Talk:Behavior modification facility/Archive 1

Untitled

This needs serious EXPANSION, but I have no idea how someone could do it with a NPOV. yodamace1

I added a Contreversy section but this still needs major expansion. Deathawk 05:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing controversial in this article. Tag removed. 70.100.251.10 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues

The evidence for behavioural theories is being abused to justify a scientific background for these facilities. Furthermore, this article has been seriously influenced by parties who have an obvious conflict of interest. This needs more contributors with a genuine and honest interest in neutrality. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is made abundantly clear by the article's opening line "A behavior modification facility (or youth residential program)". Whoever wrote this is trying to equate behavior modification facilities and youth residential programs. The two are clearly not synonymous. Furthermore the whole Controversy section is a carbon copy of the section of the same name in the Therapeutic boarding school article. You could have a Behavior Mod Facility for adults. Neutrality is clearly an issue in this article.

Who dropped the headings

The headings really organized the article. I am not sure why they were dropped. It reads much less clear. The headings laid out the controversy and presented both sides of the neutrality issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.92.1.70 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those headings because they (for example, "The Use of Behavior Modification in Such Facilities") were not encyclopedia-like and did not conform with the Manual of Style. Headings would be helpful, but not those headings. My other changes included removing redundant references, fixing apparent typos, and other changes to conform with the Manual of Style. Also, in the lead section, I changed "private, residential educational institution to which parents send adolescents" because not all such institutions are "private", not all behavior modification facilities are "educational institutions," and sometimes it is someone other than the parents who send adolescents to such a facility. I removed a strange (to me, anyway) distinction between "negative punishment" and "positive punishment" without changing the underlying description. Finally, I removed the following unsourced paragraph because it was nothing more than original research:

"Some argue that the ethical issues created by these programs is not diluted because the programs are effective. Others state that this is a matter of child and family choice. Still others argue that even the long term effectiveness of these types of programs remain questionable."

I am restoring my edits, as I believe they improved the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced reference was the source of the dispute. It should be referenced by the person who launched the dispute. The edits are good but the removal of headings makes it less readable. You should try to improve the readability, since you have taken the lead on making it less readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.92.1.70 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]