Talk:Elevations RTC

Multiple Issues with Article

Hi Shadowrvn728, you've indicate there are some issues with the page. Please explain what the issue is with the cites? The article is very well cited. Aside from some issues with the cites that need to be fixed format-wise, the article has plentiful and diverse cites, including from the program's materials itself and from independent sources.

You also indicate it needs to be fact checked. The content is taken directly from the many cited sources. What do you need to fact check? Please expain so we can fix the page issues and remove the warning. Thanks. --Ttifacts (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ttifacts:Hey Ttifacts, please check WP:RS. Blogs/user-generated content (such as cafemom.com) are not reliable sources. When using the parent manual and parent resources make sure to use a secondary source. I wouldn't recommend using it to add information that can't be found elsewhere because the parent manual and parent resources are not publicly available. There is also a part of the article that uses a broken instagram post link from a meme account, which is not a reliable source under WP:UGC. Another part cites Facebook and MySpace groups (two of which are non-working, one a redirect and one a broken link) and it seems the only purpose of this part is to promote the groups and the information is unnecessary. I haven't read through the whole article and checked it, but I will continue to throughout the day and edit it as I do. If you have discord and would rather talk on there see my user page Shadowrvn728 (talk)

@Ttifacts: Sections of the handbook are available online and are therefore publicly available, so I disagree that they cannot be cited. You can find pages of the Elevations parent manual on this tweet, and there are also pages on the Yelp reviews. https://twitter.com/ElevationsRTC/status/1353588011942912000?s=20 Moreover, any source can be cited, and it does not need to be available online by any means. A book, for example, would not be publicly available online is still citeable to. The manuals are in actuality very citeable sources considering they come directly from the program. The information that is in the Elevations handbook is also almost word for word from the archived Island View website, stating essentially the same thing. Therefore it is consistent and these are good sources. The sources are further backed up by the cafemom article, which is not a blog. Cafemom is a website with millions of readers everyday. The website does not just publish any article and it is therefore highly reliable, especially since the article is backed up by several other sources, including the handbook itself. Please do not remove this information. The article is very well cited and removed of well-cited pieces of information is vandalism. --Ttifacts (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ttifacts: Cafemom is not a reliable source. It is a social networking site There are plenty of websites with a lot of viewers that aren’t reliable sources. You also did not address the problem of using Instagram, Facebook and Myspace as sources, some of which are broken links. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As explained, Cafemom is a website and it is a reliable source. It is also supported by several other sources. The instagram and twitter sources I believe have been removed, so that has been remedied. Therefore I am removing your point re sources as it is no longer appropriate. As for the sentence about restraint, this is an almost direct quote from the program and therefore I am going to remove your point re this as it is not appropriate. This paragraph has also been edited by a wikipedia editor as has the whole article - edits were made to the grammar and to better phrase it by this person. Finally, the article has sufficient detail, and your point about adding more detail or moving detail is not necessary. I will report you for vandalism if you further vandalize the article. Ttifacts (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ttifacts: You can't just say something is a reliable source because it is a website. "Almost direct quotes" shouldn't be in WP articles, but instead there should be information based on that quote, and "Restraints are a part of what Elevations does" counts as awkward language and needs to be reworded to follow WP:Tone as it sounds a bit biased and like an opinion. Can you also provide more detail as to how I am vandalizing? Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 00:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Tagged issues

@Ttifacts:

• Copy edit - Awkward language like “Restraints are a part of what elevations does”,”failed..programs” etc. that doesn’t follow an encyclopedic tone
• Intricate detail (list of programs in “expansion of island view” section, list of common statements in programming section, information about petition, etc.)
• I won’t add factual accuracy back in, because its more of a problem with the...
• Sources - Wordpress, CafeMom, and Instagram are not reliable sources under WP:UGC. The article also relies too much on primary sources like court documents and a manual that is not available online.
• POV/Neutrality - While much of the content of this article describes factual, horrendous conditions, it is not written neutrally. There is a lot of detail in controversy, and I think some of the stuff in programming should be moved to controversy, and more content added to programming. Maybe have another editor help you work on it who would be more neutral on the topic?

Let me know what you think! Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Physical vs manual restraint

I think we should specify manual or non-mechanical as it could lead readers to believe it means something like a four-point restraint chair or another type of mechanical restraint. Let me know what you think Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 02:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Elevations RTC Sign with Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight to covid material

I removed that section, but an IP editor chose to put it back, arguing that it "made the news" [1]. My point, as reflected in the news story, is that one anonymous parent said they were dissatisfied with the school's handling of it. Not enough, apparently, to actually do anything like bring their child home, just enough to complain to a reporter. No specifics are given. I would think it would be easy to find one anonymous parent complaining about the way any school on earth has handled pandemic response, so that seems like undue weight to me and I still think it should be removed, but I'm not going to edit war over it so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

cleanup issue

The controversies section is not at all in chronological order, it seems kind of random. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be in reverse chronological order, isn't it? --76.103.73.103 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:COIN discussion

There's clearly a problem here, and I see neither party has heeded my suggestion to discuss it here, so I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Elevations RTC to try and solicit some outside input from uninvolved editors. I chose to do this instead of filing at WP:ANEW to have the edit warriors blocked in the hope that they will take this chance to step back from edit warring and arguing via edit summaries and have an open discussion here, and maybe take a little time to learn content disputes are supposed to be settled. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I'd be more than happy to discuss here. I let HiRachel420 know on their talk page that there is probably a better place to put the content that they keep trying to put onto the ElevationsRTC page, perhaps on the Paris Hilton page or the pages for the companies they are referring to, if those exist. The content that they keep putting onto the ELevations RTC page has nothing to do with Elevations RTC, and the articles that are sourced also do not mention Elevations RTC. So I am really not sure why HiRachel420 keeps putting that content there. Farr4h2004 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

HiRachel420 keeps adding unverifiable and clearly skewed information on the page in this section. I believe this information needs to be deleted from the article. The person is discussing Paris Hilton and her husband, both of who have nothing to do with Elevations RTC, other than a rally that has already been mentioned. This person has been invited to discuss on the talk page but has not participated.Farr4h2004 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears the person has been blocked so I am going to revert the edits. If there is a problem with his, I am happy to discuss here. Farr4h2004 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

messy article, mostly attack, multiple problems

reverted, at this page has massive issues with non notability, and single source self published testimonials.

the possibility that someone closely associated with the abuse at these schools is editing in a non neutral point of view seems a real possiblity.

I'm going to check back next month after researching these claims.

note: being an employee of a business likely isn't notable, by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently rewriting this with a npov slant. any help from unbiased editors is welcome. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you rewriting? The page has a large amount of sources. I see you deleted the attacks. Thank you. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

rewriting from scratch, for style and npov . I'll upload the completed page when it's done. just giving the heads up SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing doesn’t need to be rewritten. There’s a major history to this article and it’s been discussed fervently and appropriate changes have been made. You can see all this in the talk page. If you have issues, please discuss then further on the talk page and point out where there are issues. Farr4h2004 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your advice on my extensive prose rewrite. keeping it in mind, all your suggestions are welcome. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to not make huge and undiscussed changes to the article without consensus here, in the normal course of collegiate editing. In my experience, major changes without consensus in an article about a controversial subject such as this one, always leads to trouble. Perhaps writing in your sandbox and linking from this page would enable us to make suggestions. This is a common practise here.

My second suggestion, (to both of you), is to learn to format your responses on Talk pages properly, using colons to indent each subsequent post, as I have done. Thanks -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks roxy, your suggestions are noted. sources will be removed, and prose altered, as per wiki policy. I'm almost done with the prose rewrite, i welcome your assistance with balancing this article. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

... and yet you still didn't bother to format your reply properly. Why not? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry mr dog. i am just learning how to do all of that. thanks for your help. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

... and yet you still didn't bother to format your reply properly. Why not? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have it seen any links or any discussions about any issues with this article coming from SmidMountTubalarFrame. On their talk page, they also referred to themselves as “us” so it’s unclear if this is some kind of paid company who rewrites articles. I’m not sure what “prose” this person is talking about. They’re also deleting satisfiable sources to articles claiming they are personal blogs when they are very much not and are refusing to enter into any meaningful discussion despite being promoted on several occasions. It’s a little suspect. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

As of now, there seems to be no consensus on a rewrite. It’s unclear what the intended edits are and why a rewrite is necessary. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@SkidMountTubularFrame keeps coming on my talk page and insisting on a rewrite of this article. I am opening up the floor to discussion here. Please let us know what the issues are so we can discuss.

This article in particular is a well-documented article with a long history of edits with multiple editors as far as I can tell. There has also been ample amount of discussion on the talk page about any issues and most have been addressed. So I cannot see how a rewrite of this article would be necessary in any way.

If you'd like to address specific issues, we'd all be happy to talk about them further here. Not on my individual talk page.

I appreciate it. Farr4h2004 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

attack blogs and marketing npov personal sites

I'm certain struggling teens, Woodbury reports, and various testimonials do not satisfy wiki sources, and they will be removed if readded thanks for helping to keep the encyclopedia correct. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please cite the policy you’re certain that these sources are not satisfiable for wiki sources. I disagree. They are adding a balanced perspective to the article. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Our sourcing policy is WP:RS - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This person or company is claiming that strugglingteens.com is against wiki policy and I’m not sure that’s true. This is a new source with information from the industry, that includes articles by industry providers like elevations, and parents. To create a balanced article, it seems necessary to have both industry content and some of the more newsworthy information about Elevations that has been featured in more prominent news sources. Thoughts?

About

In 1995, StrugglingTeens.com went online as the original website for information about the many schools and programs available for troubled teens. The news and articles listed within this site provide an invaluable resource for both parents and professionals, as well as anyone interested in helping troubled teens find successful paths to adulthood.

With a combination of training and 20+ years of experience, our educational consultants provide balanced news, information, and provide professional help for parents of struggling and troubled teens helping families find programs, services and schools for teens and at risk youth.

Please take some time to peruse the site and call us if we can be of assistance to you. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• news source Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Farr4h2004, WP:RS states Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. If you'd like to make a case that strugglingteens.com is a reputable news source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, you can make that argument at WP:RSN and see if you get consensus that it should be considered a reliable source. Personally, it seems dubious to me. There are no editorial guidelines, no named individuals (everything seems to written by the anonymous admin), no explanation of their fact-checking methods or correction policy. Schazjmd (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the articles on strugglingteens being cited to are parent commentaries or press releases from Elevations itself. So they have authors. The press releases are relevant in terms of opening dates for example. They’re press releases releases for certain historical events. I will look at the policies some more and at the consensus link you listed Farr4h2004 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent your replies properly. See WP:THREAD and WP:INDENT for instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to return to the issue of citing press release. I am currently research it and there is definitely a whole wiki page to cite to press releases. In that case, citing to them from strugglingteens.com may be ok. I will continue to research this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_press_release Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion about this at these sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Citing_to_strugglingteens.com_regarding_troubled_teen_industry_programs Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have responded there. I'm genuinely curious to know Bilby's opinion??? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, press releases can be used. I would therefore appreciate it if @SkidMountTubularFrame refrain from doing a mass deletion of any press releases from all troubled teen program cites. They should check the actual article and consider its verifiability and reliability before just deleting all references. There is indeed a time and a place to use press releases.

From another user: The press releases can be used in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF which provides limited usage of press releases and other company produced information. A more reliable source publishing would be better, but the website could qualify as best source available for them. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

2004 Suicide and Sources

The suicide that occurred at Island View in 2004 is discussed in several articles, most of which I believe are cited in the wiki article.

One of the ones cited is: "Teen facility targets suicide prevention". Deseret News. July 30, 2004. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

A residential treatment center for troubled teens is being required by state licensing officials to take "corrective action" after a 16-year-old Pennsylvania boy hanged himself earlier this month.

The youth, who had been at Island View Academy for only a month, apparently hanged himself from a shower support with a belt. The shower was in a bathroom shared by other residents.

Ken Stettler, the state's human services director over licensing, said Island View officials plan to meet with him next week to submit a corrective plan of action in light of the teenager's death.

From this article that is cited https://testkitchen.huffingtonpost.com/island-view/#troubled-teen-industry/

"Island View dealt with a death in 2004, when a boy hanged himself with a belt just a month into his stay."

This article is also mentioned: https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/news/ci_7166739 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farr4h2004 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Then the sourcing is a mess, like so much else with the article. The claim that "Island View was cited for providing inadequate medical care to the child, placed on probation, and required to submit a plan of corrective action" is cited to [2], which is a different child, and not referring to the one who committed suicide. I can't find a copy of the Deseret News to confirm that it is referring to the same child, but even so, that doesn't confirm the "put on probation" claim. I'll try and at least fix that much. - Bilby (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Deseret article https://www.deseret.com/2004/7/30/19842793/teen-facility-targets-suicide-prevention

I'm not sure where the probation and inadequate medical care part came from but I removed it. The child definitely died and the facility was required to submit a plan of corrective action. Farr4h2004 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to see that at this part is accurate now. - Bilby (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Balmer and Broadbent

