Talk:Social construction of disability

Article content not in agreement with its title, the content should be split among various articles
This article doesn't deal with the topic adumbrated in its title - either Social constructivism or Social constructionism as they might apply to disability. I thought instead it touched on several topics that belonged in other articles, as follows:

The sections on audio and video technology, and later on Technology again, are about failure to make what are called "reasonable adjustments" in UK equality law and would be seen therefore as a form of discrimination. Much cut down they belong in Social model of disability as examples.

The section on Assessment of Disability is about the technicalities of the US benefits system and sheds little light on theories of disability; it seems misplaced.

The section on Paralympics does not apply universally - the last games were for example widely covered and popular in the UK. It belongs in Ableism.

The section on Education is partly another example of social models of disability and partly at its end ("no one is normal") about Neurodiversity.

I'd suggest the article needs such a complete re-write that it would be better taken down and its content redistributed. Medaoh (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree this article should be split as described above. I added a heading and have taken the liberty of adding links to relevant pages in Medaoh's post above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed a large quantity of irrelevant "junk" content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article mainly focused on a Westernized view of disability instead of a global view? Srosemont (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ample citation needed
Apart from being poorly organized and written with clear bias, there are multiple claims and figures that are not cited. For example, statements about the social climate of the Medieval and Enlightenment time periods lack citation, and there is reference to "a 1986 poll" which is left unnamed. Furthermore, there's an opening quotation in the "Education" paragraph that is never closed, nor is the source cited. Halled (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)