Talk:Social work

February 2016

Revisions made in consensus with Jim1138, (talk). 117.215.194.94 09:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting me. I never gave wp:consensus. Do not do that again.

Your links show a recommended path to getting a position as a social worker, but you fail to show that a degree is required to be a social worker. Jim1138 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Interjecting as a random bystander: this looks like something that varies between nations. In the UK, you must have a degree in social work in order to be a social worker (see the gov.uk website here). (I've double-checked and this isn't accurate; see my comment below.) The "globalise" template and a section explaining differences in requirements between nations, if there are any, may be a good way to resolve this dispute. Marianna251TALK 10:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I've removed the IP's additions per WP:BRD; they should not be re-added until consensus is gained here. To clarify the lead however I've added the words "as a professional" to indicate that social workers per se are professionals (which would encompass degrees, etc.). In other words, any old person who peforms tasks similar to social work is not automatically a "social worker". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A confusion seems to exist with Social services and Social Work. Both of them are different, even if practice of welfare might seem similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.19.177 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 02 March 2016 (UTC)

The user talk page of 117.215.194.94 seems to have achieved a consensus between Jim1138 and no further conversations are seen to be evoked. Later describing there has been no consensus is kind of idiotic. I am reverting Softlavender edit because those edits seemed to be previously accepted by other editors and was removed by Cynulliad. So that edit itself makes an misguided edit. Marianna251 provided links also support the removed paragraph. 24.3.189.166 and 117.213.19.177 conversation also indicates Social Work as a professional service along with Softlavender point, "any old person who performs tasks similar to social work is not automatically a social worker". Links by Softlavender where removed because it was looked over by User:lowercase sigmabot III earlier. But those links seems useful. Thank you Marianna251 for correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.254.54 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about re: Softlavender's edit. You deleted an edit of theirs off from the talk page twice now, once after I'd already warned you not to, which is a) against talk page guidelines, and b) seriously not cool. Cynulliad has made various edits to the main article but hasn't removed anything of Softlavender's either here or on the article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. Regardless, please do not delete or edit other users' comments on talk pages. Please don't move them, either, as you've just done; moving comments changes the context and therefore the meaning, same as editing or deleting them. I've moved the comments back to their original location. Marianna251TALK 10:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit was removed by lowercase sigmabot III, i simply followed it because it looked like dictionary links. Though when checked it seemed useful to the conversation.So i moved it above for a clear perspective. Cynulliad edits removed article content, It doesnt have anything to with talk page content. If moving back those comments seems to be appropriate I am cool with it, just a passerby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.238.210 (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're talking about; Sigmabot is a bot that archives old talk page discussions. It didn't move or delete Softlavender's links. I'm not trying to be harsh or accusative here, I'm just genuinely not sure what you're talking about and I want to make sure I haven't missed something. Thanks for the explanation about the move, btw. Marianna251TALK 10:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

117.242.254.54: I never gave my blessing to adding statements that a "social worker" requires a degree. A satisfactory citation supporting such a statement was never added. Just links to articles suggesting a route to becoming a social worker involved getting a degree. 117.215.194.94 above misinterpreted me at best Jim1138 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138 "How to Become a Social Worker" is more than enough and the differences between professions are shown by other editors. A good understanding is already generated. If you are not able to accept that, it comes under point pushing. Other things you have to work out with 117.215.194.94. Reverted Jim1138 based on BRD and Edit War. The previous reversion that was done was based on BRD Guidelines: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement". It also was a cited material. I suggest refinement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.238.210 (talk • contribs) 11:09 3 March 2016

Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes "~~~~" What you are saying is wp:original research. You are drawing the conclusion. Please also read wp:reliable sources - That conclusion must be stated in the source, not your own wp:synthesis. Jim1138 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

BRD reverts to the original version, not to your preferred version. Jim1138 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

General comment to User:117.215.194.94, User:117.242.254.54, User:117.213.19.177 and User:59.89.238.210: it looks like you're the same person as all of these IPs geolocate to the same location and are registered to the same address in India. Please could you sign up for an account? That way we can have a clear discussion without getting confused as to who is who - and, not incidentally, avoid accusations of (self-edited for clarity) sockpuppetry. Marianna251TALK 11:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Again Marianna251, all this edits are from an vandalism attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&type=revision&diff=707887822&oldid=707887283 The fact that I don't understand is how come a cited material is removed or a content is deleted without checking. Allegations of sockpuppetery is not cool. It doesn't help with the intent of this conversation. If your concerns were made based on consensus policies or methods. It would be productive. 59.89.238.210 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have said that creating an account may prevent accusations of sockpuppetry; I apologise. Also, please note that edits are not vandalism. Marianna251TALK 11:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Its O.K . What about the content and other factors can you look into it. The provided edit was removal of an existing content without any clear reasoning. 59.89.238.210 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That was very clear reasoning. Get consensus first. Jim1138 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've read the material and I don't think it should be in the lead of the article. It's referenced and informative, but its source only concerns how to become a social worker in America. Since the article is about social work as a whole, not just American social work, I think it would be misleading to keep this information there because it implies a worldwide view that may or may not be correct. If we can find a source which states that a degree is required to be a social worker in every country in the world (or at least the vast majority), it would be different. I have no objections to moving this content into the body of the article - although I think it's already covered in there - but I think we'd need to do significantly more research before I'd be comfortable with it in the lead. Hope that explains my position. Marianna251TALK 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've double-checked, and my previous comment about social work in the UK was wrong - you do not need a degree in social work to become a social worker in the UK. You're qualified to be a social worker if you have a postgraduate diploma in social work, which can be obtained without having an undergraduate degree in social work. The diploma often forms part of a master's degree in SW, but doesn't have to. So this edit definitely shouldn't be in the lead because it's factually incorrect as currently worded. Marianna251TALK 12:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The best example is Lionel Logue portrayed in The King's Speech Jim1138 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The first source doesn't really say that a degree is required, just that if you want to become a social worker, what degree one should get. http://www.learnhowtobecome.org/social-worker/ The closest it comes is this statement: A four-year bachelor degree in social work or a related field is required for most entry-level position This source does not contain a page number nor an ISBN: 101 Careers in Social Work, 2nd Edition, J.A. Ritter 2015 Jim1138 (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Material for consideration and review

@Marianna251, Ymblanter, and Jim1138: and to other interested editors

To earn a postgraduate diploma, you are required to have a undergraduate degree. Your earlier contribution was right. Check under What are the entry requirements?: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/postgraduate-diplomas-and-certificates . The statement "minimum requirement" for entry-level position is enough. Jim1138 ISBN No.could be found at http://www.springerpub.com/101-careers-in-social-work-second-edition.html

I am adding some excerpts for clear understanding from the book:

Page 4

One very simple definition of social work is that it is the study of social problems and human behavior. Thus social workers address any number of important social problems in this country and around the world, including, but not limited to

• Poverty and homelessness
• Child abuse, neglect, and exploitation
• Disabilities
• Teen pregnancy, suicide, and other problems facing youth
• Family problems such as poor communication, divorce, and family
• violence
• Sexual violence
• Depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders
• Community problems such as crime, substandard schools, violence, and lack of jobs and community resources
• Supporting older adults
• Assisting immigrants and refugees
• Working with individuals diagnosed with chronic or terminal illnesses
• Discrimination against individuals who have been oppressed in U.S. society, such as those living in poverty, women, racial/ethnic minorities,sexual minorities, and those with disabilities
• Substance abuse/addictions
• Crisis intervention (e.g., natural disasters; mass shootings)

Page 5

Myth #4: Anyone who has a job that involves helping others can be called a “social worker.” Fact: Only those who have earned a degree in social work can call themselves a social worker. In some countries, you must also be licensed to use this title.

To be able to use the title of social worker, in most states you must have a degree in social work (BSW or MSW) and be licensed by the state.(This is the US Version as given in the text) [Australia, India and Canada require a degree in social work for any social work related jobs. But in Canada in certain provinces they require professional body membership.]

links example

1. https://www.aasw.asn.au/membership-information/eligibilty
2. http://www.casw-acts.ca/en/what-social-work
3. https://www.basw.co.uk/social-work-careers/#qualifications

I hope all these clears the issue and proper revisions will be made in the article without edit warring, point pushing , meat puppetry and moves to disable anon editors. 59.89.238.210 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the proposed edit states that only someone with a degree in social work, at whatever level, can be called a social worker. This is simply not accurate for the UK. A degree is required to undertake a postgraduate diploma, but the degree can be in anything, and the diploma itself does not constitute a degree, thus you can achieve a diploma in social work without having any form of degree in social work. That means that a degree in social work is not required be a social worker in the UK. If you'd like to reword the proposed edit to make this clear, that's fine, but it's not accurate as it currently stands. Marianna251TALK 14:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont think UK takes professional social work lightly and that anyone can be a social worker. With HCPC's all inclusive format those who have a Degree in another subject: It states "If you already have a degree in a subject other than social work, you could do a two-year postgraduate master’s degree in social work. Or, as a graduate you could apply for a work based route into qualifying as a social worker. Through work based route, In the first year you’ll work towards a postgraduate diploma in social work and in the second year a master’s qualification." - See more at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/socialworker.aspx#sthash.K8EMFDBx.dpuf

59.89.238.210 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. However, if you look into the training programmes listed on that page, you'll note that they all say that you only need the diploma to be a social worker: for example, "The first qualifies you as a social worker through direct work with children and families. The second year leads to a full Master's qualification as you work as a newly qualified social worker" (from here.) The government-run workplace training scheme, Step Up to Social Work, only confers a diploma and not a master's. You only need the diploma to be a social worker, not a degree, which makes the proposed edit incorrect. Marianna251TALK 14:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also bemused by the implication that the UK would "take professional social work lightly" if a degree in social work is not required to be a social worker. There's a big difference between "doesn't need a degree specifically in social work" and "job anyone can do". Marianna251TALK 14:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Frontline's is a 2-year training scheme. The complete program aims for Masters degree. For those drop-out with the first year, they receive a diploma - there time and energy is not wasted. Step Up to Social Work is program where graduates will be able to register as social workers with the HCPC and the training hours in the 14 months are also added to the credit hours, which eventually equals to a postgraduate program. Also most postgraduate or Masters course in UK are only 1 year, which is about 8-12 months. In the case of Step Up to Social Work, it seems as advanced course with 14 months. You only need the diploma to register as a social worker through HCPC, ideally require a degree, which makes the reversion of an earlier edit passable as you suggested, the least for rewording or refinement without content deletion. Please don't take any implication that isn't written. The provided link mentions 12 month assessment and that made me to write UK doesn't take social work lightly. I think one can add the word "doesn't need a degree specifically in social work" with the other additional requirements or go with the ideal situation. "job anyone can do" was for Jim1138 implication and edit war even after resources given or for using deletion, notification and blocking as primary tools for editing. 59.89.238.210 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that social work "ideally" requires a degree in SW, but otherwise, that sounds reasonable. I'd like to see any proposed rewording before I agree to it in full, though.

On another note, I still have concerns regarding a point I made earlier, which is that we have no source demonstrating that this is a worldwide state of affairs. Adding unverified information to the lead is likely to be misleading at best, flat-out wrong at worst. Have you had any thoughts on that? Marianna251TALK 14:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert. I only have knowledge about the subject from books and online resources. But I disagree with actions like removing previously accepted content, misleading material, overuse of policies that can stall quality of articles, lack of evidence based methodologies for dispute resolution...etc. Adding countries like Australia, Canada...etc require a degree in social work and countries like U.K require at least a postgraduate diploma, if the person doesn't have a basic degree in social work, could be added in the future if an editor is willing. If the editor is not willing to add resources, deleting the content that mentions the information with resources disables future users of wikipedia to make use of it and the opportunity to expand it later. Knowledge is always expanding, so there wouldn't be any misleading and if the resources mention facts it wouldn't be misleading. These are my thoughts. Ideally social workers require a degree or a postgraduate degree or a postgraduate diploma after graduate degree. A claiming social worker with British Step-up program, CQSW or DipSW are not considered as a social worker in other countries. But Social workers with British BSW's or MSW's are considered as qualified around the world -with professional memberships or equivalency assessments. Intensive postgraduate diplomas are also accepted with equivalency assessment. 59.89.238.210 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, let's be clear here. We are not "removing previously accepted content". You are trying to add content that has not been accepted. Your edits have been repeatedly reverted because other editors disagree with the edit and you have not achieved consensus on the matter. This discussion, here, is us trying to achieve consensus over what should or should not be added to the article. Please don't misrepresent the situation.

The rest of your argument looks like original research to me, i.e. "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Your current sources do not back up the idea that social work requires a degree across the whole world, and the idea that "knowledge is always expanding" so these sources might be available one day does not matter, because we do not have them right now. Marianna251TALK 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

59.89.238.21 - Your source (http://www.learnhowtobecome.org/social-worker/) does not state that a degree is required. It just states "to be a social worker, get a degree". You are taking that concluding "therefore, a degree is required to be a social worker". That is a unsupported conclusion. You have the WP:BURDEN. That stays off the page until you can cite a WP:RS.

