Talk:Candace Newmaker: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:38, 15 October 2006 edit206.81.65.148 (talk) →Cite [] sources...Therapeutic Foster Parents ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:58, 15 October 2006 edit undo206.81.65.148 (talk) →Not Licensed Therapeutic Foster Parents...Advocates for Children in Therapy Next edit →
Line 305:		Line 305:

	As a leader of ACT, as others have pointed out, you are not in a position to objectively comment on this. I see the reference and material as very relevant and interesting. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)		As a leader of ACT, as others have pointed out, you are not in a position to objectively comment on this. I see the reference and material as very relevant and interesting. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

			:On TFPs, see my comments above.

			:You may see the ACT reference as "very relevant and interesting", but that doesn't make it so. Prima facie, it adds nothing to the article. Justify its inclusion in objective terms. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. ] 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:58, 15 October 2006

United States: Colorado Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Misplaced Pages articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

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)

They were unlicensed and as a verifiable fact it is relevant. SamDavidson 17:50, 14 October 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)

I think the issue is closed as the fact of the "therapists" not being licensed in Colorado has been made clear with reputable sources. SamDavidson 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

David, much improved. JohnsonRon 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree DPeterson 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

does somebody mind editing the text? somebody was obviously very bitter about the event when it was written.--Nicole M. 00:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, proceed. DPeterson 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think the tags are good. There should be sources cited for those statements...that is helpful for the reader. RalphLender 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to article

The changes made to the article are justified as follows:

1. Candace Newmaker was not accidentally suffocated, but was found by a jury to have been killed by two practitioners of attachment therapy.

2. While contemporarily popularized by the press as a "rebirthing", the session wherein Candace was killed does in fact bear no relation to the New Age "rebirthing" of William Emerson, et al., and it would be a service to Misplaced Pages readers not to continue that misconception. The "rebirthing" scenario was actually just the script for one day's treatment during a two-week attachment-therapy intensive.

3. Ponder was a licensed marriage and family therapist at the time she killed Candace, and she lost her license as a result. Watkins was indeed unlicensed as a psychotherapist, but that was not a salient fact leading to the jury's guilty verdict on the principal charges. Thus, it is inaccurate and/or misleading to identify them as unlicensed.

4. The "therapeutic foster parents" (St Clair and McDaniel) were not "ad hoc"; their role was an integral part of the overall intensive. It was completely irrelevant that they were "unlicensed", as licenses were not then required for "therapeutic foster parents", or even for anyone to "assist" in therapy.

5. Jeanne Newmaker was more than just in "attendance" at her daughter's death, she was an active participant as evidenced by her pleading guilty to abuse/neglect charges.

6. The 11 hours of videotapes of Candace's treatment were made over 5 days, mostly in the preceding week, not 10 days.

7. The mention of ACT assisting the prosecution is gratuitous, and has nothing to do with the events or surrounding the death. Moreover, it doesn't enlighten Wiki readers about anything; it doesn't even say what ACT did to assist.

8. The facts about Jeanne Newmaker's plea bargain, and about most other flagged statements, are reported in the first external link (and its webography). They are also reported in Attachment Therapy on Trial.

9. Candace's Law in Colorado is widely reported. North Carolina's version copies Colorado's and is found at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-401.21.html.

10. The "death video" has never been publicly shown outside the trial of Watkins and Ponder. The judge "sealed" them to prevent it.

11. Mention of ACT in the "See Also" section is unnecessary as a relevant link appears in "External Links".

12. The external links needed repair.

13. I discovered Candace's birth year was given incorrectly.

Larry Sarner 09:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTES ON EDITS

Source states unlicensed therapists. No source that "Therapeutic" foster parents were licensed by state...souce needed to assert that.DPeterson 13:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) link to rebirthing is not relevant, given article there...agreed. ACT claims credit for helping in prosecution and in interesting and relevant link. DPeterson 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"killed" seems to be a bit of a loaded term, implying intent. what does the jury finding actually say? StokerAce 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I read one article, but don't see what they were actually convicted of. What ever charge they were found guilty of, or plead guilty to, is the word that should be used. .I will add a tag and if after a few days/week or so no one can provide a source, I'd go along with your changing that word to something else. RalphLender 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

this appears to be the appeals court decision in the Watkins case: https://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/opinion/2005/2005q4/04CA1697.pdf. It refers to a sentence for "reckless child abuse resulting in death." so maybe that could be worked in to the article somehow. StokerAce 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then that is the Template:Verifiable fact and I'd suggest using those specific words. I would certainly support your making that edit. RalphLender 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Candace killed by Watkins and Ponder

"kill" is a neutral term that means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/86/K0058600.html), "1a. To put to death. b. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions. Notice that there is nothing saying that The Black Death intended to kill millions, just that it was the agent for depriving millions of their lives. "Kill" is a succinct, unambiguous term communicating exactly what happened to Candace. The only thing left to determine in using it here is how she was deprived of life.

The jury was instructed by the judge to make a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether "the defendant, in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged, recklessly, caused an injury to a child's life or health, or permitted a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment or an accumulation of injuries, which resulted in the death" of Candace Newmaker. They, of course, made this determination in the affirmative. In other words, "Candace was killed, during an Attachment Therapy session, by Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder at the former's home."

Given all this, what possible reasons could there be not to use the word killed in this context, except as an attempt either to obfuscate the facts or try to spin the matter in the defendants' favor?

By the way, the death certificate said the cause of death was "brainstem herniation/cerebral edema due to or as a consequence of cerebral anoxia due to or as a consequence of mechanical asphyxiation". In other words, suffocation.

I am restoring my wording in both cases.

Larry Sarner 16:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

you only listed some of the definitions. another is: "To commit murder." so, one meaning of "kill" is intentional killing. for that reason, i think you should stick with something that more accurately describes what happened, i.e. reckless child abuse causing death. StokerAce 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we need talking about this! The sentence is accurate, succinct, and informative. Not every detail has to be in the topic sentence. Obviously "murder" wasn't meant by using "kill", or "murder" would have been used; that definition really saying that all murders are killings. Obviously "kill" doesn't mean "intentional killing," that would be circular. Aside from the uncommunicative nature and grammarical contortions of saying "reckless child abuse resulting in death", it is not accurate. That phrase describes the criminal nature of the defendants' action (discussed in the following paragraph) and not the physical act of what they did (which was to kill Candace by mechanical asphyxiation). By the way, "reckless" is a state of mind and describes the participant and not the consequence. Aren't you really arguing that "kill" shouldn't be used because it's a four-letter anglo-saxon word? Larry Sarner 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm just offering my 2 cents: "kill" seems like the wrong word here, as it could involve intent. when i see "kill" without "accidentally" in front of it, and a person is involved (as opposed to the Black Death), i assume intentional killing. thus, i don't think opening the paragraph with "kill" is the best approach. but i'm not going to argue about it. i've made my point and you can do what you want. StokerAce 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with StokerAce here. We should stick with the actual term used in the conviction as quoted by StokerAce above. This is a verifiablefact and so consistent with a NPOV. I support that edit. However, if Sarner strongly objects, then I suggest taking a poll and seeing what other editors think and reaching a consensus...or as much of one as can be achieved here. RalphLender 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A poll?!? To determine whether Ponder and Watkins killed Candace? What would that prove. It is a verifiable fact that Candace was deprived of life by Watkins and Ponder -- i.e., they killed her! She was not "recklessly child abused to death". How much more NPOV can you get? It seems to me that avoiding the term is POV. What are you trying to avoid, making these therapists look like killers? But, they are!! A poll! Sheez.

As for StokerAce's point, I respect his thought that "kill" could involve intent, but actually it doesn't. It's a neutral statement of fact. Newspapers all the time report that somebody was "killed by a drunk driver", without implying intent on the part of the driver. That said, I will point out that Watkins and Ponder did intend to not help Candace get out of the sheet, and she was killed as a result.

Larry Sarner 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"kill" is definately the wrong word here. despite official definitions, it imply the two suffocated candance with the intention to murder her. "died" is also not a sufficant word. the death was accidental and should be labeld as such--Nicole M. 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Murder" implies the intention to kill. "Kill" does not imply the intention to murder. Kill is the word everyone uses in English to describe the act of taking a life, whatever the circumstances or intentions. It's outrageous to say that the death was "accidental"; no one here has any verifiable idea what was going through the killers' minds. Larry Sarner 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here to change the word to the word used in the legal proceedings...they were found guilty of....Is that OK? If so, either I or another can proceed to make that edit. However, if there is stong objection, then I suggest a poll. OK?RalphLender 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus means common understanding, not majority vote. Larry Sarner 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, consensus can be achieved, even if there is one who disagrees. Since you and your spouce are leaders of ACT and have a vested interest in this material, if it turns out you are the only one disagreeing, then I'd say consensus has been reached. SamDavidson 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSAL BASED ON BUILDING CONSENSUS

So, I propose the language in the article be changed to read that they were convicted of "reckless child abuse resulting in death." OK with everyone?RalphLender 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye--Nicole M. 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. It is a factual statement and so can be verified using sources or references. SamDavidson 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The paragraph immediately following the one in question makes the point about conviction already. The paragraph in question is trying to state the facts of the matter, i.e., what happened to Candace (she was killed) and who did it to her (Watkins and Ponder). What you want is a synonym for "killed", and I have an open mind on that, though I'm skeptical that you can come up with another word as accurate as the original. (Gosh, you got your poll, not that it makes any difference about the truth.) Larry Sarner 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern was with the sentence "Candace was killed, during ..." How about just "Candace died, during ..." ? StokerAce 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That was essentially what was done in the introductory paragraph of the whole article, which said she was suffocated. During the trial, the defense tried to make a case that Candace had just died and wasn't killed. They didn't make their case. She didn't just keel over; somebody deprived her of life. Don't shy away from the fact just because its a hard one. She was killed by her therapists; there is simply no good reason for not saying so, even if it troubles some people to hear it said. I'm fighting so hard for the word because it goes to the significance of this case--a little girl was killed by her therapists and some others. She even told them she couldn't breathe, and they wouldn't save her life. Sounds deliberate, doesn't it? Larry Sarner 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

to me, it sounds "reckless," not "deliberate". just like with kill, "deliberate" implies intent. http://www.bartleby.com/61/8/D0110800.html no matter how horrible Watkins and the rest were, i doubt they intended to kill her. (not very good for business, for one thing.) StokerAce 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't argue against "recklessness" and I can't argue whether you doubt something, but I hope you can see the obvious here...the child told them she was in distress and they deliberately (intentionally, if you like) took no action on what she said. Then she dies. Did she just die, or was she, well, killed? A jury tasked with exactly that question had no trouble in answering, "killed". The therapists may not have intended that she die, but they certainly intended that she not be given the life-saving interventions (air, or release from confinement) that she requested and needed, and the outcome was fatal. Their actions deprived Candace Newmaker of her life...they killed her. What other word is there for what they did to her? Larry Sarner 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But the jury didn't say "killed." They said "recklessly" caused her death. If I had to guess, I would say Watkins et al. believed she was faking her complaints about not being able to breathe, and thought their "therapy" would actually help her. All in all, this is somewhat of a minor quibble, but I really do think "killed" can be interpreted as intentional murder, and that's not what happened here. StokerAce 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and think the language should be changed to she died and that they were "convicted of reckless child abuse resulting in death." SamDavidson 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning ACT

Again, the mention of ACT is gratuitous and gives the Wiki reader nothing relevant to the case. Granted that there's a reliable source for the information (except for the contributor's spelling), but the source isn't a reason for including the information in the article? Without a good reason, it appears like advertising for ACT (which they didn't ask for) or is just there to drive readers to the Wiki article on ACT (the neutrality of which is in dispute). That certainly is not Wiki policy and a disservice to Wiki readers.

I am editing out the (long) mention of ACT until there is some relevance behind including it, and there is consensus about the relevance.

Larry Sarner 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is that this advocacy group claims credit for this and the material is directly related to the subject of the article and is verifiable. How the conviction occurred, what went on, who was involved, are all relevant here. So, I will add back that section, which was in the article before you began your recent edits. However, if you feel strongly about it...let's begin a poll to see if your suggestion should replace what is in the article now. RalphLender 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As a leader of ACT, I don't see why Sarner is objecting the the linkage here? He is one of the individual's taking credit for the result, according the the ACT website. SamDavidson 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is verifiable is that ACT makes a claim to have contributed to the prosecution. Other than that, the information content in this section is close to zero, and what little is there is unimportant with relation to the subject of this article. Of what possible enlightenment does this information have for a Wiki reader? The reasons given above underscore how unimportant the information is. Relevance isn't the only standard for inclusion; importance is another. Larry Sarner 07:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

why are you objecting to your groups's mention in this article? You don't object to citing your own book as a soucrce of credible information, so your group's statement that it was instrumental in securing the conviction...or at least helped, is clearly relevant. It shows the broad impact of the case and the broad range of interested parties. Given that you and your wife are leaders of this group, your comments on this asepct of the article are suspect. SamDavidson 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

CITE verifiable FACTS

It will improve the article to provide citations for the staements I've tagged. verifiability is always helpful for the reader wishing to pursue more details. This is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy and practice. However, I am quite willing to setup a poll here if there is strong disagreement, since building consensus before changing an article is another important principle here. RalphLender 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1. See the talk sections above for the citations on whether Watkins and Ponder killed Candace. That one is taken care of.

2. Your source on calling the therapists "unlicensed" was wrong and so is not reliable for this matter. Julie Ponder was a licensed marriage and licensed therapist who had her licensed revoked on 31 August 2002 (because of her conviction for killing Candace) (http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=36166&P_LTE_ID=720)

3. See the talk sections above for the information on whether Candace was suffocated. Citations are legion. Every news story on the case mentions that she was suffocated.

4. See the "external links" section for a reliable source which describes Jeanne Newmaker's plea bargain.

5. See the talk section above for the citation to North Carolina's Candace's Law. Citations abound for Colorado's version, but see http://www.rickross.com/reference/rebirthing/rebirthing21.html for the Charlotte Observer's discussion of both.