I've removed the claim regarding Broadbent: "Broadbent formerly worked as a teacher and counselor at the Intermountain Indian School, which is part of the allegedly troubling history of native boarding schools." Although the sourcing is ok, there is no source which directly connects Broadbent's time at the school with the "troubling history", and the source for Intermountain is mostly very positive of the school [3]. Therefore this ends up feeling like guilt-by-association, and when under the heading of controversies (and the lead of this section) suggests that Boadbent was directly involved in something wrong, with no source to back that up. In regard to Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital, Balmer's position as cofounder makes this more relevant (although it would be good if there was some evidence that he was involved when the problems occurred). However, there are two connected allegations being made - that Rivendell ran conversion therapy, and that students were abused. I agree that conversion therapy is a type of abuse, but given that the article we link to has Rivendell strongly denying being involved in conversion therapy, and it was unable to prove that they were, I think we need to highly both claims as allegations - otherwise it reads like conversion therapy was used, but that there were also allegations of abuse. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is one 1989 article featuring Balmer and the alleged committing of minors needlessly.

https://www.deseret.com/1989/7/21/18816529/panel-is-told-of-minors-committed-needlessly Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That article just quotes him saying he doesn't think "minors unnecessarily being committed" is a problem. Schazjmd (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What the heck, Farr4h2004? Articles summarize reliable sources. You don't just dump refs in because a name is mentioned, next to content that nothing in that ref supports. You add sources that you use to write the article, to provide verifiability for the information. I removed the ref because nothing in that source supported the sentence you attached it to. Schazjmd (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. I was tying the article to the abuse allegations, not Jared Balmer being a cofounder. Here are other articles about the abuse allegations and investigations at Rivendell.

https://www.deseret.com/1996/3/21/19231949/incident-prompts-probe-of-psychiatric-facility

https://apnews.com/article/fc51136c0d2f12549ba669e2682ad571

Ms. Duff describes her time at the Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital in Utah as six months of torment. At Rivendell, which is not affiliated with Teen Help, Ms. Duff said counselors advised her to ``work at becoming more heterosexual.″

``They’d do these type of treatments where they’d show you pictures of women having sex and they’d make you smell ammonia,″ she said. Counselors also told her she was hurting her family because of her homosexuality, she said. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Farr4h2004, unless there is some evidence of something controversial related to Broadbent working at Intermountain, why even mention it under controversies? [4] Especially given that one of the two sources makes no mention of him at all? - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with mentioning or not mentioning him. I included it because the backgrounds of the other two founders were mentioned. So I included the background for the third. He also had a history of working at a residential facility, albeit a different kind. I would also beg to point out that a residential school is controversial in itself given what we now know. But again, I am okay either way. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you also provide the quote that mentions Rivendell on page 164 of Kissing Frogs. I've checked, and page 164 in my edition makes no mention of Rivendell, and I can't find any mention of it in searches of the book. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It says that Balmer is a cofounder of Rivendell in multiple places, including in the book. It's definitely in the book in very clear writing that he founded Rivendell, same as in the below sources.

https://www.waypointacademy.com/staff-academy/managing-partners/

Jared’s professional career centers on adolescents and their families. He is one of the pioneers of a multi-disciplinary approach in the private sector of the residential treatment arena, integrating education, milieu therapy, recreational therapy, psychiatry, and psychotherapy. While living in the mid-west, he founded two treatment centers that served students with severe conduct and related disorders. Since returning to Utah, Jared co-founded Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital, Island View RTC, The Oakley School, and the Aspen Institute for Behavioral Assessment. Drawing on his vast experience and passion for working with adolescents, he has joined forces with other seasoned professionals to create WayPoint Academy, a specialized residential treatment facility for males with anxiety and relation problems.