Your second reference to 101 Careers in Social Work, 2nd Edition, J.A. Ritter, 2015 lists no page number. People, including myself, are not going to read the entire book to find what you are referring to. Jim1138 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why both the registered editors are fighting. Clear sources are given. Edits like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=706201376&oldid=705930146 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work&diff=706204757&oldid=706203578 clearly show what 59.89.238.21 is saying.-Please don't misrepresent in light of facts. Even Marianna251 link says you require some sort of sw qualification- this is a point that person agrees and disagrees as unsupported, if the qualification requirement is removed this is highly misleading. I didn't find any original research as Marianna251 later quotes. Editors like Jim1138 concerns are not legitimate and only should be given that value. For lazy people and who cant take the burden, excerpts from the book page 5 is given clearly, avoiding this and asking others to stay off and talking about giving blessings are all clear indications of what the editor is intending with his edits. I am sure even if the rest of editors agree with the source Jim1138 will say Springer Publishing resources are not valid or something else.117.215.194.25 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand how Wikipedia works. If others disagree with your edit, you don't get to force it on them. It needs to be discussed on the talk page first. Please read and understand wp:BRD, wp:consensus, and wp:edit warring. (Also, given your comment above, see wp:civil) All of which essentially state: "if others disagree with your edit, talk about it first. Then make changes per consensus". If you are not willing to abide by these policies, please don't edit Wikipedia. At this point, whether or not Springer Publishing and any other sources you have listed are valid is irrelevant. Discuss first. A "Change paragraph x (quote exactly) to y (quote exactly)" is how it should be done.

BTW: that Myth / Fact quote does not exclude the dictionary definition of A person who practices social work professionally is called a social worker. So, the dictionary definition should stay. Also: "professionally" does not seem to be in the dictionary definition that often. One could, without pay, spend a lot of time trying to get governments and/or corporations to change how they treat people, i.e. social work and by definition a "social worker". Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly provide your sources that exactly define "One could, without pay, spend a lot of time trying to get governments and/or corporations to change how they treat people, i.e. social work and by definition a "social worker"". Changing the tone or dragging the conversation to irrelevant matters are not worthy efforts. Though what you say and what others support you on it by discrediting themselves is also sad. Jim1138 your definitions are like a blacksmith is an engineer. Earlier editors have shown clear difference. The sources given also validates with reverted material. Your efforts are simply point pushing.(I am glad that you said springer publisher texts doesnt have much credit to be worth for wikipedia content- you just proved a point) Hey, Luck and Support is with you guys, let the future editors say what you do is good or not. Those who felt as uncivil kindly do forgive because this was not the intent it was only identifying x as x and y as y. Those who are lenient do provide wp:BRD,wp:consensus and wp:edit warring - case studies which show how a BRD solution is achieved, how consensus is achieved on a matter when edits have simply become nonsensical in light of solid proofs and A level of interaction that is done with a positive outcome which isn't edit war.-Maybe in future this could be useful before registering. I am 117.215.194.25, But I am not what Softlavender says who all i am, so that effort clearly aims at something or does it come under wp:civil - who knows. If you have concerns you can ask directly. God I didn't know this poisonous wikipedia was and its contents could be, with some skilled editors. I loathe the days I used wikipedia for authoritative source. But that too would be wrong to say I have had some good resources from wikipedia.117.248.60.62 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper

These IP accounts are all the same editor:

• 117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.242.254.54 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.238.210 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.25 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.19.177 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.248.60.62 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.55.108 (talk · contribs · count)
• 61.2.171.145 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.63 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.16.96 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.199.78 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.3 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.88.210.58 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.21.168 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.239.7 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.21.127 (talk · contribs · count)
• 61.2.171.197 (talk · contribs · count)
• 106.208.158.137 (talk · contribs · count)
• 94.13.16.248 (talk · contribs · count)
• 213.104.129.139 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.20.27 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.20.0 (talk · contribs · count)
• 61.1.200.144 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.98.249.187 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.193.192 (talk · contribs · count)

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

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)

ANI filings:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016

Added ANI filings. Jim1138 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 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)

Reverting games

Madam Softlavender, refuses any discussion efforts. Further looking into talk page concerns and article edit history there seems a pattern similar to Jim1138 in reverting cited material. Also there seems supported vandalism efforts by Cynulliad. Concerned editors, checkout what is really happening.61.2.171.145 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it would perhaps be better to refrain from name calling if you want people to take you seriously. Secondly, I've also taken a look at your edit and I think Softlavender was right to revert you. The text you added was not a summary of the body of the article and was full of citations. Also the lead, as per WP:CITELEAD, should not be referenced. That, I suspect, is why you have been reverted. Cassianto^Talk 10:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto Just an FYI for future reference, since this conversation clearly seems to be over, WP:CITELEAD does not say that leads should not be referenced. In fact, it's pretty explicitly contrary:

there is not...an exception to citation requirements specific to leads

If information needs to be cited then it should be cited, regardless of whether it is in the lead or in the body. If someone was reverting this user's edits based solely on the fact that they added inline citations to the lead, then they are wrong. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cassianto. It wasn't name calling, just referring the actions done by editors to put the perspective of things. Softlavender edits at first seemed sort of edit warring. If the article was protected as per as Softlavender's or Jim1138 request, then only the objectivity of the edit-war confirms. Also the material with citations that was previously there seems to be a resolution process from the above talk page concerns. Softlavender approach also created confusion, conversations initiated where deleted without a reply. Though I think the citated material also was informative and could have been given separate headings instead of deletion. I am glad that Softlavender also have reverted certain vandalism's she previously overlooked or avoided to correct. Though Cynulliad has done it again. 61.2.171.145 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Referring to someone as "madam" could be interpreted as a little condescending. The title has multiple meanings, one of which is this. Just stick to names in future. Cassianto^Talk 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of disruptive editing to this article occurring from IP addresses over the past two weeks. The actions of Softlavender and Jim1138 appear to have been in good faith to revert the addition of poorly-sourced and inaccurate content to this article. Far from refusing to engage in discussion, my opinion is that these editors have gone to some lengths to describe why material was removed and to point towards ways to introduce well sourced material and achieve consensus. I think protection of the article was a proportionate response. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Drchriswilliams, response looks too shallow and misinterpret facts without research. Jim1138 stand seems to social work=social care service, which is not supported. It is his idea social workers do their work without any pay or they are not supposed to be paid. By that, I guess they eat air and soil so they don't need money. Softlavender seems to have involved herself in allegations and that user actions seems to be using policies for consensus. I have checked the material and the sources given, it is well sourced and good. Not only that user Marianna251 have asked to consider this rv edits in good faith since it has valid citations. But that was flouted by "Don't template the regulars". In any case consensus process was asked and the edit history seems to show rewording as per the concerns raised in the talk page, during this process engaging in reverting, refusing to engage in discussion and asking for page protection was not a befitting move of an editor with privileges. I find that those reverts were not so good and IP addresses such as me seem to have state a good case against those reverts. Also whose edits are disruptive is clear from edit histories, the audacity to make this look otherwise to unsuspecting editors itself shows WP:CAN with WP:GAME & WP:HA.117.215.197.63 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

• I don't see a social worker mentioned in the Wikipedia article The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, nor are any of the main characters social workers. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Check: http://thebestnotes.com/booknotes/Spirit_Catches_You_Fadiman/The_Spirit_Catches_You_Study_Guide02.html , A social worker Jeanine is listed as one of the major characters.117.241.21.168 (talk) 18:27, 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

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^TT(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)

IP from Kerala: As you seem all too familiar with many of Wikipedia's policies, surly you know the advantages of wp:creating an account? And, surly you know that Softlavender, Timothyjosephwood, nor I are administrators? And, therefore, we can not wp:block you? While you are familiar with many policies, you don't seem to be familiar with wp:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, or you don't seem to remember my numerous requests to honour WP:BRD. Nor do you seem familiar with wp:edit warring as you seem to engage in EW often. Also, you don't seem to get it when people ask you not to edit their talk page: here. Could it be that you wish to avoid having an account so that others can easily communicate with you? If you don't have an account, and are always IP-hopping, you can always claim WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and can't get blocked. And, then you can edit as you see fit. Of course, your edits are constantly undone, but this doesn't seem to bother you enough to get an account. So, one might conclude you are WP:NOTHERE and are just trolling. Jim1138 (talk) 03:42, 8 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)