Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 8 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Disability}}, {{WikiProject Barack Obama}}, {{WikiProject Human rights}}, {{WikiProject Discrimination}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 01:55, 8 February 2024 by Cewbot (talk | contribs) (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Disability}}, {{WikiProject Barack Obama}}, {{WikiProject Human rights}}, {{WikiProject Discrimination}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 26, 2010, July 26, 2014, and July 26, 2015.

Apparent whitewashing of issue of perception of ADA

User:Aponoka removed certain longstanding text (that I had originally inserted) at this edit on 2 September 2014. It appears that User:Aponoka is POV-pushing. The critique made by The Onion article is notable, incisive, and accurate in that it correctly reflects the perception then and now of the ADA. (Notice how I am referring to the perception, not whether that perception itself is accurate.) After all, the joke that they were trying to make would have made no sense if the perception of the audience were otherwise. If I don't see any good reasons to the contrary, I will be putting that back in soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no objections, here goes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry--I hadn't seen this earlier. But upon looking, I would strongly suggest removing this section. First, there appears to be no active link (at least at this point) to the law review article you cite, so without accessing a law library, I'm not sure what point was made there. But upon reading the Onion article itself (written eight years after the ADA was passed, I question whether it actually was a satire of the ADA at all. It seems far more a satire of the pop culture idea of the talentless slacker, as well as middle management positions.

But even if one accepts your (and the referenced law review's) claim that this Onion piece is a satire of the ADA, it still seems a tenuous example of criticism of the ADA at best. Misplaced Pages is built on primary sources, not secondary interpretations of pop culture satire. The rest of section 3 contains actual primary examples of criticism. This does not, and I respectfully would argue that it does not belong here. Mgllama (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081218062400/http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml to http://edlabor.house.gov/issues/adaaa.shtml#1

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose Deletion of Section 3.1

Section 3.1, title "Abuse," consists of a few sentences centered around an Onion article (seriously!) which is neither noteworthy nor particularly relevant. Unless there is more that people can add under this topic, I suggest that the whole bit be deleted. Any objections? Mgllama (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Realized that this was discussed earlier--will address it there. Sorry. Mgllama (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Linkfarm

IMHO the long list of External links is excessive, but I'm not sure which can be deleted and which to keep. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the list, I've stuck the ones I think should go:

Discussion

I would say everything but ADA.gov should go (or maybe this page from ADA.gov that gives a more welcoming historical text and easy links to the language of the law itself ) . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

American with disabilities act

Was enacted during the Clinton administration, it wasn't signed into law by George W. Bush. If you can not publish factual information, then the validity of the informaiton on your site is questionable. Despite how you feel about the people responsible for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.173.249 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The original Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. The Amendment Act was signed into law on September 25, 2008 by President George W. Bush with changes effective January 1, 2009. President Bill Clinton was not in office in any of those years (he was in office from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/Move/? with ADA litigation in United States and More Limiting Cases and

There is an article ADA Litigation in the United States that is a stub of a couple of cases (well actually denials of cert) about the ADA. Would it be more appropriate to move the more extensive list of cases here to that page (or simply redirect it here?). Sorry I usually only ever edit math pages where this stuff doesn't come up as much.

The number of major cases described on this page is quite nice but if anyone happens to know of cases limiting ADA application it would be nice to include some limiting cases too if anyone knows some important ones off the top of their head. Excepting the two cases about the internet none of the decisions limit the scope of ADA applicability and it seems like having both sorts of decisions would be more informative. Of course I don't know what ADA cases are important hence the talk page post but some editor might. Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I noticed there is already a comment about the ADA lit in US page and I'm going to add at least one limiting case myself (is there any order to the cases in the section?) which probably renders this whole new section pointless but one isn't supposed to delete talk comments so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter M Gerdes (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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/20111122142738/http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php to http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/Smith_v_Hotels_com.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't effectively prohibit discrimination.

Anti-disabled discrimination and anti-disabled policies are everywhere in America. And the government's own interpretation mandates discrimination, intead of prohibiting it: http://www.ada.gov/1991standards/1991standards-archive.html 108.48.94.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

But it does prohibit discrimination against the physically disabled for newer structures. Doesn't mean that the government enforces it. epic genius (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have sensory processing disorder. It mandates strobe lights. The particular frequencies might not be an issue for people with photosensitive epilepsy, but they definitely can be painfully disorientng and painfully incapacitating for some of us with sensory processing disorder. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination isn't the same as accommodation, though, and that's why I noted that this law is not particularly enforced. epic genius (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted an attempt to add an unsourced assertion about the ADA guidelines on strobe lights to the article. It's not enough to cite to the guidelines themselves and then trash them in the very next clause with no support cited for that criticism. Under WP:NOR, you must find a reliable source published elsewhere which specifically asserts that the Access Board made the wrong public policy choice in favor of other types of persons with disabilities and threw epileptics under the bus, then add a citation to that. You cannot use Misplaced Pages as a first publisher of original research. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This section had been removed on March 7th of lat year, on the grounds of "Removing sections that do not appear to be about the article content"

This is directly relevant to the content - the article claims that the act prohibits discrimination against disabled people, so the article should discuss ways that it has been interpreted to mandate violence and other discrimination against some disabled people. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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:

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

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) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

addition to court cases 16 9 2018

Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1499096.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.13.74 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC V. ROBLES, GUILLERMO

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

https://www.levelaccess.com/ninth-circuit-reverses-robles-v-dominos-pizza-llc-holds-ada-title-iii-suits-dont-violate-due-process-rights/

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-llc-v-robles/

http://www.adasoutheast.org/ada/publications/legal/Robles_v_Dominos-Pizza.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.111.174 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The "See also" list needs a trim

The list of "See also" links is excessive. Several items in the list should be (or possibly already are) linked within the article body text. Several others are only peripherally relevant, and some are simply trivial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases in the infobox

Many of the cases listed in the infobox are redlinks, should they be removed? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A few cases have recently been added, so I think the links can be kept for now in case more will come. 23impartial (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories: