Talk:Sheltered workshop

Although the subject is notable, this article has multiple problems.

Everything after the first paragraph reads like an advertisement for a single agency, Cumberland Industries Ltd. (apparently an Australian agency).

The text also reflects a bias in favor of "sheltered workshops" as opposed to "mainstream employment" or "open employment" for persons with disabilities -- an issue that, as the article itself acknowledges, is subject to much debate in the disability community.

The first paragraph originally cited two sources. However, the link to the first source was dead. I deleted references to that source.

When that source is eliminated, the only source for the first paragraph is a single research report, prepared for the Churchill Trust of Australia, entitled "Models of vocational employment for ‘people with a disability’ in Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States of America."

The Churchill Trust report has two problems:

It is clearly original research: On the cover page of the report, the author "warrant[s]" that the report "is original."

It reflects a decided bias in favor of "sheltered workshops." See, e.g., paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 on pages 4 and 5 of the report.

The article cites only one additional reference, the website of Greenelight Workforce. However, that website provides information about a specific organization in Ohio that offers sheltered workshops. The site contains no discussion of, and no information about, the general topic of sheltered workshops.

I don't know enough about the sheltered workshops-vs.-open employment debate to be able to review the first paragraph to see whether it reflects a bias in favor of sheltered workshops. It would help if an expert in this area would review the paragraph and correct it if necessary.

Languorous Lass (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More on the missing source

I found a cached version of the source that I deleted from the article. The source is an article entitled "The Character And Function Of Sheltered Workshops." Here's a link to the cached version: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:NGIHAVOd6QAJ:www.blind.net/g3800001.htm+sheltered+workshop&cd=59&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Although the source article's copyright is 1995, internal references indicate that it was written in 1960. See, e.g., second paragraph, last line. The source article's argument is based on a number of US statutes (laws) that were in place in 1960, and on a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that was handed down in March 1960. At that time, the national minimum wage, according to the source article, was $1.00 per hour for industrial labor. The source article is so old that, in my view, it would not serve as a valid source even if a current working link to it could be found. Languorous Lass (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and open employment

The one citation in the article is no longer active, and I could not find anything to replace it. As was noted by Languorous above, there is no links that actually explain what a sheltered workshop is. I added a link from an organization that believes that open employment is preferable for the disabled, and when I have time, will add some text to the article. I also deleted reference to other groups of people, because I could find no reference to them. Perhaps there are Australian, UK or European workshops that are broader; I'm limited to the US. Until this article is better sourced, much of the existing text should likely be removed. What do other editors think? Moon Rising (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The introduction section to this article is terrible and biased.

I almost never edit Wikipedia articles, but I feel compelled to say something about this one. I noticed the sentence "Disability service providers, many parents, and disabled workers themselves support the workshops and state that eliminating the minimum wage exemption would eliminate those jobs and the choice to work (because many with severe disabilities will never be able to perform at the level of an ordinary worker) and thereby prevent disabled people from enjoying the many non-wage benefits of work (like a sense of pride for their societal contribution), and replace it with adult day care." This seems remarkably biased in favor in Sheltered Workshops considering how contentious they are, plus, there are many disabled people that oppose disability workshops on human rights grounds. This section makes it seem that most if not all disabled people support these arrangements, which is simply not true. I think this should be rewritten to be less biased. Jakeklost (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Confusing Revert

I was looking through the edit history and came across this revert by Avatar317: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheltered_workshop&diff=1276648795&oldid=1276127460

The revert edit message says:

Restored sourced statement; your OPINION of bias doesn't matter here in Wikipedia; what matters is whether we accurately paraphrase what sources say.

But the existing source for the paragraph is a page on an advocacy organisation's website (APSE), and the page linked seems to just be a list of legislative history which doesn't back up the paragraph. And the edit which was reverted added a new source to an NPR article, which the edit reflects.

Was this revert a mistake, or is there something I'm missing? Squoop (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a mistake. Per WP:LEADCITE the lead doesn't need citations, provided that the text is appropriately sourced in the article body. And per WP:MOSLEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the body. That lead paragraph is summarizing the section about the United States. (And that NPR source is already in that section.) Someone added the statistic "By 2023, fourteen states..." in the last sentence, and that advocacy source is only supporting that statistic.

The lead LACKS summaries of the Australia, EU, & UK sections, so if you'd like to improve the article, that's something that would be appreciated. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317 Oh ok, that makes sense.

I notice that the US summary is fairly long and partly duplicated from the main section - perhaps it would be ok to cut it down a bit, especially if text summarising other countries' sections is added?

Also the wording in the summary seems slightly confusing and potentially misleading. "Disability service providers, many parents, and disabled workers themselves support the workshops [...]" seems to imply that disabled workers unilaterally support the workshops. The wording in the main US section ("Disability service providers, almost all of which are non-profits, as well as many parents and disabled workers themselves [...]") seems better to me. Squoop (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, there will be duplication. The summar(ies) are supposed to be in proportion to the article text, so Aus, EU, and UK summaries should be very small/short. I think we should leave the US summary as it, other than what you noticed.

I agree with your assessment of the confusing/misleading wording, and that "...as well as many parents and disabled workers themselves..." is better (no comma to imply all disabled workers, but many). Thanks for noticing that, and for discussing first!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)