Talk:Intellectual disability/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, proposed title already has separate article and it covers a broader concept.-- Staberinde (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Mental retardation → Intellectual disability – The title "mental retardation" is offensive to people with the condition. Voortle (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move at this time. Please read the /FAQ and about the euphemism treadmill. You might also like to read the article Intellectual disability, which is a broader concept (including, for example, people who have very low intellectual capacity due to massive brain damage as an adult). I encourage you to contribute to the discussion above about whether the page should follow the DSM-V or ICD-11 standard when those two major sources change in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons stated by WhatamIdoing. Cresix (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move at this time, agree with WhatamIdoing. Maybe later though. Lova Falk talk 10:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose two separate articles. If you want to overwrite "intellectual disability" with this article, you have to nominate it for deletion first. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mental retardation is only one type of Intellectual disability, no matter how sincere the PC-brigade are, the two terms are not perfect synonyms. Roger (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

An article about the words without mentioning the subject.

Based on a Google Search, here is what I came here looking to find:

What are expectations of adults with IQ levels below 70, 60, and such. What are testable factors other than IQ which can effect the ability to learn, function independently, hold a job, and generally participate in society and at what level or participation.

Also, I was hoping to find some leads to a discussion on the relative perceptions of "average" by persons with exceptional and gifted/genius intelligence. That is, do not most persons tend to see themselves as average and assume that others are like them? How might that false assumption manifest itself in the interpersonal relations of the very bright?

Instead, I read about the term, and how it has been used pejoratively. Anyone who has finished first grade already knows that.

Y'all need to get a grip on what you are doing here. Are you debating terms, or creating articles? This is the FIFTH article I have read which is so afraid of the subject that it fails to provide ANY relevant information, apologizing for itself in paragraph after paragraph.

I am not qualified to write this article, and it seems, neither are any of you. But here is a start:

Somewhere, once, in the article, we say, "Terms related to 'retardation' have often been used as insults, such as stupid, moron, idiot, imbecile, and so on; however, such terms have, historically, held clinical meanings." And see? You are done with all of that fussing.

Now that you are free to move on, please write an article on the subject for adults and not an essay on "it is bad to call people names."--cregil (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be productive to add more information about some of the issues you suggest, especially "ability to learn, function independently, hold a job, and generally participate in society and at what level or participation". I disagree that the article is "an essay on 'it is bad to call people names.'" The pejorative nature of the terminology through the years has been one of the very factors that impedes progress in some of the areas you mention.

I was fine with your suggestions until I got to your comment "Y'all need to get a grip on what you are doing here" and the remainder of your rant. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; it is the encyclopedia that is written entirely by unpaid editors. It's easy to passively criticize as you do, while hiding behind the excuse "I am not qualified to write this article." Much of Wikipedia is written by nonexperts; and if the information they add is inaccurate in some way, then the experts are free to challenge and improve it. If you can read and have a bit of motivation, you can improve Wikipedia. You've been on Wikipedia over two years. So my suggestion to YOU is start reading and improving the article by adding (not removing) rather than spend your time criticizing those of us who already devote some of our time to this project. Cresix (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Well said Cresix! Lova Falk talk 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Crews, if you haven't already seen Dunning–Kruger effect and the related articles, then that might lead you to information about misperceptions of ourselves compared to others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5

"Mental retardation" has a new name: "intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree strongly with changing the title of this article to intellectual disability (while acknowledging that it is still called mental retardation by some).The debate has been not so much what the name is, but what it specifically refers to. See for example this article from 2011: it points out that the debate began 15 years before the time of writing that article published in 2011, and had long been settled in favor of retiring the term "mental retardation" in developed countries and is underway in the LAMI world too. Ongoing debate is what does intellectual disability actually mean, and that would be happening regardless of what it's called. Once "retard" became a term of abuse, as "moron" had earlier, especially when it is not even good terminology, this was going to happen. The MeSH term to which the article links is "intellectual disability" - some uses of the term have yet to be replaced, but this is only a question of time now. You can't search in PubMed for mental retardation alone, because it has been so thoroughly retired, and this isn't just symbolic. Of course for the US, this is affected by Rosa's Law, which does not allow Federal use of the term. But it is a measure of strength of concern about the "retard" word that this term is actually legislated against. I'm not American, and so wouldn't say, US law should determine how anyone else sees it, but "retard" is far too disrespectful a term to cling to when the profession and the society is trying to pull past it. It cannot survive as acceptable terminology now. So the only question is, how soon do you do it? This is the same as where you would place yourself on the continuum when Mongoloid needed to go, or GRID needed to become AIDS, or moron or spastic for cerebral palsy needed to go. Hildabast (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Source for term "general learning disorder"?

I see the lede prominently mentions the term "general learning disorder," indeed mentioning that term more prominently now than "mental retardation." What is the source for this? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Education Support Service General Learning Disabilities.

I'm not sure why you deleted it half an hour ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see by further searching that that proposed term (yes, identified by the source formerly in the article as a reference) never took off. It's essentially absent from the more current literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a British and Irish term, and it is in current use there. See PMID 23104965 and PMID 20501538 for two recent psychological journal articles that use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The various terminologies used in the UK such as "general learning disorder" have no specific definition more a politically based description, especially for each new government to make their mark. We are now more about discussing the specific clinical disabilities based on the current international research, which can improve the understanding of the various issues, so say in the case of dyslexia which is now not a condition but more a symptom of the various cogntive issues that can cause the dyslexic symptom. The real problem is money and politics which can sometimes prevent the real issues from being discussed, and sometimes how the cultures in different countries of the English speaking world prefer to address these issues. dolfrog (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the article that used to be at this title?

I have lost track of the article that used to be at this title - the one that discusses the broader topic of intellectual disabilities in general. It had been moved several times yesterday and various redirects have been deleted so finding it's current title is difficult. There should be a hatnote link to it on this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article name was suddenly changed at the whim of an editor to Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities and moved, including a strange redirect. dolfrog (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger, the move was an attempt to build an article on a topic, defined by discussion on this talk page, which unfortunately does not appear as a topic with a customary title in the professional literature. Dolfrog has pointed to the new location of that article, Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities. The article title changes (for this article and for that article) result from a change of terminology in the real world, with "intellectual disability" now being by far the preferred term for what I grew up knowing as "mental retardation." I'm still checking sources to clear up the terminology in this and other related articles. See my Intelligence Citations source list for pointers to the current professional literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I do know the rationale and history of the move, I just needed the current title. As I said, various moves and the subsequent deletion of redirects unfortunately broke the trail so I couldn't find it. I think we should have a "See also" link at each page pointing to the other. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Roger. I was all fumble-fingers at the time and had problems with typos, followed by an idea for a slightly better(?) title.

BTW, I'd be happy to have you compare the article to Cognitive deficit. I'm thinking that they may be the same actual subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar issues in last sentence of first paragraph

The last sentence in the first paragraph has some grammar issues. In particular, the last two clauses lack verbs:

Intellectual disability is subdivided into syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms, and non-syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits that appear without other abnormalities.

I suggest it be replaced with the following:

Intellectual disability is subdivided into syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms are present, and non-syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits appear without other abnormalities.

Thanking you 14.202.89.68 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jonathunder (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Mental retardation as a term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article says that the term "Mental retardation" was used in the late 20th century. I hate to break it to folks, but that term, while considered politically incorrect by many, is still widely used. The way it is worded in the article implies that it isn't and that's unsupported and unverifiable. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A close reading of the article text shows that the article begins with the current term per the Wikipedia naming conventions for medicine-related articles, which specify "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. . . . Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction." The article goes on to note that a commonly used term in the era when Wikipedia was founded (a former name for this article, and a redirect term) was "mental retardation." The article text does not say that use of the previous term has ceased, nor does the article lack cited, reliable sources that talk about the terminology change. There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and of what the sources say here. The article helps readers by informing them what current medical terminology, preferred by researchers and by advocacy organizations both, is. That's all. There is no need for a tag about this, although I will move the references from the body text to the lede (not strictly necessary by Wikipedia editing rules) just to remove all doubt. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are still gathering sources. I have lots of sources at hand. What sources do you recommend on this topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, note that the first several references cited in this article are about the change of terminology during our lifetimes, with the publication of DSM-5 this year (2013) being an important milestone. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Toddst1, Fortunately, you are wrong. "Mental Retardation" has some for quite some time now been eschewed in the disabled community because it has, and continues to be, used as a pejorative in society as a whole. The Global Down Syndrome Foundation describes the term as "...politically incorrect, hurtful and dehumanizing.". Several years ago, the US federal government passed Rosa's Law, banning the use of the term in all federal statutes., which has also had a trickle down effect on a great deal of official and non-official usage. An example of this change is seen on on government websites such as U.S. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health, and other medical websites such as WebMD and Kids Health. Some major indicators of this change in usage is the change seen in the new DSM-5 and change in name of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - which used to be called the "American Association on Mental Retardation". Using the word "retarded" is tantamount to using the "n-word", and as such, "mental retardation" is being used less and less (if at all) as a description of pathology and, concurrently it's use is only being supported and propagated by the woefully ignorant, the ardently disrespectful and pathetically bigoted. - thewolfchild 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Not everyone lives in the disabled community - in fact most don't. A huge chunk of the article and the lede is devoted to the evolution of terms and the new preferred term. To assert that it isn't used by people in general will be impossible to source/support because it's not true.[1] I get your point that it's not a nice term (as I mentioned in my OP) but this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for WP:ADVOCACY. In case you hadn't noticed, the article uses this term that you assert is no longer in use 46 times. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Not everyone lives in the disabled community - in fact most don't." - Agreed, but how is that relevant? Not everyone is part of the 'black community' either, but most of us know the n-word is inappropriate, and we don't use it in articles in reference black people.

"I believe you can and should get sources to say that there is a new preferred term." - I already have. Now, surely you agree with the point here, so why don't you pitch in an add some sources?

"To assert that it isn't used by people in general will be impossible to source/support because it's not true.[2]" - A video of one person making one comment does not constitute "people in general". In fact, is simply shows that Bachmann fits into the 'ignorant' category. Her comment was even publicly decried by her own campaign manager.

"I get your point that it's not a nice term (as I mentioned in my OP) but this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for WP:ADVOCACY." - How is it "unencyclopaedic" to use the more appropriate and acceptable term in place of a term that has been both publicly and legally censured? And just how does that make an article "a platform"? (Have you read Wikipedia:Advocacy?)

"In case you hadn't noticed, the article uses this term that you assert is no longer in use 46 times." - And that needs to change. - thewolfchild 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is: the term "is still widely used." Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And...? - thewolfchild 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"The way it is worded in the article implies that it isn't and that's unsupported and unverifiable." Are you incapable of reading the OP? Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I read it. All I see is you contradicting yourself. The lead states that MR was "..commonly known in the late twentieth century...", which is was, as supported by you own comments. Are you now arguing it wasn't commonly used in the 20^th century? You made the comment it is still widely used now, in 21^th century, but I have shown, with multiple cites, that is changing. This is a medical term, and one of the leading institutions that defines such terminology, the APA, has changed it. The federal gov't has enacted a law changing it. More and more reputable sources are going with the new term, ID. And as such, (as I already pointed out) only ignorant and/or disrespectful people are using this term medically, while the majority use it pejoratively.

• Do you still use the term MR? If so, do you use it to describe someone with ID? Or do you use it as an insult?
• Do you believe that despite everything you have been told, that somehow WP still needs to use the term MR?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions at least, as you refused to answer the previous questions I asked. And lastly, in regards to your comment: "Are you incapable of reading the OP? "... I would ask in return; Are you capable of reading WP:CIVIL? - thewolfchild 11:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you: The term is still used. The way it's written says it isn't used any longer which is false. People wish it wasn't used (for all the right reasons) but stating that it isn't used is WP:Advocacy and not acceptable.

As far as civility, your ineloquent reply of "And...?" indicates you did not read the OP or are otherwise blinded to the meaning of the words. It's clear that you are here as an advocate for the disabled and are biased in you interactions. You are picking and choosing what you want to interpret in this discussion and frankly not being constructive.

Beyond that, sating that "Bachmann fits into the 'ignorant' category" violates WP:BLP and is not acceptable. You may disagree with her, (I do in almost every way) but Wikipedia is not a platform for you to make public attacks on people. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin..., Let's start with my comment about Bachmann. And I want to be clear about this, so I will spell it out for you; I stand behind my comment 100%.
You have chosen to frame it as an insult, but it's merely an observation, with no insult intended. To me, when she made that comment, she used the MR term unknowingly and with no intent to insult people with ID. I believe that if she were aware of the preferred term of ID, she would have used it. Obviously, she was "ignorant" of that fact. Now, apparently you don't know what "ignorant" means, (one might say that you are 'ignorant' of the meaning), so I am going to help you out;

Merriam-Webster defines ignorant as;

ig·no·rant adjective \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
1. lacking knowledge or information
2. resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge

So, no insult was given and therefore, I will be dispensing with your ridiculous "warning" on my talk page, which you had no business posting in the first place, because you are just... wrong, - in sooo many ways. 1) You and I have interacted before. You, for some reason (I still don't know why) abruptly posted a personal attack on my talk page. If you recall, I advised you to "stay the hell off my talk page". 2) Now, you and I are here, in a content dispute, (where you have again the breached lines of civility). That makes you biased. 3)You're appalling disregard for policy is only exceeded by your shocking and willful abuse of your admin tools. You need to read WP:INVOLVED. Actually, while you're at it, should just go ahead and read the entire Wikipedia:Administrators page. Meanwhile, the next time you want to threaten me with a block, you find a neutral admin to do it.

Now, as for the topic at hand. You complain about my "And..." comment and quote WP:I Didn't Hear That? (Maybe you should read WP:IDHT as well, if you're gonna throw that one around.) My comment was a response to your rather blunt and evasive "The point is: the term "is still widely used." Go back and read my preceding comment to that. There was a good deal more there to respond to, which you chose to ignore. It seems all you want to do is battle, with your non-collegial, disruptive editing. (Yep, read that too)

If you don't like how the lead is written, then go get yourself some consensus, and change it, instead of complaining to me about it. (I didn't even write it) But, really, it's better the way it is. You say people still use the MR term... so what? The N-word used to be a commonly accepted word to describe blacks, and it's still used today. Why don't you go to the African American page, or to some BLP's on black people, and start adding the n-word to describe them? (Good luck with that) And when people start complaining, you can use the same argument you have "spelled" out here; "The term is still used...".

For me, I've just about enough abuse from you, so I will not be discussing this, with you, any further. - thewolfchild 19:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very mistaken. No administrative action has been taken by me. If you want to make accusations of administrative abuse, put up on WP:ANI or shut up.

I haven't used the term Mental Retardation to describe anyone. Suggesting that I start addressing folks with the N-word is not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you sure told me off. But, just to be clear, I have advised you that I will not discuss this article with you any further. So, if you continue to post any more inaccurate, disruptive, baiting nonsense, and you find that I'm not relying, feel free to characterize that as me "shutting up", if it makes you feel better. - thewolfchild 20:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(additional note);

"If you want to make accusations of administrative abuse..." - You are an admin. Whether you 'actually' use the tools or not, when you edit, you are still an admin, and as such, you are held to a higher level of conduct. You shouldn't very well be entrusted to block people for editing in the same disruptive manner you are yourself.

"I haven't used the term Mental Retardation to describe anyone." - Perhaps you should show me where I accused you of that, or strike it.

"Suggesting that I start addressing folks with the N-word is not constructive" - only shows you completely missed the point of that analogy. Beyond that, just what have you contributed here that is "constructive"? If anything, your edits have been 'de-constructive'.

Lastly, use caution with your edit summaries, these recent ones by you, directed at me, are clear and obvious personal attacks. (the very last thing an admin. should be doing). An appropriate warning has been placed on your talk page, please take heed of it. - thewolfchild 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Put up or shut up with your repeated accusations of WP:ADMINABUSE. If you don't want to be referred to as the child, change your name. Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up with your repeated accusations of WP:ADMINABUSE. If you don't want to be referred to as the child, change your name."

Wow. You really need to get a hold of yourself. I would say it is abusive for an admin to tell an editor to "shut up!" ( twice ). Then you demand that an editor "change his user name", to cover up your personal attack, instead of taking some responsibility? This is hardly the conduct of a responsible admin. If fact, it's deplorable. But, really, this is over now, as far as I'm concerned. I've tried telling you I'm done here, how about you actually listen, and just let it go. - thewolfchild 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's enough. Calling a colleague a child is not appropriate, whatever his user name might be. Nor is most of this thread, which has become nothing but a flame war. Please stop, both of you. Jonathunder (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. - thewolfchild 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proofreading

Search for "intellectual disability can result". The first word of the sentence should be capitalized. Then search for "spaz". It needs a space before the parenthesis.

Less technically, "spaz" isn't considered offensive in America? In my U.S. childhood 50 years ago, it was more offensive than "retarded" or any synonym. And I haven't heard the word since. 98.247.55.21 (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard that word in a very long time. It is extremely offensive. The only citation given for it not being offensive in the United States is a blog. Jonathunder (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the two typos that were pointed out. As for "spaz being acceptable in America"... if it being used to describe people with ID, then, no, it is not acceptable. I removed the comment and the reference. As just pointed out, it is blog. But even further, this blog discussed the term spaz being used by a single American, to describe his own poor golf play, (as in "klutz", or clumsiness), which still in now way means it is widely acceptable. - thewolfchild 20:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What to call this article

Intellectual disability seems have greater support including MeSH [3] and DSM5. This article also states "Although “intellectual disability” has widely replaced the term “mental retardation”" [4] Thus based on these sources feel we should consider using the more current term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hildabast (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Stigma is a real concern. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support as there are a number of sources that document the recent change in terminology, including but not limited to DSM-5. Note that there is already an article on Wikipedia Intellectual disability and thus there is a tricky issue here of merging two articles each with a long edit history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Mental retardation and Intellectual disability (our articles) should not be merged. They are (by design) separate topics. If you want to place this article at the other title, then you need to come up with a new title for the other content. Someone once suggested Intellectual deficit (and changed the wording here to match that). Another option might be to use a descriptive title like Disabilities affecting intelligence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea disabilities affecting intelligence, but it's a little inaccurate when it's a disease affecting it, not a disability. Deficit is problematic for a range of reasons, too. Another option might be to focus the other article more specifically on non-developmental (acquired?) intellectual disability. Attempting to make it an umbrella term might be too hard. And since World Psychiatry Association, APA (DSM-5), NIH (NICHD) and ICD are identifying the developmental aspect so clearly, making that the differentiation principle between the articles too might mean that the WP articles helped make the differences in the way these groups are defining things easier to understand. Hildabast (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the other article is that it is broad enough to give an overview of all the major categories of medical issues that cause intellectual problems. I've got no objections to having an article about Non-developmental intellectual problems or whatever you'd like to call that, but that would be a third article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement "They are (by design) separate topics" by an experienced Wikipedian leaves me asking for more information about what content is expected to be in each article. What I see in the sources is a shift in terminology, so that anything that used to be called "mental retardation" is now called "intellectual disability." In that case, if there are still to be two articles, what titles would distinguish one from the other? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The other article is supposed to include a short summary of each of the large classes of medical conditions that impair intellectual function. At minimum, it includes both limited intellectual function due to developmental problems ("MR"), due to trauma ("TBI"), due to dementia, plus specific learning disabilities (to contrast with the others, which are all general learning disabilities). It should probably include conditions like Cretinism due to iodine deficiency, and the section on brain injury should include more about intellectual dysfunction due to stroke and oxygen deprivation. I don't know whether it should include temporary or semi-intellectual conditions like chemo brain or the effects of sleep deprivation or menopause on memory or word recall. Those don't feel like they fit as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We have to change this article's title to fit current terminology. Returning to the discussion begun a while ago, everyone seems basically to agree on what this article is about, and what has happened around us in the external world is that the official medical terminology has changed, most recently with the publication of DSM-5 in May 2013, so that now this article plainly should be named "Intellectual disability." The existence of a previous Wikipedia article with that name complicates the usual process of "moving" (renaming) this article to preserve the article history and the talk page history. Furthermore, the editors involved haven't necessarily been agreeing about the division of labor among the articles "Mental retardation," "Intellectual disability," and "Cognitive deficit," and a WHOLE BUNCH of wikilinks on other related articles will have to be changed to link subarticles to the correct main articles. It's a tough job, but we've got to do it, to up to date with reliable sources for medicine-related articles. I'm going to check a reliable medical source for current terminology related to the topics of the "other" articles closely related to this one, and we have to think carefully about setting up redirects and making the necessary renaming of this article go as smoothly as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The ICD is still using the old name and won't be updated for a couple of years, so I don't think that we "have to" change to fit the current terminology in one major source right this minute. That said, I agree that we do have some serious preparation work that can be usefully done as soon as anyone wants to do it. Perhaps the existing ID article should be moved to a descriptive title, like Disability affecting the intellectual ability. I believe several alternatives along that line have been proposed on the associated talk pages, and probably some of them sound better than this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion that changing one article's title before the other may be helpful, as I agree it would be. I'll hunt in a source I have for at title already used as a summary title for those kinds of disorders. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Intellectual_disability#It.27s_time_to_discuss_the_scope_of_this_article_with_sources_at_hand., prompted by recent edits to Intellectual disability. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No merge was done. The content which was before at Intellectual disability was moved elsewere. And thus nothing was at this title so moved here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A merge should been done here. Right now you have; Intellectual disability and Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities (?) - thewolfchild 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because they are different subjects.

One of the subjects growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. That used to be called "mental retardation" and is now called "intellectual disability".

The other subject is all the things that hurt a person's intellectual abilities, including—but not limited to—the particular condition of growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. In addition to the condition of growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable, the other article covers things like growing up just fine, but losing your intellectual abilities due to various forms of brain damage.

This wouldn't be so confusing to people if the sources had picked some less generic-sounding name for the condition that involves growing up with an IQ < 70 plus not being adaptable. If it's easier, intellectual disability is "your neighbor with Down syndrome". Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities is your neighbor with Down syndrome and your grandmother with Alzheimer's and the military veteran with traumatic brain injuries and your nephew with severe dyslexia and your co-worker who has memory problems due to chemotherapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of all that. But they all come under ID. Anyone with a "disability affecting their intellectual ability" is intellectually disabled. You have multiple types listed in one article (with a somewhat silly title), and ID meanwhile has it's own page, but seeming only because a majority of the content discusses how it used to be called mental retardation.

I'd like to draw a comparison to another couple of articles here, if only to illustrate my point. There is a page titled Black people. There is not one single reference to the word 'n*gger', (or it's modern, politically correct alternate, the 'n-word'), even though that word to be in common and accepted usage. The same goes for African American page. There is only one mention of that word (other than a link at the bottom), and it is found within a very small sub-section called Terms no longer in use. Meanwhile, that word has it's own article to discuss the evolution of it's usage.

Why can't we have a similar arrangement here? We could;
- Leave all the non-medical content of the ID page, that discusses evolution of the term MR, and it's eschewed and diminishing use, and re-name the page something else. ("ID terminology" or "ID naminging conventions" or something along those lines...).
- Take the medical content from ID, add it to the ID section of the DAIA page, with a sub-section mentioning the use of MR, and a link to the former ID page (now renamed).
- Then rename the DAMA page as 'Intellectual disability'.

You would now have a medical article, with medical content. It allows the reader to read up on all types, and compare and contrast them. This would even help people that don't know the differences among ID caused by disease, trauma, genetics or others. Much like the 'n-word', people may want to read about the medical aspects about ID, without be subjected to a barrage of MR references, as part of an included, non-medical, history lesson. - thewolfchild 23:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with a "disability affecting their intellectual ability" is intellectually disabled.

Sure, they're "intellectually disabled". But they do not all have "intellectual disability". ID is a specific, narrow "thing" now. Thanks to the efforts of various advocates, "intellectual disability" does not mean what the individual words mean any longer. It means a very specific set of three circumstances: low IQ, problems compensating for the low IQ, and the appearance of these qualities in "the developmental period". IMO the DSM folks should have adopted the far more sensible title of "Intellectual developmental disorder"—but they didn't ask me, they asked a bunch of people who frankly care far more about this subject that I do, and those people preferred the confusingly generic name that we're now stuck with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You have quoted and commented on only one part of one sentence. I thank you for your reply, but I also would like to ask if you will be responding to the remainder of my comments? Thanks - thewolfchild 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the point of splitting the article into two separate "medical" and "non-medical" pages: I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist. Given that, you should not be surprised that I oppose splitting this article to create content forks based on medical and non-medical points of view.
• I support having a proper WP:SUMMARY of this article at the page currently named Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities. Feel free to write improve what's there.
• On the point of renaming the other page (DAIA) to the confusingly generic name recently chosen for the condition that used to be called mental retardation: we can no longer do that, as I explained above. See WP:Article titles for the main policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, changing DAIA to ID was just part of the overall proposal I suggested. If the page content remains as it is, the name itself should still be changed... you yourself called it a "lousy" name. - thewolfchild 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got a better idea for that page name, then please feel free to propose. As you have noticed, I'm not attached to the existing one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Differences

There is a major difference between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Learning disabilities deals with the ability to acquire knowledge, while mental retardation deals with the capacity to retain knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooltoye (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is so oversimplified that it is basically not true. The overall difference between LD and MR might be best understood from the older British names: MR is "general learning disability" and the other is "specific learning disability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

As the long history of discussions here and elswhere have shown, the issues affect far more than just two articles. Given that two separate WikiProjects - Disability and Medicine - are involved in the various articles concerned (some of which still need to be identified) I propose that we create a Joint Task Force shared by Disability and Medicine WikiProjects. This Joint Task Force can, in a single venue, pull together all the issues and discussions that have been scattered all over various pages, to arrive at a satisfactory consensus. The Joint Task Force can be a permanent venue to discuss and resolve other isses of shared interest between the two WikiProjects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

An interesting proposal. Although I think it wouldn't hurt to have a page listing issues on shared articles, I think the end result would be the same, which is pinging the two projects' talk pages to roster interest. LT90001 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't merely be a list of articles/issues, it would be a Talk space to discuss and resolve the issues. Just "pinging the talk pages" of the separate projects leaves us where we are now - with discussions split up in multiple places - each one dominated by either the medical or disability pov depending on the venue instead of a shared common ground. It goes far wider than just this particular article/issue - for example the medical project's disdain for sources that are not "official medical journals" is a source of frustration to editors with a "disability pov" when the subject has social aspects outside of the narrow confines of the "medical pov". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this article has a new title, and I will put my hand to gathering sources to begin improving it. Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions from several other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[5] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

For the management section:

There are four broad areas of intervention that allow for active participation from caregivers, community members, clinicians, and of course, the individual(s) with an intellectual disability. These include psychosocial treatments, behavioral treatments, cognitive-behavioral treatments, and family-oriented strategies (1). Psychosocial treatments are intended primarily for children before and during the preschool years as this is the optimum time for intervention (2) . This early intervention should include encouragement of exploration, mentoring in basic skills, celebration of developmental advances, guided rehearsal and extension of newly acquired skills, protection from harmful displays of disapproval, teasing, or punishment, and exposure to a rich and responsive language environment (3) .A great example of a successful intervention is the Carolina Abecedarian Project that was conducted with over 100 children from low SES families beginning in infancy through pre-school years. Results indicated that by age 2, the children provided the intervention had higher test scores than control group children, and they remained approximately 5 points higher 10 years after the end of the program. By young adulthood, children from the intervention group had better educational attainment, employment opportunities, and fewer behavioral problems than their control group counterparts (4) . Core components of behavioral treatments include language and social skills acquisition. Typically, one-to-one training is offered in which a therapist uses a shaping procedure in combination with positive reinforcements to help the child pronounce syllables until words are completed. Sometimes involving pictures and visual aids, therapists aim at improving speech capacity so that short sentences about important daily tasks (e.g. bathroom use, eating, etc.) can be effectively communicated by the child (5,6) . In a similar fashion, older children benefit from this type of training as they learn to sharpen their social skills such as sharing, taking turns, following instruction, and smiling (7) . At the same time, a movement known as social inclusion attempts to increase valuable interactions between children with an intellectual disability and their non-disabled peers (8) . Cognitive-behavioral treatments, a combination of the previous two treatment types, involves a strategical-metastrategical learning technique that teaches children math, language, and other basic skills pertaining to memory and learning. The first goal of the training is to teach the child to be a strategical thinker through making cognitive connections and plans. Then, the therapist teaches the child to be metastrategical by teaching them to discriminate among different tasks and determine which plan/strategy suits each task (9) . Finally, family-oriented strategies delve into empowering the family with the skill set they will need to support and encourage their child or children with an intellectual disability. In general, this includes teaching assertiveness skills or behavior management techniques as well as how to ask for help from neighbors, extended family, or day-care staff (10). As the child ages, parents are then taught how to approach topics such as housing/residential care, employment, and relationships. The ultimate goal for every intervention or technique is to give the child autonomy and a sense of independence using the acquired skills he/she has.

Resources (by number in text):

 (1)Mash, E., & Wolfe, D. (2013). Abnormal child psychology. (5th ed., pp. 308-313). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
 (2)Hodapp, R.M., & Burack, J.A. (2006). Developmental approaches to children with mental retardation: A second generation? In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol. 3: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 235-267). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
 (3)Ramey, S.L., & Ramey, C.T. (1992). Early educational intervention with disadvantaged children—To what effect? Applied and Preventive Psychology, 1, 131-140.
 (4)Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42-57. 
 (5)Matson J.L., Matson M.L., Rivet T.T. (2007). Social-skills treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders: an overview. Behavior Modification. 31(5), pp. 682-707. 
  (6)Van der Schuit M, Segers E, van Balkom H, Verhoeven L. (2011). Early language intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: a neurocognitive perspective. Research in Developmental Disabilities 32(2):705-12.
 (7)Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2002). The social skills and social status of mainstreamed students with intellectual disabilities. Educational Psychology, 22, 391-411.
 (8)Siperstein, G.N., & Glick, G.C., & Parker, R. (2009). The social inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities in an out of school recreational setting. Intellectual and Developmental Diasbilities. 47(2), 97-107.
 (9)Hay, I., Elias, G., Fielding-Barnsley, R., Homel, R., & Freiberg, K. (2007) Language delays, reading delays and learning difficulties: Interactive elements requiring multidimensional programming. Journal of Learning Disabilities,40 (5), 400-409
(10) Bagner, D.M., & Eyberg, S.M. (2007). Parent-child interaction therapy for disruptive behavior in children with mental retardation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 418-429. 

152.23.86.196 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for a great, reliable edit! -BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Too much bold text in the lead

I think the lead contains far too much bold text. The examples at MOS:BOLDTITLE appear to me to be difficult to apply to this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of parallel terms that people follow from redirects, especially as this article was only updated as to its terminology this year. I'll check what can be unbolded here, based on frequency of use of different terms as reflected in sources. Thanks for linking to the examples. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

re terminology

It seems to me that the term "developmental delay" is usually applied to children and can be thought of as too vague: Grech, Lisa (November 2008). "Developmental delay: An ambiguous term in need of change" (PDF). Retrieved 26 June 2014.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, would it be acceptable to split the topic of "Terminology of mental disability" into its own page?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What are the sources for current terminology? I'm seeing a lot of edits to the lede that seem to be running ahead of any medically reliable sources being referenced in article text for the latest synonyms of the term "intellectual disability," which is the current term in DSM-5 and several diagnostic systems. Where are editors coming up with the other terms that are being put into the lede of the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What the heck happened to the term _Mental Disability_ and the term _Mentally Disabled_? Were these terms selected by the media, and thus never accepted by the guardians of clinical terminology? Intellectual disability makes me think of Intellectuals who have so immersed themselves in theory that they have lost all wisdom and common sense, and have become virtually useless for any real world task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.195.131 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

id-dd.com

User:CHelvetica added a "see also" link to [6] id-dd.com, which is under construction but says it will offer "free, membership-free, practical" information and resources. It looks entirely legit, ad-free, and well-planned, but it's currently an empty shell (see its "resoures" page; none of the pages collected there have content]).

Once it's up and running, I think there's a good chance it will be a good WP:EL, because accessible and useful and informative and un-WP-worthy per WP:NOTMANUAL, but for now it's neither assessable nor useful.

I reverted the addition, although I definitely see why CHelvetica added it. As a compromise, can we leave it off for a month or so and check back? The site's last edits seem to be timestamped 8 November, so it's reasonable to assume it's in active development. FourViolas (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It takes time before a resource becomes reliable. We should stick with those sites that have a track record. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Logic

I've reverted some changes that were made a few months ago. Among them was the removal of this sentence: "As a result, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered intellectually disabled."

So the definition of ID—the formal definition used in both medicine and law in nearly the whole world—has three components:

1. IQ below 70
2. Difficulties adapting
3. Appearance 'in the developmental period'

All three components are required. If you have only one or two of these three components, then you do not have ID. Literally, as a result of the definition, a person with an unusually low IQ (i.e., below 70) does not always have ID.

• This could be because the person adapts well (i.e., does not meet mandatory condition #2). A person with an IQ of 65, but who functions adequately in actual practice, doesn't have ID.
• This could also be because the person's problems did not appear in the developmental period (i.e., does not meet mandatory condition #3). A person who functioned fine at one point in time, but now has Alzheimer's disease and an IQ of just 40, doesn't have ID.

I wouldn't have thought that this was too complicated an idea, but if it still seems confusing, then please {{ping}} me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

Please change the sentence “It is defined by an IQ score below 70 plus deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living.” to “It is defined by an IQ score below 70 as well as deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living.”. Or please revise in some other way. Asheboy182 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Linked with "...below 70 in addition to deficits..." FourViolas (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

In light of the recent rebranding/domain change of Patient UK, could this page be updated in order to reflect said changes, please? Patient UK has rebranded to Patient, and the domain has changed from http://www.patient.co.uk/ to http://patient.info/ 81.23.53.21 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know! FourViolas (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Euphemism Treadmill ??

The article uses the phrase "euphemism treadmill" and the phrase is Wikipedia-linked. However, there is no Wikipedia page titled "Euphemism treadmill", and the link redirects to ""Euphemism".

I already knew what a "euphemism" was, but I still have no idea what a "euphemism treadmill" is; the redirect is inappropriate. If there is no Wikipedia page titled "euphemism treadmill", then the link should be changed, with only the word "euphemism" linked. I would have changed this myself, but editing on this article seems to be broken.

Also, if "euphemism treadmill" is a legitimate term, then a citation needs to be provided, as well as a more complete definition within the article of what the phrase means. If no citation can be found, then the phrase should be removed from the article.

I agree that the link is inappropriate, but it shouldn't simply read "euphemism". "Euphemism treadmill" refers to the pattern of a term that earlier was acceptable but becomes unacceptable when it gets into the popular lexicon. The words "imbecile", "idiot", and "moron" were once acceptable. These were replaced by "mentally retarded", which now has come into misuse. The treadmill continues replacing the term over time. That's not the same as simply stating "euphemism". Sundayclose (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to find solid academic references for the term "euphemism treadmill". The link is also legitimate and should stay, because the redirect links to the "Evolution" section in the Euphemism article which contains a paragraph about the treadmill phenomenon. The redirect can also be converted into a separate article about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Causes

Basically in intellectual disability we are also including mild mental retardation which starts below 70, also in the causes of intellectual disability there are only medical causes, birth defects, birth complications, exposure to alcohol, etc. Why is it that a person with an iq of between 65-70 cant simply be born of stupid parents(similar iq)? When someone has an iq over 130, nobody looks for a medical cause and people say of him he's "gifted" or his parents were smart, so why in causes of low IQ there are only medical causes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.247.39 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, modern society declares "bad" intelligence-related genetics (hereditary low IQ) to be a disease, just like it declares "being short" to be a "disease" that deserves expensive (and mostly ineffective) treatments, even when the cause is simply the natural outcome of having short parents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This sentence "A pregnant person who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also have a baby with intellectual disability." is not clear, in fact, it seems to have been written in order to blame shift. FAS/FAE (Fetal Alcohol Exposure/Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) is the most prolific, preventable cause of mental retardation/cognitive impairment in the United States. It is also not "a person' who drinks alcohol, but specifically the birth mother who drinks alcohol while pregnant who is a fault for this condition. As the adoptive father of a special needs child who suffers a cognitive impairment (IQ below 70) due to the FAS he suffered at the hands of his birth mother as well as being a sane/sober adult human myself, I have to confess to finding the original wording on this section insulting and deliberately confusing. The subtopic of FAS/FAE needs to be broken out and separated from the subject of an infection. Encephalitis is most likely not the birth mothers' fault. FAS/FAE is explicitly and solely the birth mothers fault, it is NOT an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssgncngjohnny (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2016 for Society and Culture section

I propose adding a few lines to 'Society and Culture' to explain the social rejection suffered by those with ID. "Social rejection of intellectually disabled individuals is motivated in part by aggressive behavior from the disabled person. Up to 50% of people with ID exhibit this behavior. There are mixed reviews on various behavioral or cognitive-behavioral therapies to correct this problem: anger management, meditation, relaxation, and problem-solving therapies can possibly help."

In addition, this section could also use some information on social factors that influence quality of life. "Quality of life can be increased if people with ID are not excluded from the rest of society, and rather are allowed informal social contact with others, as opposed to contact being limited only to their formal caregivers. School-age people with ID have a larger social circle, as they may be attending a regular public school. But as individuals age, their social circle becomes more and more limited. A small community home also provides more informal social interaction than in a campus-style environment."

Rumcake1911 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi protected edit request for Health Disparities section

This section could use some elaboration: "People with ID may also experience mental ill health at a rate of 15-80%, which would necessitate their needs for mental health services. However, mental health nurses are not necessarily prepared to facilitate care of people with ID. Investigation into this need has shown that nurses do not feel prepared in serving individuals with ID, and are unaware of the level of care they require, leading to a more negative attitude during care, and inadequate diagnoses of mental illness when behaviors are wrongly attributed to ID."

Rumcake1911 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

semi protected edit request correcting typo missing 's' in 'disability'

semi protected edit request correcting typo missing 's' in 'disability

A historical image of a person with intellectual diability

 Fixed —PermStrump(talk) 04:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Virtually every child"

Can we get a [citation needed] (page is locked) or a re-wording of this? (Under Signs & Symptoms - ctrl+f 'virtually')

"Nevertheless, virtually every child is able to learn, develop and become a participating member of the community."

This is just very untrue; maybe it should read "Many children are still able to..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.54.151 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done —PermStrump(talk) 03:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

wasn't intellectual disability once known as mental deficiency

I really do not like the term intellectual disability; it's off focus. Furthermore, this condition was known as mental deficiency. It needs a permanent name with which people can agree. Angela Maureen (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@September 1988 and Angela Maureen: Read the terminology section of the article. This is a medical article and uses current medical terminology. Is your comment intended to improve the article? If you're just expressing an opinion about what terminology should be used, this is not the appropriate place. Talk pages are not a forum or soapbox. Sundayclose (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intellectual disability. 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/20100711075247/http://www.disabilitymuseum.org/beyond-affliction/ba_shows.dir/revoluti.dir/highlights/subject/ng0002tx.html to http://www.disabilitymuseum.org/beyond-affliction/ba_shows.dir/revoluti.dir/highlights/subject/ng0002tx.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711170039/http://www.arcmass.org/StateHousePolicy/RegulationandPolicyDebates/FernaldSchoolClosingandRICCIClass/FernaldNews/WhyTheFernaldCenterShouldClose/ChristmasinPurgatoryWillowbrook/tabid/692/Default.aspx to http://www.arcmass.org/StateHousePolicy/RegulationandPolicyDebates/FernaldSchoolClosingandRICCIClass/FernaldNews/WhyTheFernaldCenterShouldClose/ChristmasinPurgatoryWillowbrook/tabid/692/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Impairment not retardation

Under federal law and many, if not most state laws, the "more specific term" used - in schools only - is "mental impairment" not "mental retardation." likewise, emotional impairment, hearing impairment, visual impairment, etc. The term "mental retardation" is used in adult settings beyond the scope of K-12 education (or in states like Michigan, Birth through age 25 school programmes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3189:D180:3295:19F9:13ED (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to improve conditions caused by mental retardation with Nootropics

If so, I consider to add Nootropics to the section of management of this article by attaching "see also" to refer readers to Nootropic. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 07:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Their principal action is to lighten the wallet. NRPanikker (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Add of scientific reference

I would like to add theses sentences to the "Limitation in more than one area" part, after "Social skills with peers, family members, spouses, adults, and others": "Other specific skills can be critical to an individual's inclusion in the community and to developing appropriate social behaviours, as for example being aware of the different social expectations linked to the principal lifespan stages (i.e., childhood, adulthood, old age). The results of a swiss study suggest that the performance of adults with ID in recognising different lifespan stages is related to specific cognitive abilities and to the type of material used to test this performance."And then add the following reference in relation with this adding: Straccia, C., Tessari Veyre, A., Bernasconi, F. & Petitpierre, G. (2019). Examining lifespan stage recognition abilities among adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2019.1580116 As this is a semi-protected page, I'm not able to do this adding as I'm not yet an autoconfirmed user. Could some one help me? C122 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing

I have come across the following sentence in the article: "[...] disability from other conditions dementia such as Alzheimer's disease or traumatic brain injuries".

This strikes me as a bit confusing, so I prepose the following: "[...] disability from other conditions: dementia such as Alzheimer's disease or traumatic brain injuries.

Problem is, that since it's not an exhaustive list, the colon might be wrong. Any thoughts? Av = λv (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this problem, Av = λv. I've had a go at improving it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Stigma

It's astonishing that there is no subsection dealing with the ableist stigma directed towards people with Intellectual Disabilities (and the regular spillover of that stigma towards people with other disabilities which are presumed to be signs of intellectual disability, such as wheelchair users - just had an first-hand instance of that today). Indeed the page's recurrent vandalism problems show that stigma in action.

"Society and culture" would perhaps be where you might expect to see stigma addressed, but instead we see the section putting a cost on the life of an intellectually disabled person, which is something the Disability Rights Movement historically associates with attitudes to disability sponsored by the Nazis, leading to the mass killing of Intellectually Disabled German children under Aktion T4 and ultimately the Holocaust. cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4#/media/File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg 82.11.66.40 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Can you recommend a good source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Co-morbidity of ID

ASD and Intellectual Disability

ID (Intellectual Disability) and ASD share clinical characteristics which can result in confusion while diagnosing . Overlapping these two disorders, while common, can be detrimental to a person's well being. Those with ASD that hold symptoms of ID may be grouped into a co-diagnosis in which they are receiving treatment for a disorder they do not have. Likewise, those with ID that are mistaken to have ASD may be treated for symptoms of a disorder they do not have. Differentiating between these two disorders will allow clinicians to deliver or prescribe the appropriate treatments. Comorbidity between ID and ASD is very common; roughly 40% of those with ID also have ASD and roughly 70% of those with ASD also have ID . Both ASD and ID require shortfalls in communication and social awareness as defining criteria . Both ASD and ID are classified by severity; mild, moderate, severe. In addition to those three levels, ID has a fourth classification known as profound.

Defining Differences

In a study conducted in 2016 surveying 2816 cases, it was found that the top subsets that help differentiate between those with ID and ASD are, "...impaired non-verbal social behavior and lack of social reciprocity, [...] restricted interests, strict adherence to routines, stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms, and preoccupation with parts of objects" . Those with ASD tend to show more deficits in non-verbal social behavior such as body language and understanding social cues. In a study done in 2008 of 336 individuals with varying levels of ID, it was found that those with ID display fewer instances of repetitive or ritualistic behaviors. It also recognized that those with ASD, when compared to those with ID, were more likely to isolate themselves and make less eye contact . When it comes to classification ID and ASD have very different guidelines. ID has a standardized assessment called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), this measures severity on a system built around how much support an individual will need. While ASD also classifies severity by support needed there is no standard assessment, clinicians are free to diagnose severity at their own judgment 7. Msalamah101 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is this content repeated here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably because someone deleted it from the main article, claiming that it was "original research" supported by only one reference. NRPanikker (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Article says "also known as Mental Retardation," but the provided sources are both about how this term is specifically NOT used anymore. Should probably read "formerly known as..." 69.46.128.15 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The current ICD diagnostic system uses the MR term, which will not change until 2022. When ICD-11 is released I plan to remove "also known as Mental Retardation" See these edits: [7] [8]; and this discussion. However, you are free to begin a discussion of this issue on this talk page. If you do so, start a new section and wait for consensus before making any changes. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Something is wrong here

I don't thing that an average 50yo person scores better on the IQ tests than an average 25yo person. However, according to the formula, if a 50yo person obtains the same score as an average 25yo person then their IQ is 50, right? But IQ 50 means moderate mental retardation. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The original formula you refer to was the ratio of the "mental age" (in months) to the chronological age, multiplied by 100. An older person was expected to have a higher mental age than a younger person, as evidenced by responding to more test items correctly. Theoretically a person whose intelligence was exactly in the middle of the average range would have an IQ of 100 regardless of age. The formula had a lot of problems, however, because of the lack of precision in the test. Today the formula is a moot point as it is no longer used. As the article explains it has been replaced by the deviation IQ, which is much more sophisticated statistically and psychometrically. Sundayclose (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A key question.

Where is the formula or table that converts IQ 100 to raw scores for each age group? I suppose that a standard raw score increases with age up to the age of 16, and is constant up to 60, and then starts to decline. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In Talk:IQ_classification and Talk:Intelligence quotient the user Sundayclose wrote:

Every test has conversion tables either in print or software. The conversion is the other way around: raw scores to IQ (or "standard score" for some subscales). Average raw scores do increase with age but not necessarily evenly. Some tests include different subtests at different age groups, so there is no clear pattern of increase in raw scores. The statistics that convert to IQ adjust for this so that the average IQ is always 100 for each age. These technicalities are too advanced for general discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. I should also comment that talk pages are for improving articles, not general discussion of the topic, although I'm sure you ask these questions in good faith. Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But my questions are absolutely fundamental to understand what IQ really is. And I do want to improve the article. You wrote about "too advanced technicalities". But what is complex in a simple table that shows correlation between age and scores? It would be easy to understand even for 8-year-old children. After all, they all take tests in school and surely understand what the word "score" means, let alone "age".

PS. I understand that my questions are uncomfortable for professional psychologists which want to be real scientists or at least to be perceived as such. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your questions don't make me uncomfortable; I've been a university professor, psychologist, and physician for decades; I deal with technical questions and challenges on a daily basis. By "too advanced" I refer to the statistics to create the conversion tables, not the simple process of looking at a table. If you want to improve the article, tell us specifically what is not addressed with reliable sources in the article. If you want the entire process of test construction and psychometrics in the article, that is not within the scope of this encyclopedia article since there are many books and journal articles devoted to the process. You won't find it in any broad-spectrum encyclopedia such as Britannica. You certainly can learn about these statistical and psychometric issues either in university courses or on your own with the right sources. But Wikipedia is not the place to try to teach statistics. I don't want to judge your intentions, so no comment about your statement "want to be real scientists or at least be perceived as such" except to say that if you want to critique the field of psychology, the best place to do that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, but again keep in mind every post should relate to improving articles (with reliable sources), not a place to express your personal likes or dislikes. But again, I am assuming good faith on your part. All the best. Sundayclose (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody please change the part that says "morons, imbeciles, and idiots" to something elese? These are quite offensive to some people

"Terminology" section

Intellectual disability#Terminology is contains significant extraneous and firmly outdated information of little use to the main article. I will move it to IQ classification unless someone objects. Ovinus (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Feeling condemned and insulted by reverts on intellectual disability page on Wikipedia

Hello everyone: I was modifying the intellectual disability page here; for some unknown reason, before I included any information whatsoever trying to improve the topic (make it better sounding than the topic was before) I was adding references/document sources, modifying some statistics' related facts (including referencing there also) and addressing the controversy related to the real terms under which ID has been (and is sometimes still) classified depending on country, US State, Mexican State, Canada province, Australia, European and Asian area region and division. In close to half the references, it's really hard to find references of certain countries that is appropriate for English Wikipedia. Now I don't really care if I receive a barnstar or otherwise, I'm just wanting to improve Wikipedia (the regular English, the Simple English and the Spanish Wikipedias in particular) and with the proper or appropriate references, correct Manual of Style and avoid damage to reputation that may become permanent, forever and overall work against me. I understand that intellectual disability or autism related articles on these information editing sites may require strong, primary and first class sources, and I used many while I edited the ID page, but somehow, these edits still got changed back and classified not global even though I actually feel otherwise. How can people address the controversy involving terms that are still being used today though they're mildly rare and unusual these days? I need guidance and help before I add such again to the ID page and to autism pages. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 09:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that you felt insulted by these reverts. The topics they cover are certainly important, and I tried a bit to improve the terminology section, but I'm not experienced in this subject. It seems that most of what you added was about the US, which is a bias already quite common on Wikipedia. More importantly, the sources you referred to are not sufficiently reliable for medical topics like this one. The standard here on Wikipedia is WP:MEDRS (medical reliable sources), which impose quite stringent requirements on the citations medical content. At a bare minimum, sources need to be published in reasonably reputable journals, which does not include news sites and the like. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

AFP

this source was quoting AFP in 2015Scranton (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918716/#JR1501-3 Scranton (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Found a Source

The source marked [20] is referencing an article published in The Lancet here. RowanAsh (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)