Misplaced Pages

Talk:Social work: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:53, 27 July 2016 editGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,242 edits →Continued← Previous edit Revision as of 17:53, 27 July 2016 edit undoGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,242 edits Undid revision 731813072 by 117.215.193.109 (talk)Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| maxarchivesize = 120K |maxarchivesize = 80K
| counter = 1 |counter = 2
| algo = old(25d) |algo = old(45d)
| archive = Talk:Social work/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Social work/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=3
}} }}
{{talk header}} {{talk header}}

Revision as of 17:53, 27 July 2016

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social work article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
Former good article nomineeSocial work was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSocial Work Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work 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.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

IP-hopper

These IP accounts are all the same editor:

Just to let everyone know. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

List has been added to by Jim1138

Changed Softlavender's formatting to {{Usertcc}} Jim1138 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: List has been updated extensively by Jim1138. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
So? Was there any claim they weren't? NE Ent 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: List has been updated extensively by Jim1138. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well this is getting annoying. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about why changing the title is addressed in the edit summary and also my other category concerns were removed. It is getting annoying.117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

117.241.21.168, what concerns would that be? TimothyJosephWood 19:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Under "Social workers in literature" Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=714941905&oldid=714940757. You may see the very same (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=714943240&oldid=714943063)117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
117.241.21.168 And...what's concerning? TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the content of the article and the same posts are removed multiple times.117.241.21.168 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
117.241.21.168, as I pointed out elsewhere, you are not allowed to edit or remove other's comments. If you have other concerns that don't involved editing others' comments, we can certainly discuss them. TimothyJosephWood 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes I have reverted them. See the section header.117.241.21.168 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I would be tempted to undo your reversion here; not only is it not 'your' list, but more importantly, since when were Southsea or London in Kerala??? Fortuna 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's my post/list; all of the visible IPs geolocate to Kerala. Per WP:TPO, I'm reverting unauthorized changes to my list. I've let Jim add some IPs over the weeks/months but there's no point in making things more complicated than they are. If he wants to create his own list somewhere else, with different data, he can. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Continued

Social workers in literature

Are the books listed under social workers in literature supposed to have a social worker as the main subject or just a prominent one? I wanted to add The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. The main subject of the book is the family the social worker works with, but the social worker is a significant part of story (nonfiction). PermStrump(talk) 04:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you may add. Your contributions are significant to the expansion of the article. I don't like what Softlavender did by deleting this comment. I am sure this is against talk page manners. 59.88.210.58 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
PermStrump, This is a good question. Relevant guidance for this can be found at WP:IPCV. The general rule is that the character should feature prominently in the referenced work, but there is no requirement that the person be the main character per se.
To avoid WP:OR, it should be obvious from the work that the person is a social worker. For example, a character should not be included on the basis of their doing things a social worker can do, like therapy, or working with child protection, but not being explicitly labeled a social worker by the author. There are lots of things social workers do that can be done by other professions, like psychologists or licensed therapists.
Other than that, a good helping of WP:COMMONSENSE should be enough to judge on a case-by-case basis whether the character should be included, or if we're starting to get into the business of making WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, brings up a good point. If the character features prominently enough in the book to warrant inclusion in the social work article, they probably are a major enough character to warrant at least mention in the main article on the book.
On the one hand, this may be an indication that the character is not prominent. On the other, it may be an opportunity to improve both articles. I really don't know. I haven't read the book. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at the article and it needs editing (for several reasons). It lists the author as a character. It's nonfiction so there weren't "characters" per se anyway, but I'll have to look at some other articles on nonfiction works to see how they word it. Jeanine Hilt is the name of the social worker and they specifically call her a social worker in the book. Sadly, not all of the book reviews I've read mention she was a social worker. How strict do we need to be about sourcing this? The actual book is online. If you control F "hilt" and the first hit calls her a social worker. The book club questions at the end of the book call her a social worker. This college-level paper talks about Jeanine being a social worker, but I don't think it's a thesis or anything. I don't know what Prezi is, or if it's good enough as a source for something like this, but this website lists Jeanine before minor characters and calls her a social worker. PermStrump(talk) 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this is the best source I've found. PermStrump(talk) 14:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
If there aren't any book reviews in normal reliable-source journalism venues (New York Times, etc.) that mention a social worker as a major character, there's really no point in mentioning the book in this article. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, the NYT did review it, although they don't mention social work. They do mention it elsewhere as a staple of social work classes, which may likely be where OP ran into the text. TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I suggest to change "poverty relief and disabilities" to "welfare/welfare services" in the lede. In poverty relief a social worker might come as a community manager who manage welfare services along with government officials, doctors, NGO officials ...etc. In disabilities a social worker doesn't have a direct role, might be in educating or referring to welfare services. Also modifying Australian Association of Social Workers definition in the lede works but is it a better approach, that concerns me.117.241.21.168 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Social workers, at least in the US, commonly work with individual with disabilities, and comparatively rarely with NGOs. This is likely different elsewhere, but we need sources to work from. TimothyJosephWood 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Material from Howe

This has devolved into a completely unproductive discussion, with unproductive comments from registered editors, and equally unproductive comments from the IP about how those comments are unproductive. Diannaa et al. seem to have left the conversation, and nothing is being accomplished by continuing this. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am investigating in response to a post by an IP on my talk page. I am not sure why this material was removed as unsourced, as it is sourced, to An Introduction to Social Work Theory: Making Sense in Practice By David Howe. Needs some page numbers, but it is sourced. It was removed here also, with no reason given. I can't find any discussion on the talk page about this material that would explain why it was removed. Can anybody clear this up for me? Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) It's the problematic IP-hopping troll (who has been trolling the article and this talk page for over two months) who added it. (2) It's excessive and irrelevant, and the idiosyncratic ideas from a single theorist, rather than concise neutral information from a reliable neutral overview or tertiary source (which this sort of subject needs). Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender, I've asked you to stop calling the individual a troll. I'm going to tell you again, more firmly here, if you keep with the ad-hominem attacks against anonymous individuals, you will end up blocked. IP-hopping is not against the rules, we can edit anonymously and the individual is not pretending to be lots of people. I said I was going to look into this article and I simply haven't had the time yet, but I do intend to. Worm(talk) 09:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Still waiting to hear from @Jim1138: as to why he removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, at last some of the edit seems to be COPYVIO of this paper. I wouldn't be surprised if other parts are as well. The quality of English in this edit is not what I have come to expect from this IP editor, which is what led me to do a verbatim search to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I am already aware of the copy vio and mentioned it to the IP on my talk page. Forgot to ask @Softlavender: when you removed the content, why did you not leave an edit summary or a post on the talk page giving reasons for the removal? — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
An IP has just come to my talk page, stating that some of the questionable edits from multiple related IPs took place during a mini editathon that took place recently at a conference held in Kerala. I am going to lift the talk page protection based on this information and will monitor the result. — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Worm That Turned, I provided you with the three ANIs that have already been filed on the IP-hopper within 8 weeks (, , ), and received no further response from you. Diannaa, the IP-hopper's behavior has been consistently similar and disruptive ever since February 27, so the WP:BROTHER claim is false and the claim of a "conference" is more misdirection -- the problems have been going on for nearly 10 weeks now with no let-up except during page-protection. Part of their stock in trade is playing on the assumption of good-faith of others, and they are currently trying that on you and previously have been doing that with Timothyjosephwood on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
From the tone, vocabulary, and grammar differences of the posts on my talk page, it seems to me highly likely that there's at least two different people. — Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's all the same rhetoric, all the same convenient excuses, all the same wiki-lawyering (the IP-hopper is well-versed in wiki policies and can call them up at will, which leads one to suspect they may be a returning LTA editor), all the same pretenses at being helpful, all the same "get rid of Softlavender and Jim1138 and all will be well", etc. The IP-hopper is capable of speaking in many voices, depending on how they want to be perceived and who they want as allies. Jim1138 and I have been tracking this IP-hopper and their edits for nearly 10 weeks, and have seen the extent of their multi-faceted disruption and disguise. (I only got involved after Jim1138 posted the initial ANI -- I had never edited on this article but the problem was so great and so obvious I couldn't let it pass without helping stem the tide of disruption.) Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for pointing the relevant ANI discussions. Though this IP is not well-versed in wiki policies.(Cant still understand copyvio in its full extent.) A honest look at the ANI posts reveal who is WP:WL and at other ANI posts some editors are misled by a solid portrayal of manipulated evidence and I am not sure whether this are the only reports pertaining to article or about the editors involved. Any edits that could be reviewed by Jim1138 and Softlavender are contentious in nature. It is not to "Get rid of Softlavender and Jim1138" But stop actions from these editors which is harmful or WP:NOTHERE atleast by citing the same LTA(at least name-wise, haven't read it) policy you two are in grey area. "The IP-hopper is capable of speaking in many voices" - I am not even going to acknowledge this absurd and yet funny(First i thought it was about glossolalia and see the length an editor can go to prove their points) statement. I saw , this from an editor in question in an other related discussion. I was around the corner of agreeing with the editor, then i thought to do some history checks. Some of the possible related links that i found are: , , , , , these are some skeletons in the closet which clearly shows immature actions from the registered editor. I am not going go further anymore with investigations and there might be similar skeletons within the other editor's history. Maybe we can consider the initial ANI by Jim1138 has dragged Softlavender without proper investigation, but it doesn't answer Softlavender's other irresponsible activities with the article. Severe lack of trust or goodness in other wiki editors might be a cause for Softlavender's actions and this might not be good for the project. A stern editor is required for wiki project but that doesn't mean one with total lack of WP:LOVE.-I just saw this on Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering, so don't assume "well-versed". A voluntary or compelled stay-back of both Jim1138 and Softlavender could be an option to solve the ongoing issue. and at the same time the article requires guidance from a good editor (Someone who is helpful, not going for immediate reverts, talking behind the back without informing, not going for quick blocks, teaching, can do some research and collaborate with the editor in improving a defective edit, someone who doesn't engage in silly accusations ...etc.). Clear evidences are there that both Jim1138 and Softlavender lack subject matter knowledge and are against content contribution, lacks warmheartedness and humane nature, uses policies and wiki-knowledge as they see fit and extensive usage of registered user privileges as rights, wiki-stalking - an example i saw recently: , obsessive need to prove their judgements and wiki-superiority. 61.1.200.144 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
After about my fifth suggestion to register an account, I'm starting to get a very WP:DONTFEED feeling. All apologies to Diannaa and Worm, I've put a bit of effort into assuming good faith, but this is starting to look like a waste of time. There is a discontinuity in being able to cite multiple diffs, reference WP policy, and use hidden text, but being unwilling to register an account, while conveniently furthering an argument of confusion over apparently related IP edits. If it walks like a troll and quacks like a troll... TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit hesitant to register an account yet. You may understand this and give personal space for being confident. But I hope this has nothing to do with assuming good faith for the progress of the article. The above paragraph was an reply to Softlavender's statement.(Without viewing both sides how can others come to an conclusion, maybe my way of putting things in position is weak) I have seen that "troll" and "deny" definitions and circumstances in your talk page by 117.241.22.57, based on that I have cited trolling and stalking in the above paragraph about Jim1138. If anything most of this talk page leads in aiming each other, this is done by every involving parties:Look at the blocks, look at ANI and how much does it involve in correcting an edit that is in dispute-None. You have cited content errors, I agree and its visible. I am backing away for now to let things cool down, from seeing personal attacks: WP:DUCK, WP:DONTFEED- not registering isn't an appropriate reason for these labeling(You were an ip editor for a long time how can you call someone a troll for not registering, that is self-contradiction). I don't understand "discontinuity in being able" and its intended meaning. Using hidden texts are not against any wiki norms, i guess. Before derailing the discussion objective may i just notice you again the real topic sentence as nicely put by 117.241.22.57 in your talk page: To lessen attacks against editor and improve the edits.61.1.200.144 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleting certain content that showed griefer characteristics and trolling that doesn't have anything to do with the article. This is followed by disruptive acts like and from a following acceptance of this move from , to know the specific policy any rv or blocking editors should ask the supporting information from Malcolmxl5. There is a long term abuse on ip-editors citing them as one, even though inappropriate I suggest they are all Robert Paulson, Fight Club when they are dissed and this is a joke to show the triviality of the sought out point and to show it diesnt have anything to do with the betterment of the article. Though some ip-editors have shown hostility from rv and disruptive actions of regged editors, doesn't mean every ip's intentions were them. Clear incompetence is also a factor which affects the lack of consensus with this article, But when opposing editors go far as to say the article or professions based on them are not valuable or their work is not required to be paid and is able to get away with it and with subsequent actions based upon this assumptions, it is hard for upgrading the article. For preview of the deleted content:117.215.193.192 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link Removal

@Diannaa: Please remove this ( http://supportdrpmohamedali.com/ ) promotional link from the article.117.241.23.135 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jim1138 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories: