Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability

Planning a virtual edit-a-thon to improve Justin Dart's article, August 30, 2015

Hi, staff from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History (NMAH) would like to hold a virtual edit-a-thon on August 30th to add content and links to the article for Justin Whitlock Dart, Jr. to help expand disability-related information in Wikipedia. NMAH has some significant objects that Justin Dart donated and other content such as scans of his speeches, photos of objects, and images from the ADA25 celebration. I would appreciate the help of anyone interested in improving this article, and any feedback or suggestions you might have. Thank you! Uncommon fritillary (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Uncommon fritillary I've never heard of an edit-a-thon dedicated to only a single article. User:Penny Richards is our edit-a-thon specialist, though I'd be happy to help where/when I can. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny this came up today, because I spent some pleasant time yesterday doing the TAFI (Today's Article For Improvement), which was soufflé--several folks working together to improve a single article on the same day. So that can certainly happen. But remember the "no original research" rule (WP:OR)--scans and photos of primary sources like letters or unpublished speeches might not be as helpful as imagined for the purposes of improving the Dart entry. I'm happy to help with the Dart entry, but I'd also be very happy to see the event expanded to include other disability content on Wikipedia--there's plenty of work to be done.Penny Richards (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed Primary material is of very limited value and remember that per WP:Verifiability anything cited must be accessible, either as an actual publication, or in a GLAM (gallery, library, archive, museum) collection that is open to the public. I hope this may be expanded to more articles and topics related to disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I just created the Justin Dart virtual edit-a-thon event page today at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Justin_Dart_Jr._Virtual_Edit-a-thon_2015 . If you know of any related ADA25-themed articles that could use expanding or creating, please feel free to add them to the event page or suggest them to me to add. The National Museum of American History has made some photos and documents available on its Flickr site https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmuseumofamericanhistory/albums/72157657296517198/with/20825040086/ which includes some pdfs from publications for reference. I am curious how this event will turn out, especially since it was pulled together on short notice. In addition to Katherine Ott of NMAH, the organizers are from the National Council on Disability, the Executive Office of the President of the U.S., and Wikimedia DC. I think they'll be promoting the event well to their communities. Thanks again! Uncommon fritillary (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, already facebooked and tweeted it, and added myself to the RSVPs, and added a couple topics to the list of possible new articles. I love edit-athons. Penny Richards (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New WikiProject!

In the spirit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Epilepsy. The goal will be document and improve anything and everything related to epilepsy, seizures and seizure diseases. Please join. :) Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of this project?

I have just added this project's tag to Chia Yong Yong. I hope this is correct? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes biographies are within scope, in fact they're a very large proportion of "our" articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rehabilitation Medicine

I am interested in adding the rehabilitation medicine category [1] as a sub-category for disability. This would include many articles, so I wanted to get others' opinions, especially since I don't have much experience with how this sort of thing is carried out. Attaboy (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Web Accessibility - topic for November 10 Tip-Of-The-Day

Greetings! On November 10, the Tip-Of-The-Day is about the web accessibility. The tip is Editing articles for web accessibility and includes a link to Wikipedia's web accessibility page.

This November 10 tip was recently added at the TOTD Schedule Queue and is also posted at the Tips library. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Improving "Social model of disability" and related articles

Hi all Robplatts posted the following on my talk page, I recommended raising the issue here to a broader interested audience, so here it is: Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and I now realise my attempt at editing the article on the social model of disability lacked evidence. I imagine this is the main reason my edits were not allowed?

I am concerned however, that they are some basic errors in the explanation of the meaning of indirect discrimination and in how the UK Equality Act provides protection for carers. The protection for carers under the Act only extends to direct discrimination and to harassment (Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence, 2014, Court of Appeal). Under the UK Act, carers cannot claim reasonable adjustments and they are not protected from indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when an organisation applies a general provision, criterion or practice without realising that this will have a discriminatory effect in relation to a person with a protected characteristic (section 19, UK Equality Act).

It also seems strange to me that an article about the social model then leads the section about law and policy by discussing the UK legislation which is probably best described as a hybrid model.

Some jurisdictions believe it is unnecessary to provide a definition of disability within their discrimination legislation at all(the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and the Netherlands Equal Treatment Based on Handicap and Chronic Diseases Act, for example). Others define disability widely, without requiring an impairment to produce functional limitation and without needing the impairment to exist for a certain length of time. Jurisdictions which fall into this second category include, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the Republic of Ireland. These forms of legislation allow tribunals and courts to have an initial focus on whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination to answer. Whereas, complainants under the UK Act have an additional burden of proving disability in accordance with the UK definition, before a court or tribunal is able to consider the alleged discrimination (except in cases concerning associative and perceived disability). There is evidence (American Bar Association Survey on court rulings and the UK's Legislation Monitoring Report) which demonstrates the difficulty which complainants have in establishing this proof.

These are really important issues which should be appreciated more widely. Please could you give me guidance on, or point me to where I can learn about, how to edit this article in the correct fashion. Best wishes Rob Robplatts (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robplatts, you're touching on topics that are covered in various articles about disability discrimination, relevant legislation in various countries and perhaps even others. It doesn't seem to me to be all that directly relevant to the social model article, which is really about the social theory itself. I think we should take this discussion to the WikiProject Disability talk page so that other contributors may also participate. This is far broader and more interesting than just editing one article, I think your ideas can improve a bunch of articles.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Penny Richards, User:Ottawahitech, User:Mirokado, User:LilyKitty, User:Hordaland, User:Crinoline. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that according to Disability Discrimination Act 1995 it has been replaced by Equality Act 2010 (mostly). Ottawahitech (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a coincidence. I was just now involved in a discussion in a closed Facebook support group and came to Wikipedia to cite "Social model of disability" in that discussion. Bright red notice from Roger about being mentioned here. From the (long) Facebook discussion:

• V: [...] Although we do often suffer the rigid, judgmental, and unquestionably disparaging from [the self-righteous]. "I wouldn't be suffering if it weren't for your snarky, not-so-passive-aggresive comments," I want to say.
• S: I agree. I don't feel like this is an illness. We just fall on the far end of [a] spectrum. However, I also understand that in order for us to get the legal protections we often need to get employers, schools, etc. to accommodate that variation, we must, for now, accept the label of "disorder."
• V: Good point. So, really it's society's disorder in that it's so inflexible as to not utilize all the human capital available! [...]
• [Me: comments about the Wikipedia articles Social vs. Medical model...]
• V: I would think that [our disorders] are a combination in that they are medical in nature but largely able to be *fixed* or mitigated with social adjustments, but not medically.

So! The discussion is not restricted to Wikipedia; it is important to many.

My first reaction to this thread is that our new contributor Rob is knowledgable (etc.) and should be encouraged to become a Wikipedian!

Next, and related, I wholeheartedly agree with Roger that: "This is far broader and more interesting than just editing one article, I think your ideas can improve a bunch of articles." So this project page is the right place for a good discussion.

Hordaland (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is bigger than editing one article and am happy to contribute more widely. Parts of the social model article are factually incorrect and should be corrected. Additionally, there are points worth making about the inequity of including medical model definitions within disability discrimination legislation. This information could be included within the law and policy section of the existing article explaining how the initial focus of social model legislation(the alleged discrimination) differs from the initial focus of medical model legislation(whether complainant is qualified for protection) or it could be explained within a new section. Alternatively or additionally, the current medical model article could be expanded to include a law and policy section. Being new to Wikipedia I obviously need to understand more about the etiquette and process. Should I begin by proposing corrections within the talk section of both articles? Robplatts (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep it all together here, and simply add a note to each affected article's talk page with a link back here. Because it's about multiple articles, splitting the conversation doesn't make sense, imho. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Robplatts - Are you going to start editing the article(s) soon? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Dodger67 Yes, I will start soon. Robplatts (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015

@User:Dodger67, @User:Hordaland Hi both - Although my strength of knowledge lies more within legal definitions, I thought it logical to make a start on some changes to the introduction to the social model article. The main issue here is that it suggests the development of the social model came as a reaction to the dominant medical model. I think the evidence shows that its development came as a reaction from disabled people towards exclusionary and segregating societal attitude which often centered on functional limitation, rather than reaction to a medical model per se. Not sure the term "medical model" even existed 1n the 60s. So, I propose changing the assertion about a dominant medical model and also adding some detail about issues of segregation. I suggest a revised introduction could read as follows:

"Prior to the emergence of the social model of disability, understandings of disability were commonly based on either the requirement to accommodate need arising from loss or deprivation caused by individual functional limitation (welfare and charity interpretations), or based on fixing that individual limitation (medical and rehabilitation interpretations) (Barnes, Oliver and UPAIS).

The social model of disability identifies systemic barriers, negative attitudes and exclusion by society (purposely or inadvertently) that mean society can be the main contributory factor in disabling people. While physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations may cause individual functional limitation or impairments, the social model proposes that these do not have to lead to disability unless society fails to take account of and include people regardless of their individual differences.

British disability activists (Paul Hunt and UPIAS) additionally argued that societal attitude, which included a perceived need to segregate some disabled people from mainstream society, led to oppression and feelings of low self esteem and worth amongst disabled people. Hunt further argues that some disabled people had not previously challenged these views on segregation because, as he explains, “Feeling excessively self-conscious we would like to bury ourselves in society away from the stares of the curious, and even the special consideration of the kindly, both of which serve to emphasize our difference from the majority”(“A Critical Condition”, Hunt,1966).

A social model understanding of disability widens responsibility for, and provides greater explanation of, the causes of disability and, at the same time, argues that physical and mental variation and difference should be valued and accommodated by society.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is based on a social model of disability and recognises within the preamble to the Articles of the Convention that: “disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

One thing about proposing edits in this way is that I can't see an easy way to contrast with the original - perhaps those of you with more technical ability might explain how this can be achieved. I will put a note and link in the talk section of the original article.

Thoughts? Robplatts (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Medical model is one of those concepts, like scientific method, that has existed for far longer than it has had an explicit name. The term was first published in 1971. When did Hunt/Oliver/UPIAS first use the phrase "social model of disability"? The only way I know to see a side by side comparison of changes in a text on WP is after the edit is actually done - see WP:DIFF. I like what you've written above, IMHO it's a substantial improvement. I have done a little editing at Medical model of disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I like Robplatts' approach as I'd prefer to see the 'social model' as a very necessary addition to the approach to the topic of disabilities, without appearing to disparage the 'medical model'; we're surely not saying that either 'model', alone, is sufficient.

The proposed text is IMO too long and detailed for an intro section. Citations are generally not required in the intro section, as anything in that section must in any case appear, usually in more detail, below - with source(s).

I see that we do have the article Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I haven't read it yet and must dash right now. --Hordaland (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both. Agree it needs cutting down and that some info can move elsewhere within the article. Roger - the term "Social model" was first published in 1983 by Mike Oliver - seemingly well after medical model first appeared. However, Oliver clearly attributes the concepts of the model to the work of both Paul Hunt and UPIAS in the 60s and 70s - he suggests he helped organize the ideas and gave the concept a name. Paul Hunt's essay from 1966 is well worth a read if you haven't seen it before. Hordaland picks up an important point that most understandings of disability have their place. The medical model is rationally required when considering welfare and benefits, for instance. Whereas, in my opinion, it has no place in deciding who is granted protection from discrimination. Robplatts (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)