| Revision as of 12:10, 27 July 2006 editDPeterson (talk | contribs)4,116 edits →Warning: discontinue your reverts← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 27 July 2006 edit undoSamDavidson (talk | contribs)341 edits →Unlicensed and Book and Reversion to NPOVNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| ] 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | ] 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :It is clear to this editor that the "therpists" were unlicensed in the state of Colorado, which is what is stated in the article. This is a fact and so should remain. ] 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Warning: discontinue your reverts== | ==Warning: discontinue your reverts== | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 27 July 2006
 | United States: Colorado Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
When did Newmaker die?
- I always believed it was on April 18/19 2000. However, the FindaGrave site and several other sites say it was 1999. This must mean she was either 9 or 10 when she died.
--EuropracBHIT 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
When I read about it in the newspaper it said she was born in 1988 and died in April 1999. I think the Find-A-Grave site got her year of birth wrong. --User:Carie
Unlicensed?
The two therapists who killed Candace Newmaker were both legally allowed to practice in Colorado. Connell Watkins had been an unlicensed psychotherapist registered with the State of Colorado, which allowed her to practice, which she had done for over fifteen years in Colorado. Julie Ponder was a marriage and family therapist in California, and under reciprocity agreements was allowed to practice in Colorado. These are facts which came out in trial.
It was part of the scandal of this case that the little girl was (a) killed during what was claimed to be psychotherapy and (b) killed by persons legally allowed to practice. Additionally, part of the importance of the case was that these convictions were the first time that practicing therapists were criminally convicted for maltreatment during a therapy session, where the criminality did not involve sexual misconduct.
Thus, it is both inaccurate and misses the point to describe these therapists as "unlicensed". While some mental-health practitioners would like to place Newmaker's killers as outside the legal framework mental-health practice (licensing), that is only their point of view and is not supported by the facts of the matter.
I have accordingly improved the article to remove the words "unlicensed" as being wrong, POV and misleading to Wiki readers.
Larry Sarner 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Provide a citation, please for that. My understanding is that neither therapist was licensed in Colorado. A citation verifying that they two individuals were in fact licensed mental providers is indicated. RalphLender 15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the opportunity to establish this. The licensure facts as I've stated them are verifiable in Attachment Therapy on Trial (ISBN 027597675), pp. 44-45, which information was gleaned from trial transcripts. Their licensure status addressed the "reckless" component of the criminal charges. By convicting, the jury settled any question about their culpability deriving from their legal status and professional background. Larry Sarner 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see any verification that the two individuals were, in fact, licensed mental health practitioners in Colorado when they committed the crime(s) mentioned. Can you provide a specific citation that is not a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, or a direct link to the trial transcript? DPeterson 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- and both report the therapists were unlicenced. That should be enough to make the claim and any counter claim would need to be sourced as well. Also, we're after the secondary sources here, we can't use primary sources under the original research provision. JPotter 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I stated above, the licensure facts as I stated them are verifiable in Attachment Therapy on Trial (ISBN 027597675), pp. 44-45. So the claim may have been made in good faith, but so is the correction. Since my secondary source (which is peer-reviewed, professionally edited, and from a reputable publisher) takes its facts from the trial transcript, and it specifically relates this matter, it trumps the tertiary sources cited above. To the extent that they differ from the book on this issue, they are wrong. Larry Sarner 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strange, please correct me, as I am taking the excerpts from your book out of context:
- on Page 28:
"... April 2000, Jeane Newmaker and Candace were on their way to a small clinic, Connell Watkins Associates, run by the unlicensed therapist Connell Watkins in her home in Evergreen, Colorado, not far from Denver. Under Colorado law, Watkins, a social worker,
- on Page 44:
"... it of her. Colorado law did not ask for Watkins to be licensed as a therapist, and even registration of unlicensed therapists with the state was not needed until 1988, when registration with the state Mental Health Grievance Board became a ..."
- from Front Matter:
"... present at her death by suffocation (luring that therapy. This text examines the beliefs of the girl's mother and the unlicensed therapists, showing that the (heath, though Unintentional, ryas a logical outcome of this form of treatment. (continual on buck flap) ..."
JPotter 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
First, the dust cover is not a part of the source (it wasn't written by the authors) and is irrelevant and not usable as a reliable source. A case could be made that the reference made above was to the entire group of adults, and two of the five were unlicensed (the "therapeutic" foster parents), but they are not the subject of the present controversy.
Second, Ponder was licensed, and the fact of her licensure has been verified by the book. Continuing to refer to her as unlicensed is false and should stop. Ditto with Jeane Newmaker who was also licensed (as a nurse) and was being used during treatment as a "co-therapist".
Third, both on page 28 and 44 of the source, the meaning of Watkins's unlicensed status was discussed and placed into the proper context I described before. To take the term out of context and describe Watkins simply as unlicensed is to deliberately mislead and misinform the reader; her legal culpability and professional status was much more nuanced than that. I grant that extensive discussion of the meaning of being "registered" to practice psychotherapy in Colorado would be awkward in an encyclopedia, but if the term is used, then such a discussion should or must take place to properly inform the reader. It is avoided, however, by not mentioning it out of context, which is what I've been doing by removing the references (which are wrong in the case of Ponder in any case).
Fourth, mentioning the licensure twice (and indisputably erroneously in the case of Ponder) is gilding the lily, especially when I came up with a reasonable solution for the second mention (i.e., using the defendants' surnames) instead of characterizing them.
Fifth, the way is "unlicensed" is used in this article is unjustifiably POV. No justification for inclusion of this characterization has ever been tendered.
Larry Sarner 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Unlicensed and Book and Reversion to NPOV
- So I have reverted the page back since the therapists were clearly unlicensed per the newspaper article. In addition several of the edits made were not NPOV, requiring reversion.
- question: is it acceptable for Mr. Sarner to list his own book in the reading section?
- The changes from verified "unlicensed" to licensed should now stop.
DPeterson 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
An editor should be careful and specific about which edits are thought to be not NPOV before reverting another editor's hard work wholesale. For example, what is not NPOV about stating that Candace was killed at a home in Evergreen and not in Golden? Because it happens to be the geographical location of a lot of leading attachment therapists?
The therapists (plural) were not clearly unlicensed, as a reliable source has stated otherwise. It is POV to insist upon mistaken and misleading information be included, especially when the inclusion serves no good purpose.
It is a settled question that a reliable source about a topic can be listed in a reading section. Besides, I didn't list it in the first place.
The reversion is to a version which is, in my opinion, hopelessly inaccurate, biased and POV. Reversions to that version should stop.
Larry Sarner 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is clear to this editor that the "therpists" were unlicensed in the state of Colorado, which is what is stated in the article. This is a fact and so should remain. SamDavidson 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Warning: discontinue your reverts
Mr. Sarner, please stop your reverts. If you disagree, state that here and then follow the citations and consensus. Removing items from the Also see section, and other reverts you have made do not represent a NPOV. Please stop.
The references clearly state they were unlicensed, inlcuding the book you and your colleagues at Advocates for Children in Therapy wrote as cited by another editor in the previous section. DPeterson 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories: