Talk:Intellectual disability/Archive 1

message: I was looking over previous edits of this page, and to be frank, it's outrageous. People need to get a kick out of something else. But,  that this page should be locked. Yanksox 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lets lock it already! --Shultz IV 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Create an account and wait a few days. Graham87 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be locked?

message: Unfortunately, English statute law uses "mental impairment" elsewhere in a less well-defined manner implying that mental retardation is meant. Sounds
a bit POV. Can we explain why this is "unfortunate"? 86.142.150.252 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unfortunately"

message: Mental retardation, abbreviated as MR, is a term used when a person has certain limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children with mental retardation may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or
eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school. They will learn, but it will take them longer. There may be some things they cannot learn.
==== Causes of Mental Retardation ====
Doctors have found many causes of mental retardation. The most common are:
* Genetic conditions. Sometimes mental retardation is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. Examples of genetic conditions are Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and phenylketonuria (PKU). 
* Problems during pregnancy. Mental retardation can result when the baby does not develop inside the mother properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the baby's cells divide as it grows. A woman who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol syndrome) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also have a baby with mental retardation. 
* Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have mental retardation. 
* Health problems. Diseases like whooping cough, the measles, or meningitis can cause mental retardation. Mental retardation can also be caused by extreme malnutrition (not eating right), not getting enough medical care, or by being exposed to poisons like lead or mercury. 
Mental retardation is not a disease.  Mental retardation is also not a type of mental illness, such as depression. There is no cure for mental retardation. However, most children with mental retardation can learn to do many things. It just takes them more time and effort than other children.
==== How is Mental Retardation Diagnosed? ====
Mental retardation is diagnosed by looking at two main things. These are: 
* the ability of a person's brain to learn, think, solve problems, and make sense of the world (called IQ or intellectual functioning); and
* whether the person has the skills he or she needs to live independently (called adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning). 
Intellectual functioning, or IQ, is usually measured by a test called an IQ test. The average score is 100. People scoring below 70 to 75 are thought to have mental retardation. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals look at what a child can do in comparison to other children of his or her age. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior. These are:
* daily living skills, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, and feeding one's self;
* communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer;
* social skills with peers, family members, adults, and others.
To diagnose mental retardation, professionals look at the person's mental abilities (IQ) and his or her adaptive skills. 
==== Signs of Mental Retardation ====
There are many signs of mental retardation. For example, children with mental retardation may: 
* sit up, crawl, or walk later than other children; 
* learn to talk later, or have trouble speaking, 
* find it hard to remember things, 
* not understand how to pay for things, 
* have trouble understanding social rules, 
* have trouble seeing the consequences of their actions, 
* have trouble solving problems, and/or 
* have trouble thinking logically. 
About 87 percent of people with mental retardation will only be a little slower than average in learning new information and skills. When they are children, their limitations may not be obvious. They may not even be diagnosed as having mental retardation until they get to school. As they become adults, many people with mild retardation can live independently. Other people may not even consider them as having mental retardation.
The remaining 13 percent of people with mental retardation score below 50 on IQ tests. These people will have more difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. A person with more severe retardation will need more intensive support his or her entire life. Every child with mental retardation is able to learn, develop, and grow. With help, all children with mental retardation can live a satisfying life.
–
I, as a person with a learning disability, have experienced every single one of those "signs" that you've mentioned.  No offense, but the fact that you'd brand me as being mentally retarded doesn't impress me at all. =/
What I'm trying to say is, just because a person may display some or all of those symptoms, doesn't make them "mentally retarded."
Okay, I'm finished.  Zetco 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old article

message: There are many signs of mental retardation. For example, children with mental retardation may: 
* sit up, crawl, or walk later than other children; 
* learn to talk later, or have trouble speaking, 
* find it hard to remember things, 
* not understand how to pay for things, 
* have trouble understanding social rules, 
* have trouble seeing the consequences of their actions, 
* have trouble solving problems, and/or 
* have trouble thinking logically. 
About 87 percent of people with mental retardation will only be a little slower than average in learning new information and skills. When they are children, their limitations may not be obvious. They may not even be diagnosed as having mental retardation until they get to school. As they become adults, many people with mild retardation can live independently. Other people may not even consider them as having mental retardation.
The remaining 13 percent of people with mental retardation score below 50 on IQ tests. These people will have more difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. A person with more severe retardation will need more intensive support his or her entire life. Every child with mental retardation is able to learn, develop, and grow. With help, all children with mental retardation can live a satisfying life.
–
I, as a person with a learning disability, have experienced every single one of those "signs" that you've mentioned.  No offense, but the fact that you'd brand me as being mentally retarded doesn't impress me at all. =/
What I'm trying to say is, just because a person may display some or all of those symptoms, doesn't make them "mentally retarded."
Okay, I'm finished.  Zetco 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs of Mental Retardation 

message: This is a good article! Some one should merge it w the current one. Why did you guys redirect this again? Sam [Spade] 03:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: successfully merged. Sam [Spade] 16:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: merged

message: This afternoon I removed some offensive material -- use of the word "retard" as a appropriate way to refer to someone with this condition. Some of this material has been replaced, although I think it's unconscionable to have things like this:
  
 Class                      IQ
 Mongoloid                  below 20
 Retard                     20-49  
 Dumbass                    50-69
 Borderline retardedness    70-79  
At the time I made the previous edit I had not created an account. Now I have. The bulk of this article is taken from a FAQ from the website of the National Assn. of Retarded Citizens. [ Jackmcc ]
Is "dumbass" really the term used in this scale? —No-One Jones (m) 01:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! Thats actually pretty funny.--Animasage 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove offensive material 

message: This article should not be merged w learning disability. Learning disability is a much broader catagory,. and there is more than enough content and potential here to warrent a separate article. Sam [Spade] 00:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Ahahahahaha!
Sam Spade  09:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BJAODN 

message: User:andycjp, most of the article has been trashed! This was an arrogantly selfish thing to do. You saw the discussion on the talk page-- despite its problems MR was the term most people recognized as the topic of this article. You have chosen a vague and not entirely congruent term apparently preferred by a subset of people in a small geographic area. But you still left MR as the main term in the article! Even worse, why did you remove so much meaningful text? It's now down to a couple of vague paragraphs. Why didn't you just start this one with fresh text and leave the other alone with cross links? Go ahead and make this your own private article and put whatever you want in it, but don't for one second imagine that you have improved our coverage of this topic. You are worse than the random idiots who vandalized the article but were easy to revert. I will make sure I don't work on anything with you in the future. alteripse 11:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is the term internationally recognised by the World Health Organisation. Fawcett5 15:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the move was a bad idea and the article has been trashed

message: Somebody's got to put all the popular euphamisms (i.e. retardedly challenged, handi-man) in there.  Mentally Challenged redirects here, but it doesn't list Mentally Challenged.  Maybe somebody could move it.  DyslexicEditor 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentally Challenged 

message: You link here to something considered racist filth outside the US. I quoted one particularly idiotic sentence from the source, not wanting to remove the link. The sentence was:
Ashkenazi Jews and certain East Asian ethnic groups regularly score higher than non-Hispanic whites, and nobody knows why.
Now which of the big kids here can tell me how the writerling expresses some considerable retardation of his own?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  213.6.3.220 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 July 2005  (UTC)
Response: I just removed the link because it addressed the topic of race and intelligence, which is a major American taboo topic. As this writer of limited intelligence and charity demonstrates, a large number of people think that even acknowledging the repeatedly documented racial differences in test results constitutes "racist filth." We already have an article on this topic that is the subject of continual edit warring. As it is tangential to the topic of mental retardation, it might be best to avoid attempting to discuss it or reference it here as there are already plenty of sources of contention. This is the removed reference:
*Mental Deficiency Theories - from a criminology course, but provides a good overview
I don't think it is a particularly good overview, as it describes a variety of past and present theories on the relationship of low intelligence and crime. Many of the theories have been discredited but the presentation does not explain very well the changes over the last century in our understanding of these topics. Even apart from the race issue this makes this of limited value in helping a reader understand this topic. alteripse 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the revert 

message: There is some wikilinking, MoS and other work I would like to perform. Grika 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be unlocked for some work? 

message: I'm tempted to revert, but I don't know what the hell is going on anymore... Sam Spade 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wookieepedian did the same thing on September 11, 2001 attacks, labeling as "rv vandalism" though the last version was okay. --Aude 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what happened. Some anonymous user had been vandalizing the main star wras page, and when I saw the guys history with all vandalism, I reverted several of those. Upon having a second look, I see that those are outdated from months back when the guy did the vandalism on them. Sorry if I caused any problems there! I was actually trying to catch the guy who did those edits in the first place! The Wookieepedian 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  whats the right edit? 

message: Someone wrote
"They were originally used in English as simple forms of abuse"
regarding idiot, imbecile and moron.
I don't think that's a true statement. Wouldn't they only have become insulting terms if they started out as (neutrally-valued) descriptions of a certain condition? Sort of like "retarded" - it didn't start out as an insult. Beanluc 19:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional people wern't PC fascists, so they said what they ment. Think about what the word "Retardation" means, in its essense. Sam Spade 20:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So are these agreements or disagreements that the following is a false statement: "They were originally used in English as simple forms of abuse", regarding the terms idiot, imbecile and moron? Beanluc 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair question. Although I am not sure about their origin, I am fairly confident that in the 19th and early 20th centuries they were respectable medical terms, and suspect that is how they were introduced into English. I think at least 2 and maybe all three words have Greek/Latin origins, not Anglo-Saxon. In other words, I do not think they existed in English as "simple terms of abuse" before they became medical terms. I also suspect that I wrote the original version of the sentence containing that phrase. If it now says that they were "simple terms of abuse" before doctors used them, then the sentence has mutated into saying the opposite of what it orignally did and is likely incorrect. At least one of our commentators here has strange and inaccurate ideas of medical practice and attitudes related to this subject.  alteripse 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it appears that Ed Poor wrote it, before mental deficiency was merged into this article. Beanluc 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ed is welcome to the credit. More importantly, I may be mistaken about some of my assertions above. I did some dictionary checking. Moron and idiot are of greek, imbecile of french origin. Idiot and imbecile are attested as terms for simplemindedness at least 3 centuries ago, apparently before they were fitted out with more precise medical definitions in the late 1800s. Only moron appears to have been adopted from Greek for medical use in before making its way into general english use in the 20th century. Therefore neither simple version (of vernacular becoming medical or medical becoming vernacular) may be entirely correct for all three terms. Feel free to amplify the sentence in the article or leave as is. alteripse 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional terms 

message: Per WP:ASR, I changed the following edit in Developmental disability from:
:In North America this definition and condition are more commonly referred to as mental retardation in most academic and professional contexts, but this terminology is controversial in some locations, and considered so pejorative that some contributors have preferred to start a new article than contribute to the larger article with that title.
to
:In North America this definition and condition are more commonly referred to as mental retardation in most academic and professional contexts, but this terminology is controversial in some locations, and considered by some to be pejorative.
--Rogerd 17:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ASR text 

message: Question:  Just why does this page get vandalized so regularly, and in such (pardon me) stupid methods?  Also, is there any talk of freezing this page for a certain given length of time? ~GMH talk to me 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your wiki-fu broken, alteripse? Willowbrook State School. Natgoo 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: I've made a few modifications to the page today for clarity and organization. However, other than formatting, I only made trivial alterations to the content. But I did want to propose another change. Since it is more substantial, I wanted to bring it to the talk page first. The material in the "Difficulties in characterization" section doesn't seem to be useful, and I think it should be removed. Any objections? --Arcadian 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what information is actually in this section. Try this: think of a random medical condition that is general enough that laypeople know what it is. Then look through the eight bullet points, and ask yourself how many of them apply to the condition you're thinking of. Most of these bullet points describe most medical conditions, and in their current form, I'm not sure how they help the article. However, these are just my opinions, and if you wanted to put it back into the article, I wouldn't object. --Arcadian 15:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Difficulties in characterization" section

message: I've read the arguments above - this whole topic area needs a makeover. This article in particular is confusing, as it is titled mental retardation yet generally describes developmental disability. Quals first: I've worked in service provision in Australia and the UK for more then 10 years, and have read and studied widely. 
Mental retardation is rarely used outside US journals and diagnostic definitions. In terms of service provision, it is obsolete even as a concept - none of the organisations I have worked for or researched have used IQ as a significant criterion since the early 1980s. The term as it is used in this article is offensive and inaccurate - many people receiving services have IQ's above 70; their disabilities are not necessarily related to their intellectual capacity as defined by the WAIS-R. This includes many people with Down syndrome and other diagnoses listed in this article.
:This is simply not true.  A Pubmed search for the term "mental retardation" yields 69,202 articles using that term.  An ISI Web of Knowledge search yields 18,162 results.  Now if we only consider those with "mental retardation" in the title, ISIS finds 7,524 results.  Now, if we analyze the most recent 2,000 articles using "mental retardation" in the title, we'll find articles in which authors report themselves as originating from institutions in the USA, France, Italy, Netherlands, England, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Canada, Australia, Israel, Brazil, Spain, Turkey, etc.  In fact, more than 50% of these articles originate from institutions residing in non-USA countries.  Interestingly, if we ask what are the 10 institutions from which those 2000 publications most frequently originate, we find the following: Max Planck Institute (Germany), U Kansas (USA), Greenwood Genetics Center (USA), U Adelaide (Australia), Faculte de Medecine Rene Descartes (France), Ohio State (USA), Loisiana State (USA), Womens& Childrens Hospital (USA), U Illinois (USA), and Boston U (USA).  One may argue, however, that these are all published in US medical journals.  However, that's not true either.  As the list includes articles published (from just the last two years) in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, European Journal of Medical Genetics, Nature Genetics (UK), Indian Pediatrics, South African Journal of Psychology, Monatsshrift Kinderheilkunde (German), Nervenheilkunde (German), Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, European Psychiatry, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, European Journal of Epilepsy, etc.  In fact, articles can be found in the German, Spanish, French, Japanese, and Russian languages.69.248.2.135 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Prader-Willi syndrome, the OMIM, a database of human genetic disorders commonly used by the medical community, reports "The Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is characterized by diminished fetal activity, obesity, muscular hypotonia, mental retardation, short stature, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, and small hands and feet. It can be considered to be an autosomal dominant disorder and is caused by deletion or disruption of a gene or several genes on the proximal long arm of the paternal chromosome 15 or maternal uniparental disomy 15, because the gene(s) on the maternal chromosome(s) 15 are virtually inactive through imprinting."  Asperger's, according the the OMIM, is defined as an autistic disorder, and forms of Asperger syndrome have been mapped to chromosome 3q (ASPG1), chromosome 17p (ASPG2), and chromosome 1q21-q22 (ASPG3). Two X-linked forms, ASPGX1 and ASPGX2, are associated with mutation in the NLGN3 gene and the NLGN4 gene, respectively.69.248.2.135 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. With math and physics articles it's easy to say "OK, these two terms describe the same thing so the articles should be merged", but I guess it's much harder with this kind of science because people don't even agree how do divide up the spectrum of different disorders. —Keenan Pepper 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but the US government's medical funding agencies (i.e. National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the NIH) continue to use the term "mental retardation."  In fact, it defines "developmental disabilities" as a "complex group of birth defects involv[ing] a problem with the operation of a part of the body, a system in the body, or a process or pathway in the body."  NICHHD lists "mental retardation" as one type of "developmental disability," defining the term as such, "The term 'mental retardation' describes a certain range of scores on an IQ (intelligence quotient) test. Mental retardation can result from a number of different birth defects."69.248.2.135 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've done most of the above, and started working on some of the red links. Please contribute! Natgoo 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental retardation

message: Why isn't there any mention to the fact that calling someone a retard in the U.K is another way of calling them a "spaz". Wikisquared 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included a sentence referring to a BBC survey that found retard and spastic to be the two most offensive disability related terms. This is effectively what you are saying and is verifiable. Sidefall 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swearword

message: Once an individual is diagnosed as mentally ill - the individual will be mentally ill for life until their death.  Mental illness destroys lives, from loved ones to friends.  
Being labeled as mentally ill is the equivalent of rape.
:There are many people who recover from mental illness, and go on to have happy and productive lives.  I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make?  Mental illness is completely different to mental retardation BTW, some of the most intellectual people have been diagnosed with mental illness- I think you've got the wrong article. 
:Interesting, if debatable, perspective. What would you suggest?
#treating mental illness as something too dreadful and shameful to be named or acknowledged? (E.g., "You seem to have a problem too shameful to even talk about"); or
#acting as if there is no such thing as mental illness, and treating all manifestations of mental illness as if they are under the willful control of the sufferer (E.g., "You shouldn't be depressed. Just make up your mind to snap out of it!" or "It doesn't matter that you thought the devil was telling you to do it and your brain is controlled by the neigbor's tv control, you are spending the rest of your life in prison for what you did to your child.") So which sounds better? alteripse 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about mental retardation, i.e. retarded people with low IQs. Not sad people or spastics. Think you've got the wrong article --Hayden5650 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labelled as Mentally Ill

