Talk:TeenScreen

message: Removed POV tag. If someone thinks it's POV they can put it back and explain why it's POV here. 70.66.48.130 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added back POV tag. Here's a reference for the claim: http://www.counterpunch.org/lucas12302005.html 70.66.48.130 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Ombudsman, in your edit summary you wrote,
"# rv: restore parent consent wording, tag, wholesale deletions; the program is inherently controversial, as it uses deceptive, underhanded means to recruit more children)"
the POV tag is not meant to be a permanent feature of an article. Granted there is a controversy but the article itself should be NPOV.
1. Why are the scare quotes around "diagnostic psychiatric service" in the first paragraph?
2. Regarding, "It is claimed that this screening is often done without the knowledge of the student's parents, and that it only requires "passive consent"." Who makes this claim and how does TeenScreen respond to it?
3. Regarding, "In many cases, students who are screened are given a psychiatric label, and end up being prescribed psychotropic drugs." Again who makes this claim and what is the respnse to it?
4. Why the scare quotes around "passive consent"?
5. Is the passive consent form presented typical? Who vouches for it's accuracy?
The POV in this article has been longstanding and blatant. Could you address this? Dv82matt 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions, and yes, the article has been badly neglected.  MindFreedom International has been critical of such programs, and at the very least has been circulating e-mails outlining the contention that the program is little more than another dangerous marketing ploy designed to get more kids hooked on psychotropic drugs.  The tag was restored as well as the content because the wholesale deletions seemed unmerited (extending well beyond mere npoving), but you are entirely correct in bringing renewed attention to the fact the article needs a rework.  Ombudsman 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your quick response. Alright let's leave it for now and hope someone deals with it. Maybe I'll check back in a month or so to see if any progress has been made. In the long term I'd rather the article be incomplete than POV. I will just delete the scare quotes for now. Dv82matt 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems 

message: A number of the links in the article are to sites of Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), but these aren't indicated as such in the article: www.teenscreentruth.com, www.teenscreen-locations.com, www.teenscreenfacts.com, www.psychsearch.net. Some others are to sites like indymedia.org which are not WP:RS since they do no fact checking and allow anyone to post. (The posters there usually just happen to be connected with the Church of Scientology and CCHR.) There's a blog in the external links section—"Links normally to be avoided" according to WP:EL. It does seem like a lot of unknowing or deliberate link-spamming for CCHR has been going on in the article. AndroidCat 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Added after noticing an editor with a Buffalo IP address) Look at the domain registration and IP address of www.teenscreentruth.com and www.cchrbuffalo.org. AndroidCat 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to link the (CCHR) "tags" to the CCHR article when referenced in the references and external links. There is no real mention of what CCHR is in the article, only (CCHR) behind some tags. Pyrogen 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CCHR links

message: The mention of false positives seems poorly informed, and designed to create suspicion of TeenScreen. Diagnostic tests have to balance the risk of a subject falsely identified as positive, in this case meaning a healthy teen would be indicated as depressed or at risk of suicidal behavior, against the risk of a subject falsely identified as negative, where a depressed or potentially suicidal teen would be identified as healthy. A test for a serious, even life-threatening condition is typically designed to produce a low false negative rate than to focus on the false positive rate.
Imagine, for example, that you were being tested for cancer. Would you prefer to take a test that had a high false positive rate, so that you are more likely to undergo a second, more thorough examination to determine more accurately whether or not you do in fact have the disease, or a high false negative rate, so that you are more likely to be told that you are healthy when in fact you have a tumor? The first test does a better job guaranteeing that a "healthy" result is in fact correct. The cost of a false positive is comparatively low: you might have to pay for a second, more expensive test. The cost of the false negative is high: you might have a tumor undiagnosed until your next check-up (or possibly later). (The former outcome, when discovered, leads to relief and happiness. The latter leads to malpractice suits.)
A responsible test that has a high false positive rate is not treated as conclusive-- instead, the subject, patient or teen or whomever, is referred for a more thorough examination, which it seems that TeenScreen does.
More broadly, I'm dubious of an article in which the entire body of text, after a short description at the top, consists of a section titled "Controversy". Can't we give any further description of the program? How it works, how it's used, what any results are, for schools or individuals? Do we have to use information from a website, TeenScreenTruth.com, that gives no information about its sponsors and has a clear agenda? There's more to TeenScreen than "controversy", right? Msr657 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False positives

message: If insisting on putting in religion we should also include Baptists, Catholics, Hari Krishnas, Protestants - there are plenty of references on the net showing that people of all faiths have a problem with this program. And so the political organizations don't feel left out we may want to include, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals... How about the minorities... Tsmutha 15:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a specific organization is involved (rather than the religion as a whole), then they should be included—but only if there's a citable position on the issue by a representive of the Church of Scientology. The rest is just a straw-man argument. Republicans in general couldn't be listed, but if there was a position on the isssue stated by the Republican National Committee, then of course they would be included. AndroidCat 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a religious issue. 

message: :Image:TeenScreen.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TeenScreen.png

message: Controversy- change to debate'''
Debate
Some organizations that have strong feelings against mental health screening programs persist in claiming that the program is funded by drug companies or is trying to encourage anti-depressant use. Both of these assertions are untrue.  The Columbia University TeenScreen Program is funded by private foundations, individuals, and organizations in support of the early identification of mental illness in youth and the prevention of teen suicide. This funding also allows for ongoing outreach to help develop and expand local TeenScreen programs. For every dollar of support provided to the National TeenScreen Program, a local program attracts more than four times that amount in local donations, grants or in-kind support.http://www.teenscreen.org/national-teenscreen-support 
Several federal programs, including the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, directly support local screening efforts; a number of state programs have also created unique partnerships to support screening at the community level.http://www.teenscreen.org/federal-partnerships-and-support-for-suicide-prevention http://www.teenscreen.org/state-partnerships-for-suicide-prevention
Some of the opposing groups include Scientology, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), the Eagle Forum, EdWatch, and Liberty Coalition. These groups spoke up in opposition of screenings that were being conducted without explicit parental consent that relied instead on passive consent, whereby consent is assumed if it is not explicitly denied. On June 5, 2006, TeenScreen changed their consent procedures for schools so that active parental consent - meaning that parents have to sign and turn in a permission slip - is now a requirement for all school-based TeenScreen sites. Where parents may not be accessible, passive consent is used- teen shelters and the juvenile justice system.
Apple08 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: References
1Shaffer D, Restifo K, Garfinkel R, Wilcox H, Ehrensaft M, Munfakh J. (1998). Screening for young-adult suicidality and mood disorders in high school. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Anaheim, CA.
2Levitt JM, WonPat-Borja A, Buffered S, Jensen P. (2004). "Implementing evidence-based assessment strategies in schools." Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association; Honolulu, HI.
3Aseltine RH and DeMartino R. (2004). "An outcome evaluation of the SOS suicide prevention program."  American Journal of Public Health; 94(3): 446-451.
4U.S. Surgeon General (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health. 
5U.S. Public Health Service (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s Mental Health: A National Action Agenda. Washington, DC:  Department of Health and Human Services.
6New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: 2003.  
7Gould M, Marrocco F, Kleinman M, Thomas J, Mostkoff K, Cote J, Davies M. (2005). Evaluating iatrogenic risk of youth suicide screening programs: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association; 293: 1635-1643.
8 National Registry of Evidence Based Programs and Practice http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov 
9 Columbia University TeenScreen Program http:www.teenscreen.org
10 Church of Scientology www.scientology.org 
Apple08 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: I have removed the "History" section.  Apple, I wish you have paid a little more attention to the comments here.  That section was not written for Wikipedia; it was a cut-and-paste direct copy from the TeenScreen website.  It is a blatant copyright violation.  We CANNOT use it here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this gets cleared up. The work on this article with the recent changes/additions/edits has been excellent. Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Apple, I appreciate your work; it's what was needed.  I just wish you had noticed the problem with this section, which was noted above ("However, I see that the 'History' section is a simple cut-and-paste off their website, and that is a copyright violation. Copying something from another website is illegal") in the middle of other comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the word "controversial" still appear when doing a search? I sense a lot of emotion from you, WhatamIdoing. I hadn't checked this article in a awhile and have been leaving it alone since you suggested I had a "conflict of interest."  Fair enough.  But I do see that Apple08 has been doing a lot of work on this and I applaud that effort. Apple08 also seems reasonable. So, I hope that the tone of the discussions will remain calm. Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why controversial appeared in your search.  It doesn't in mine.  However, practically all school-based mental health programs are considered controversial.  Mental health does not get the widespread support that it deserves.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "controversial" no longer appears when conducting a search. Your statement that "practically all school-based mental health programs are considered controversial" is an interesting one. While that may be true, it may be something that we can change with good, sound information that "educates" rather than "incites," that doesn't attempt to persuade, but provides facts and as much information that we can provide without bias.  I see that this article is rated "C Class" on Wikipedia Quality Assessment Scale. What additional suggestions do you have for attaining an "A"? Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A-class" can't be had:  WP:MED doesn't have a process for promoting any articles to that level.  The standards for B-class articles are here, and with the addition of a very little bit of history (year of founding, for example), it might meet those standards.  The next step after B-class is Good article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this insight on the rating system. The article is certainly shaping up. Thank you, again. Rw2009 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent, Apple08. Thank you very much. You write beautifully. Rw2009 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: What is this program's actual association with Columbia University. Was it just founded by a guy from Columbia or is it actually run by the university itself? If it is run by
the univeristy does Columbia actually pay for it or is it just overseen with funding provided by other groups outside of the university itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HitManActual (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia University 

message: For a little over three years now, there have been duplicate pages on this topic. There is this one, named TeenScreen and there is another, Columbia University TeenScreen Program. As even that article shows, the longer title is not the program's true name; because it is commonly referred to as "TeenScreen" this is the proper article title, and I propose redirecting the other article here. I hope this is fairly uncontroversial.
Next is the question of article content; both are well more than stubs and each contains roughly the same number of citations, which could make a merger challenging. Furthermore, neither article is particularly strong, which may complicate the process some. For these reasons, in preparation for this merger proposal I've undertaken the task of re-researching the topic and producing a third, I believe much better draft that combines the best of each article, and it's currently in my userspace here: User:WWB_Too/TeenScreen. Please note that I've disabled the categories for the moment. 
I also need to mention here that I am working with TeenScreen on this; they've asked me to undertake this project, so I do come at this subject with a potential COI. That said, I hope it's clear that I've tried to be reasonable and encyclopedic. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your support, Axl. Seeing how there has been no objection here, nor much interest in the issue on this article's related WikiProjects or the Help desk when I posted a similar request there, I've gone ahead and made the change. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Now that is is merged, it would help to remove some of the duplication which I suppose is the byproduct of the merger. The sort of duplication here verges into advocacy and promotionalism -- saying everything several times over.  DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: =next step

message: This is an article dealing with psychiatry, a branch of medicine. The references therefore need to be of WP:MEDRS standard, which means the use of recent  authoritative reviews rather than isolated primary articles from  the medical literature. It also means that terms such has 'significantly" need numerical values.  DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Further

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TeenScreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524033317/http://www.teenscreen.org:80/about/our-leadership/ to http://www.teenscreen.org/about/our-leadership/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on TeenScreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified