Talk:Social model of disability

message: I've moved this page to my sandbox and began editing it to clean it up and reference it well. Don't know what the timescale will be for that mind. (Darwinerasmus (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I have to object to this. This article is far too important (Rated "Top" by WikiProject Disability) to allow one editor to work on it privately. Please do all your editing here where everyone can see them and share in the process. The edits you have done so far are good ones - I'm not criticising your editing, just that it should not be done alone in private. Sandboxing is for creating new articles from scratch. It is not apropriate for an already established article and especially not one with a top importance rating. (I've put this discussion under a proper section heading.) Roger (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see this article is actively being edited by others. Roger (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox

message: This concept needs to be linked directly to a relevant article but I can't figure out which is the right one. It is currently linked to the disambiguation page for Cartesian. When I Googled the phrase "Cartesian functional analysis" the ony other hit except for this page is a scientific article about enzymes. Roger (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cartesian dualism is what i was referring to - if you read the article i referenced it states "Cartesian dualism is said to ‘underpin’ the ‘medical model’, and it is often claimed that the impact of Descartes’ philosophy on medicine was immediate and profound. The fact that these claims are contradicted by the historical evidence (Brown, 1985) has not prevented regular appeals to the idea that modern medicine remains, in essence, ‘Cartesian’. In nursing, this idea is normally associated with the view that there is something intrinsically dehumanizing and reductionist about the ‘Cartesian’ perspective because the implication of separating mind from body is that the patient comes to be regarded merely as a biological mechanism." (Darwinerasmus (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have now corrected the wikilink. Roger (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartesian functional analysis

message: I've been learning how to use citebots to complete references to articles/jounals we've added but i think it would also be useful to include a link ot the full pdf's where available as many are available in the public domain , only im not sure about the markup - can anyone help with this  ? (Darwinerasmus (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Given Roger's "motherlode/load", etc., I'm going to close out the merger proposal. Roger, I trust you'll do what you can on your own time to integrate the sources you found into their respective spots in this article..? Just thought I'd mention it. Thanks all. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your vote of confidence but unfortunately I have very little free time to spend on WP for the next few weeks. I'd appreciate it if someone else would take the lead in this process. Roger (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  going to close the merger proposal shortly 

message: The Biopsychosocial model (as I see it), does not aim to address anything of the sort. In it's bare sense, it only expands the concept of illness being caused by some change in pathology, physiology or function (the biomedical model), to include notions of social and psychological influence in the causation. The social sciences literature around the medical model means something quite different, which in the medical area would probably be more in the medical paternalism / medical ethics areas. Also, if 'nothing about us without us' runs both ways, most doctors would find some of what is written about the 'medical model' moderately offensive, and not view it as reflective of their own views or the current profession as a whole. I might cautiously try to work on these areas in the future. Egmason (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to take a look at the "main" Medical model article too, if anything it has even more serious problems. The group of related articles, which includes those you've linked above as well as Medical model of disability all could use some revision and fact checking. BTW It's not obvious that there really is a clear distinction between Medical model and Biomedical model - perhaps they could be merged? Roger (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm late to this discussion, but I also concur with what is said above about the biopsychosocial model: that it is extending the medical model to include psychological or social causation. Which is in stark contrast to structural analysis within the social model. All that said, we have to go by what the sources say, otherwise we're heading into original research and POV territory. But I do agree. Shelly Pixie (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biopsychosocial Model 

message: I have posted some suggested amendments to this article on the Wikiproject Disability page today - Comments and contributions welcome.  Improving "Social model of disability" and related articles Robplatts (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Social model of disability and related articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Social model of disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417064037/http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk:80/holocaust/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_other_victims/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_disabled___the_holocaust.htm to http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/holocaust/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_other_victims/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_disabled___the_holocaust.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070110074257/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/articles/labour_market_trends/People_with_disabilities_aug2002.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/People_with_disabilities_aug2002.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629061231/http://www.dotheduty.org:80/ to http://www.dotheduty.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Social model of disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417064037/http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk:80/holocaust/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_other_victims/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_disabled___the_holocaust.htm to http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/holocaust/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_other_victims/holocaust_remembrance_2004_-_disabled___the_holocaust.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070110074257/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/articles/labour_market_trends/People_with_disabilities_aug2002.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/People_with_disabilities_aug2002.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The social construction of disability is simply the theroetical basis of the social model of disability. The construction article contains a lot of long rambling essay-like opinion as well as excessive detail and examples - it should be pruned back to the essentials and merged into the model article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes!  It's tl;dr for just about anyone.  --Hordaland (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to revert the merge because since the proposal, no split , as also proposed) was done on Social construction of disability. Instead in the two years since that long stale discussion, a whole lot of what can only be described as "junk", was added to the article. Long discussions about subtitling of movies and other "practicalities" has no place in social theory articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Social construction of disability]] 

message: See also the Talk:Social construction of disability page. It's an undesirable content fork. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it; it seems that you have no objections, probably as your proposal is eminently reasonable, as was your earlier one. Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's become rather deeply buried somewhere in my, far too long, to-do list, so I'd not object if someone else does it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it, but it won't be a clean merge. Someone will need to tape down the edges. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  (although as I said, it's not ideal. The major problem is that the construction article included discussion of construction and this one didn't really, and I don't have a fine enough understanding of the theory to weave them together.) --Xurizuri (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Social construction of disability]] into [[Social model of disability]] 

message: After reading the citation "The social model of disability: thirty years on" it seems that there is much more than just a little bit of criticism by others including those within the disability community. And I think it should be greatly expanded on to fully represent the perspectives of the disability spectrum. Or in the very least that it seems to not give enough weight to the arguments made that criticize it and we should reflect that it is not fully supported in disability advocacy to make it seem more nuanced.--- AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand on criticism? 

message: Successful 196.189.240.220 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disability personal