h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Tessawill

I'm subbing disability, at the moment. I'll let you know when I'm done and you can check to see if it's ok.

Can you have a look at it now?

I've made quite a few changes to this entry, as I've changed it from the passive voice to the active voice. I've also added a few other things as well. These are more changes that I'm normally confident to make as a sub, and things that I should really have raised in the PR conversation.

Would you give me a link to make sure I'm looking at the right version?

Thanks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A77562011

Blue is goo! Goo is good...

Does that link work ok?

I wasn't sure about putting in examples simply because of the sheer diversity. I didn't want to steer readers to any particular train of thought. If you do want to use examples I think they need to be more varied in severity & type.

I'm not sure about the example in 'Disability' about not being able to climb the steps to get to school. Having a two storey building & no lift, maybe? What I was thinking of originally was more receiving appropriate education eg for dyslexia.

Under 'Impairment' would the first sentence sound better in the present tense? I'm not so happy about dumbing down the terminology - could footnotes be used to explain? 'Occur at birth' is not the same as congenital. Putting in examples is tricky when there are so many variables - there's no example of a temporary condition. Splitting the examples from the original first sentence might work better.
The sentence about the leg loss should not start 'for example'.

In the next section, could you change wouldn't, doesn't, what's to would not etc which will then match the style of the other sections. 'Things' seems to have got changed to 'this' which doesn't make so much sense. Otherwise I like how you've changed the paragraph.

Acceptance 2nd para
...'may be' affected by religion, in 'that' sometimes...
Amended last para has two too many 'it's....' for my taste. I must admit I prefer my original wording.

Individuality
penultimate sentence has lost an 'is' currently illegal...
last sentence has an unnecessary 'to'. These last two sentences have become repetitive which I had tried to avoid.

Sorry to be picky. Editing must be very difficult, to make changes that are still in keeping with the style of the piece.

Yes, I'm aware that I have made more changes here than I would normally do. I'm sorry about this, and I hope you're not offended.
I've still got the orginal text stored, so it's easy to go back. I want to get to a stage where we're both happy with it, and you feel that the sub-editing has made positive, not negative changes.

I wanted to get your opinion whilst it was still a work in progress. I'll take another look at it tonight, and put some of the changes back.

As I'm a medical doctor, I do know a bit about this topic. As well as studying a 'disablity studies' module at University, I'm currently involved in voluntary work with disabled young people. I'm also doing a PhD in Stroke Medicine. (You may say that means that I'm too far into the medical model to give an objective opinion..)

I have to admit I think that what you see as dumbing down, I see as making it more accessible the general reader. I also think that without examples people would struggle to see how it can be applied.

This is a complex but important topic, and it deserves to be widely read, including by young people who may be put off by dry formal language. I think that this is the sort of piece that would be read by school children doing a project on disability, and should be accessible to the average 16 or 17 year old.

I know what you mean about the examples needing to be more varied in serverity and type - what would you suggest?

The defination of 'congenital' is 'occuring at birth or within the first month of life', shall I change it to that? I just don't think that most people know what congenital means, and it's not a term I'd use in discussion with patients.

I'm really glad your picky. We must get towards a piece that we're both happy with.

I'll post again when I've made the changes..

No offence taken, I take your point about accessibility of the piece!

Perhaps instead of 'occurring at birth' say 'present from birth'?

As for examples.... if we mention specific conditions people may not know what they are or how they affect sufferers, so that would need clarification. Can we manage by talking about being in a wheelchair/ sight impairment/degenerative disease/ learning difficulties etc?

Thanks for your patience with this.

Good thinking! I'll take another look at this tonight or tomorrow.. a few things to do tonight.

I've had another thought about an aspect of this which I didn't manage to get into the original. It's the effect of character - two people acquire the same impairment but to one it's an inconvenience, to the other they become totally dependent on others. I'm exaggerating a bit, but this is something I come across in my work with visually impaired patients.

No, that's totally true, we see it a lot as well. There's a huge spectrum, at one end there's someone like Douglas Barder who's disability doesn't stop them doing anything, and doesn't even class themselves as disabled, and at the other end I've seen patients who are very very disabled from very minor impairments.

The thing is that it's difficult to say this without coming across as blaming people for their disablity. On the whole this point is something that is by and large ignored by disablity rights campainers isn't it?

I suppose it's already covered by mentioning psychological aspects & individuality. There are differences between those who are keen to campaign for rights, or be involved in support groups & others who simply want to quietly get on with their lives.

Some updates made, more on the way!

ANy more changes?

I'm aware that a certain other h2g2 project, you may guess what, has taken time away from subbing.

Thanks for ploughing on with this, with all the other stuff going on!

in 'disability' I'm still not comfortable about the sentence re inadequate education. Could it be amplified to indicate the situation of some parts of the building being inaccessible relevant to a physical disability & perhaps also say something about appropriate resources for sensory disabilities?

In 'impairment' 'were acquired' needs to be 'acquired'. Perhaps add another eg 'or through illness'.

'Effect of society..' 3rd para can 'wouldn't' be changed to 'would not'.

'Individuality' need a full stop after last para. Also last sentence has an unnecessary 'to'.

I think that's all my comments this time!

Excuse me for popping up here, but I commented on this in Peer Review some time ago and wondered how it was getting on...

I agree with Teasswill about the education bit - I went to school in buildings with two storeys and no lift, and I have a PhD... (I still struggled to get a job, though, because I was overqualified as well as disabled...)

"I wasn't sure about putting in examples simply because of the sheer diversity."
I agree with that as well - so much in the world in relation to disability seems to be aimed at divide and conquer, whereas the definition is intended to be encompassing rather than dividing, which is good.

The difficulty with this piece is that the distinction between "disability" and "impairment" is often quite small, and the WHO definition does include social restrictions... The example about leg loss is perhaps not the best - loss of a leg does not necessarily lead to inability to walk, and inability to walk does not necessarily lead to a disability (depending on the circumstances)

I'm also not keen on the way the paragraph about help has been rewritten (Teasswill won't be surprised, I'm sure ). This is what I approved...

"We must remember though that help does not necessarily mean doing things for others. What is often more important is enabling them to be independent. On an individual basis, help should be offered when you think it may be required but be prepared that the offer might be declined. Also, allow the person accepting help to specify the nature of any assistance required."

To my eye the rewrite doesn't indicate strongly enough that *no means no*. Perhaps even the original doesn't, depending how you look at it, but I certainly read "don't be surprised if the offer is declined" as suggesting no means yes really, but they don't like to admit it... Perhaps "don't be disappointed if your offer is declined" is better...

It is a worthy addition to the Guide - I admire Teasswill for taking it on in the first place, and I admire Z for editing it, which is also not an easy task

Thanks for the comments. It is difficult when you start altering a piece.

I must admit, generally I would expect sub-eds to just check guideML, grammar & house style rather than any radical re-write. But I'm open to suggestion!

Just bumping this up again so it's not forgotten!