Talk:Wilderness therapy

message: Especially well referenced, good work! Sam Spade 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice article!

message: This article does NOT reflect the current thinking in the field.  There is a lot of propaganda (especially the "controversy" section which fails to discuss that the linkage to "boot camps" is a media creation.  The GAO report was highly biased.  Dr adventure (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you help us fix that?  Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe I can ameliorate the slant.  Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly Biased Article

message: I tagged the article with a POV template because much of the article appears designed not to convey information, but to tell people what to think. It does include sections written from different viewpoints, but the juxtaposition of different opinionated statements is not the same thing as objectivity. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: Someone has obviously had a bad experience with wilderness camps and wanted to show there disdain in this article. Some parts fail to be informative but provide advice and opinions. its obvious to see the different writers, one uses opinion and no facts, the other quotes the most well known wilderness therapy organization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.180.151 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article has changed very little since I created it in 2006 out of an exuberance for Wilderness Therapy.  It is, I suppose, a credit to my Wikipedia experience at the time that I was able to temper my exuberance enough that you actually believe somebody had an axe to grind against Wilderness Therapy.  All in all, I think the article presents the major points of view fairly and sympathetically, which is the heart of the absolute and non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy.
Why do all these type articles have to have a controversy section. Is that the only source of notoriety? I propose to make this and all articles like this more encyclopedic, to just describe the subject thoroughly. Anyone up for that? I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Tom Haws (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Feel free to address this problem.  Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs editing or just some erasing. 

message: :Additional discussion of this proposed merge is talking place at Talk:Adventure therapy#Merge wilderness therapy here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion may not be worth much.  But I think wilderness therapy is radical enough to deserve its own article, however short.  If the article is not at all comprehensive, well then, let's add some content to make it so.  Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Get jiggy wiv it, dude.182.240.34.78 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

text: To bring this point up again: Why should this not be merged? I don't understand the arguments in favor of keeping it separate. One editor said that it is "radical" and different but how is wilderness therapy different? The article describes it as a sub-category of adventure therapy, but there is no clear description of what makes it different. The article says it is a kind of adventure therapy, then there is some unclear waffling about whether or not it involves behavior modification, and then there is text describing controversies surrounding this subtopic. Another editor said that they don't know of any other form of adventure therapy where people are forcibly removed from their homes, but that would be a justification for making wilderness therapy a subcategory (as it is the form of adventure therapy that involves forcible restraint), rather than simply deleting the topic altogether. Besides, my understanding from reading this article is that the restraints and force is not a part of the therapy per se anyway: it is the use of escort companies to get people to the wilderness therapy that involves the force and the restraints. That is a controversial element that might only apply to this subcategory, but the fact remains that this is a subcategory of adventure therapy. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Adventure Therapy 

message: I don't understand: The summary says that this is a "treatment modality for behavior modification" but the overview says that the aims and methods of wilderness therapy do not center on behavior modification. Which is it? ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior Modification 

message: I think the different parts of this section should be separated. In particular, deaths (when no abuse/neglect is involved) aren't particularly controversial. It's tragic when a tree kills a camper, but that's not a problem unique to wilderness therapy: boy scouts and other outdoor programs also suffer similar deaths from time to time. It's not clear from the current text which incidents involved controversy and which were tragic but uncontroversial. For the sake of neutrality, that should be made clear. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of abuse, deaths, and lawsuits 

message: What function is the 'Articles' section of this article intended to serve? At the moment it appears to be a list of arbitrarily-selected articles about controversies surrounding wilderness therapy. The criteria for inclusion in the list are not described... And that information should be merged into the 'Controversy' section instead of presented as a list of stuff. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles section

message: I'm very confused by these edits and this subsequent revert, which left the section largely illegible. Russell's 2001 paper is now one of the most common sources for a definition that I could find in the literature. Is there a reason why Russell should be removed? - Bilby (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGE MATTERS it's too old 1keyhole (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is a definition, and it is the most common definition I can find. Plus you have made the section illegible. But ok, I will put it back with newer sources, if that helps. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I've used a 2021 source and made some modifications to the text to match. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. 1keyhole (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion 

message: I kept reading how many programs are 90 days and it was starting to bother me after some research I found the reason the most likely explanation 
The National Institute on Drug Abuse recommends 90 days for substace abuse treatment.
Leaves questioning why are non-substance abusers staying 90 days as well? 1keyhole (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  90 days? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II