Talk:Social model of disability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disability (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Social model of disability 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Autism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Social model of disability is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


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)).

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)
As you can see this article is actively being edited by others. Roger (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - i just prefer editing in my sandbox then transferring the edits to the page as it gives me a bit of time to review how the article looks and see if if i have made any errors in markup , i wasn't meaning i would be the sole editor and i really do hope others will continue to contribute. ( (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).(Darwinerasmus (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Cartesian functional analysis[edit]

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)

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)).
Thanks, I have now corrected the wikilink. Roger (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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)) The googlebooks citebot was taking forever so i found this alternative (Darwinerasmus (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Peer review[edit]

The peer review has been completed by Ruhrfisch. Please use the review to improve the article. Also take note of the "Toolbox" on the page - it contains links to automatically reported errors and improvements. I'm currently too busy with off-Wiki commitments to give it the attention it needs right now. Roger (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done some work today. The most important items remaining, IMO, are
  1. expansion of the lead (WP:LEAD),
  2. the formatting of references (WP:CITE), and perhaps
  3. explaining the relationship of the ADA to the social model. --Hordaland (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was don't merge. -- Roger (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose Medical model of disability to be merged into this article. It seems to me that "Medical model of disability" is basically a retronym for the view of disability before the civil right movements invented the term "Social model". Hence, its article is and can only be a comparison with the social model. After the merging we may consider renaming the article models of disability and adding note about the other models listed in the article about disability#Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcp-ip (talkcontribs) 00:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Object. I cannot object strenuously enough to this merger proposal. Sure, the term "medical model of disability" might be retronym-ish, but number one it's the only widely-accepted English-language reference term in existence, and number two, a theoretical argument could always be made that the name and concept of racism is a retronym for all the ways race used to be thought about "normally". In other words, your foundational reasoning for the merger is based on a patently ridiclous notion. You're basically saying that no group of people can come up with a specific name for a specific type of discrimination, or a specific era of that discrimination, because it isn't 'in general use'. Come on. Grow up. The use of "medical model of disability" is well-documented and widely-used in the English language. This merger will be challenged. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This proposal is akin to suggesting that liberalism and conservatism be merged or capitalism and communism. The logic of the proposal is deeply flawed. While my response isn't quite as visceral as Kikodawgzzz's IMHO he does make very valid points.
The argument put forward for the merge doesn't really hold any water. Many concepts were created/formulated as counterpoises for other concepts. Examples "capitalism" was created by socialist/communist philosophers as a term to describe that which they oppose, another example from politics, "conservative" was originally an epithet invented by liberals to describe the opposite of what they stood for - before liberals there were no conservatives. "Racism" also didn't exist as a named concept until there were people opposed to it. The "Roman Catholic Church" only aquired that name once other churches were established, until then they were simply "The Church". Roger (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Roger (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't explained clearly my position (note that I'm not a mother tongue speaker of English). You both answered only to fact that the term is only a retronym, which is obviously not a point, but my main point was in the second sentence: the medical model article is and can only be a comparison with the social model. Read it and you will see that: a short article which gives a definition of the term and explains why the social model is better. The cases you mentioned (capitalism vs communism, liberalism vs conservatism, Catholic Church vs other churches) are different. Even if some of those terms are retronyms they all refer to concepts that have their own history. Take a look at those articles: long articles that they deal with their founders, their posits, their main supporters and their influence in history. And, Kikodawgzzz, note that "medical model of disability" doesn't refer to discrimination against people with medical conditions. the English term for this is Ableism (aka disablism) which already has its own article. Hence, I think that the question we should ask is "Can the article about the medical model be expanded in a way similar to the articles you mentioned, with material that doesn't overlap with the articles about the social model, provided that the discrimination on the ground of medical conditionsis already coverd in ableism and Disability rights articles?" If you think that the answer is yes, I suggest that you expand the article. If the answer is no I think that a short explanation of the previous model within the article about the social model is the best solution. I hope that I have at least convinced you that my idea is not "patently ridiculous". Tcp-ip (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Oppose: The article has been tagged as unreferenced since July and should not have been created without at least some reliable references, if only to avoid comments like this. If nobody has been able to find any references supporting the subject since then (or even if nobody has bothered to find them) the article should be deleted, not merged. The opponents should try hard to find reliable inline references for all the statements which are otherwise "original research" and must be deleted. I'm happy to wait another week or so for this to happen... Mirokado (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment "Unreferenced" is a separate issue from this merge proposal. I've posted a brief list of possible sources to the article's talk page, its past 1am here so I'm not going to work on it now, see you all tomorrow... Roger (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't mean you to lose sleep! However, the SMD article has inline references for every paragraph. We cannot accept substantial unsourced additions to an article already of reasonable quality, so merging is at present not an option. I guess that means I oppose the merger for now, but for a different reason! The article needs references both as Tcp-ip has said above to make it of similar status to the others and to avoid deletion. There is currently nothing that suggests to a reader like me who has never head of "The medical model of disability" that it is anything other than what one or two editors think, which is basically what "original research" means. Any content which is not deleted could, if at all, be merged with a general article about various models (or whatever.) It would not really belong an an article dealing with a different model. If this is a real notable topic it should be quite easy to find several good references within "a week or so", so I don't think I am applying undue pressure. Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've hit the motherlode! According to the medical model as a concept and a term in fact existed before the social model was developed. See also Medical model and R. D. Laing. Roger (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that it may be a good idea to merge Medical model of disability into Medical model which would immediately place it into the broader context that is missing from the "of disability" aricle. In addition a summary article (spun out from Disability#Theory) would make a lot of sense - firstly by way of highlighting that the Medical and Social models are not the only ones and secondly, by comparing and contrasting the various models, create a better understanding of each one's place in the larger scheme of things. Roger (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
@Roger, thanks for 'the motherlode (sp? "motherload"?). :) Glad you found it "in time" i.e. before this debate got out of hand and editor(s) potentially might push ahead with the merger without consensus (which sometimes does happen). I am glad that your source-resourcefulness has now "saved" this article (hasn't it..?).
And I (gently) object to the idea of merging medical model of disability into medical model. A "medical model" of something can theoretically be a collection of medical views on anything medical at all, not just disability, which is obviously a problem in regards to then not really being able after that to be specific enough with medical views of disabilities and how they impact the wider social movements for disability rights, directly due to the fact that the disability aspects would get lost in the "thicket" of overall 'medical model' info about so many other medical conditions, including non-disabling ones. I ask you kindly to cancel or at least shelve that particular proposal, unless you have irresistibly compelling reasons to advance it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

going to close the merger proposal shortly[edit]

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)

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)

Biopsychosocial Model[edit]

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)

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)
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)