Talk:List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

Minor edit "Yuppie" listing hyperlink

The listing "Yuppie" reffering to the derogatory word currently links to the article for the word "Yuppie", but as in "Young Urban Professional". This link is not relevant, and could potentially cause confusion, as the definition in this article, and in the article it links to directly conflict. I can't edit this page as I am not established enough to get through the semi-protection, but this should be changed, yes? If not, please let me know, I am obviously somewhat new to editing. - Dorsal (She/Her) Dorsal12 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done This is a case of MOS:LINKINNAME, where the term relies on another word that might be unfamiliar, but is confusing when linked as part of the term in question, so I moved the link into the explanatory text: . — HTGS (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2025

Remove the source for Epileptic, it is just a landing page and is not a source at all! Inamarchtothesea (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:KDL. If you can suggest an alternative citation, it can be used to replace the existing one. SI09 (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I added an archive link to the citation, so it is fine now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Exceptional?

Should this be on the list? The source it references only mentions it when referring to “twice exceptional” (2E), and states it is okay to use when referring to someone who has actually been identified by a professional.

The only other mention is that some schools and programs use “Exceptional Services” in lieu of “Special Education.”

Exceptional is gaining traction as one of the more widely accepted forms of describing someone with a disability, as it also refers to gifted/talented and is not considered offensive. Jacket2018 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the above comment is suggesting to remove that term from the list. I agree. It is currently included in the list, but the cited source does not identify any negative connotations for the term. Also, the cited source doesn't really discuss the term "exceptional". It primarily discusses the term "twice exceptional", not "exceptional". The source also seems to say that "exceptional student services" is preferred over "special education" – commenting positively rather than negatively about "exceptional". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2025

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per article scope. (closed by non-admin page mover) CNC (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

---

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations → List of disability slurs – In accordance with List of ethnic slurs and List of religious slurs. The current name is also awkward and lengthy; Yes, Wikipedia articles can have long titles but it is generally better to have a shorter title that says the same thing. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the list contains slurs, many of the words on the list are not slurs, e.g. "blind", "hyper", "delusional", "neurospicy", and so on. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  I mean not all the ones on the religious list are slurs either (ex bible thumper) Shocksingularity (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Then that article should be renamed to fit the content/scope, not be used as a reason to make other titles inaccurate. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Shocksingularity (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Opposed. A lot of these are not clearly slurs: "disabled", "differently abled", "blind", "mute", "disorder", "afflicted", "challenged", "deformed", "hearing-impaired", "handicapped", "homebound", "illiterate", "insane", "dwarf", "patient", "senile", "birth defect", "confined to a wheelchair", etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  Valid. (Although I'd argue that "challenged" and "deformed" could definitely be considered slurs) Shocksingularity (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  They might not be the best choice of words to use in respectful and sensitive situations, but they don't seem like clearly insulting terms. A "slur" should be something that is clearly intended as an insult or provocation. Saying someone is challenged in some way or has a deformed appendage is not a clear insult – it may be a mere observation, description or statement of fact. The article about deformity doesn't even mention negative connotations associated with any variations of the term (nor does the Birth defect article, which is the redirect target of congenital deformity). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note that we also have List of age-related terms with negative connotations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2025 (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.