Talk:The Fountain House
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe that The Fountain House and the Clubhouse Model of psychosocial model of rehabilitation should be kept seperate. Often times things that start as one model differ from the parent model and should be allowed to be defined and expressed for what it has developed and evolved into. Limiting this definition to just what The Fountain House structures would put a cap on the whole definition of what the clubhouse model has become and what it still might futher yet be, that in turn, end up differeing from Fountain House. In addition, The Fountain House has been such a solid starting point for this genre, that it itself deserves recognition alone for the place in the psychosocial society that it holds as a founding father.
Royalscorpio75 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better than Royalscorpio. Though Fountain House definitely deserves to be recognized as having an integral role in the initiation and development of the Clubhouse model, the model itself now exists independently from its source, growing to signify something larger than the methods employed by one clubhouse in the United States (as important as that clubhouse is). To merge the two articles would be like merging "Behaviorism" with "B.F. Skinner" (after all, he developed the main tenets of behaviorism) or the movie "The Pirates of the Caribbean" with "Disney."
The Clubhouse model definitely exists independently from its initial source, warranting a separate article on Wikipedia. However, we can still acknowledge and appreciate the immense contribution Fountain House has made to the Clubhouse movement, even though two different articles exist.
Keep 'em separate!
Universal1300 (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree to keep these two seperate, the Clubhouse model, and the particular individual clubhouse should not be confused, I do not understand how the two are confused. In the category of "automobiles" you do not say that "Johns' car" and "automobiles" are the same item, because simply not all automobiles are John's car!--Recovery Psychology (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)