Jump to content

Talk:Allynwood Academy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Mediation Request

I've submitted a request for mediation, here. I'm hopeful we can reach consensus on this matter. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A thought: you might mention that you withdraw a request.sinneed (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course. This request has been withdrawn. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I see 2 separate sections under the "controversy" title:

Reception (or some other title indicating what people say in a formal way about the school's success) - With the 2 separate views... successful and ... well... the article doesn't say yet... but whatever the CAFETY people say in the source listed, or new sources.

On review "History and practices" would be the place for the past practices, objections to them, and corrective actions, I should think... they are history, and they were practices, and the practices have changed.

Thoughts?sinneed (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In considering this matter, please realize that the pro-school information is presented directly, while the anti-school information is relegated to a controversy section. This is clearly PoV. If this is not clear, please consider what the article would be like with the situation reversed. The lead in would say "FFS is a school with a history of student suicide, and such treatment as bundling students in blankets using duct tape." Then the history section would expound on the duct-taping and the suicide, perhaps even question the story that it was a suicide, and point out the possibilty that it might have been a murder. Finally, in a controversy section, the pro-school information would be presented. Clearly this would not be acceptable.sinneed (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made a start. I put the history and practices that were in Controversy into the History and Practices section. I killed the lead-in to the Criticism section. This leaves a single sentence that I can't help with because I don't understand what it is trying to say.sinneed (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that I tried to make the changes clean, so they may be easily reverted, or edited in detail. All the best.sinneed (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the remains of the section. It doesn't make sense to me, and the only citation is really just a link to the CAFETY site... it doesn't explain what the section is trying to say.sinneed (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Though the school, many alumni and their parents point to a decades-long history of producing graduates that lead successful, productive lives, that view is also disputed[clarification needed] by many alumni, including seventeen members of the youth advocacy group CAFETY, whose members describe themselves as survivors of residential treatment programs for at-risk youth.[1]

CoreEpic and Repeatedly re-added info - again

On the same token, the school has invested a great deal of time and money to stifle any negative information about themselves that might make it to the internet. If you do the research, the FFS website has references to the Woodbury Reports, the woodbury reports therefore are acknowledged by the school as valid information, said reports also have an article about the suicide in 2004. The wiki mentions the school's statistics on graduates, that they all get into college, however the only resource that says that is the school's webpage. The vast majority of the Wiki has information only verified by one source, however you choose to contest the detail of the suicide. Apart from the FFS webpage there are very few webpages that corroborate information included on the wiki. The fact that a suicide occurred on school grounds of a school that has 260 residents is a big deal. Why not include mention of it? It has been explained in relative detail on a verifiable source, so therefore it must be included regardless of whether or not people like the detail. Please take a moment to read this statement "In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School. There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage." It is factual and corroborated by a verifiable source. The language cannot be misinterpreted to say that suicide is a regular issue or that the school assisted or condoned said action in any way, it is merely a statement of fact. Why should it not be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability the woodbury reports falls under the definition of verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreEpic (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. I am sorry you did not cover any new ground. Please join in, above. Repeating the same argument over and over, and attempting to add the same rejected wording over and over, are bad. The wording you are using is sensational, and contains OR. Yes, you do use some facts, which are taken from the press release by the school. All this has been covered. There is a clear consensus to leave this out, for now. Please work to find a consensus. Repeatedly adding these words is not going to work. Repeatedly hammering away at the same arguments is not going to work.sinneed (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Sineed if the wording I am using is sensational then humor me and tell me what word or choice thereof is sensational:

"In 2004, a student, who had been being monitored by the school because he had expressed suicidal thoughts, committed suicide while on the campus of the Family Foundation School. There is no mention of this or the student on the family school webpage."

I am repeating the same argument because it has yet to be denied veracity. CoreEpic (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

CoreEpic, if you read above, I take you through the edit in detail, explaining each piece. I am not humoring you.
On reading your latest posts, I think I understand the basic problem you are facing: You don't understand how Wikipedia works at all. Here are key things as I see them:

  • Consensus is always required. If you are the only editor who cares about something, as long as it fits inside the rules, you may include it.(a consensus of 1)
    If anyone disagrees with you, then you must (must) reach consensus. If you can't then one will be reached for you by other editors... that is, you will be silenced (, or the article might be locked). This is a very grave step on Wikipedia and is never taken lightly. If you continue down the road of insisting "I am right, therefore I will do this no matter how many say I must not." then you will wind up blocked as you are now. Please don't. Please join in instead.
  • Anything verifiable and otherwise within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia *MAY* be included. Not *MUST* be included.

These points are critical, and you must accept them if you hope to get this edit into he article.
sinneed (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just dont understand how you could be so harsh to user CoreEpic about citing sources when i find this quote to be completely unsupported: Though the school, many alumni and their parents point to a decades-long history of producing graduates that lead successful, productive lives, that view is also disputed by many alumni, including seventeen members of the youth advocacy group. What decades-long of history of success?? Is their data or any source to back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njkidust09 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"I just dont understand how you could be so harsh to user CoreEpic..."
Reread until I haven't been harsh, then you will have read it as I wrote it. Added later: And thank you, Jnkidust09 for creating your account at 14:16, 5 January 2009 and joining our discussion in time to finish posting at 14:21.sinneed (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"... about citing sources when i find this quote to be completely unsupported: Though the school, many alumni and their parents point to a decades-long history of producing graduates that lead successful, productive lives, that view is also disputed by many alumni, including seventeen members of the youth advocacy group. What decades-long of history of success?? Is their data or any source to back this up?"
Perhaps one of the editors who wrote it will answer you, they won't answer me. I have left that alone because I don't understand what it says, and the authors won't explain. Sometime over the next couple of days I am going to delete the section (unless someone objects), since no one seems to care enough, despite editing it, to explain what it is trying to say.
I have volunteered to go to the explaining editor's talk page, I have volunteered the use of my talk page, and of course, this page is available.
As it is written now, it isn't a sentence, and doesn't communicate anything I can comprehend, and has no source... therefore I can't read the source and have a hint.sinneed (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So where do we go from here?

Well it's been a dramatic few days and it seems I always seem to end up finding myself in the proverbial soup (e.g. here and here). I want to thank B and Sinneed for helping to settle things.

On the topic of writing a better NPOV article, I'd be grateful for the help of other editors that have a similar goal. Frankly, I've felt a bit overrun with educating brazenly biased (and often uncivil) critics on how Wikipedia works, and the relative dearth of verifiable facts on the school (good or bad).

I'm certainly open to suggestions, though - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing other school websites on the Wikipedia Schools Project and many of them (incl. Durham School of the Arts) don't have every fact cited. It seems that a good deal is taken on faith.
I suppose I'm a little gun-shy from my past experience, and well aware that the Family School has its critics. That is why when I created this article I was careful to only include facts that were backed up by verifiable sources. I was hoping to avoid a battle and avoid being accused of promoting a school-positive POV, so I kept it brief. Yet as recent events have proven, even that conservative approach isn't enough to satisfy the critics.
_____THIS IS BECAUSE YOU DELETED POSTS THAT WERE CITED ABOUT NEGATIVE INFO_______ - According to the log, that was by user:24.164.167.172
Shouting on talk pages is rude and won't cause other editors to take you seriously.sinneed (talk)
I'd love to expand on this article to include a lot of the same things that these other schools have in their articles. indeed, there's a lot of positive stuff to tell. But I'm frankly fearful that doing so will only serve to accentuate the highly-polarized atmosphere and end up wasting everyone's time with a battle that accomplishes nothing but bitter feelings in the end.
____THAT'S FINE....PUT IN WHATEVER YOU WANT......BUT THEN DON'T DELETE FACTS OTHERS PUT IN THAT ARE NOT CITED_____ - According to the log, that was by user:24.164.167.172
If the changes just made are indications of the facts that were deleted, that makes sense. The facts just added aren't helpful. They may be true, but they don't make sense. If, instead, it said "There are 17 ex-students who are mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more." it would at least say something understandable. I encourage you to make a new section on the talk page, here, or on your talk page, or on mine, and try to explain what you dislike about the school. I will be happy to ask questions, offer rewritten versions that might be more clear to the rest of us.sinneed (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So as I said before, I'm open to suggestions - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
"... don't have every fact cited." - Just because wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.
This problem is at the heart of why many some a few (well somebody agrees with me somewhere) of us are so very dubious that all these individual school articles belong in Wikipedia. It is so very difficult to cite information. There is a painfully-reached consensus... so far... that they do.
It is always risky putting unsourced stuff into Wikipedia, because anyone can kill it just because they don't like the way it looks.
Can you (and are you willing) to turn that incomprehensible-to-me statement/sentence that remains in Controversy into English, here on the talk page? If you can, I'll be happy to try to work it into the article so we can kill that section. I'll be happy to help, bearing in mind that I never know how much time I will have to spend on Wikipedia. I spend a lot of time patrolling for vandals. I only do serious editing when my brain is firing both remaining neurons. One or the other is usually on strike or passed out.sinneed (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I started working on the Mission Mountain School, and a much more experienced editor (*MUUUUUCH* more experienced) has dived in and made what look to me to be some substantial improvements.sinneed (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And has created Therapeutic boarding school. Might that be a useful link for this article? Or the sources it cites?sinneed (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. This school is one of the founding members of NATSAP, which was formed as a means of countering the atrociously awful WWASP schools. If we used NATSAP as a source though, wouldn't it objectively violate the self-publishing prohibition under these circumstances? (e.g. isn't this the same reason that an article should not cite its own website?) We can use the accreditations section of Mission Mountain School as a model on this article, though.
Also, I happen to know that The Family School was recently accredited by The Joint Commission, but there seems to be no online reference to the accreditation, as yet. Again though, as evidenced by the statements higher up on this page, and the ongoing efforts by CoreEpic to reintroduce the edits that got him blocked (and may perhaps again), we need to maintain an especially high standard for cited sources; goodwill is very thin here, I'm afraid. Which unfortunately means that neither side will allow anything that is not properly sourced to stand. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be pretty serious about insisting that unsourced things be flagged rather than killed, if the only problem is sourcing. I see the Undo link. I click.
If it stays in after it is flagged for a few days, and it isn't sourced, then it should certainly be toast.
I call on everyone editing to bring issues either here, or if they feel unwelcome here, to my talk page, or to find some other party to help them.
I also call on everyone to try especially hard to use edit summaries, so everyone can see why the edit was made.sinneed (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP)

All industry organizations are suspect... they get their money from members... but yes, they can be used wisely.
Are there any objections to using NATSAP information about the industry?
I note that it is not an accrediting organization, though it has membership requirements.sinneed (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an objection. If you peruse the actual hearings about the abuses in these programs, (easily found in clips on YouTube if you type in Jon Martin-Crawford you'll find most of them linked to that clip) you will see that NATSAP was and is being used as a "good housekeeping seal of approval" but does no inspections to actually ensure programs fulfill requirements. The programs pay, and they get their status as long as they "affirm" to follow the membership requirements. It's a hoax of an association when it comes to such care. This is one of the main problems with this industry. There is no oversight and regulation. If we are going to include NATSAP or any positive information from the schools, it is just as "right" to include every bit of negative opinion and experience suffered by those who have been at these schools....and FFS is only one of many in such situations.24.164.167.172 (talk)DJJONE5 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

So, your objection is... what? That it isn't an accrediting organization? This "If this ... then that" is pointless. Please focus on the link at hand. This is not a baseball card trading. What is your objection to using NATSAP information about the industry? This edit warring needs to end.sinneed (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


The argument is that NATSAP has been even blasted by the goverment as a large perpetrator of the problem. Not only are they not accrediting, but they are essentially a dubious organizational seal. I don't care at this point if it stays...as long as the GAO investigations remain as well, as they are based almost entirely on NATSAP programs.DJJONE5NY (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

  • An anonymous user added the following to the article: "It is inappropriate for any information coming from natsap be included because natsap is paid money from the FFS therefore it is a conflict of interest." I deleted it as content for the talk page, not the article. However, the only article content that is sourced to NATSAP is the fact that FFS is a NATSAP member; I can't see how that could represent a conflict of interest. --Orlady (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Joint Commission

Acreditation entry - [1]
Since this is a "deeming agency", they have a strong reputation in the US. sinneed (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. LOL! I can't believe that I couldn't find that entry! Thank you very much, sinneed. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New England Revolution

New England Revolution, U.S. Major League Soccer Team

Why is this EL here?

OK, I see, but it is already linked as a citation. Killing the EL. sinneed (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore there is no verifiable link stating that Wells Thompson ever set foot in the FFS, I have removed the reference to him.CoreEpic (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

At Risk teen article being repeatedly deleted.

Please explain why it should not be here. This is a school for teens. One might even say "At Risk" teens. The link being deleted is to an opinion piece about "At Risk" teens. Restoring the link, please leave it in and discuss.

AISH opinion piece "The At-Risk Teen" by Rabbi Dovid Hochberg

As I read the deletion note, this is edit war, a link the editor wants has been removed, so he/she is removing this one.

Thanks.sinneed (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor said many things User talk:Sinneed#Family Foundation School links. But with the hostility removed, the point seems to be that associating the link with the article serves as an advertisement for FFS "Get help for your out of control teen". I don't find the argument compelling. Is there any other support for removing the link?sinneed (talk)


The point is relatively simple. If we are being told we can not reference the links to testimonies of students that were added to the Congressional record surrounding the hearings that FFS was mentioned in, then there is no reasonable support for allowing an opinion article that simple has guidelines for at risk teens. If this is the case, then any blog, or opinion article (similar enough to the CAFETY links for testimonies) should also be included.DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

Are you arguing that the Aish link should be removed? Copying your post up to the link I think you are talking about.sinneed (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes...or that the testimonies should be added if we are adding outside opinons.DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

So, what is your argument that they should be excluded?sinneed (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting to watch. Oddly, clicking the "History" page here, I see no discussion of these new links before they were added, to seek consensus. Disappointing, really.sinneed (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a link added for a bill that failed. I dropped it. There are now WAY too many links for an article this size. An interested editor will come along and add some content, turning them into inline citations to support real content, or I or someone else will delete them, eventually.sinneed (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for disappointing you, Sinneed. You're right, of course. I should've posted my thoughts before editing. For my own part, it won't happen again. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: I added the See also section as a follow-up to DJJONE5NY's addition of the CAFETY link at the top of the Notes and references section, which was clearly the wrong place for it. I likewise didn't think it was appropriate to add an external link to the CAFETY.org site, since you already see it as "a hate site." And I didn't want to delete it, out of concern of being labeled as biased. Perhaps I went overboard in putting in links to associated articles. What do you suggest, Sinneed? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of EL's to general Residential Treatment Issues that have nothing to do with FFS

I have a question about these External Links:

Since this school is mentioned absolutely nowhere in any of these documents, do they really belong on this article? Wouldn't they be more appropriate here? Seems to me that there's a lot of throwing against the wall to see what can be made to stick against the school, no matter how thin the (or complete absence of a) supporting reference. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have confidence in the FTC facts-for-consumers being applicable to every residential program for troubled teens.
It is a lot of links. Questions for you to answer to yourself, not for me: Are there any EL links that have stayed in the article a long time that don't mention FFS? Were they appropriate before? Are they now? Do you plan to link things that don't mention FFS?
You might (or might not, I am tired) consider building up the content, and using these. "It is always critical to ensure oversite by state or professional accreditation bodies[ftc citation][federal lack of oversight citation][abuse citation][death abuse citation]." or whatever.
Then they won't be ELs, and will strengthen the article. Just a thought.sinneed (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


While the way these links are placed may be done in a manner that is not as useful, the links are important. They are, after all, from reports that were brought before the House of Rep. in the the same hearings where FFS was mentioned. The one in October was filled with almost solely NATSAP affiliated programs, and the NATSAP director was grilled during that hearing as well. Clearly there is a connection. The FTC guidelines were a direct result of these hearings. Because FFS falls into the category of this type of program, and because FFS helped create NATSAP, there is ample justification to keep this content.

Likewise, the AISH opinion article similarly does not reference FFS in any way whatsoever. Yet, it has remained for some time.

Just because these links may not directly state the school (although it also does not state any specific school because there are class action lawsuits in the works...FFS was one of those investigated by GAO members posing as parents) does not mean they should be deleted, although I will incorporate into the article if and when I have time, unless another editor feels so obliged.DJJONE5NY (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)DJJONE5

You apparently have information that is not evident in these reports or in the public space in general. If we are going on the test of WP:Verify, then it seems to me that these links are better served on the Residential treatment center page, where there is a direct correlation. I'll add them there now, and we can continue to discuss the appropriateness of their inclusion here. I move for removal, since they do not cite the school in any way whatsoever. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Review the links in the context of WP:EL. (This is a situation where a Wikipedia guideline is helpful.) The school's own website qualifies for inclusion, but it appears that most of these links are to sites "that are only indirectly related to the article's subject," and when you consider criteria such as "provide(s) a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" few if any of the other links are likely to qualify for inclusion. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed it and I agree. These belong here, because they "are only indirectly related to the Family Foundation School". They are directly related to Residential treatment centers. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? If not, I will remove them. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Those links definitely are more relevant to Residential treatment center than they are to the FFS article, but that doesn't mean they should be listed as ELs in that article either. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of internet links. Instead of accumulating external links at the bottom of an article, contributors are encouraged to use reliable sources (including internet sources) as a basis for writing original content in the text of the article, which should include references to those sources. That collection of links fits less poorly in Residential treatment center than in FFS, but it doesn't belong in either article. (Read WP:EL). --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Well, I do intend to work on the Residential treatment center article, which frankly needs work. The docs themselves will make a good foundation. I'll remove them from this article's EL section. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 02:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
For good measure (as a reminder), I've tagged the EL sections in both articles with {{Too many links}}. --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwag...I encourage you to go through all the ELs, and kill any that you feel don't directly relate to FFS. It strains wp:assume good faith that you kill these, and not others that coincidentally are more positive. You know better.sinneed (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"Please improve this article by incorporating them into the appropriate end section, or by converting them to inline citations. (January 2009)" Hmm. Odd. I don't see... "hack out any that appear negative".sinneed (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I find that

was also removed, but I don't see it in the discussion here. Perhaps I missed it. Only partly because of the contentious nature of this article, it does seem to me to be reasonable to at least make a nice list of content hacked out in the edits. These articles are very difficult to source, and throwing away the work of finding sources seems perhaps a bit rude, and damages one's assumption of good faith.sinneed (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Decide your purpose

CoreEpic, DJJONE5NY: The addition of the Wells Thompson interview, where he lauds the school for making it possible for him to achieve his dream, should frankly give you pause to think and consider that while you might be among a very vocal group, you do not hold the monopoly view of the Family Foundation School. Then I ask you to further consider whether you are here to write a good article, or to simply tear down the school.

If the former, you are most welcome. If the latter, then again - you've come to the wrong place. For my own part, I do not appreciate having my familiarity with the school being called as a point of bias, when your own bias is abundantly evident: you have nothing good to say about the school, and perhaps you never will. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me. At least I have a history of taking the verifiable negative information and make it meet Wikipedia standards. I have yet to see either of you do the same with positive information. Indeed, your pattern of disruptive editing to slap up any negative thing you can think of serves no purpose, other than to waste a lot of people's time.

So I'll ask again...exactly why are you here? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry if you think there was nothing positive I got from the school. In fact, in questioning by the House of Rep. I stated that the school gave me a good education and I got into a good school...although I do not agree that this was because of the school but rather simply the outcome that happened while there. My academics have never really been at issue.

I don't pretend that my views are not biased. I suffered abuse at FFS...as I am sure is the situation with CoreEpic. Just because the Wells Thompson interview states that he attributes his success to FFS does not mean that all students feel the same. I do not even pretend to assume that all students hate the school. However, there are far more than just a few who have suffered years worth of abuse and even longer psychological trauma as a result of being at the school. Is this the majority, 50/50, or the minority? There is literally no proven data from the school to show it is successful. In fact, I can list multiple obituaries where it has proven to not be successful. Likewise, there is no proof it is the sole source of problems later in life....the only thing we have is the word of those who were there. Wells Thompson happened to be fortunate enough to be in a position to be interviewed. I was also interviewed after the hearings and the interview was posted on ABC.COM in their article. This is the point. I have no problem leaving facts. I have no issue with the Wells Thompson article, or even the information about Jan. In my personal opinion, Jan was one of the few decent staff. However, there is still no reason that the references I have added are not worthy of inclusion, as they are related to the hearings, the outcome of the hearings, and FFS was one of the programs investigated. If you really need to get clarification on that call the GAO. I happen to have gotten this information at the hearing from Greg Kutz directly.

As for the suicide article, I disagree with the notion that it is not important enough to be included. Most colleges and universities openly report such statistics as part of their "ranking' in US World News and Reports every year. FFS is a private institution where parents are paying in hopes of keeping their children safe. While FFS effectiveness at doing so is clearly in question, parents, or anyone researching the school should know this. As long as the link remains, I'm satisfied....but hiding the fact is completely negligent.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

"As for the suicide article, I disagree with the notion that it is not important enough to be included." - It is. *Struggling Teens report on 2004 Suicide at The Family School Who says it is not important? I will take them to task.sinneed (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, nobody said it was "not important enough." What I and others (sinneed, Threeafterthree, B, John Sloan) have said is that its noteworthiness and appropriateness on this article is questionable at best. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And for what it's worth DJJONE5NY, I appreciate you setting the record straight. I apologize for being wrong about your motives. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is simple: if Jan Cheripko and Wells Thompson are important enough to include on this wiki, so is the suicide. And I insist that it be included in the same forum, if you want to keep Jan and Wells on there, it is your obligation to also allow the suicide to be mentioned, not in the links but in the main text. There are links on there that have nothing to do with the school, there are links that mention things that allude to the school, etc.. etc... this piece of information is not on the same par and should not be treated as such.CoreEpic (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC) CoreEpic

Please feel free to insist, but this method of trying to reach consensus is not very effective. "If someone's x is in, then my y is in!"
This is not a baseball card exchange. It is not a prisoner swap.
If you think some content needs to be out, please start or contribute to a section on it.
If you feel content, such as more text about the suicide, should be in, please rejoin the discussion to explain why.
"...important enough...". If you identify the editor who has said the suicide is not included because it is not important enough, I will attempt to correct their thinking, and will at least have the satisfaction of taking them to task for it...but no one here has said that as far as I can see...lot of text, though.sinneed (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cicatriz1 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicides_in_Quebec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicides The list goes on. The point is this: suicide unto itself is a noteworthy topic.CoreEpic (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

You likely would find this discussion more comprehensible if you would use WP policies and guidelines as the basis for analysis, rather than your own opinions and analogies to other articles and categories. Those articles and categories that you point out are for people who are notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines) who died by suicide. The act of suicide is not by itself a notable occurrence under WP guidelines, and dying by suicide does not by itself make a person notable. --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

It's clear, without naming names, and as evidenced per the above discussion, that there is/are certain user(s) with a strong conflict of interest. Anyone directly and/or indirectly involved with the FFS or the afforementioned suicide are recommended to not become involved in major content revisions. If anymore major edits continue to allude toward the suicide reference then I shall recommend a note be dropped at the COI noticeboard. You have a COI even if you just "live in this area" and know each other. Let's all just leave it and move onto different things now :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation noted, however regardless of my own emotions on the topic, I am arguing for its inclusion not as an emotional drive but rather because I value wikipedia, I use wikipedia on a daily basis and if I were doing research on something and a detail such as this were not included on its main page its wiki would be less useful to me. I got involved in this not as an emotional endeavor but rather as a "if they can do this here, god forbid I actually need this for research" its an issue of integrity. This is an important detail, if I were a parent researching therepeutic boarding schools online, I would first go to wikipedia to see if there was any information that could help me. A major point in the history of a therapeutic boarding school is if any child has ever been at risk while in the school. The notes on cafety are great, but I think it necessary that anyone who comes accross this page also be made aware that indeed in 2004 someone committed suicide on the school grounds. Again, your input is appreciated, but whether or not there is a COI is irrelevant to me in this situation, COI is kind of meaningless when it comes to a small institution, everyone is going to have an opinion in one form or another. CoreEpic (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Please read What Wikipedia is not (a Wikipedia policy). Among other things, Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for providing practical advice, no matter how heartfelt and useful that advice might be. If you want to tell the world to avoid this school, I suggest that you find another venue for your message (for example, create your own website or post on online forums). Wikipedia is not a platform for this type of communication. --Orlady (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Whether parents decide to put their children in danger by using Therapeutic boarding schools or not, it basically their descision when no child protection laws regulate this area. We don't know if they research the school at all or just believe what the educational consultant (another disputed wikipedia article placed by the Behavior modification industry) tells them. While I don't think that a child deserves to be call non-notable just because he or she lost their life before they could reach their full potential, Wikipedia has a standard of its own, which dont allow names of victims to be mentioned. Covergaard (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't an op-ed piece, this is a fact. The reason to include the fact is that it allows a researcher, any researcher, to get a more objective perspective. There is no "advice" just "this is what is, and this is what isn't" end of story. If you choose to use wikipedia for "advice" then that's your perogative.CoreEpic (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Today's edits by DJJONE5NY

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were operating under a firm admonition to reach consensus before any major edits were made.

Seriously...is it the ultimate intention to put the entire testimony on the article? Why stop here? Why not put in all the bullet points?

The fact that the article leads off with all this in the first place has already been called "ridiculous" by at least one independent editor [2], and piling on even more of it seems to me, to be going in the wrong direction.

Frankly, this sword has two edges: someone else could similarly cherry-pick the testimony to concentrate on John Martin-Crawford's other sworn statements of "genuinely decent, caring people," at the school, his admissions that "life at home was anything but stable [for him]," that he was "involved in drugs by the age of 13," "constantly in trouble, and in a lot of fights," that "bomb scares, drugs, suspensions and expulsions from school ... had [his] parents worried, at wit's end, and desperate for a solution," and that he "hated [his] parents" for placing him at the school.

It would certainly lend credibility to the assertion that he was "ruining [his] life," and it would all be factually correct from a reliable source, making clear that he had some very serious growth challenges of his own to evolve beyond. It would also reinforce his sworn belief that "kids in [his] position need some sort of help," and that he is responsible for his parents taking the desperate step they did.

But I don't believe that doing so would serve the article, Wikipedia or Mr. Martin-Crawford at all well.

So I'd like to suggest that you please remove your recent edits, so we can discuss and find a way to be constructive and achieve consensus, here. Many thanks. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion, it should be included. There's consensus in DJJONE5NY's favor.CoreEpic (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I believe that the testimony needs to be mentioned in the article, but I don't see a valid basis for your statement that "there's consensus in DJJONE5NY's favor."
I moved the information about the Congressional hearings to a separate section (it did not fit well under "Program") and I flagged the section as "disputed" becuase of the discussion here and because of my perception (after relatively brief review) that it is not well balanced. The description of Mr. Martin-Crawford's testimony is full of very specific (and nasty) details, while the description of the school's response is vague and general. My reading indicates that the actual testimony was, in context, less nasty than the quotations given here would suggest, while the school's response was more specific than what is described in the article. I believe that a more neutral presentation can be written. It would present Mr. Martin-Crawford's testimony in more general terms, and the description of the school's response would include more specifics. For example, it would indicate that FFS said it had changed its policy on restraints shortly after the period that Mr. Martin-Crawford described, and that it now uses a "quiet room" policy for de-escalation of crisis situations.
Additionally, I recall that FFS is specifically mentioned in some of the other federal reports. Those materials also deserve to be discussed in the article, but in a balanced manner. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Nice try, CoreEpic... ;-)
As for you Orlady, that's an inspired idea! I also think I speak for the interests of Wikipedia when I say that I am (and others are) too close to this to do as good a job at implementing your suggestion...as I frankly believe you can. You see things in a broader and fundamentally different light than those of us with unavoidable bias, and I think that's an essential quality for an editor at this juncture. Can you execute what you propose? More importantly, is there consensus that she should write it? - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not hear Orlady volunteer.
And no, there was no consensus to turn good information about the program and turn it into a soapbox, and no there is not now.sinneed (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well to be fair...I didn't hear her "volunteer" either, and I didn't mean to suggest she had. What I thought I did was issue an invitation and make the suggestion that she (or some other completely neutral editor) write what she describes as:
  • "a more neutral presentation," that "[presents] Mr. Martin-Crawford's testimony in more general terms," and (paraphrasing here) describes the school's response to include more specifics than it presently does, among her other suggestions.
While I don't believe I'm the best person for the job, I could probably do it with a reasonable degree of neutrality if the CAFETY folks (without naming names) could commit to assume good faith, be civil and be constructive in this pursuit. I'm definitely not looking for another battle like the one we just went through. That was just a waste of everyone's time. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
And FWIW, I know what Wikipedia is not, which is why I declined from making the article into a WP:Soapbox by cherry picking in the hypothetical manner I outlined on the talk page (this is the place for such discussion, is it not?). - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not "volunteer" because I think that it would be premature to do so. Continued discussion here will help me understand what it is that is deemed to be most important about both the testimony and the FFS rejoinder to the testimony. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulled the line of hearsay.

He also testified that an "admitted sex addict works in a high level position with the children."

This seems to say that someone claimed in his hearing to be a sex addict. Or that someone claimed that someone claimed that they heard someone claim to be a sex addict. I won't pull it again, but this is just nastiness.sinneed (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: This was written in response to a comment by :DJJONE5NY that was subsequently removed. I'm posting it because it still needs to be said.] Let's not argue truth here; let's discuss verifiability, WP:NPOV, and other Wikipedia priorities. As for verifiability, the fact that the former student made the allegation is verified. He said "An admitted sex addict was one of the high-up faculty and counselors, as well as a dorm monitor living above the boy’s dorm." However, putting that information in the Wikipedia article is little more than spreading gossip. Its inclusion likely violates WP:BLP and including this accusation in the school article gives it undue emphasis. I have not seen the school's side of the story, but it occurs to me that it may be very constructive and responsible for this school to employ someone who admits to a history of sex addiction, has confronted his problem and controlled it, and discusses it openly with students. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Congress didn't choose to ban that from the record, why are you?CoreEpic (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Congressional hearings

Ok, I figured while I was thinking about it, I'd try to follow Orlady's suggestions. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I submit the following for review, edit, and comment (feel free to edit the comment with edit summary, rather than repeat it):

The Family Foundation School was one of several residential programs for special-needs adolescents that were discussed in United States Congress Committee on Education and Labor hearings in 2007 and 2008.[2] In testimony at an April 24, 2008 committee hearing, a former student alleged that during the period 1995 through 1997, he had observed both other students and members of the school's faculty engage in practices that could be considered abusive abusive practices with the students. He urged the passage of Federal legislation designed to prevent such abuses at residential treatment facilities the future.[3]
The school declared its support of the efforts of the committee to keep children safe from harm, and added that since 1998, advances in the understanding of child psychology had led to sweeping changes in the school's program, especially in the areas of crisis management. Since 1999, training in the crisis management techniques prescribed by the Therapeutic Crisis Intervention (TCI) program developed by Cornell University has been required of every Family Foundation School staff member.[4]

- Wikiwag (blahblah...) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? "could be considered abusive?" The things in the testimony were about downright abuse. Members of congress even went so far as to say that these things, and those in other programs are considered torture. As far as the FFS response, they said they support the efforts but fully oppose the bill, as it would allow students the right to actually call child protective services. ALthough they claimed it was because their drug dealers and adult lovers would be able to call them (nobody mentioned calls coming into the school at all btw). I'll refrain from reverting any reasonable edits, but Wikiwag you are clearly just as biased as myself, CoreEpic, or anyone else at this point. The testimony about what happened IS important. As for "doing Mr. Martin-Crawford credit" That's me. I know I used drugs as a teen. However, you will also see FFS made us falsify our own past history. I was not nearly as bad as they made me claim to be. That is the lie the school creates...make them seem really bad, so parents think they did a great thing sending them. I understand the need for SOMEWHERE for kids to get sent. This does not mean places can charge 60K a year for child abuse services. This is inhumane and a fraud. I could care less if you say that students participated in the abuse as noted in the testimony....as long as you be sure to state that (as mentioned in the testimony) it was at the direction of staff! Quit trying to word your way into an advertisement. You claim to be acting in good faith, but have only sought to clean up the negative language and paint FFS in a positive light. You can feel free to say I got a decent education, as I did (even though others did not)...but do not dare say that I feel FFS was justified in ANY way as a place to be sent, or for the way they treated me and my fellow students.DJJONE5NY (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

Ah. Well, I clearly made a mistake by trying to move forward. I don't ever recall unleashing the kind of personal attack against anyone here, that is on display above. Nice... - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved at the request of CoreEpic [3]: - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
For my own part, for reasons made clear by DDJONE5NY's reaction to suggested content being posted on the talk page (in the interest of building consensus I might add), I am reluctant to even touch the section, as even suggestions are reacted to with hostility.[4]
As Orlady correctly observed, the section in it's present form is little more than a collection of quotes from the testimony that paints a very unconstructive, biased picture at the hands of the very same person who gave the testimony in the first place [5] - a clear case of CoI which favors a negative POV. The CAFETY folks are apparently (and understandably, given their stated objectives) content to leave it this way, the utter hypocrisy in that contentment (e.g. tarring anyone who disagrees with epithets of "biased," "vandals," and so forth), not withstanding.
So my question is: how do we proceed in a positive direction from here, on the Congressional hearings? Secondly, can we really count on the CAFETY folks to follow WP:Policy and WP:Guidelines, when they've demonstrated repeatedly and at length, that they're only interested in tearing down this and related articles in any and every possible way? Indeed, they are single purpose editors that edit nothing else [6] [7] [8] - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well things certainly have gone very quiet around here, lately! I figured I'd drop a note now that the legislation is back on the Congressional docket, to see if we can bring this section to a point where it can be sufficiently neutral and encyclopedic. I've edited the originally-proposed text above to address DJJONE5NY's complaint. I'm sure it's not perfect, so have at it. Cheers! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This website struggling teens does not meet wiki neutral point of view. There sole purpose is marketing not simply providing information. -- Posted by User:24.24.94.96

So you keep saying User:24.24.94.96 or User_talk:208.125.42.75 or whoever you are (who BTW doesn't seem to care to sign his posts), yet you have yet to provide any substantive evidence to support the claim. I receive to the printed Woodbury Report (from which the website content is derived) as a matter of monitoring, and while there is frankly a lot of display advertising (like any newspaper, magazine, etc.), I fail to see how articles regarding independent site visits and new approaches in therapeutic treatment, that are written by PhDs, MDs, PsyD's, and EdD's can be objectively dismissed as having a "sole marketing purpose." Kindly elaborate on how this is, any moreso than other trade publication. If you can't, than I humbly suggest you abandon the claim. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, a few points of order please

First, this page is NOT a forum for discussing this schools actions or allegations or whatever. This page for discussing HOW to improve the article and HOW to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guideline(usually not an easy task that makes everybody happy). 2nd, there seems to be a serious conflict of interest among some of the parties?? I have tried to read user talk pages and look at contributions ect. Some of the folks here have attended this school and even worse, some have claimed to have been abused at the school? This is very problematic. This project works best or better when more uninvolved eyes are used to keep things on the up and up. I would suggest getting more imput from other editors and hope everybody can stay calm and work this out. Again, this is not about "taking sides" or "white washing" but about writing an enyclopediac article where consensus among unbasised editors can be reached. Cheers and good luck! --Tom 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Tom. That's why I was initially reluctant to make the attempt to implement Orlady's suggestions; I was concerned that what we saw from DJJONE5NY was precisely what would happen. I didn't want to pre-suppose or pre-judge anyone though, since that would've hardly been acting in good faith. This conflict of interest matter has to be decisively dealt with before this article can move forward, and there's no time like the present. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwag that includes your own COI as someone who has close connections WITH the school as well. Let's not pretend you're not biased here.24.164.167.172 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

I'm pretending anything, DJJONE5NY. I have every confidence in the admin who takes the case to sort this out. Moreover, I firmly believe that the quality and tone of my edits will demonstrate that despite any arguable bias, I can still be constructive, take advice from other editors and generally conduct myself in a manner consistent with WP:Policy. If I'm mistaken in that belief however, I look forward to learning where I've erred and improving my skills as a Wikipedia editor. That is why I am here. Cheers! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact I have a modest suggestion for you. Since you find the suggested language I wrote so patently unacceptable, I invite you again to please be constructive by offering an alternate version in the manner that Orlady suggested above. The ball sir, is in your court. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 05:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Sure thing....although I'm busy with work and school this week, so it will take a little time.24.164.167.172 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

I am unlear why the name of the congressional hearings is not included. There were over 20 students who actually submitted testimony and i am in the process of having it put on the edlabor site so it can be refrenced here. However in the mean time the verifiable fact remains the family school was discussed by Mr John Martin Crawford in congressional hearings which were dealing with abuse and deceptive marketing pracices. Why the family school lawyers have been able to convince the wiki editors not to include this is very disturbing to me. I think it is a very important part of the article about the school. If one wanted to do research regarding this school i think this would be a very valuable piece of information. In addition I do not believe it is within wikis policies to allow information to come from sources that recieve money from the school. This i believe would be a conflict of interest. I am just learning wikipedias protocol and hope we can resolve these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are complaining about. The name of the hearings is clearly indicated in the reference citations, and Mr. Martin-Crawford's testimony is described in the article.
As for those other 20 students who allegedly testified, there are some student letters (not sworn testimony) in the text version (but apparently not the PDF) of the hearing transcript. The comments in these additional letters are all favorable to FFS, though. I've noted them in the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say that i am complaining i am a little unclear what the objection to calling the hearing by its name is. Using a link seems to be a way to avoind using the actual name of the hearing in the wiki article. There is a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The full (and rather verbose) name of the hearings is clearly visible in the list of references. Including that long title in the article seems excessive to me, as the article is about the school, not about the hearings. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also strugglingteens.com recieves referall fees when the school gets a sale/new enrolment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Do you have reliably sourced evidence for this, or is this hearsay? (2) And your point is? --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Orlady do you have the authority from wikipedia to decide what is included and what is not included in this article? Or have you just taken a person interest in this page or are you a staff or student or lawyer from the school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your questions and lack of signatures indicate that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Neither question is useful. Please focus on the content, not the editors. This is *VERY IMPORTANT*.sinneed (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also i came into that bit of knowlege when i was looking into several other "teen help" websites. I called several and discovered that this is one which is simply an advertising tool for different types of facilities some of which seem legitimatley helpfull however this site does not do much in reality to ensure the facilities they market for are of any merit. They simply have a few minor requirements about posting staff members and their qualifications on their website with physical address and the facility must be operating legally. Aside from that they work for money like the rest of us. A small amount of inginuity and an hour or two of your time would reveal to you that they do in fact simply market teen help to parents at a charge, for a facility at a charge, and or both. I became peticularly interested in the family school when i discovered several of their staff members were part of another theraputic comunity, East Ridge, for multiple years before becoming staff at this facility which is unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it is all wp:Original Research. While very interesting to us humans editing, Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia is fed by wp:secondary sources and in specific wp:reliable sources. If your argument is that we should stop considering the struggling teens site as an RS for this article, please say so, clearly, and indicate why.sinneed (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what they meant to say is the information coming from the site is not neutral point of veiw/reliable source. However, I do have a question regarding the verifiability as to how to decide if something is a neutral point of veiw/reliable source. 1.)Cafety it seems is not a reliable source with a neutral point of veiw for some reason. Perhaps because they serve the purpose of protecting youth from various forms of abuses occuring in a residential settings ect therefore they have a purpose other than simply reporting factual information. ?? 2.) If it is a sites job to promote and market for the institution, person, or any subject matter on wikipedia does that constitute them as lacking a neutral point of veiw? Logically i would say that is the case, and i believe that is the argument which was meant to be brought up. In order to determine these things do you need a reliable source/neutral point of veiw source to report the facts that cause this conclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and it therefore does not stand to wiki policies that any information be included from that site. If the letter was not sworn in to congress or is not available from a neutral or reliable source it should not be included in the wiki page according to the wiki guidlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk)

CAFETY is a useful source about CAFETY...see their article, which is wikilinked here. I hope that helps.sinneed (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cafety being a useful source about cafety does not have anything to do with the fact that that struglingteens.com is a conflict of interest not a neutral point of veiw or reliable source. I am going to remove any information from that site from the article since it is a complete violation of wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.94.96 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.94.96 (talk)

Please see this comment and kindly answer the question. Please also refrain from making edits against consensus. Finally, please sign your posts. Many thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
24.24.94.96, I have left a note at your talk page, and I hope that helps. These are press releaseas from FFS, as I see them... this makes them interesting... but clearly FFS will have a COI in talking about itself... thus we don't always believe everything in press releases... but we can use them in articles where appropriate... and not in other places. Is there any real danger that the Strugglingteens site will be taken for an independent wp:RS?
I checked again, and it seems quite clear in the "FFS Response" that it is the school "speaking"... the spokesman is named and his email address provided...rather than any independent source. I don't see how wp:RS applies.sinneed (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sinneed: asked and answered a few times, already. Strugglingteens.com is the website of Woodbury Reports, an independent trade journal with editorial control over what's published and what isn't published. Are you suggesting that news releases so published don't meet the WP:RS test? Again, a slippery slope... - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
wp:RS does not apply (as I see it)... these are press releases. My only concern was that it might seem they WERE statements by someone other than FFS. I will ask you to avoid the "slippery slope" thing. It is *NEVER* a "slippery slope" to question the content of a Wikipedia article.sinneed (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I'm not calling the questioning of content a "slippery slope;" I'm calling the blanket rejection of independently published news releases potentially dangerous. Now I know that objectively, WP:OSE is not a suitable defense. However, there is merit in the argument for precedent in usage, that tends to undercut the rejection of independently-published news releases as reliable sources. Moreover, while it's understood that news releases are fundamentally self published, the fact that in the event and degree that they are published by independent sources makes them acceptable as WP:RS:
  • "if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."
In the matter at-hand, an independent source felt the information was worth reporting, and there has been no substantive evidence submitted (despite several requests for such evidence in response to claims that it is a marketing rag), that strugglingteens.com/Woodbury Reports is anything other than an independent trade publication. I submit that this establishes its status as a WP:RS. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)}}
As I see it, strugglingteens.com is a independent website that has posted press releases from FFS, and the article cites those press releases as information sources. As Wikiwag notes, press releases are self-published. However, the fact that a press release is posted by an identifiable independent third party gives it more credibility than if it were simply posted on the FFS website (or posted an an online forum or by a semi-anonymous blogger).
At the same time, I think I finally understand why the critics of FFS have been so critical of strugglingteens.com (aka Woodbury Reports, Inc.). The FFS website proclaims that FFS is a recipient of the Woodbury Reports, Inc. “Excellence in Education Award”. This "award" identifies the school as one that has a positive reputation among "a network of independent educational consultants" surveyed by Woodbury Reports. Given the commercial relationships that exist among Woodbury Reports, the other educational consultants, and the schools and programs, it definitely is appropriate to view this "award" with skepticism. The article does not mention this "award," and I am opposed to mentioning it in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict
I concur; the award would be arguable peacockery that adds little to the article. At the same time on the topic of "the exchange of money equals hack journalism," I submit: correlation does not imply causation. Accordingly, as a trade journal, Woodbury has many advertisers from within the industry. If the publication gave undue weight to any single program without merit and purely on the standpoint of the size of the commercial relationship (e.g. how much money an advertiser pays equals the type and tone of reporting they get), it would almost certainly result in backlash from their other advertisers.
Case in point: in reviewing the February print edition, FFS has a one column (1/3rd page) ad, while Rogers Hospital, Montcalm Schools, and Oxbow Academy have 1/2-page ads; Aspen Education Group, which is perhaps the largest provider of services to the "troubled teen" community, has the entire back cover, plus a 1/4-page ad inside. One would expect (if the size of an advertiser's pocketbook truly determined the journalistic approach to the published material) that with almost 5x the page space of any other advertiser in a very prominent position in the publication, that Aspen would be all over this edition. Yet the programs profiled from site visits are Pathways Argentina, Cedars Academy, and Red Hill Academy, apparently none of which have advertised in the print journal or the website; neither Aspen nor any of the other advertisers are even mentioned in the current edition. I will say though, that I am disappointed that Woodbury has apparently decided to remove his advertisers display ad from the online version of the print edition; you'd be able to judge this for yourselves.
The dirty and unfortunate reality of all commercial journalism (except Consumer Reports), is that every single publication is beholden to its advertisers, no matter the publication's size, distribution, or readership. As the editor, if you step out of balance you risk seeing your revenue dry up. And, while there is of course the risk of bias (which is why Consumer Reports rejects all advertising), this does not appear in evidence with Woodbury Reports/strugglingteens.com - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not accuse Woodbury Reports of bias in its article content. The newsletter appears to be pretty even-handed, and your analysis of the advertising makes it seem even more so. The "award" is another matter, though. Not only would mentioning it in the article be "peacockery," but the award selection is based on the opinions of a Woodbury-selected group of educational consultants (and I think that Woodbury is a consultant, too), whose identities are not revealed and whose motives (both commercial and otherwise) are far from transparent. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, I concur. The reasons I went into such depth were in part for the "never mind" ;-) reasons I responded to Sinneed with, and to counter the anonymous IP editors' persistent assertions that the newsletter is nothing more than a marketing piece. Indeed, if they actually read the report, they'd discover that Woodbury and his reporters (nearly all are credentialed behavioral health pros) have been pretty harsh on those occasions, where a program did not meet acceptable standards. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I understand your comment, Wikiwag, but I am clueless as to why you are addressing it to me. If a press release about FFS appeared on the FFS website it would be quite appropriate to include it in the article about FFS. It would be (as all press releases are) self-published... and I would expect everyone reading it to understand that it was a press release about FFS by FFS. My concern with the Strugglingteens thing was whether or not someone might think it was MORE than a press release. However, on careful review, a competent reader should be able to determine by reading that it is FFS speaking, not anyone else. The author is clearly identified not as an independent writer, but rather as an employee of FFS. Again, on the slipper slope thing, I *KNOW* you are confusing me. I see no problem with the content of the FFS press releases being used in the FFS article. To reiterate: I don't even understand why we are talking about wp:RS in reference to a press release... unless someone suspects the press release of being bogus... and no one has suggested that. If they did, I would then argue that yes, strugglingteens seems to be a reliable source for copies of FFS press releases.sinneed (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well I guess I'm confused then. When you wrote: "the spokesman is named and his email address provided...rather than any independent source. I don't see how wp:RS applies", I read that to mean that you were rejecting it as a reliable source. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah. No, I was saying I don't see how it matters whether or not it is reliable source in this case... the rule simply doesn't apply. Like having a wp:RS for the name of a web site. We don't don't need one, as we can see the website... it exists, no one needs to tell us it does.sinneed (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hehehe. Okay, well in that case "Never mind." Cheers! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


If having behavioral health pros is all you need to be considered a valuable source of information then i would like to argue that cafety's articles on this facility also be included. And please don't attempt the horsetrading line i am arguing about a certain type of logic you are using to come to your conclusions, which i can accept but not if that line of logic only applies to certain things and not to others. I do not see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you aren't offering a horse trade, I won't caution you against horse-trading. But I fear I don't see your point.sinneed (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the credentials of the people at cafety i pulled this list from their website. I do not understand how people with these types of credentials are not considered a reliable source. Charles Huffine MD Lenore Behar , PhD Mor Keshet, MCAT Creative Arts Therapist Lorrin Gehring Youth Resource Specialist Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health.

What credentials do the people at teen help have that cafety does not have. How do you follow the same line of logic to come to this conclusion. And who are you? What is your interest in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


As far as woodbury reports is concerned it would be interesting to see if those students who submitted testimony on cafety's website sent letters about the family school not being what it says it is, identifying themselves with phone numbers and addresses if they would put that report in their journal. I wonder if cafety put out a press release if they would report that? That would be an interesting thing to find out. Perhaps a good journalist would set that up and include that in their report. Someone would have to have a bit of time on their hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking to strugglingteens item about the suicide

CoreEpic and I are having a difference of opinion about whether the StrugglingTeens item about the suicide should be listed in the External links section. Here's the "conversation" we have had in the edit summaries:

  • Orlady: "rm EL adds nothing"
  • CoreEpic: "There was a consensus to include this, please do not remove"
  • Orlady: "I've re-read the entire talk page, but did not find this alleged consensus to keep the strugglingteens link; I'm deleting it as not meeting WP:EL"
  • CoreEpic: "There IS consensus, refer to the section entitled "Decide your purpose" the link was never under dispute, a summary of it in the article was what was under dispute. Please do not remove again."

Once again, I've re-read the cited section of this talk page and everything after it, and I still can't find any indication that there was consensus on including this item as an EL. There clearly was consensus against discussing it in the article. There was little if any discussion about including it (or not including it) as an EL, and no indication of a consensus opinion. I guess it's time to discuss it now, although I fear this only reopens the contentious discussion about the suicide, which discussion had only recently subsided.

My removal of the link was based on my understanding of the [Wikipedia:External links|Wikipedia guideline on external links]. The guideline says that ELs "could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Links normally to be avoided include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Your mileage may vary, but I contend that the information in the article is not included in the article because it is not meaningful and relevant content for the article, meaning that it is also not sufficiently meaningful and relevant to be an external link. Furthermore an FFS press release reporting a student suicide (and not much else) is not a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

Accordingly, I contend that the link does not belong in the article.--Orlady (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree it does not belong, however, my objection is (IMO) rather weak. Some editors believe the suicide indicates a failure of the school staff in some way. I think that view is disastrous, as the only way to prevent a person from suicide by jumping from a 2nd-story window is so restrictive as to be abhorrent to me. To me, there is no other way that this sad and bizarre event (suicide by 2-story drop?!) adds to the article. That no single internet-visible institution of press picked up on the story or its investigation (or lack thereof) is, I think, a comment on our society, but that is in no way related to the article.sinneed (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, sineed? "As for the suicide article, I disagree with the notion that it is not important enough to be included." - It is. *Struggling Teens report on 2004 Suicide at The Family School Who says it is not important? I will take them to task.sinneed (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC) take Orlady and yourself to task...CoreEpic (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I agree that the argument that the school staff was somehow culpable is weak or non-existent, and before the CAFETY folks start shouting "BIAS!!!" at me, I'll reiterate that this view is shared by no fewer than 5 other completely impartial editors. With that said, I don't necessarily object to the link, but I must confess to not being familiar with the points under which Orlady removed it.
Of greater importance IMO, is the treatment of the Congressional hearings, which is both significant and not neutral. Moved to here - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The culpability isnt in question, that's opinion and original research. You can draw your own conclusions, but the information itself is valid and factual. If you want to discuss the merits of its inclusion, look no further than the inclusion of Jan Cheripko or Wells Thompson. Im still awaiting mediation on the subject of an inclusion of a blurb about the suicide in the main article, but the link needs to stay. As far as your comments on DJJONE5NY entries, please keep that in its section, it has nothing to do with the ffs suicide link.CoreEpic (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Funny thing about dead horses, they tend to stay that way ;-) Cheers! (not taking the bait) ----> - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What bait are you talking about? More importantly, where's the dead horse? You seem to have this conversation mistaken with another one.CoreEpic (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

New independent source

Through my research, I've uncovered a July 11, 2008 article that appeared on page 24 of the Delaware County Times, about the Family Foundation School, it's program, students and faculty. As an independent newspaper, and since the article was written by a contributing writer to the paper (also writing for other papers), this source unequivocally meets the WP:Reliable Source requirement, though the article itself is no longer available online. Accordingly, I will be adding new content to the Wikipedia article over the coming days based on the newspaper article's content:

  • Terry Hannum, A Family at School, Delaware County Times, July 11, 2008 p.24.

- Wikiwag (blahblah...) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And what new information will it bring to the page?CoreEpic (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I disagree with the addition of said article, it adds nothing to the article, and worse who's to say you didn't photoshop an article and insert your own text? Addition of any information from the article will be against consensus.CoreEpic (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

CoreEpic: Might I please remind you to please WP:AGF? As for "photoshop[ping]" an article? LOL! You have me mistaken for someone with much more time on his hands, and with zero ethical standards. Tell you what...if you doubt the veracity of the source, I suggest you contact the paper and have them send you a copy of the page in question...unless you think their copy is also photoshopped. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it....but then other newspapers that have covered FFS as well will be included, such as the New Paltz Oracle (deleted once from article even though it directly names FFS)...or any other articles which may currently be in process.24.164.167.172 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am trying to push a POV. I'm just following the facts where they lead. I invite you to do the same. I also humbly suggest that rather than edit from an IP address (as seems to be your habit of late), that you please use your user account: User:DJJONE5NY. Cheers! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW: where's that new content you agreed to write on the Congressional hearings? I'm eager to see your constructive suggestions. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! thanks for the lead on the New Paltz Oracle article. I'll add that as a reference on the Congressional hearings. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me though, that you sir are trying to push a POV [9], with fabricated editorialization. If this is your idea of being constructive and forming consensus, I encourage you to please read WP:Consensus, and post your ideas here for comment, before editing a controversial, disputed section. Many thanks! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwag, if I remember correctly, you have a WP:COI regarding this school. That is going to make it difficult for anyone to accept on good faith your assertions about an offline source. Could you scan the article and make it available to some of the rest of us for review? --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orlady: So far, even though the charge of WP:CoI has been leveled against me several times (a charge I'll add, which I answered in detail here), nobody has yet to explain how "somewhat more than a passing familiarity," rises to the level of WP:CoI.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CoI charge is applicable when a user's edits "[breach] relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography." To repeat: it is precisely because of our strict adherence to those guidelines that you, sinneed, B, and I have been slapped with the "biased" and "vandal" labels by the CAFETY members, who are openly and brazenly trying to push a negative POV; not one of them has ever made a single, constructive edit.
Indeed, when the Congressional testimony was first added in a way that met WP:Policy and WP:Guidelines [10][11] [12], though I initially challenged the edits on relevancy grounds [13], I've substantially added to it and edited the content to make sure it met both WP:Policy and WP:Guidelines. [14][15][16][[17].
Frankly Orlady, on your own you've done far more to minimize this testimony and other so-called "negative" information than I ever have, yet nobody's accused you of CoI, or not acting in good faith.
I submit that the only reasons this keeps coming up are that I was forthcoming about my familiarity with the school, and that the other editors here are so far unable to accept that someone with a potential leaning toward a particular point of view can both see and concede to an opposing viewpoint or act in good faith, despite repeated and ongoing evidence that it is absolutely possible, and honest acknowledgment that I've done exactly this, time and time again. Yet, this sort of dynamic plays out every day in law, politics and business, and it works. It can work here too, if people can set aside their pride and overt agendas in favor of making this a better article.
My edit history of allowing opposing viewpoints, adding to them, reaching out to other editors to achieve consensus, and most importantly, editing only when I have a WP:Reliable source to support the edits, clearly rebuts to any reasonable person, both the CoI charge and any question of my good faith. It should therefore not be in question on this source by any reasonable person.
However since the burden of proof lies with the editor, I will see if I can persuade the paper to post the article on their website somewhere, since CoreEpic has already made it clear he will not accept any scan that I might provide. Besides, I don't own a scanner large enough for tabloid-size paper (they're pretty expensive, and I have no other use for one).
While I'm doing this, I'll put this question back to you Orlady (or sinneed, threeafterthree, scarian or B) do my edits fail to add to the article in an appropriate WP:NPOV way compared with other school articles? And to the CAFETY folks, since you know the school too (and I at least can WP:AGF from you): is there anything in my recent edits based on this source that you can honestly not confirm as verifiable and beyond reaching consensus?
Those are the relevant tests for inclusion, I believe. Not whether the person who made the edits in the first place has a "somewhat more than passing familiarity" with the subject. It's time for reasonable heads to prevail, and I invite them to join the project. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Before anyone else levels the CoI accusation against me, I humbly suggest you better familiarise yourself with the guideline, by reading this. This exactly describes my editing approach on this article, and stands in stark contrast to any negative or deceptive suggestion of my motives. The CAFETY folks could learn something from this guideline. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 15:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwag, I did not intend my statement about COI to be an "accusation," but rather a matter-of-fact statement. It's pretty clear from your edits that you have a particular interest in this school. In view of that "interest" (whatever it might be) and the contention that surrounds this article, anything you say about the article contents is unlikely to be accepted in good faith. When I asked you if you could share a scan with "some of the rest of us," I was not thinking of CoreEpic, but rather with people like sinneed and me, who have been endeavoring to rid this article of POV (not only the negativity added by CoreEpic and the CAFETY bunch, but also the excessively promotional content you have provided). --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll see if I can prevail upon the paper first, as I suspect that having their site be the source would be preferable for all concerned. FWIW, I'm glad you and sinneed are on this project to lend your impartial, unbiased assistance. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Those edits are coming. If you had actually read anything I said it would be a while. I am in the middle of teaching while working a second job, and going to school. I don't have quite the time on my hands that you must to sit down and type these days now that school is back in session.24.164.167.172 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5

Well that was uncalled for, since I did actually read everything you wrote. And if you please, you seemed to find time to make the edits that Orlady reverted well enough. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well there is clearly a lack of consensus about this, so it doesn't seem like its going to happen. As far as a COI, for someone to have a passing knowledge of the school you sure do spend a lot of time on this page. You also have posted a photograph of the school on the Wiki which you claim to be your own, if that's the case you have done more than just pass the school, you have at the very least pulled up their rural driveway at one point or another. Are you going to tell me you drove about 20 minutes off of the nearest highway to take a picture of something that is meaningless to you personally? Just a thought not a vicious personal attack lmao...CoreEpic (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic
Wow. The logic you use to draw your conclusions is truly an amazing thing to behold. What's more, you seem to be completely and persistently unclear on both the definition and the meaning of consensus. As for your persistent, petty, little ad-hominem jabs, if that's what it takes for you to feel better, then sad as it is...so be it. You just go ahead and have your fun, now. :-D Cheers! - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the uncivil tone of my last post. CoreEpic, please read and consider in your own edits and interactions with the editors here, the examples in this section of the Wikipedia policy on engaging in incivility. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cabal page

By the way, for anyone who is interested the mediation cabal page about the 2004 suicide inclusion/non-inclusion debate has been opened by an admin. If you have anything you need or want to say about it now would be the time to go in there and add your input. CoreEpic (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Cool. I can hardly wait to get this resolved once and for all, predictable though the outcome is - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the description of the Suicide release.

Per wp:EL "For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page"sinneed (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I did change it... "2004 press release: Suicide at The Family School". I think we all believe this is an FFS release, but it does not say so... we have surmised that it is. I think we should let the other readers decide too.sinneed (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ...and I added " at Strugglingteens.com". It seems to me it used to say that. *shrug*sinneed (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits today

For the record: I revised the section about the Congressional hearings to (1) remove the inflammatory language included in the direct quotes from Mr. Martin-Crawford's testimony, (2) replace those direct quotes with general characterizations of the abusive practices he described, (3) add information about the post-hearing letters received by the committee, and (4) remove the cleanup templates from this section of the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about testimony not documented on the fed site

I have a question for whomever is in charge of editing this site. In actuallity testimony was gathered from 17 other students aside form John Martin Crawford who attended the school between the years 1995 and 2005. For some reason however the writen testimony has not been put on the Ed Labor website yet. If it does apear on the website at some point will that be sufficient to include what those previous students of the school testified to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are in charge of editing this site. I *THINK* I understand your question and I *THINK* the answer is that unless you can get a wp:RS to support it, it won't stay in the article. So: probably not. I also gave this a section of its own.sinneed (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
What's your basis for including the statement that there was testimony from 17 FFS students, Sinneed? --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, the link that was originally in question, http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit_Your_Testimony, is actually included in the record that has been submitted as citation 22 in this article. While it is only listed as a link, above another testimony, it is included as a compilation of testimony and is on the official record. Therefore, if the letters of praise for the school are in, the previously questioned link is now also something of public record, even though it is only the link. Therefore, as you had said before...if it comes from the .gov website, or the official Congressional transcript, it's in. Right? Just to clarify before adding the link itself.DJJONE5NY (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)DJJONE5NY

As I noted earlier, below, in my response to your comment on my talk page, that link is not very useful as a source. Further, there is no documentation that there were 17 testimonies on FFS. (I found only one that might have been submitted.) --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


How about reading the testimonies then. If you actually go through through them, there are over 17 actually about FFS. Others are about other programs. At least read them before you tell me they do not reference FFS please.

Also...for clarity, it was only ONE former student who wrote in support of FFS. The others were all parents or staff of the school. This is an important fact, as the vast majority of former students have NOT written in support of their incarceration. DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

DJJ, we can SEE the website, we don't need Congress to tell us that it exists. That is what including the link in the testimony does: it tells us reliably that the site exists. However, we see it: there it is. So the inclusion of the link doesn't help... I am happy to see it there, and hoped they said something useful... they didn't. Now, all that being said, the site breaks wp:EL. We have a link here over to CAFETY, and interested folk can go there and learn a lot about CAFETY and find its site. But that has nothing in and of itself to do with this article.sinneed (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I find the use of the term "incarceration" to be very telling. I doubt that anyone who is subjected to a forced change in lifestyle because of their own poor decision making would rate the experience highly. "On a scale of one-to-five, with one being very unfavorable and five being very favorable, how would you rate your prison experience? Would you recommend this prison to a friend?"
Indeed, I submit that is what we are really talking (and arguing) about here: the fact that on the surface, it looks like some very vocal people are making a very big fight out of the fact that they were taken out of their drug-and-alcohol-and-sex-addicted lifestyles against their will, forced to do chores and be held accountable for their actions in front of a community of their peers before it really was too late for them; to keep them out of the legal system and if you please...out of the real prisons, where far, far worse things happen and where nobody cares. Because after all: if you go to the big house, well you deserved it didn't you?
And, that's wrong too. Nobody should suffer abuse in any setting anywhere. But abuses of convicts and juveniles in state facilities seem to be just fine with most people. They become lost...disappeared...forgotten...disposable...the dregs of society, that will "never amount to anything, anyway." In the end, they're throwaway people; and that's a tragedy beyond reckoning that damages all of us.
That this dialog has given rise to language in the latest version of the bill that likewise covers public and state institutions, is something that I applaud both the committee and the CAFETY folks; the members of the residential treatment industry also deserve some of the credit for this, as the original bill focused only on private institutions, to the exclusion of state-run programs until NATSAP spoke up and rallied support of their own.
So let us be honest here: the only reason Jon and the other members of CAFETY have any voice at all today to make such an important difference in the treatment of young people, is because of the conscientious intervention of people who loved them and tried to save them from a terrible fate in the legal system, and the ruined lives that would have almost surely grown out of them. You have your freedom, you have your liberty, you have a job and can lead a normal life.
I urge you to continue the fight. But do so with a measure of humility, and recognition that while your experiences were far from perfect (in some cases clearly criminal), and there is much work yet to be done, the alternative would have surely silenced you to everyone, and done so forever. Nobody in the halls of power trusts or listens to a convict. Be grateful for every day that you are not among that peer group, and give those programs that are genuinely and demonstrably making sweeping, conscientious changes because it's the right thing to do for the young people in their care, credit for doing so of their own accord. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

More on the hearing testimony

On my talk page, DJJONESNY wrote:

I've noticed that you have attempted to make the record on FFS more neutral and I appreciate that. However, the language you added that states "letters from parents, staff, and students in support of the school were added" also omits the fact that the same link we have been arguing over: http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit_Your_Testimony is also included in that official record, although with a typo, using dashes instead of underscores. As the House has accepted this website in lieu of separate testimony, and as the compilation, that should be enough for WP. As such, should this be included with a statement saying that the above link is also included in testimony? At present, the statement constitutes undue weight, as it makes it appear that the one statement against the school is the only one, while others are claiming positive things. On the contrary, there are at least 17 other testimonies about abuse that have thus far been excluded because they were on a wiki....which is now cited in that very same report the others noted are in.
If you need clarification of this, feel free to ask. The citation in question can be found after the statement by Rep. Jason Altmire.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

In reply, I must point out that the letters mentioned in the article were signed, included identifying information about the senders, and were incorporated into the official transcript of the Congressional hearing. The transcript does identify the website as having been somehow submitted for the record, but there is no other indication as to what was submitted. I could not make a defensible factual statement about what was submitted to the committee.

Moreover, the website is a wiki where anyone can submit comments; there is no confirmation of who they are. Most or all of the comments there are undoubtedly valid, but this is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. When I have visited that web site in the past, there was no indexing other than by the name of the person. Today I see an index for comments from 2007, and it includes one post, dated October 23, 2007, that is specifically about FFS (this). The writer does identify himself in a credible manner. However, at most what could be said about it is that he attended the school in the same period as Mr. Martin-Crawford and tells a story in general agreement with the hearing testimony of Mr. Martin-Crawford. The Congressional testimony (which would have been under oath, I believe) is much stronger, and it is reliably sourced. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Literally, *ANYONE* in the known Universe can go and CHANGE the stories a told there. Not just the original posters. It is like wikipedia... anyone can say anything and if no one corrects it.sinneed (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Remember too that the testimony itself is not deemed reliable... the fact that the testimony was AS GIVEN is reliable. This is an important distinction. Rewording to try to make that clear: Congress recording the testimony has nothing to do with whether or not the testimony itself is reliable. Congress recording it assures us that that was what was said. We accept that the website exists... voila, we see it there. We can't accept the CONTENT... the site itself is very clearly not a wp:RS.sinneed (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am missing it. Can you quote it so I can find it? Beyond that, what is the point? That other people said what you said? I think it is clear that Congress believed you. I do. The testimony is there, it is pointed to in the article. Is there any other wp:RS that was interested enough to cover whatever you want to say? If not, the Wikipedia won't cover it either.sinneed (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm not asking that you even cite the link really. What is important is that other students also wrote their own testimony about abuses. Therefore, a statement regarding the letters in support of FFS should also mention those in opposition, even if we do not link to the website. The point is simply that just because WP doesn't want to include it as a source, the government clearly used them for the record. Clearly others were abused too, not just those who wrote letters praising the school should be heard.DJJONE5NY (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

But they didn't give testimony. Some people wrote stories on a chat board. That is great, and belongs on the chat board.sinneed (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If a WP:RS takes up an interest in some of their stories, then we can use those... but I haven't been able to find them.sinneed (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Ok well sending a letter to a Congressman in support of the school is ALSO not testimony. They didn't swear in. How is a letter any different than a web blog that was included in the very same document? The letters in SUPPORT of FFS were ONLY LETTERS. They were not testimony. If we are going to talk about the letters issued in support of the school and contrary to the testimony, of which there are a few, then the reference to the letters/blog about abuse is the same thing.DJJONE5NY (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

DJJ, you could create an account on that site called "GONZOBANZI" and post that you were at FFS in 1902, and were pooped upon by a deranged pigeon. Then I could create an account there called "FREDDYGOESWEST" and change your statement to say that no, it was I upon whom the pigeon pooped. Had Congress read the posts into the record, then they would be part of the record. Did it?sinneed (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


THEY DIDN"T READ THE LETTERS INTO THE RECORD EITHER!!! Those were simply added in after being received. THAT is the point. The letters in support are just as unreliable as the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.167.172 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout again. Either I am not understanding that, or it is incorrect.sinneed (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


The letters added to the record were not read as testimony either. Therefore the glowing letters of support are just as unreliable as the wiki. The Committee told us that the wiki was able to be used in lieu of letters. i am not arguing for their inclusion, even, but the fact that if they are NOT included, then the letters of support should also be omitted for the same reason. They were merely letters, NOT testimony that was at all sworn.24.164.167.172 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

Correct, they were simply read into the record. This is made clear in the article, it specifically states that these were letters, and they appear in the record...thus we have a wp:RS for what is said.
This is not a horse swap...I have "no dog in this fight", so trying to interest me in a trade is pointless. If they are the same: What is your argument for OMITTING the the web site? Why does it apply to the letters that were read into the record?sinneed (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


In fact, the testimony WAS read in, but as the website, by Congressman Miller. in the document, it states:

"[Additional submissions of Mr. Miller follow:] 

   [Compilation of testimony from Community Alliance for the

Ethical Treatment of Youth, Internet address follows:] 

  http://cafety.youthrights.org/wiki/index.php?title=Submit--Your--
                              Testimony"

Therefore, it WAS read in. They understood that CAFETY makes sure all testimony is from the stated author. CAFETY submitted this under the same legal requirements that the letters submitted in favor of FFS were to adhere to. While wiki may not recognize it as RS, it is clearly just as reliable as any letter would be. It is undue weight to mention those in favor without stating that there were also letters in opposition to the school. Nobody is asking for the link to be included, but rather the fact that letters were written in supporting the testimony, not just in rebuttal.24.164.167.172 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny

Yes, the web site address was read into the record. But again, that does us no good, we SEE the website, we don't need a wp:RS to tell us it exists. Are the posts read into the record somewhere? I don't see them, but then I did not find the cafety link either... I was looking for caps :,(.sinneed (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The letters themselves were entered into the record verbatim, and presumably the committee took the time to confirm that they were sent by actual people. The CAFETY site testimonies were not, and as such the committee almost certainly did not perform similar due diligence. The fact that they selected you Jon, to give your sworn testimony is a credit both to you and to what you and the committee are striving to achieve.
But the CAFTEY site being a wiki, there is complete anonymity and zero accountability. Indeed, virtually all of the submissions are from anonymous IPs and so hypothetically, anybody could write a testimony (or two or three or four) to give the appearance of more people speaking up than might actually be. Not saying that it is happening mind you, only saying that it could happen and there would is nobody to police it in any meaningful way. With all due respect, the CAFETY wiki is poorly monitored and moderated and absolutely cannot be considered a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. There is no comparison between it and the Congressional record. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to drop the letters except the one from the student.

"..., parents of former students, and a former staff member..." They weren't residents. I think this gives their opinions wp:undue weight. I am not strongly attached to this opinion, but I do hold it, for the moment.sinneed (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


This works for me as well. It's at least balanced. Thank you for thinking it over.24.164.167.172 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)djjone5ny
That doesn't work for me. It's selective inclusion of information, with the selection based on reasoning that boils down to POV. "Balance" does not mean that if you report one student's negative statement, you also need to report one student's positive statement, but suppress all other statements that cannot be countered by an equal and opposite viewpoint. Balance means you present the available information accurately and without bias.
There were plenty of parent statements against some other programs and schools, and there undoubtedly are parents who have terrible things to say about FFS, but we don't have their statements. All the article can describe is the statements that were publicly documented in a reliable source.
As for that website, I did find a link to a .doc file that is stated to be what CAFETY provided to Congress. (Click here -- but be careful; my software told me the file contained macros that it was disabling for my security.) That file contains just two statements about FFS -- one from Mr. Martin-Crawford (aka "djjone5", a moniker he used on that website, too) and the other one that I noted earlier today. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"to rebut the negative testimony" - They didn't live there, how can they rebut the testimony? The problem may be the wording. "rebut" is 'overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof. But what the parents could do is say "they helped my child"... this isn't a rebutal of the statements of mistreatment. I am very dubious of giving undue weight to the staffer and the parents. Yes, avoiding undue weight is selective inclusion of information. If 10000 people think FFS is great and one was abused there, then quoting all 10000 would clearly be undue weight, no matter HOW well documented their statements were. I am puzzling how to even propose compromise wording, and I certainly defer to your much greater experience, but I still have concerns.sinneed (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.wikispaces.com/ - I don't see how this helps... and I wouldn't open a .doc from an unknown source.sinneed (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Following the April 24 hearing, a former student and a former staff member wrote to the committee to rebut the negative testimony, and parents of former students wrote to voice their support for the school and its practices by reporting their own positive experiences with the Family Foundation School.

sinneed (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Below is another suggested variant. My changes to Sinneed's version include (1) getting rid of the word "rebut", which I agree is problematic; (2) removing "voice their support for the school and its practices" as insubstantial cheerleaderism; (3) saying "positive reports of their own experiences" rather than "reports of their own positive experiences" because I think it's more accurate to say that their reports were positive than to suggest that their experiences will all positive; and (4) putting the parents first on the list of letter writers because most of the letters were from parents:
Following the April 24 hearing, several parents of former students, a former student, and a former staff member wrote to the committee in response to the negative testimony, providing positive reports of their own experiences with the Family Foundation School.
As for that .doc file, I handled it carefully; I did not use Microsoft software to view it. ;-)
--Orlady (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible then to state that the chairman referenced a webling on which additional testimony was collected supporting Mr Crawfords experiences. Or can the one students testimony also be included who clearly and verifiably identified himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.42.75 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Already addressed repeatedly.sinneed (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If the chairman's statement had indicated the additional testimony included testimonials about FFS, I would want to provide that information in the article, but the chairman did not specify which schools and programs were covered. Therefore, it seems to me that there's nothing to be said. --Orlady (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ Testimony from Members of CAFETY http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=627
  2. ^ "Child Abuse and Deceptive Marketing by Residential Programs for Teens", U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor, Full Committee Hearing on HR 5876, April 24, 2008
  3. ^ Written transcript of testimony of Jon Martin-Crawford http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-04-24-JonMartinCrawford.pdf
  4. ^ The Family Foundation School Responds to the Recent Hearings by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/FamilyFoundationSchoolBN_080505.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allynwood_Academy/Archive_2&oldid=1142751997"