This is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

This page in a nutshell: Refer to disabilities using language that does not imply judgment. A person's disability may not be notable, even if the person is notable. Give due weight to both the medical model and the social model. Avoid in-group slang. Use plain English. Use people-first language in most cases, but there are exceptions. Make a distinction between disability and impairment. Avoid deprecated, offensive words. Never expose a person's unknown invisible disability.

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

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

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

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

Disabilities of all kinds are frequently subjected to negative judgment and social stigma. It is best to remain factual in describing the nature of a particular disability. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, consider whether an opinion about disability or a disabled person is from a noteworthy source before including it in an article. The subject of disability pride is also a matter of opinion and must be held to the same standard. See Wikipedia:Notability for further guidance.

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

Plain English

Some disabled communities have neologisms, terms that are understood within that community but not widely used elsewhere. In most cases, plain English should be substituted for such terminology. If it is not possible to convey a concept without the in-group language, wikilink it. It may also be useful to include an explanation within the article, in addition to the wikilink.

Using the word disabled as a noun, as in the disabled, is widely deprecated, because it is perceived as implying that people with disabilities are "a homogenous group separate from the rest of society". ^{[1] [2]} Some disabilities have technical definitions that differ from common understanding. For example, people who are paraplegic, tetraplegic, or hemiplegic are generally thought of as completely paralyzed in some part of their body, but technically any level of impairment meets the medical definition. When describing a person with such a disability, it should be specified how exactly the disability manifests, if known, rather than using a term which may be misunderstood.

Assistive devices

Assistive devices are used by many people with a variety of impairments. Wheelchairs, walking frames, crutches, canes, etc. are used by people with mobility impairments. Other assistive devices include hearing aids, white canes, and various orthotics and prostheses. Personal computers are not typically regarded as assistive devices but are used as such by many disabled people. In most cases, constructs such as <name of the device> user or people who use <name of the device>s are preferred.

Wheelchair users are a particularly notable group who generally prefer the uses / user constructions. The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. They are also factually inaccurate in most cases: wheelchair users are neither physically bound to their chairs (except if falling out is a danger) nor need to remain in them, and many are in fact capable of walking, just not great distances or not consistently. Many long-term users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement.

Assistive devices are often used temporarily (e.g., an athlete using crutches while recovering from an injury) or only near the end of life. The use of assistive devices in such cases is rarely worth mentioning in any Wikipedia article.

People-first language

People-first language is recommended by many style guides, including those of the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. ^[3] The purpose is to prevent people from being defined entirely by their disabilities, by framing the person and the disability as separate entities (i.e., people with disabilities rather than disabled people). By "following the sources" Wikipedia mostly favors people-first language with some specific exceptions. In particular, identity-first language is generally preferred with regards to deafness, blindness, and autism.

The use of people-first language has come under criticism by some disability scholars as over-correcting. Some people experience the disability as an important component of their identity. By distancing a person from their disability, scholars may increase the stigma of people with disabilities. Some scholars and disability rights activists prefer identity-first language (i.e. disabled people instead of people with disabilities). ^[4] NHS England's style guide calls for the use of identity-first language ^[5] and the NCDJ (which favors people-first language) notes that identity-first language is strongly preferred with regards to deafness and autism (i.e. deaf/Deaf people and autistic people). ^[6] APA style says that both people-first and identity-first language are acceptable, but stresses using the preferred style of the group or individuals involved (if they have one). ^[7]

Keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of retaining existing styles of writing; edit-warring or enforcing one's personal style without discussion on the article's talk page may be seen as disruptive. A mix of identity- and people-first language is acceptable, provided that the text is not confusing for the reader.

Social model of disability

The social model of disability contends that a distinction must be made between impairment and disability. According to this model a wheelchair user, for example, has an impairment such as paralysis that causes the inability to walk. This impairment is translated into disability only when the person encounters a situation that prevents them from doing something that most people can do, such as entering a building with steps but no ramp or other way to enter the building. The paralysis impairs the person, but the absence of a ramp disables the person. According to this model, impairments may be inevitable, but disability would cease to exist when society properly accommodates the needs of people who have impairments.

Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill

The language of disability has gone through many iterations on the path to political correctness. Terms used to refer to people have included crippled, handicapped, handicapable, disabled, special needs and differently-abled. The concept of the euphemism treadmill refers to this iterative selection of terminology. Currently, disabled is the term most favored by disabled people.

• While cripple is practically universally deprecated, the derivative crip is in-group slang used among (mostly) mobility impaired groups as a self-identification label. Insiders may use crip, but outsiders and formal writing – including Wikipedia articles – should not. The process of using an otherwise negative term as an in-group marker is known as reappropriation.
  • Cripple is used as a metaphor in contexts unrelated to disability. It seems to be particularly used in business/economics and sports news writing: "Franklin's suspension is a crippling blow to the struggling team", and "Global platinum shortage may cripple motor industry".
• Handicap or handicapped is widely used in American English but is generally deprecated in other English varieties. For further guidance on using language specific to one country, see National varieties of English.
• Terms such as retarded and moron have been deprecated in favor of intellectual disability. While old terms still have medical definitions, in almost all cases it is inappropriate to equate an intellectual or learning disability with mental retardation.
• Special needs is widely seen as a dysphemism by disability rights advocates. It is deprecated by many style guides (including APA style) that prefer the non-euphemistic term "disability". ^[8] The language still appears in the context of schools, such as special education programs.

Invisible disabilities

There are many social reasons why a person who has an invisible disability may wish to conceal their disability and pass as non-disabled. One who is successful at this is considered able-passing, while one who is unsuccessful is considered visibly disabled. Intellectual, sensory, mental or sleep disorder disabilities tend to be invisible and allow passing, while physical disabilities are more difficult or even impossible to conceal. Able-passing people have the option to later come out or disclose their disability, a process that is analogous to coming out as gay. Sometimes disabled people are outed without their permission. Such outing should never be done on Wikipedia. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM for further guidance.

Terminology for non-disabled people

In disability articles, it is often useful to provide contrast by describing the experiences of non-disabled people.

Able-bodied refers to someone with no significant or relevant physical disabilities. The term is derided in the disability community because it implies that there is something wrong with a disabled person's body. ^[9] The suggested alternative is the blanket term non-disabled.

Neurological and mental disabilities are collectively known as neurodivergence, and a person without any is neurotypical. These terms are often used in the autism community but should be used with caution as they may be unfamiliar to readers. Allistic (meaning non-autistic) should be avoided completely in Wikipedia's voice.

For some disabilities, there are words for people who do not have that specific condition: In Deaf culture, someone who is not deaf is called a hearing person. One who is not blind is a sighted person; the word seeing is generally avoided because it has so many other meanings.

Some groups of people who have or are involved with certain types of disabling conditions do not accept and adhere to the same ideas and language used for most disabilities and impairments. Notable among these are autism and deafness.

Deafness and Deaf culture

The word deaf, when written in lowercase refers to the physical or neurological inability to hear. When Deaf is used as a proper noun (with an upper case initial) it refers to the community of Deaf people in terms of Deaf culture, a socio-linguistic group identity. These are people whose native language is a sign language. Most Deaf people were either born deaf or lost their hearing in infancy, before the stage at which spoken language is typically developed. They form a linguistic and cultural minority within the general population. Someone who is hard of hearing has hearing loss but is not profoundly incapable of hearing. Hard of hearing people are accepted in the Deaf community and tend to self-identify as culturally Deaf. People who become deaf later in life usually retain speech that is indistinguishable from a hearing person's, and do not generally become part of the Deaf community.

In Deaf culture, person-first language has long been rejected. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language since being culturally Deaf is a source of positive identity and pride. ^[10] Appropriate terms to use for this group would be deaf person or hard of hearing person. ^[11] The phrase hearing impaired is not acceptable to most deaf or hard of hearing people because it emphasizes what they cannot do. Other terms that should not be used at all are deaf and dumb and deaf-mute; both imply an inability to communicate, and dumb has an additional meaning as a synonym of stupid. ^[11] Many Deaf people do not consider their deafness to be a disability or an impairment. ^[12]

Autism

Autism is unique and difficult to compare to other disabilities. The exact meaning of autism remains poorly defined in the field of psychology because each autistic person presents vastly different traits and in different degrees. Autism is a pervasive developmental disability, meaning it is a lifelong attribute. Many autistic people say that it doesn't make sense to say a person "has autism", because autism affects a person in their entirety, and cannot be separated from the person. Autistic disorder, high-functioning autism, Asperger syndrome, and PDD-NOS as diagnoses are all deprecated as parts of the autism spectrum and should be referred to as such or simply as autism, except for historical purposes.