This takes care of all the "citations needed" insertions, so I have removed them. If you think you need more, don't put them back. Just comment here and we can discuss it.

Larry Sarner 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations need to be in the article not on talk pages.

The link goes to an article identifying the therapist as unlicensed; seems reasonable to me.

will edit accordingly RalphLender 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The verification and citation can (and in this case should) go on the talk pages...unless your intent is to disrupt the readability of the article.

The article linked to is wrong in the case of Ponder, as the link I gave above clearly shows. When reliable sources disagree, the statement is to go with the more reliable -- which in this case is the online government database I cite.

She was 'unlicensed' at the time of the incident with Candace according to the news article. DPeterson 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The government database clearly shows Ponder had a current license on the day she killed Candace. The database is a 'primary' source, and trumps the news article, which is a 'secondary' one. Therefore, it is incorrect for the article to say Ponder was unlicensed. That ends it, unless you have a contradictory primary source. Larry Sarner 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We all want to be correct and follow Wiki guidelines...I hope. I will edit accordingly.

Larry Sarner 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and practice (see for example, verifiable, citation) have the sources go on the page. You can put in the souce so that it shows up in the Reference Section, and so does not disrupt the readability or flow of the article. DPeterson 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes for bad writing, but OK -- I will compromise by putting a citation at the end of the paragraph(s), since the source is usually the same for all the requirements. Where an additional source is involved, I'll cite it in situ. Larry Sarner 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite verifiable sources...Therapeutic Foster Parents

In addition to citing verifiable sources, either "ad hoc" should remain or a citation verifying that those individuals were Therapeutic Foster Parents inserted. Did they recieve state approved training to be Therapeutic Foster Parents? If so, cite a source...if not, then I'd remove the entire term and state that they were present. RalphLender 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me and I agree with your suggestion. SamDavidson 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The verifiable, reliable source is Attachment Therapy on Trial (pp. 60-61). St Clair and McDaniel were some of the staffers of Watkins and Associates with the task of being "therapeutic foster parents" for children going through Watkins's intensive. It was not an ad hoc thing, but a regular assignment. Larry Sarner 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

They were not licensed by the state as "therapeutic foster parents." However, if you can provide a source stating differently, please do so. SamDavidson 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

They called themselves "therapeutic foster parents", they followed the foster parenting techniques of Nancy Thomas, and Colorado does not restrict use of that term to someone having any sort of license. The verifiable, reliable source for their use of the term has been cited, and you have not cited anything contradictory to it. Please leave the term alone until you do. Larry Sarner 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardles of what they called themselves, Colorado does require specific training to be a "therapeutic foster parent" and to be a "foster parent." Please cite a verifiable source that they were, infact, "therapeutic foster parents" per Colorado. DPeterson 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. They called themselves that. The phrase is in quotes. I have cited a verifiable and reliable source; you and "SamDavidson" have not. Colorado does not "reserve" the title, but it doesn't matter in all events. Wiki policy does not require that to refer to someone as a "therapeutic foster parent" requires that the person be licensed as such. Leave it alone until you can justify with a verifiable and more reliable source that the term is unjustifiably used in this case. 206.81.65.148 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Licensed Therapeutic Foster Parents...Advocates for Children in Therapy

There is no evidence cited that the "therapeutic foster parents" were licensed. Either provide a citation or that term should be deleted and change to "two other adults." The references to ACT are clearly relevant and should stay; especially since Sarner is citing his own material as a verifiable source and he, along with his spouce, are the two leaders of ACT. SamDavidson 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1. It is not required that TFP's be licensed to use the term in Colorado, ie, the title is not "protected" there. Moreover, the term in quotes indicates that they may not have acted as a "professional" might; indeed, they likely did not since they were particularly following the techniques of "parenting specialist" Nancy Thomas (also from Colorado). This is what they called themselves and described by associates, so the term should (even must) remain.

2. You have given no citation for your idea that use of the term is restricted to licensed people.

3. As said above, the references to ACT are, prima facie, gratuitously made. They must be removed as completely irrelevant to the article, meaning it adds no useful information to the article. If someone from ACT had inserted these references, Wiki policy would regard them as advertising and remove them. It goes as useless.

Larry Sarner 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Training is necesary to be a foster parent or a therapeutic foster parent. Cite a source that they were certified, otherwise, let's stick with the other term.

As a leader of ACT, as others have pointed out, you are not in a position to objectively comment on this. I see the reference and material as very relevant and interesting. DPeterson 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

On TFPs, see my comments above.

You may see the ACT reference as "very relevant and interesting", but that doesn't make it so. Prima facie, it adds nothing to the article. Justify its inclusion in objective terms. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. 206.81.65.148 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories: