Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice (Version 2)

This style guide is intended as advice for Wikipedia editors writing about subjects involving disability and related topics. People with disabilities are a diverse set of people; there are therefore many different facets and perspectives to consider.

As members of a minority group, disabled people are subject to discrimination. This often takes the form of language, via general attitudes as well as specific word usage. This style guide explores respectful language, the use of which helps to maintain a neutral point of view.^{[draft 1]} Although avoiding harm is not an official policy of Wikipedia, many forms of harmful language are also factually inaccurate.^{[draft 2]}

When writing about a person who has a disability, first consider whether their disability is actually relevant to their notability. If it is not, it may be best not to mention the disability at all, since mentioning it would give it undue weight. If the disability is significant and discussing it is necessary to fully understand the significance of the subject, or you are writing about a topic directly related to disability, please read on.

Basics

Disability can be described as limitations caused by a person's physiology, as a social construct, as a personal identity, or all of the above. The medical model of disability suggests that disabling conditions are inherent in an individual, while the social model suggests that disability is externally imposed. As Wikipedia is neutral, it does not have a stance supporting either model. Instead, due weight is to be given to both the characteristics of individuals and the social ramifications.^{[draft 3]}^{[draft 4]}

Disability is frequently subject to negative judgment and social stigma. It is best to remain factual whenever describing the nature of a disability.^{[draft 5]} In order to maintain a neutral point of view, ensure that an opinion about disability or a disabled person is from a reliable source before including it in an article. See Wikipedia:Notability for further guidance.^{[draft 6]}

In biographies of living persons (BLP), consider the weight given to a disability depending on where and how often it is mentioned. If the disability is well-known but not integral to the subject's identity, it may be best to add sectional details,^{[draft 7]} but leave it out of the lead. For example, the article Ludwig Van Beethoven mentions in the body of the article that he became deaf, but does not open with "he was a deaf German composer" because that would place an inappropriate and undue emphasis on his deafness.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written for a broad general audience. Articles should be accessible to anyone, from PhD graduates in Uganda to high school students in the US, and including people with disability. Be careful of using jargon and in-group language that is understood only by people well versed in disability topics, or overly complex language. When such terminology is unavoidable, add a brief explanation and/or wikilink to a relevant article.

Drafting notes

^ We'll need to revise this statement later. Also, we need to include WP:SUFFER.
^ We can certainly still recommend that people avoid harm. And we do have guidelines which are premised on avoiding harm.
^ This sentence is just repeating the previous.
^ The way WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are being applied here lacks nuance - firstly, we do actually have the ability to discuss what is "neutral", so we can argue that one or another should be preferred, as long as it's supported by consensus. A clear example is that we don't mention non-notable deadnames, even if reliable sources do (WP:DEADNAME). Secondly, the way due weight is described here implies that every article will use both models equally, which isn't correct. DSM-5, for example, is a medical manual, used and discussed primarily by medical professionals in a medical way. WP:DUE dictates that that article should therefore primarily use the medical model. The opposite is true for universal design - inherently, it's about removing external barriers that increase the experience of disability and reliable sources discuss disability in that context.
^
When we get to it, it would be a good idea to give tips on how to do this, e.g.
- consider how important to a readers understanding it will actually be to describe it
- use information and sources from the article about the disability
- apply WP:MEDRS and MOS:MED when making a health or biomedical claim
^ WP:Notability is about articles, not statements or opinions - unless this paragraph is actually meant to be about article topics?
^ Does this mean "mention it briefly in a section?"

[0-1] We'll need to revise this statement later. Also, we need to include WP:SUFFER.

[1-2] We can certainly still recommend that people avoid harm. And we do have guidelines which are premised on avoiding harm.

[2-3] This sentence is just repeating the previous.

[3-4] The way WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are being applied here lacks nuance - firstly, we do actually have the ability to discuss what is "neutral", so we can argue that one or another should be preferred, as long as it's supported by consensus. A clear example is that we don't mention non-notable deadnames, even if reliable sources do (WP:DEADNAME). Secondly, the way due weight is described here implies that every article will use both models equally, which isn't correct. DSM-5, for example, is a medical manual, used and discussed primarily by medical professionals in a medical way. WP:DUE dictates that that article should therefore primarily use the medical model. The opposite is true for universal design - inherently, it's about removing external barriers that increase the experience of disability and reliable sources discuss disability in that context.

[4-5] When we get to it, it would be a good idea to give tips on how to do this, e.g.
consider how important to a readers understanding it will actually be to describe it

use information and sources from the article about the disability

apply WP:MEDRS and MOS:MED when making a health or biomedical claim

[6] sider how important to a readers understanding it will actually be to describe it

[7] use information and sources from the article about the disability

[8] y WP:MEDRS and MOS:MED when making a health or biomedical claim

[5-6] WP:Notability is about articles, not statements or opinions - unless this paragraph is actually meant to be about article topics?

[6-7] Does this mean "mention it briefly in a section?"

[draft 1]