Wikipedia

Talk:Social work/Archive 3

< Talk:Social work
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2600:1700:B832:CA90:48B:9FDE:19BA:82B3 in topic masters level social workers are not parapfrofessionals

Link Removal

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@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)

Material from Howe

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
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. WormTT(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 ([1], [2], [3]), 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 [4] , 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: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] 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 Wikipedia: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: [11], 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[12] 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 [13] and from a following acceptance of this move from [14], 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:[15]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.

IP-hopper

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work&diff=714941905&oldid=714940757. You may see the very same (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 Imperatrix Mundi 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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sarrahmarrrie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued

Environmental Social Work

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, I am currently a masters in environmental education student, and I have a background in social work. I am working on a thesis that involves environmental social work. How would you all feel about adding a section related to environmental justice issues? I would briefly outline its relevance to the field, programs in place, scholarly work, research, and applications. - Ee diver (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC) 

              As I have not heard from anyone, I will not make the edit. I do strongly encourage social work scholars and professionals to consider the actual and potential      social welfare implications for climate change and environmental degradation. Issues like sea level rise, drought, temperature increase, and deforestation are only getting worse with increasing populations and competition for resources. Most often, these impact the same underserved communities being treated by social workers. --Ee diver (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Social work JOINT definition

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please note that the section under "Contemporary professional development" must please reflect that this is a joint definition of social work. Reference number 31 is correct - it is a joint IFSW and IASSW statement.

also see: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/global-definition-of-social-work-review-of-the-global-definition/ http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/

please add the correct information and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rautenbach (talk • contribs) 07:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I added back that it was a 'joint' definition, since the source cited specifically says so. Reventtalk 11:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A Request

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm a social worker and want to make the article/statements reach more and more people. I believe that Social Work is incomplete till we don't work on the thoughts of the society. I have started blog writing too hope you'll help me reach more and more people just want them to read the Blogs/Articles. Sincerely Avarun1996 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

People naturally want to be helpful, but I am not sure what your specific request is. Blogs are generally inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia like WP. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You can develop the article if that's what you mean by incomplete, following WP:NPOV, V and OR. If its promotion of blogs you write the case is as EricEnfermero stated.174.4.185.9 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social work. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is very straight to the point. It tells you what social work is and is informational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyra.smith24 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

artice evaluation, social work

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was very informational the topic of social work(Kyra.smith24 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)).

Social care?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Social care redirects to this article. So does anyone know where to find Social care on WP? --Frans Fowler (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Social work hierarchy in England and Wales

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This info has twice now been moved to the article on the British Association of Social Workers. This is a trade union. It is not an appropriate place for information on social work in Britain in general. If editors don't want this info here then start a separate article such as Social work in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, moved to Social care in England. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts about the work

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nice work!!! I do have some basic understanding of social work and I love all your work about the listed areas and links. There is one small suggestion I'd like to add. Is there any chance we could add some real examples to help others to understand this topic?Boboandy (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Boboandy, What sort of examples do you think would be helpful that are not already present? FULBERT (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a question

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article it mentions that social work covers areas in psychology. Is it possible to become a social worker if all you have is a degree is Psychology, or would a person also need some form of training in Social work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbybunny28 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cohesion of article sections

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The literature and media applications sections feel slightly out of place in the context of the rest of the information on the page. Though they are examples of social work, I would consider them less relevant ones and think the article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of some of the professions listed in the earlier paragraph. The article also holds a lot of information, that is important to a holistic understanding of the topic, but needs to be more cohesive as it transitions between sections. There is a jump from the explanation of the discipline to history to representative models and then to the profession, which can be confusing to some readers. Very informative overall! Nmittal22 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

corrections needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nice article. In the Intro section the comment (by whom?) should be addressed by adding the missing information. Also, add the needed quotations. Fane79~~ 3-17-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fane79 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe add more detailed information to explain the concept of Social Work. Fix the errors. Can you be Social worker with a bachelor degree? Or do you have to be licensed? Fane79~~March 17 2020

Feminist/Queer Theory in Social Work

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Social work article, understanding that social work is driven to produce social change, How can social work practitioners develop or incorporate feminist and queer theory into their practice? Should this be a requirement for those wanting to become social work practitioners, that they must take some kind of learning/course on Feminist and Queer theory? How might this affect the different scopes of its practice (micro, mezzo, and macro) ?Bree3rob (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Courtneymfoster.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaiwenouyang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is a social worker?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I still have very little idea. That the definition section solely consists of quotes is not a good sign. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Social worker may be an individualess, organisation or groups of people who work towards making the world a better place but providing long term solutions and to matters and problems affecting individuals, groups, families and community at large to bring about independence in problem solving should the situation worsen again (in my understanding). Elkach (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Arts and letters

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the meaning 49.146.33.232 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY4

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parleenk22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Leannecr, Cookyluky.

— Assignment last updated by Ctysick (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

History in the U.S.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’m not an authority, but how is it possible to discuss the history in the U. S. Without even a mention of Jane Addams, Hull House, and the Settlement House movement? The twentieth century did not begin in 1963. 2600:1702:41F0:1EF0:319C:7D79:F257:5478 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

masters level social workers are not parapfrofessionals

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

where psychiatric social workers indulges in the diverse approaches in multiple settings along with other paraprofessional workers.[citation needed] the correct title for mental health clinicians who are social workers is clinical social workers . They have a license (LCSW). They are mental health professionals not paraprofessionals 2600:1700:B832:CA90:48B:9FDE:19BA:82B3 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_work/Archive_3&oldid=1211219512"