message: Sorry, that insults infants. I've semi-protected the page; I'm getting tired of seeing it vandalized in the most puerile fashion five or six times a day. Oh, sorry, that insults boys. And vandals, come to think of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantile vandalism 

message: This is a very difficult webpage to write.  Things have changed so much in clarification of Mental Retardation/Learning Disabilities.  This url ( http://www.people-inc.org/museum/collection_glossary.asp )reflects the decades of changes in terms and ranges of IQ in determining what is a "mental deficiency" individual. When I was in the 7th grade back in 1967, I was told my IQ was 75.  In 1967 you were classified as "mentally retarded" and the school administration pushed to get me in a Special Education class. My mother fought it and kept me in regular classes.  That was the way it was in the 60's. I think the webpage is written well.  One has to reflect the changes in society over time.  Although it may affend some people.
Brendad888 13:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Terms 

message: That is not a neutral-pov represenation "of a mentally handicapped person." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.117 (talk • contribs) 
:Picture removed, thank you for noticing it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please remove insulting South Park picture

message: what the fuck is that picture of the apparently 'retarded' kid on a bike doing on this page?
:What page? There isn't an image in the mental retardation article. Graham87 12:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: We've had an email in the OTRS system, which links to this forum post, giving us notice of this threat of continued vandalism (above post seems to be connected with this forum).  I've blocked the user who left the image of the kid, but more could be forthcoming.  Thanks, Martinp23 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about vandalism 

message: I suggest the article be edited at a certain portion, since the editors are so afraid the article will be 'vandalized' that they will not allow editing.
My editing suggestion would be near the bottom of the article, when the article discusses the methods that professionals use to determine mental retardation, specifically in "Significant limitations in one or more areas of adaptive behavior". It is simply a matter of redundancy on part of the author(s) and editors, and should be edited as quickly as possible to avoid vagueness and the appearance of poor composition.
The paragraph currently reads:
"To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use instruments that are actually structured interviews, with which they systematically elicit information about the person's functioning in the community from someone that knows them well."
It should, however, read:
"To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use structured interviews, with which they..."
The original paragraph is redundant and poorly composed. "Professionals use instruments that are ACTUALLY structured interviews"? No! Interviews are not 'instruments', they are interviews, which are methods, not 'instruments'. Therefore, professionals use structured interviews, they do not use 'instruments that are ACTUALLY structured interviews". To say that they use a "structured interview" is enough. Additional garbled nonsense, like in the original paragraph, is academic butchering and an attempt at wordiness to fool the average person into thinking the article's author sounds smarter than they really are by being verbose.
Verbosity is neither encyclopedic or intelligent, nor is it expedient, which all encyclopedic entries ought to be.
*****
Onto another topic...
The usage of the word 'mental retardation' is not necessarily backward as much as it is interpreted (and I stress the word 'interpreted') by modern politically-correct people as offensive. 
Etymologically speaking, 'retard' as a verb basically means to slow down, so something that is retarded is merely slow. For example, if I am driving on the road to an important meeting at the CIA and there is a traffic jam, then that clearly will retard my progress. Therefore, 'mental retardation' means 'a slow mind'. Not offensive at all, except for when people don't think outside of cultural and societal context. 
People only consider the word 'retard' or 'mental retardation' offensive because they do not have a thorough understanding of language and word origin, and as such, they selfishly demand that we omit these words from the lexicon. I have retarded relatives, and they are just that; they are retarded in their mental development, plain and simple. Since when should an entire word be marginalized because of perceived and imaginary negative connotations? 
To omit the phrase is equal to Newspeak, in my opinion. Mental retardation is a legitimate conglomeration of words, whether or not people are capable of recognizing the etymological history of the the term. If you have no experience with words or etymology, then stay out of it, because otherwise you are bringing personal opinions into an otherwise neutral argument. 
It's a matter of connotation vs denotation. Clearly, the formal, dictionary meanings of 'to retard' or 'to be retarded'(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retard) are not offensive; it is only overly-sensitive and politically-correct people who are scared of offending people with a scientifically accurate term such as 'mental retardation'. By choosing to interpret the word negatively is a choice, not a fact. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.89.134 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've removed the Logorrhoea in that sentence. Graham87 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing portions of the article to clarify, and also in response to 'antiquated' terminology 

message: I see vandalism, but I can't fix it because the page is protected.
:Could you be more specific? Which part is vandalism? BigNate37(T) 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's gone now.
Does anybody know why the link for Profound Mental Retardation leads to the Vandalism page?70.65.6.167 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That has been fixed. Graham87 05:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: **The origin of the word "retard" comes from intensive prefix re- and the Latin word tardus meaning "slow," e.g., being tardy. Mental retardation thus derives from the idea that someone is mentally slow. 
I think this section should be deleted, as somebody did earlier.  It really seems superfluous.  The origins of the word retard are really not that cryptic and do not require an explanation.  Do we go to the trouble of explaining the origin of the word mental?  —Gaff ταλκ 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually thinking about it some more I also decided the section wasn't needed. I tried to delete it but you had beaten me to it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Graham87 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Should a more scholarly definition be used?  The reference to English law seems awkward outside of England.Skeat78 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I really think that this discussion page could use a clean-up. A lot of things are being said multiple times. And some discussions are being put forward multiple times. Also since this is a apparently controversial subject. I would like to suggest that this is made clear somehow on the mainpage in order to prevent the "vandalism" some mentioned above. This is worth an encyclopedic entry, but I do think it needs some improvement. Anonymous 12 june 2007
Having stumbled across this page (wondering what an entry would say), I'd think that both the page and the discussion still need some editing. Summary (from UK): mental retardation really is both effectively unused in the UK and is where it were used would rank something like some racist words I'd better not write here. It is true that the phrase "mentally handicapped" used to be the phrase in the UK, and still probably is in some circles. This includes, I suppose, "Mencap". Mencap is one of the major UK charities in this area, and now describes itself as "Mencap is the UK's leading learning disability charity working with people with a learning disability and their families and carers." (quote www.mencap.org.uk). My lay understanding is that the UK professionals now try to distinguish "mental health" and "mental illness" (depression etc) from what was "mental handicap", and thus the phrase "learning disabilities" came in. Whatever, I'd see this as evidence that there will be tensions in a single English-language encyclopaedia, and there should be a standard way of dealing with it. Quite simply, it comes over as offensive here (I can't emphasise more) and there should at least be a statement on the page to say that in the UK this is seen so (perhaps noting it is an archaic form). I think the "mental retard" term best avoided on other pages too. Anonymous. London. 6th Sep 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.243.2 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: I was wondering if anyone knew the varying levels of legal reposnibility people under certian IQ levels have? Is there a page on this or should something be included in the IQ table? Specificaly the rights to refuse medical treatment when the carer wants it to go ahead or other similar Carer Vs Patient issues. --82.45.121.74 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status 

message: If I look on the cited references (Websites, New York Times Article)
I wonder if there exists any serious publications about this topic? Nulli 09:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  serious references 

message: i found a pic of a retarded woman i know--The Right Honourable 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a hilarious video for youtube once, with heaps of photos of mentally retarded people and the song 'Lets Get Retarded' playing in the background. The vid got kicked off youtube, but I still have the pics. Should I put some up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.47.190 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, i reinstated my pic (tis not me)Phil Ian Manning (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: There is no reason for this section to exist IMO. Personally I find the article title offensive (yes, I am from the UK) and it's approach to the subject matter outdated.  I am stunned to see people here on the talk page using the term "handicapped", but this is also beside the point.  If we must allow the article to continue under the title "Mental Retardation", then that will suffice. There is no need to present a list of offensive synonyms.
Moreover, the statement "Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry, but have since been subject to the euphemism treadmill." is non-neutral POV.  Words have fallen out of use, not because people are too lily-livered to stick to one term, but because over time, particularly over the last 50 years, the awareness and thus the sensitivity of medical health professionals to the concerns and vulnerability of disabled individuals has improved.  This evolving change in public attitude and public health policies has necessitated an evolution of language, which is as it should be.  To imply that this process is merely the effect of a bunch of PC loonies is erroneous, insulting and unbecoming to an intellectual publication.  A footnote that the term "Mental Retardation" is considered offensive amongst a broad range of people would sufficiently replace this section.
I strongly suggest that someone with some authority takes this article in hand because it presently does Wikipedia no service.  ~ NIGEDO (locked out of my account) 78.144.98.108 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Terms