https://advantagefamily.com/our-authors/jared-u-balmer/

Jared Balmer is a licensed psychotherapist who specializes in work with adolescents and their families. He attended Brigham Young University and completed a M.Ed. in educational psychology and a Ph.D. in marriage and family therapy. He is the cofounder of Rivendell Psychiatric Hospital, Island View RTC, the Oakley School, and the Aspen Institute for Behavioral Assessment, and he is the co-owner of WayPoint Academy, a specialized residential treatment facility for adolescent boys suffering from the effects of anxiety and related disorders. Jared grew up in Switzerland and currently lives in Utah. He is married with three children and three grandchildren. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't find it anywhere in the book, it isn't on the page you provided, searches don't have it, and you haven't provided a quote. So I'll swap out the book reference for something else. Meanwhile, the question regarding Broadbent still stands - is there anything controversial about him working at Intermountain that warrants including it in a controversy section? - Bilby (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in the book on the jacket page - the last page. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So you invented the page number? Please don't do that. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be on the back cover, either. - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely there. You want me to take a photo? I am not sure how to take a photo and slide into wikipedia though. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a photo of him and this a section describing him. To quote, "Dr. Balmer is a licensed psychotherapist .... He is the cofounder of Rivendell ... " Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Found it. You are not referring to the back of the book either, but the inside of the wrap around. So not even a "page 164". Well, at least I understand what you were doing now. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I said book jacket, part of the book. It's there. Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Recall that I did not initially cite to any page number. I cited to the book, which is a reliable source from an independent publisher and which includes a biography on the book jacked about Jared Balmer. The same or similar biography is on the publisher's website. Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you included a fake page number from the outset [5]. - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No. I initially had the cite with only the number of pages. Someone came in and indicated that it was missing the page number. Although I actually think you can format the cites with one of the other - page numbers or a designated page number. So I am not sure why they did that. You can see in what you linked that the original cite had "pages=163". I can't find the history of the person designating the cite as something wrong, perhaps because it was tagged as a minor edit. But that is what happened. I then tried to specify that the information about Jared being a cofounder was on the last page of the book/book jacket. I apologize for it not being specific. The cite could have just been left as it was referring to the book. But it's better to have a verifiable website linked instead.

Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It didn't include the cite but it was like this:

ref name="Kissing Frogs Balmer">Balmer, Jared (2015). Kissing Frogs. Charleston, South Carolina: Advantage. p. 163. ISBN 978-1 -59932-456-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is moot either way. What it does mean is that I need to double check anything you add. We keep finding issues with the sourcing on this page, and I can't assume that additions are accurate. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. You are welcome to double check the sources. They haven't all be added by me. There are multiple editors on this article. Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Lawsuit regarding Hutcheon

Are there any secondary sources for this? Or sources they do not link to Scribd? per WP:RSP, we should not be using Scribd. I'm uncomfortable with just relying on a single claimed court document with no secondary sources in regard to a controversial claim, especially when the document we have is on a site we shouldn't use. - Bilby (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There are licensing records and police investigation documents as well. The court documents are also online at other cites. I will have to search for them tomorrow. Citing to court cases is certainly permitted. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but are there any secondary sources? - Bilby (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Also where are you getting that you can’t include scribd documents to refer to the document being cited (for verfiability)?

The girl in the lawsuit also spoke about the incident on Reddit but that’s not exactly a desired cite source. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP: "Scribd ... is considered generally unreliable, especially for biographies of living persons. Anyone can upload any document they like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated." - Bilby (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it. For the complaint document I added a new URL. I am confident this is the correct source. There are other court documents related to the case on that site too. There may be other scribd documents in the Wikipedia page also referenced that are probably also on this site but I have not changed all of them yet. Either way, the documents cited are not biographical, which would be less reliable. They are documents related to this program and appear to be reliable, especially since they can be verified on other websites. Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A google drive link is no better. Both it and scribd are merely platforms, anyone can upload any file and there is no way to validate that they are accurate. The bigger question is WP:WEIGHT: if there is no independent coverage of this incident, why should it be in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's synonymous with the other claims of abuse and lawsuits. So I think it should be in there. You can use google drive links if the user using them has verified them, which I have. You can also download these documents from the court websites, and compare them with the documents on google drive. I have no reason to believe that they are not verifiable or fake. Farr4h2004 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Using Google Drive links is just as bad as Scribd, and doesn't fix anything. The problem is that there is no way for someone to know if the copy at that link is the same as the original. - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at the court public document. I have verified it myself and indicated as such when I entered the URL. The URL to the google drive document makes the cite more verifiable rather than just citing to the court document without a URL and therefore makes it more reliable in itself. Farr4h2004 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I can also give you the westlaw link to the case if you would like that too. Definitely verifiable. Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, a Google Drive document does not make it more verifiable, because we can't be certain that the document linked to is accurate. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Opal Creek

Farr4h2004, I removed another claim that cites a source that doesn't actually verify the claim. The Opal Creek registration only supports that Tim Dupell is the agent and manager for Opal Creek; it says nothing about Opal Creek's purpose or it investing in Family Health. Schazjmd (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I do think Family Help and Opal Creek are related and may even be the same. They are referred to together on this race car driving site as a sponsor for Tim Dupell's son. But I have not researched it further so further verification would be necessary to determine the private equity connection.

https://www.usf2000.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/usf2000-entry-list9222dd7d339f6ec495b1ff0000570f88.pdf?sfvrsn=40bdb331_0 Farr4h2004 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I didn’t originally add that info. I just moved it and had not verified it. Thanks for doing so. Farr4h2004 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Programming

I'm not sure what to do about the programming section. It is heavily dependent on primary sources, and more concerning many of those sources are not officially publicly available (internal Elevations handbooks) so they don't seem to be verifiable. Flagging it here as it probably needs a rewrite by reducing the content to what we can source using verifiable references. - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources are publicly available on the nonprofit unsilenced.org website. Here are some of the handbooks. The other sources are probably also there but I will have to find. Farr4h2004 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have had to remove both links. We cannot use Google Drive documents, as we cannot be certain that they are accurate unless posted by the company. We wouldn't be able to use copies posted on unsilenced.org for the same reason. In addition, unless the copyright holder posted the articles on Google Drive, linking to them would be contributory copyright infringement. - Bilby (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Well they can still be cited to. And no url needs to be included to the cites. If you’re worried about verifying the sources, you know where to find them. The handbooks are reliable I have checked. They were received from students and parents who were involved with the Elevations program. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, unsilenced.org has an archive of troubled teen program documents for informational and educational purposes. Farr4h2004 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You can email them if you are curious where a document came from. Farr4h2004 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't know where to find them. The question is whether or not those documents are verifiable - if no editor other than someone who works at or attends Elevations can access the handbooks, then they can't be verified. It is ok if editors need to pay to access a source, or need to go to some difficulty to access a source (such as ask someone to visit a library collection for them), but if they can't access it because it is an internal document of a corporation that has not been made public, it is not verifiable. - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, the documents are in an archive run by a non-profit organization and are available to the public for informational and educational purposes. Most or all of the information cited to in them is also verifiable in student testimony also available online. If you would like additional cites to that testimony, that is certainly possible.

As far as the documents, they certainly look verifiable and given that they line up with the testimony and all other sources, there really is no reason to believe that they are fake. They certainly do not look tampered with. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you trying to say that one cannot cite to any handbook or document unless that document is displayed on a company or school website?

The handbooks are certainly made public in that they are provided to parents and students at the school, no longer making them internal. Farr4h2004 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that if it is not possible to access the documents - only copies of documents claimed to be accurate that are being leaked by a lobby group opposed to the group - then they cannot be verified. If there are alternative sources, such as online testimony, that we can use, then we can use them instead. If there are no verifiable alternative sources, we shouldn't be making the claims. - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The document has been made available to the public in some form. The school gives it to parents and students and it available in a publicly accessible archive on unsilenced.org. Unsilenced.org is a non-profit organization that aims to protect kids from institutional child abuse. Its archive has over I think 60,000 documents related to the history of and programs in the troubled teen industry, a billion dollar business that has been operating for several decades and has left a very long paper trial. It is a very legitimate archive, and therefore, per the Wiki rules mentioned below, the documents are a reliable source.

Again we have a publicly accessible archive that is legitimate, especially in this context.

"Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". ... This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.

Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that this archive has several handbooks related to this school from different years. It's very clear they are legitimate handbooks given that their similarities and the common themes, and also that some of them include staff names, etc., of people who worked there that allow the reader to identify when the manuals were released. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, yes, documents have been privately published, but we do not know if the copies shared by this lobby group are accurate. They could have been modified. Unless we can show that they have been independently verified, if the claims are contentious, we shouldn't use them. If the claims are verified in other sources, we should use the other sources. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a lobby group. 501c3's can't be lobby groups. (In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).) I'm sorry but it's a legitimate archive with over 60,000 documents collected about the troubled teen industry. They're reliable documents. For example, conference materials are considered public documents. They are distributed to the public. Handbooks distributed to students who take them home when they leave are public. And also distributed to parents who live in other states and don't even goto the school. Those are public. They've clearly made their way into the archive and are not publicly available. The claims also aren't bad. This is their behavior modification program and what they do. Who says its bad? Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the definition of an archive: a collection of historical documents or records providing information about a place, institution, or group of people.

