Talk:Therapeutic horseback riding

message: I wonder if the author of this beautifully written article would like to include a section on the teaching aspect of theraputic riding?  One might include special training of the horse, special saddles and tack, backriding, two-person leading, etc. I taught theraputic riding for a while, and would be glad to include a little section on teaching, unless that would be better submitted to the Wikihow? Soltera 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment with no heading from 2007

message: I've removed the links from the page that are to centers.  The main thing is from WP:EL under links to be avoided:  Links mainly intended to promote a website.  Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.  I think this clearly shows that the links are inappropriate.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  But I do not think these links are here to promote web sites.  I think they are here to give people who need such services a head start on how to find such services.  As to primarily existing to promote services, shame shame they are promoting helping handicapped and many other people as well, right?  Further, one link even shows a movie that would be perfect for a featured article.  I say the links should be returned.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that the one link with the informative movie should maybe be returned, provided it isn't too promotional of the site where it's hosted.  Selling services doesn't have anything to do with the net effect of the services.  However, I didn't notice that some of the sites seem to support themselves through donations instead of charging people who use their services, so you might be right that this doesn't apply to all links.  But still, Wikipedia is not a directory, even if that directory has the best intentions.  I wouldn't think a link to a directory, such as dmoz, would be objectionable, but I don't think long lists like that make for a good article.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I'm with you.  I'm no wiki expert.  How do we go about providing useful links to people who may be in distress and needing guidance while at the same time adhering to Wiki policies? I'm no dmoz expert either.  Perhaps you could set such a thing up? Just a suggestion--I am not volunteering you. I think people may be coming to Wikipedia for information/help and it should be provided somehow, particularly in such a situation as that raised in the wiki page itself.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just put a link to the relevant directory at dmoz up.  It looks to have a far better directory than we could ever have already, anyways.  Sorry to be hard-line, I just think it's better to keep links like this at a minimum to keep the possibility of people using Wikipedia for promotional purposes to a minimum, which is why the policy is the way it is right now.  Not sure how you can go about editing links there, but I think you have to apply to edit there.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links to center per [[WP:NOT#DIR]] and [[WP:EL]] 

message: Therapeutic riding is not a CAM- it is a recreational or sport activity.  Hippotherapy would be the appropriate topic to list under CAMs as it is a medical treatment using the movement of the horse.  In an effort to clear up the confusion NARHA, AHA and EFMHA have been making terminology changes to make this more clear to participants, supporters and the general public.  Can the CAM designation be changed to the correct topic?
65.41.92.189 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While horseback riding is recreational, Therapeutic horseback riding positively is not.  The word therapeutic certainly does not indicate a sport activity.  While more than one WikiProject could claim this article, as a non-drug and a non-surgical treatment option, therapeutic horseback riding certainly would fall under the CAM umbrella. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, rather than a food fight, may I recommend that people use footnotes and citations to explain relevant facts on each side?  You can "teach the controversy' easily.  Just write in a neutral tone, explain both viewpoints, ("on one hand,...but on the other hand,...") and when possible use citations to the most respected source on each side.  See WP:CITE.  Good luck.  Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CAM designation

message: Since the equine project is currently encouraging the development of articles related to paraequestrianism, I'm changing this article's position to "high" on the importance scale. Wi2g 21:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped it back.  "High" is only for the horse topics of utmost importance (colic, laminitis, horse racing, etc), this is a minor side topic.  Might be higher-ranked on a "child" project related to disability therapies or something, but under WPEQ, it's pretty low on the scale, not that it isn't an important thing for the people who do it.  (smile) Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reassessment

message: I am currently working on adding more information to this article such as benefits, exercises, types of disabilities it can help, improving the history and adding citations. Any advice is welcome!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHD51791 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's terrific, but be aware that we have some folks around here who are big on the WP:MEDRS policy for sourcing these animal-assisted therapy articles, so try to find articles from scientific, peer-reviewed journals for anything you add, we have had challenges to material from anywhere else.  Good luck and let me know if you need help!  Montanabw(talk) 18:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update/Edit 

message: I just updated the information on this page and added some other information I thought was beneficial. I took all my information from credited articles and sources and referenced them appropriately. Feel free to ask me any questions!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHD51791 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on a couple things at your talk page.  It's a big improvement, but has some formatting issues.  Also, if you can provide URL links to any of the articles you cited, even if just to the abstract, that helps too.  Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Update! 

message: Instead of going from one POV to another, let's all work together to add better sources to these articles.  Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one POV that counts, and that is the POV of high-quality sources. We reflect those faithfully. This article was basically an advert for a discredited treatment, which is shameful. I have added a secondary source of the highest quality (A MEDLINE-indexed recent systematic review), and it is utterly damning of this so-called "therapy". Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that high-quality sources are needed, but the existing sourced material needs to be discussed, not reverted and called "bogus."  Sadly, I am leaving town in a bit and can't get back to you for a couple days, but I am going to suggest that you take a very honest look at the legitimacy of this therapeutic modality and don't cherry-pick just the negative stuff. It is not "discredited," but the mental health side is new and there is not a lot of empirical studies done on it yet.  But PATH has existed for decades and the physical therapy side has a lot of material backing it at this point, though I'm going to have to do some digging.   Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  Indeed. The current scientific point of view (i.e. NPOV) is demonstrated in the source Alexbrn mentions. In the context of that source, other points of view would be considered WP:FRINGE in most cases or an minority view at best depending on source quality. This edit also was problematic as it restored many primary sources that just aren't going to remain here under WP:MEDRS as well as other unsourced paragraphs and lists. At this point, the best thing to do would be to pull from our most reliable sources (i.e., current literature reviews) and build content from there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If material is shown to be problematic by sources that are clearly more reliable than the sources (or total lack of sources) in the article, then per WP:GEVAL we are more or less required to pay more attention to the more reliable source. jps (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the meta-analysis that Alexbrn notes only looked at 14 studies.  There are legitimate concern about the writing style of this article and that some of the source material needing better-quality sources, but you are sadly mistaken that this therapy has been disproven.  Actually, if you truly want to improve this article, I think this description of it as "experimental and investigational"  (from Aetna insurance) provides a good overview of some of the areas covered in that article (which doesn't cover all areas where therapeutic riding is used.  They did the research for us, at least for the conditions they list.  Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

text: In other words, you didn't look at the multiple sources cited, nor the analysis.  I am curious your argument that the other source is "just about the best one."  Says who?  I'm asking this sincerely. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting words into people's mouths is bad form and an example of assuming bad faith. I definitely looked at the "multiple" sources cited, but the point is that the sources cited are not all of the same quality as the one that Alexbrn is proposing we use. The reason the source is good is twofold: it is secondary and it is peer reviewed without an agenda like those of, say, an insurance company. That puts it head and shoulders above all the others that have been proposed so far. jps (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see e.g. WP:MEDASSESS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement