tomato For The Potato, which actually features a male child with autism*, not Downs. 
* -- they have their own term, "autismo" while the related Asperger Syndrome is the origin of the term "Sperg"ing out.
Any words in quotation marks should be added, in my opinion. 68.41.217.174 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reference to a reliable source to add this to the list. This would be probably a news article that mentions "potato" specifically as a disability-related terms with negative connotations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potato, tater, spud, "tater tot" 

message: The word "simpleton" belongs on this list 2A00:23C7:AF98:7E01:3D37:FE06:AC07:FD83 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "simpleton" 

message: Add the following text to the end of the paragraph about person-first v. identity-first language. 
In particular, the Deaf community and many within the autism community prefer the use of identity-first language both when talking about themselves and others in their communities. For instance they prefer the use of Deaf person or autistic child.  Batterymarie (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Where exactly do you think this should be added? I should point out, the second paragraph of this article currently says, "" Please ping me when you respond, so I know to return. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done: Without a response to my question about why this additional sentence is needed beyond the text that already exists in the article, I'm closing this for now. Please feel free to reactivate this request if you have further rationale. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023 

message: what about kook? insane is on this article - but not kook?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kook "one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane "
FunTruth (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  kook? 

message: this article mentions "crazy and "insane". add Sanism to see also? FunTruth (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  sanism? 

message: Considering the amount of social stigma associated with learning disabilities, I would argue that "Illiterate" when used as insult would fit the list. 2001:448A:5020:53C:C14A:3385:2F10:D9D3 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thank you for the suggestion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition - "Illiterate"