Talk:Miriam Battista

Variety subscription

I don't have a subscription to Variety, so I am not able to fill out the cites properly with a title. Can someone take care of that detail? Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Miriam Battista

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that child star Miriam Battista (pictured) was often called to cry on camera?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Conyers Read
• Comment: Moved from AFC on July 3.

Created by Ailemadrah (talk), Binksternet (talk). Nominated by Binksternet (talk) at 19:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

"Crippled" vs. "Disabled"

@Slp1: @Binksternet: I do understand that this wording is a sensitive issue for many people. However, I firmly believe that Binksternet is correct in his earlier comment on July 8: " 'Disabilities' can mean mental or physical, but 'crippled' is specifically physical, having to do with the legs. In this case, 'crippled' is the more accurate term, and it is historically correct for the role." Slp1, you did specify "physically disabled" but with all respect, I would still stand on the historical accuracy of the term "crippled" in this case. Specifically, "crippled" refers to having insufficient use of the legs, so that walking isn't possible without assistance. This was the case with the character in Humoresque and "crippled" is, unfortunately, the word that was used in the original story by Fannie Hurst, in the 1920 film, and in writings about the 1920 film. --Ailemadrah (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The historical accuracy of "crippled", which was used at the time to describe the character, is a convincing argument, I think. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "cripple" is widely regarded as an archaic, derogatory term for people with disabilities. See the Wikipedia article for reliable, scholarly sources about this matter. Why on earth would you seek to perpetuate such a term for this woman? The word "nigger" is "historically correct" for African-Americans in the same period of time. Would you really use this term in an encyclopedia entry about characters in films of this period, even if used in the original story? I can't believe you would- either of you. It's the same here, and just as with the "N" term, WP needs to move with the times, and away from terms associated with discriminatory attitudes. Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You left out Hitler and the Nazis. Perhaps you can pick them up on the next run through. <grin>

If you actually look at the Wikipedia article Cripple, it says that the most recent trend is a reclamation of the term by people who feel that it applies to their condition. See Susan Baglieri and Arthur H. Shapiro in Disability Studies and the Inclusive Classroom.

Another article where modern sensibilities were brought to bear on a word is Amelia Earhart and the word "aviatrix". The consensus on the talk page was that, even though some editors felt that aviatrix was derogatory or belittling, the word was historically accurate, especially with regard to contemporary reports of Earhart's activities. Editors found agreement in the decision to use "aviatrix" exactly one time in the article, with an explanation. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. I am aged enough that I don't really know what to do with references to Hitler and the Nazis and then comments like <grin>. (maybe you deleted this later, as it does not seem to appear in what I am editing currently, as least the "grin" part.) So I think I will just ignore it for now.

Yes, indeed, there has been recent trend has been for disability rights activists to reclaim the word "crip/cripple" for themselves(I added that citations myself), just as certain African-Americans have reclaimed "nigger" (for themselves), and LGBT people "Queer" (for themselves, but seems to be spreading, I would agree) etc. Those reclamations don't mean that it has yet become encyclopedic to use the terms "nigger" or "queer" in an encyclopedic voice, except possibly in articles about individuals who have used the terms themselves about their own context. Slp1 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "crippled" is used matter-of-factly in the film articles Dosti, Heidi (1937 film), and Anna Magnani. It's used in the opera article The Beauty Stone. I just don't see the huge hullabaloo here. It's not such a bad word as "nigger" and it is used by modern authors to describe a lame condition in the legs. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think disability rights activists would say that part of the problem is that disability issues are simply not considered in same light as racial and gender issues are (at least in the West). It is a good question why 15% of the world's population-across all cultures-are excluded in this fashion.[1] And it is interesting to consider that almost all of us will end up as part of this category during our lifetimes.

I don't accept the idea that just because other articles (inappropriately) use the term that this one should too.

The term "cripple" does not only imply an inability to walk. There are multiple RS which describe it as an older description for physical disability, which covers multiple physical issues, not just walking. Useless as original research, but for years I worked for an organization that described itself as serving "crippled children": many of whom had no difficulty walking at all.

Here's an attempt as solution and compromise. If the Battista character in the film has trouble walking, why not just say so directly? Maybe even use the term "lame" - it is a bit archaic, but at least it implies difficulty walking rather than any more general. Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which this edit seems excellent to me. Thanks Ailemadrah.Slp1 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp1. I just wrote an explanation of my change to the first paragraph, but I keep getting an "Edit conflict" message because you're writing at the same time. So here's my explanation:

"Thank you for your suggested solution, Slp1, but I think the following change would be preferable and would avoid two traps: the first, having to bloat the text unnecessarily with a phrase like "a girl who has trouble walking," and the second, using the word "lame," which I would argue is more offensive than "crippled." I went ahead and changed the first use of "crippled" to "a little girl on crutches" and left "physically disabled" in the later text. I'm not crazy about the way this wording flows - or rather, fails to flow - in the text, but I think it's a good solution to our disagreement." Ailemadrah (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I came by as a long-time watcher of Slp1's talk page, where I saw this dispute mentioned by Binksternet. For the record, I consider Slp1 to be an excellent and knowledgeable contributor, but I hold a similar opinion of Binkersternet and would have supported his RFA had I been paying attention (I have been very busy IRL). If I have any bias in this issue, it is as an editor of medical articles.

On this matter, I agree with Slp1 that we need not use a now-offensive term just because it was historically in use, and it reflects poorly upon Wikipedia to a) write or b) highlight on the mainpage a description of a person as "crippled". It looks like you all are coming to a compromise here, which makes me happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ailemadrah's "on crutches" was a brilliant solution. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on Oxford University Press definitions I don't think "lame" is considered offensive in the same way that "cripple" is but still, as I said I think "on crutches" is a great solution. Thanks very much again Ailemadrah, for this, and for working so hard on this article. Binkersnet too of course (whom I did support in his RFA!) Slp1 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to offend,but I changed it back to "crippled". No way is that word derogatory. It's also the only word that accurately describes the character - "physically disabled" is mealy-mouthed and inexact, "on crutches" is verging on plain silly. PiCo (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources (as noted above) describe it as derogatory (including Oxford [2]) it is probably best to believe them. In addition, we had a consensus here that this wording was okay, so I have reverted back. Slp1 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)