This is exactly what Unsilenced has and its very much public, considering anyone can access. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you aren't going to listen. I get the point. I'll raise it at RSN. - Bilby (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re not listening. It’s been made clear these are public and you don’t like the answer. Please link your discussion at RSN. Farr4h2004 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unsilenced.org_archives. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great. I think the consensus is that the documents can be used, as I explained. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the consensus is that there wasn't much interest in the question. One comment does not a consensus make. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Founders

This program was founded by Kimball DeLaMare. A source was deleted referring to only Balmer and Boardbent but that is because the article was about the Oakley School, another program they founded. I don’t have time at the moment but there are several other sources about DeLaMare that came be used to establish him as a founder. Farr4h2004 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is one such source listing him as a founder

https://www.deseret.com/1994/8/31/19128203/complex-for-troubled-adolescents-nearly-done Farr4h2004 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Family Help and Wellness

I believe Family Help and Wellness have at least a part ownership in Elevations RTC. There are documents and sources linked in the article that explain this although they may be in the wrong places. Let's discuss this here before deleting the whole section. If FHW is the parent company, it is definitely relevant information. And there are again sources to reflect this. I believe the structure if set forth in the sales agreement that was made public in a lawsuit involving Aspen Education Group (former parent company) and FHW when the sale of troubled teen programs, including Elevations, was done. There are also corporate records available showing the same. When I have a moment I will check and link them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farr4h2004 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no sources which show part ownership. There is a link saying that there is a partnership in that Family Help and Wellness provide services for Elevations in administration. While there is a small reason for mentioning this, I have no idea why we then cover the CEO of Family Help and Wellness trying to insinuate that he was involved in the problems of a previous employer without any source claiming he was connected; cover the CEO of his previous employer when it has nothing to do with him or Elevations, and then cover partners of a partner of Elevations with no sources connecting them to Elevations. The whole section doesn't belong here. - Bilby (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is one source, which is referenced elsewhere in the article. It’s the sale agreement. Tim Dupell, Family Help, AND Opal Creek Capital are listed as signors/managers for Elevations RTC (Syracuse RTC, LLC), which acquired Island View.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cn4t48w8BG1tnDLl_3aHi6058940Q27K/view?usp=drivesdk Farr4h2004 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Steven Stradley is also named in the document in an attached email. Farr4h2004 (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Opal Creek Capital is also affiliated here https://sec.report/Document/0001461859-09-000001/ Farr4h2004 (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source? Anything so that we don't have to analyse an unverified primary legal document? - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I will have to look when I have a moment. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires published sources, not legal documents, FOIA results or random stuff off somebody's cloud drive. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

External links

Hi Stesmo, I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for this diff beyond your edsum? The nutshell on the EL page reads " External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." (my emphasis). The link you removed is surely exactly that. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog There's no reason to clutter the External Links section with links to the various Alumni associations/groups for schools. If BreakingCodeSilence meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, create a Wikipedia article about it and put the External Link there. If this org is pertinent to the subject of the article and reliable, third-party, published sources exist to use as citations, then you may want to incorporate the group into the article. If not, then there definitely doesn't seem a good reason to include a non-WP:NEUTRAL, advocacy external link, even if the intent is good. Regardless, "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Thanks, Stesmo (talk)

Public Records and KUER article

@Praxidicae why are you deleting references to public records? I am confused? The same material is also referenced in the KUER article. Where does it say they are subject to copyright?

You cannot copy content from other sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The info is NOT copied. It is referring to a report. Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read the KUER article? Nothing is copied from it. https://www.kuer.org/health-science-environment/2020-12-17/utah-has-seen-abuse-in-troubled-teen-programs-for-decades-now-momentum-slowly-builds-for-change Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As FTF noted, WP:CLOP applies. Do not restore it as you're now edit warring. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Firetangledfeathers? I like it. Farr4h2004, I have no objection to you summarizing that content in your own words and restoring it. You might be better off waiting 24 hours or so before doing so to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that as it is written is not close paraphrasing at all. But I will have to look at the entry closer. I will look after 24 hours. Regarding the head hitting incident, for example, the KUER article goes into detail in a longer paragraph whereas the wikipedia entry was very dry and short. Definitely not close. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I just looked. It is not even close. I am not sure that @Praxidicae has really read the article to compare. Farr4h2004 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is exceedingly close. The longest stretch of directly copied material is 33 words long, and it's not the only one. Can you please take this as a learning moment about what level of copying is unacceptable? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits

It seems that there have been a few lawsuits against Elevations. In order to better manage this, should we limit it only to lawsuits that have secondary sources? If a lawsuit is dismissed, should it be included? Given how easy it can be to bring a lawsuit in the US, I don't think that the existence of a lawsuit should be sufficient in terms of weight - it should have secondary sources, or if not at a minimum have resulted in a finding against Elevations. Thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The lawsuits have a common theme that line up with the secondary sources regarding child abuse. I think that’s notable. Most schools don’t have several child abuse lawsuits being filed against them. Farr4h2004 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we don't cover them. But we need some basic inclusion criteria. Filing a lawsuit is relatively easy. Proving your case is the important step. How about we simply say that we cover any and all lawsuits where there is a reliable secondary source at least mentioning the case? That way we have some guide to due and undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Bilby. If not one secondary source mentions it, we (a tertiary source) shouldn't be. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Rise in Edits

Has anyone noticed the rise in edits relating to therapeutic boarding schools & Residential treatment centers for this year? a few examples

Cedu page histroy,

Elevations RTC page history,

Aspen Education Group page history ,

Carlbrook page history 1keyhole (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There was some discussion on an off-wiki criticism site about possible whitewashing of many articles in this subject area, that's at least part of it. More particpation is usually a good thing anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

the problem I have with increase of edits is that articles have been reduced in size quite dramatically.

So information is being removed and replaced with nothing. 1keyhole (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It may be because industry-related folks are deleting the information. That is likely. Farr4h2004 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP vio?

Hi User:Bilby. Could you explain how BLP has been violated? Thanks very much. - Roxy the dog 12:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Claims about living people sourced only to court documents: WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm reading this as about a staff member and a person making the accusations, rather than claims about Elevations itself. - Bilby (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply - I wont be making changes to the article. I find these places to be creepy. Is it just me? - Roxy the dog 12:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, definitely not just you. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Bio information removed. Farr4h2004 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Farr4h2004. We've been over this before, but there were three problems with this. The first is WP:BLPPRIMARY - this adds claims about living people sourced only to court documents, which we can't do. Second, the court documents are hosted on Google Drive, not an official repository, so we can't know if they are accurate or not. And then we have the problem that these are accusations made in court, not the court findings

You added back content about living people, sourced solely to court documents. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY that is against policy, so I have reverted. In addition, as raised previously, those documents are hosted on Google Docs, where we cannot know if they are the originals or not, and they are the claims made in court by the prosecuting party, not the findings. I'm always worried about relying on prosecution or defence claims, as ultimately you can claim anything in court, and what matters is what the court finds at the end. In this case, due to a settlement, I assume that there were no court findings. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The content does not refer to living people by name. Plus, I believe it was clarified that documents in a database are reliable sources. 2601:645:8780:2520:1CAB:C683:5A92:A289 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

a secondary source has been added and the staff is no longer mentioned - only the lawsuit against Elevations. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so let's look at this. First, the content is about living people - specifically someone accused of harming the resident and the resident themselves. That it does not include their names does not change the subject of the material. Second, we certainly did not agree that copies of court documents hosted on Google Docs and Scribed by individuals and lobby groups opposed to the organisation can be used. Very simply, if they are copies there is a possibility that they have been modified. The official records hosted on an official source are the only way to go. Third, replacing those documents with a self published source by a lobby group opposed to the organisation does not help. Next, using the prosecutions claims, when the case was settled and we don't know the truth of those claims, is a problem itself. Finally, I can find nowhere in the self published source that you added where this case is mentioned. [6] If I am missing something please let me know, but it doesn't seem to cover any cases from 2018, and there is no mention of someone claiming to have suffered nerve and brain damage. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for lawsuits being dismissed

The article states lawsuits "were subsequently dismissed", a phrase that is then substantiated with a whopping six references. But none of the sources used there are anything other than complex court documents almost nobody will understand, and no secondary sources are listed at all. It's impossible to verify the claim unless you are an attorney, or something. --2001:1C06:19C9:400:4C00:50AE:BD63:AC41 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated insertion into the article unsourced quotation, negative pov

"The only thing that has changed..." is an unsourced quotation, in the form of a paraphrase, that an editor is insisting on keeping in the article regarding this organization.

find a source for the additions, or remove it, please. have a Wikipedia day! Saintstephen000 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)