Many autistic people, as well as those in the autism rights movement, do not view autism as a disease or disorder. Care should be taken when editing WP:BLPs, or pages related to the autism rights movement, to avoid describing autism through pathological terms like risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. Care should also be taken on BLPs to refer to the subject by using the language the subject prefers and the language the subject personally uses to self-identify ("autistic man", "woman diagnosed with Asperger syndrome", etc.).

Some spell Autistic with a capital A to refer to it as a community rather than an individual. From Lydia Brown's FAQ on Autistic Hoya: "I capitalize the word "Autistic" as if it were a proper adjective, for the same reason the Deaf and Blind communities capitalize the respective adjectives "Deaf" and "Blind." We do it for the same reason Black people often capitalize that word. We capitalize it as a proper adjective or noun to represent our community and our identity." ^[13] This distinction is mostly relevant in BLPs, wherein it is best to use that person's preference if known, and otherwise default to the non-capitalized version.

Autistic as a noun is the most preferred term by some on the autism spectrum, and is commonly used to self-identify. ^[14] However, its usage as a noun can be offensive to some people, and is recommended against by groups such as the National Autistic Society in the UK, who support its use as an adjective. ^[15] Terms such as autist, aspie and autie should also be avoided, unless in direct quotes. Person on the autism spectrum is sometimes used to avoid the person vs. identity debate. However, avoid using the phrase on the spectrum if the meaning is unclear or could be misinterpreted.

Functioning labels

Functioning labels are the categorization of autism as either high-functioning or low-functioning, or as "mild" or "severe". Some autistic people who consider themselves high-functioning take pride in the term as it represents their capabilities. However, the autistic community and an increasing number of researchers overall reject the concept of functioning labels ^[16] for several reasons:

• Autistic people are too diverse to be categorized under a dichotomy.
• Referring to a person as low-functioning is insulting.
• Referring to a person as high-functioning de-legitimizes their disability by implying that they are only partially or insignificantly disabled.
• Autistic people are frequently denied proper accommodations on the grounds that they are too high-functioning to need them.
• Functioning labels are frequently used as a tool to exclude autistic people from discussions about themselves. A person is told they are either too low-functioning to be capable of having an informed opinion, or too high-functioning to relate to the challenges faced by low-functioning people.
• Whether a person is considered high- or low-functioning is usually determined by only one factor: their ability to speak verbally. In this sense, it is not really a measurement of one's intellect or capabilities, but rather of how visible their disability is, or how well they can pass as neurotypical.

A suggested alternative to functioning labels is to refer to an individual's level of support needs. However, even the terms "high support needs" and "low support needs" may not capture the full picture, as individuals often have high needs in some areas, but minimal support needs in others. It often helps to describe the specific aspect of the person’s support needs that are relevant to the situation at hand rather than making a blanket statement.

When writing in a historical context, or describing the point of view of a specific individual or organization, it may be necessary to use outdated or inaccurate language in order to fully understand the subject. This is because opinions are expressed through syntax and word choice. Whenever possible, use quotation marks to indicate which literal words and phrases were used in a source but may not agree with current usage. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles describe but do not support any particular point of view.

• List of disability-related terms with negative connotations

• Griffith, Nicola (2016-08-23). "The Dos and Don'ts of Writing About the Disabled | Literary Hub". Lithub.com. Retrieved 2016-09-05.
• "Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities | ADA National Network". Adata.org. Retrieved 2016-09-05.
• American Psychological Association: Style Guide: Disability
• National Center on Disability and Journalism: Disability Language Style Guide
• "Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability". GOV.UK. 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2022-06-10.