Talk:Allynwood Academy/Archive 5

Wells Thompson article
There is no evidence in this link http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=32452 of Wells Thompson ever having attended, taken part in or heard of the Family School. Hence I am removing the citation and the mention at least until there is evidence supporting it. CoreEpic (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)CoreEpic


 * EDIT* I removed a copyright violation. Warning editor (Sinneed)

PLEASE Sineed highlight the mention of the school as to enlighten me!CoreEpic (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)CoreEpic


 * Please review wp:POINT, wp:tendentious editing. The content is sourced to 2 articles.  I have added quotes to help reduce your confusion.-  Sinneed  15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please review wp:COPYVIO - - Sinneed  16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add CN tag, rather than deleting cited content
The content is sourced, as I see it. Please tag whatever specific fact needs tagging. Please leave teh sources in the article. Consider wp:RSN, if you believe a source is bad.- Sinneed  15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, if there is a wp:BLP issue, any unsourced or weakly sourced content must be removed at once, with a note of that reason.- Sinneed  16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On review, I see this as a wp:BLP issue, and removed the content.- Sinneed  03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit
"It seems to me his statement is definitive. He credits the school, period." - wp:SYNTH - he says he wouldn't have been there without the school. However, he would not have been there without a soccer ball either. And very very clearly, there are other schools that could have helped. I dropped the content... the line is a throway... "Do you think you would have made it without your parents?" "Do you think you would have made it without your great coach?" etc. What is a courteous young striver going to say "NO, MORON, I AM TEH WIN!!!!!"?-  Sinneed  17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't believe you've read the source. Your point is erroneous at best, and wp:SYNTH at worst. He didn't credit any of those other factors in the source. He credis the school, repeatedly and through out the article. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 00:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we can simply drop the advertising entirely.- Sinneed  00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On review, this is biographical information about a living person, being used for promotional purposes in Wikipedia. It seems to me that the encyclopedia is best served by leaving it out.  Other than promotion, I see no reason for inclusion:  it isn't really related to the sports program.  Stars come from all calibers of sports program.  With stronger sources, perhaps include it in the section about activism, as a rebuttal?-  Sinneed  01:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain why, when this particular bit of content has been in the article for over a year almost seven months, it is suddenly unacceptable and tantamount to advertising. Other points have withstood edit challenges on far weaker sources than this; I vigorously disagree with both your reasoning and rationalle, especially at this late date. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Content may be in the encyclopedia for a century, then someone may point out a problem. Existence of the content for a second, an hour, or a million years is not a reason for inclusion.
 * wp:BLPN may be a place to get support for inclusion. Perhaps a wp:RFC.
 * What is your argument for including this? Are there other sources?  If so, we will need them.  Even if so, why does it go in that section?  Perhaps in a notable alumni bit, without the advert.  Or perhaps (again with additional sourcing), perhaps as a rebuttal in the activism section.  Just thoughts.  wp:BLP seems to apply, so this would be an exception to wp:3RR as I see it.-  Sinneed  03:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Former Family School Student Now Playing Pro Soccer, by Justin Rodriguez, Times Herald-Record, April 14, 2007
 * Preserving citations. I don't see a need to remove these from the article, but restoring them seems pointless.-  Sinneed  16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll concede the point on location. I agree, it's better in Alumni. However, your position on strength of source is baseless, since single sources like the Daily Star, Sullivan County Democrat, and the The Gainesville Sun are used to support specific statements elsewhere in the article. Please explain why you feel that the Times Herald-Record is weaker than these others. Moreover, wp:BLP guidelines have been adhered to, since the credit represents "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" Mr. Thompson's repeated statements in the source, is wp:verifiable, and objectively not wp:OR, so wp:3RR does apply. I'll keep the credit statement out for now, but I'm restoring everything else under the Alumni section. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:BLP - if there are other single sources of this strength being used to support BLP information, they are a problem as well. Removing immediately, if restored, it will be immediately removed, under the wp:3RR exception. Consider wp:BLPN as a place to gather support for your argument that this is not a BLP violation.-  Sinneed  13:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wikiwag. I apologize for killing your work, but I truly worry about BLP issues, I fear they are a great threat to the project.  I do know it is very frustrating.  I would say that the BLPN thing isn't what I wish, it was just an idea of a place to go where BLP-interested folk hang out, and might lend support.-  Sinneed  14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the thread.- Sinneed  14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored the edits, and I removed the quote (which I had added earlier, I now believe in error) that had the main problem content. My only concern now is that we have attached this pro ball player to the Family school, based on a single source. I still think this needs wiser eyes than mine... can we make this link based on this single article?- Sinneed  14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In conceding the inappropriate location for mentioning Thompson, he is still a noteworthy alumnus. That much is clear, verifiable, and beyond any doubt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an independent newspaper with an established subscription base is generally considered a strong source and meets wp:verify, even if other editors don't wp:LIKE what the source says. To dismiss it as wp:synth was where I took issue, so I thank you for seeing the reasoning. I will update the mention to reflect what Thompson is doing now, as he's still an active player with a different MLS club. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In conceding the inappropriate location for mentioning Thompson, he is still a noteworthy alumnus. That much is clear, verifiable, and beyond any doubt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an independent newspaper with an established subscription base is generally considered a strong source and meets wp:verify, even if other editors don't wp:LIKE what the source says. To dismiss it as wp:synth was where I took issue, so I thank you for seeing the reasoning. I will update the mention to reflect what Thompson is doing now, as he's still an active player with a different MLS club. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "That much is clear, verifiable, and beyond any doubt." - nope, addressed above, see wp:BLP. It was wp:SYNTH, but I did not "dismiss". Synthesis is an trap, and you fell in. Unless there are additional sources that tie him to the school, or other opinions that this was a good edit, I expect to drop the content again. I felt very iffy about restoring even the school alumnus reference with just one source.- Sinneed  16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Late to the party here, but I don't "get" the controversy. There is an entire article, published 3 years ago in a reliable source -- and still posted on their website, that is mostly about the fact that Wells Thompson attended FFS. That's a solid basis for reporting this as a fact in a Wikipedia article. The fact that his MLS bio doesn't mention the school proves nothing -- it doesn't mention any of the high schools he attended (I've found previously, when trying to verify "famous alum" entries in high school articles, that pro sports bios seldom mention high schools).
 * As for the concern that attendance at a school for troubled teens is defamatory information that should not be in the article for BLP reasons, I have two comments:
 * (1) Many successful adults who had difficult times in their youth tell their stories without embarrassment -- where's the shame in having had a problem and overcome it?
 * (2) If Wells Thompson was embarrassed about having attended this school, he didn't need to give that interview to the newspaper. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, so I did not err in restoring it. Thanks, Orlady.  Thank you, Wikiwag, for finding and adding the content.  I promise it isn't an insult toward you for me to be wrong... it's just me being wrong.-  Sinneed  19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Orlady: Thank you for clarifying this point. I didn't get what the controversy was about, either. Sinneed: I didn't take offense or insult...your argument just didn't make any sense to me. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 New York State Investigation Section
This section was reverted out of the article chiefly because:
 * The Family Foundation School Truth website has been repeatedly rejected as a WP:RS;
 * The referenced letters on said site are as such not a matter of "public" record as the author claimed in the edit summary;
 * The content in said letters raises WP:BLP concerns which may be immediately deleted from Wikipedia.

If the subject material addressed in this section can be included and properly cited using content from a WP:RS and steering clear of WP:BLP issues, then it may be resubmitted.

- Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The TRUTH site may have not been a reliable source as the content and editorials on the site, although it clearly states at the end of the investigation letter from the State that the letter should be responded to within 30 days because it will be released upon request of the public, in accordance with Freedom of Information Laws. The TRUTH Campaign forging these letters would be illegal and the letters are clearly legitimate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your argument is immaterial. The fact that these sources are available only on the so-called "truth" site is at the core of the WP:RS issue. Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Again, if this content can be supported in a way that addresses those issues, it can stay in. Until then, it's out. If you feel I'm in error, I invite you to take the matter to WP:ANI, but please do not WP:WAR. Also, please sign in, and sign your posts with four tildes. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This page is obviously biased against ANY negative things. The school clearly has violated a number of human rights, as can see posted through the Family School's own blog, where Rita Argiros, owner of the school says that she acknowledges things that were done in the past were wrong.  The State investigation is a reliable source.  Is wikiwag attempting to say that the State of NEW YORK is not a reliable source?  Revert Flyboi9 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted you, Flyboi9. Wikipedia is not a platform for prosecuting smear campaigns (see WP:SOAP) -- and the lengthy material that Flyboi9 has repeatedly added to the article is part of a smear campaign. As for the source provided, it's a primary source, which is generally not a good basis for an article. Furthermore, if the only entity that has published this information is the Family Truth Campaign, there is some question of its validity. Wikipedia could cite a news report on the investigation -- that would be a reliable source and non-primary. Does such exist? --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I added brief significant info about the NYS investigation back into the article, in the history section. I have cited via the FFS leadership page. It is of significant importance and belongs there. Given the amount of discussion, namely that some info on the investigation needs to be included, I would argue that there is a concensus that it should be included. I hereby would like to call into question the NPOV of Orlady - as she claims to have an interest in CT and RI states, I question wheteher or not she has been previously involved with either East Ridge or FFS (given the RI and CT connection i am leaning towards East Ridge). I find her excuse of DNS resolution errors difficult to believe. If I am wrong in my guess, I apologize. But you must admit it looks fishy suddenly having such a DNS issue, same day a RS is found, after so many reverts forWP:RS I hereby ask that she recuse herself from editing or reverting this page further. Snertking (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation of the NYS Investigation
The only source that has been provided for this section (which I just now deleted again) is a New York State letter posted to the Family Truth website (cited as if it's two different items, but both point to this PDF. It's probably a real NYS letter, but in view of FamilyTruth's POV, we can't assume that it is valid. Furthermore, this is a primary source, which can be problematic. If the link were a reliable source, the lengthy list of items that Flyboi9 and anon IPs have added to the article would still be undue emphasis for an encyclopedia. Moreover, my reading of the letter indicates to me that there's been some POV in selecting things to describe from the letter. This is just an inspection report (from a surprise inspection), not an official finding. The first salient statement in the letter (conveniently ignored by the folks who want to add it to the article) is "Although allegations were brought to our attention that students were being physically abused and neglected, interviews we conducted did not suggest students were being physically abused or neglected at the time of the visit." The subsequent discussion goes into great detail. In addition to the details selected for the article, representative items include concern that towels aren't labeled (so kids might be using each other's towels), that there are no ladders on upper bunk beds, and that kids who do not score a 75% on a pre-test are not permitted to take the Regents Exam. What the people adding this to article call "Inadequate nighttime staffing" is a concern that "there is only one staff member awake and on duty during the overnight hours" (others who are on the premises are asleep) -- if you think of this place as a prison, that's inadequate, but if it's a school it's hardly worth worrying about (it's one person more than is awake all night in most school dormitories, not to mention private homes). I could continue along that vein, but my point is that a letter report on a surprise inspection is very raw information, not suitable for an encyclopedia article, and very much subject to interpretation. Wait for an official report issued by the NYS authorities that puts these raw details into perspective. Ideally, wait for a newspaper account of that report, so it's not Wikipedians picking and choosing information from the state report to include in the article.

For what it's worth, the state report provides a disturbing "snapshot" view of the school, but that's just my opinion and not a basis for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * current edit quotes letter as stating no abuse was evident at time of visit, but that allegations of past abuse were found to be credible. I tried to keep it as brief as possible to avoid undue prominence. As this investigation was a significant past event, it belongs in history. Giving it a separate section would give it undue prominence. No official "report" will likely ever be forthcomimg - the letters serve this purpose. Nor do i expect newspaper articles will be written about an event now 1 year past. Snertking (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady, if you look at the TRUTH's website, Mike Argiros, the owner of the school writes an official response to the State's investigation. Why would the State not complete a "surprise" visit when the school has been the center of so many abuse reports, that all these wikipedians continue to fight to keep out of the article (NOT a personal attack on anyone).  The State's investigation is official and on the record.  This should be included and, just like the past issues on this "school's" page, probably will have arguments against inclusion.  The school has children with serious mental health issues.  They obviously need the overnight staffing fixed if they have to "landlock" kids in beds.  This is a reliable source and should be included as it is an official State investigation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, now The Family Foundation School has posted the investigation onto their blog website (http://thefamilyschoolleadership.com/update-on-the-cqc-investigation-of-the-family-foundation-school/), which is directly linked from their main website, proving they own the site and its from the reliable source. Reverting to include the State Investigation. Flyboi9 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've once again removed this section from the article. Yes, the reliable source problem may largely have been solved but the section still has several other issues. Firstly I think the length and format of the section gives the issue WP:UNDUE prominence in the article. I also have concerns that it does not adhere to WP:NPOV in both the way it's worded and the fact that it makes no mention of the schools response. As a more minor issue the way it is presented as a list is not normal for a wikipedia article and the references are badly formatted. This needs to be discussed on this talk page and the content agreed before it is added to the article. Dpmuk (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since we resolved the reliable source issue, if another editor believes the content is biased, please edit to include other investigation details that would make it unbiased. I believe that the section is unbiased and it inclusion is necessary to be a proper WIKI article.  Flyboi9 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue of reliability may have been addressed, but these are still primary sources and this is still a severe case of WP:UNDUE emphasis. I removed Flyboi9's latest addition to the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) PS - Adding more details to a novella-length litany of minor details is hardly a cure for the WP:UNDUE problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited and put very brief info that school was investigated due to allegations of abuse, followed by quote from state's letter, citing family school leadership as as source. I see no way you can possibly claim WP:UNDUE when all there is now is a simple statement that the school was investigated for abuse, with a list of the agencies investigating, followed by a quote of their findings. hmmm... i will add the FFS's response in there just to make sure. Snertking (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

An anon (Flyboi9 editing while logged out?) just posted a new version of this section. It was much improved, but I reverted it because it's still not "ready for prime time." Biggest problem is that it's unsourced -- except for the final paragraph, which is an inappropriate advert for familytruth. However, it also still puts far too much emphasis on a single event, and the statement about the school's response is anti-FFS POV. Please discuss it -- and work on revising it -- here before restoring it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What I do not understand is that if an anon user took the time to edit it, which you admit is much improved, why are you not editing it to see how we can keep it included? I am not going to keep editing and editing until you approve, can you work on it so we can see where you see the issues?  This is ridiculous.  You all are complaining its not POV, UNDUE, RS, but no one is doing anything to fix it besides me and some other user.  This is absolutely ridiculous that I have attempted several times to keep it neutral and I get the edit war warnings, but you are the ones who refuse to help out so it can be as WIKI friendly as possible....come one, let's fix this up together Flyboi9 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You still continue to revert despite being told that's not how we do things - we get consensus before making controversial changes. Discuss the text you want to insert here - indeed you could put it all here for now for people to discuss.  Once we have all (including you) agreed upon a version, then and only then, will it be added. Dpmuk (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now reverted. Although I agree this version is much better it still has many problems.  In particular and in addition to Orlady's concerns) I am particularly worried about the paragraph on the school's response which seems to have been written in a way delibrately negative to the school and so which violates wP:NPOV.  Examples of this include the word "claiming" (instead of the more neutal stating or similar) and "only a school" (instead of the more neutral "instead a school"). Dpmuk (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Below is the section with even more edits to make the school's response more of a neutral one. Please make edits that you feel would help to enhance the section for inclusion in the article. 24.90.46.63 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion of this will need to remain on hold for now -- I am getting DNS errors when I try to access thefamilyschoolleadership.com. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that a bit too convenient to be credible. Just when they find an undeniably neutral source you can't resolve the DNS of said page. Snertking (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is where edits should be made to enhance the section for inclusion in the article

 * 2010 New York State Investigation

On June 10 and 11, 2010, the New York State Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (the Commission), New York State Education Department (SED), New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH), and New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) conducted an unannounced visit to the Family Foundation School, to investigate a number of complaints brought to the Commission’s attention involving students between 14-19 years of age.


 * The State did not uncover evidence that physical abuse was occurring but the visit uncovered evidence that caused investigators concern, including overcrowding in dormitories, possible hygiene, fire, and safety hazards, Inadequate nighttime staffing, Students exercising inappropriate supervisory and clinical responsibility over other students, Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) inappropriately supervised in accordance with New York State Education Department standards, Students inappropriately encouraged or allowed to take part in restraining other students (taking down peers in distress as well as holding another student’s legs until staff arrived, for example), Group sharing exercises known as “table topics” that can sometimes be utilized in a manner that may compromise the mental health problems of some students,  The school does not have a system that reviews complaints of abuse and neglect.


 * The School responded to the State's investigation claiming they are "not a treatment facility" and instead are a school and they would "resist efforts to equate our purposes, goals and methods with those" used at treatment facilities. The School's owner defended their position as just a school and denied most of the serious concerns the State investigators claimed in their completed investigation.  According to the School, however, they did respond to some of the concerns, including no longer using the isolation room as a form of punishment.

The full investigation was first posted publicly by a group of former Family Foundation School students on an youth rights activist website, The Family Foundation School Truth Campaign, but was then also published by the school on one of their administration blog websites a few weeks later in order to be "cooperative and forthcoming"

Status as a school
I have done some search on the homepage of the New York State - Office of Children & Family Services. I find that the facility was licensed as a Day Care Center. The record is here. It was licensed to house fewer children than stated on their homepage. The license was inactive on January 11, 2010.

Is there not records showing the status regarding status as school somewhere? I remember that the State of New York are very strict when it is a question of calling a facility a school. There was a case involving the now closed Academy at Ivy Ridge. Covergaard (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that they have an inactive license for a day care center does not provide any indication of the school's status as a school. the Office of Children & Family Services doesn't give licenses to high schools, AFAICT. However, I find that in in 2006 the University of the State of New York (aka the Board of Regents, the New York State's authority over schools) amended the school's charter to allow it to operate a day care center, in addition to the school function. The fact that the day care license is inactive is not relevant to FFS' authorization to operate a school. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A Parent Answers the Smear Campaign Allegations and Supports CAFETY and the Family Foundation School Truth Campaign
The Family Foundation School advertises that it treats teens with mental illness, learning and eating disorders, addictions, etc and that it offers cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectic behavioral therapy and other recognized therapy for troubled teens, but this is false advertising. They are not qualified or certified to treat these disorders. This is an accredited boarding school and is not licensed as any sort of residential treatment facility, yet they claim to offer residential treatment. The "emotional growth" program consists of mandatory participation in religious services (in the handbook it says it's voluntary)and 24-hour a day immersion in the unproven "All Addicts Anonymous" program--which is a bastardization of traditional voluntary AA and insists that to follow the program all children, regardless of their past experience, must admit to being one kind of addict or another, even if they never had sex or used drugs or alcohol.

My emotionally-disabled daughter with Borderline Personality Disorder came out of the school after 3 and 1/2 years with far worse problems than she initially had and received no qualified treatment by qualified professionals. After leaving the school she needed psychotherapy and meds for her anxiety disorder. No treatment notes were taken or shown to the parents. As a result of the emotional abuse which was an integral part of the therapeutic process at the school, she ended up with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and also became a drug addict. The therapists were rarely on campus, and there were no RN's or medical doctors to assist with monitoring medications or handling emergencies, and the parents were kept in the dark about all aspects of their child's mental health care. Brainwashing and humiliation on a daily basis are damaging to a troubled child's psyche and are not therapeutic. Table topics, which is nothing more than a kangaroo court, should not be permitted and children should be permitted to enjoy their meals and speak freely among themselves.

There was no traditional one-on-one, group or family therapy in practice at the FFS. Punitive and absurd "therapeutic assignments" called sanctions were meted out for the slightest behavioral infraction, and these could take the form of forced labor (such as carrying buckets of rocks or shoveling snow up and down the hills for days or weeks on end), exile, blackout (no communication with family members, sometimes for months at a time,no mail and phone),dietary sanctions, bizarre verbal sanctions,etc. Children could be put on a work sanction for months, never attending classes, while parents were paying full tuition. Parents and children alike were taught not to trust one another, told that each other was always manipulating and lying.

At the end of the "emotional growth" education, there was no program to prepare students for going back to their families or prepare for college life out in the real world. Culture shock and social retardation/anxiety often ensued, this was a reality for many alumni. An inordinate amount of students, according to my observation, returned quickly to addictions, got married young, or had babies out of wedlock soon after leaving. The program is not designed to teach troubled teens how to have healthy interpersonal relationships, since contact with the opposite sex is severely limited and discouraged and leads to "impure thoughts." Frequently the teens are forced to confess "impure thoughts" or masturbation in front of staff and peers at mealtime. Children are taught to not trust their own thoughts, rather they are indoctrinated with new thought processes that fit in with the AAA program. This is not proper cognitive therapy. Students are never allowed to meet with parents in family group without supervision, and they know that if they express complaints during outings or home visits there will consequences befalling them.

If the Family Foundation School is nothing more than a school which has nothing to hide about its practices, there should be free access to a NYS CPS hotline, which should be put into place immediately. Legal counsel should be allowed on campus and students should be allowed to meet with counsel and parents without staff present. Any and all alumni should be welcomed on campus and permitted to retrieve their diplomas, records and treatment notes (if any) and medical records, as they are entitled to this under the NYS Freedom of Information Act. But this has not been the case. I personally know individuals who traveled long distances to make the trip yet came away empty-handed.

If the Family School is nothing more than a school, then there is no place for abusive and dangerous practices such as landlocking, keeping kids in an isolation room (especially for 16 hrs or more), use of restraints, strip-searching after every outing with parents (strip-searching is illegal), employing students to help with discliplining, subduing or restraining other students, or being put on suicide watch (even overnight, without being permitted to sleep).

The alumni, whether on internet campaigns or walking amongst us, are not liars, exaggerators or manipulators,Mr. Brain, for the most part most have become productive members of society and their testimonies are to be believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.200.117 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC) SiberiacatSiberiacat (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose moving Congressional hearings section up
The two items that make this school noteworthy are Wells Thompson being an alumni and the fact that it was the subject of testimony by 2 former students before congress. I would argue that of the two, being the subject of congressional testimony is the more noteworthy. In fact, were it not for said testimony, I really don't think the school would qualify as notable enough to rate it's own article, as Wells Thompson being a graduate of this school really does not make it all that noteworthy. If that were true every high school to graduate a professional athlete would be noteworthy enough for it's own article. Therefore I hereby propose moving the congressional testimony section higher in the article, as this would clearly not be wp:undue, as it is the schools primary "claim to fame"

Snertking (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The structure of Wikipedia articles does not follow the newspaper-article inverted-pyramid format in which the information deemed of most interest goes first. Instead, we attempt to follow the WP:Lead section with a fairly predictable topical structure. This article is not necessarily ideally structured, but the sequence of "History", "Programs", and "Accreditation and affiliations" is fairly typical. It could be argued that Congressional hearings" and "State inspections" are subtopics of "History", except that the level of detail in those sections is currently so disproportionate to that found in the rest of "History". --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and i did not intend imply it should be placed above the lead section by any means. I see your point about predictable structure and agree with that as well. However, would you say it is fair that there should be some mention at least that the school has been the subject of controversy in the lead in? Nothing big, perhaps even just adding the adjective "controversial" to the opening sentence. You really can't say that would be wp:undue. - Snertking (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Orlady if you could offer up your opinion on the proposal of adding the word "controversial" i would be much obliged. yes? no? Snertking (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:Lead section of this article is pretty basic right now. Rather than inserting additional adjectives into the lead sentence, consideration should be given to expanding to the lead to two paragraphs that summarize the main points of the article. The lead could be composed as a group project on this talk page before moving it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

items needed to be researched more
The article would lead one to believe that the school offers treatment for behavior problems and or addictions, which it does not. The article doesn't exactly state that it does, but the "program" section could easily lead one to believe that it does, as it states it offers behavior modification. Treatment for addiction would have to be licensed through the New York State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, and in fact the FFS received a cease and desist letter form said agency in 1990 demanding that they "stop offering alcohol abuse related treatment services and/or representing itself as a provider of such services." To that end the FFS now requires the parents of students to sign a waiver upon admission stating that they do not perceive the child as being in need of treatment for alcoholism, and that they are being enrolled for the purposes of high school education in a drug free environment only.

Unfortunately, in regards desist letter itself, and the enrollment form, no published sources exist for them, other than the "truth campaign" website, which even I would not argue is a WP:RS. If anyone knows of a wp:rs source for these, please let me know.

We also should have a mention about the past sexual culture of the school, it's past intolerance of homosexuals, alleged no masturbation policy, etc. Some of this is partly documented in the open letter on FFS's own site. Again, any wp:rs for this that may have escaped my search is welcome if anyone knows of such. Snertking (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to know a lot of things about the school, but unless you have reliable sources for this information, it isn't going to be added to the article. Additionally, note that a cease and desist letter from 22 years ago is both an old source and a primary source that lacks context -- we would need secondary sources to tell us how long it was in effect and whether it is still in effect.
 * Before talking about conducting new research, how about adding archive URLs for the various deadlink references currently cited in the article? (I've done two so far today...) --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it cannot be added with RS. That is why i ask above if anyone knows of RS for this info.


 * I have partially reverted your edit regarding the joint commission - the previous text was misleading as mentioning it by name only makes it sound as if it is a government organization. I left your removal of the criticism mention and cite, but restored the text about it being a private non-profit org. I think that adds needed clarification.


 * I will go through the citation links looking for more dead ones and help with adding archive URLs Snertking (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * cite #20, from the highlights foundation about the workshop, is problematic. the cite seem to point to the current workshops. Since no access date is given in the cite I am at a loss as to how to find the archive url for it.. I did manage to fix the cite for the soccer player on the new england revolution page with and archive url. I am gonna leave the highlights cite for now in the hopes that I can find the date of the workshop on the FFS page and get an archive url from that.Snertking (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * er, looking at #19, also highlights, but DOES have an access date, i went to try an archive url for it and it seems archive.org does not have archive of the highlights foundation page? any help here would be much appreciated.Snertking (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 16 is problematic as well, and again whomever originally cited the page gave no access date, search of the site comes up cold.Snertking (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 11 fixed, no archive avail, but found same page moved elsewhere on website. Added access date. Reading the page, i notice NATSAP mentions FSS is "NEVIS Approved" - need to find out what nevis is, research and add that to accreditations with cite. Snertking (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 needs cleanup, but good enough for now as profile link works. Other than what is mentioned above, all other cites seem ok. NEXT we need to go through and edit the citation formats for consistency. Not me tonight, tho. Nuff of this for me for nowSnertking (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 22yr old document mentioned above, after a careful reading of wp:rs, it would seem quite clear that the actual document itself is a reliable source as it was penned by an agency of the Government of the State of New York. The only known online facsimile of that document would not be wp:rs, but the actual physical document itself is. Citing the physical document itself would not raise wp:rs issues if indeed only the document itself were cited, rather than a copy of said document hosted on a non-wp:rs website. As the existence and content of the document are readily available to anyone willing to file an FOIA request, it's existence and content are objectively verifiable. Not significantly different from citing any other paper source that does not exist in online form, be it a book, magazine, or newspaper. Furthermore it should be rather clear that the cease and desist letter would be in effect until such time as the FFS complies with state licensing requirements. This is rather apparent in the letter. Therefore the onus would be to prove that FFS has complied with state licensing requirements if one were to challenge that the letter were still in effect. Snertking (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

suicide
I know some folks out there have found a wp:rs for the suicide, but to beat you all to the punch, i would argue that sadly, it is not notable enough for the article. The sad fact of the matter is that probably most boarding schools have had one at one time or another, this is not unique to therapeutic schools at all, and not that notable. Snertking (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

School leadership
The school's website lists (at this page) a slightly different set of names and leadership titles than appears in the current infobox. This section problem should be updated. Part of the problem is a need to interpret the parameters in Template:Infobox school better. The director of admissions should not appear to the director of the school. --Orlady (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, after all the dead cite links i spent several hours going through, might i humbly suggest WP:SOFIXIT :) I'll check back, and if you have not done so in the next few weeks, then i'm on it. Seems to be just you and me here. Snertking (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, Orlady Former DMOZ and seem to know a lot about search engines. vWorker freelance listing. Need i say more? WP:PAID ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snertking (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks, Snertking. Anyway, your allegations are crock. If I were being paid to edit on behalf of FFS, don't you think I would know the structure of the school well enough to determine who is really the top person there? I'm hoping that someone who actually knows something about this school (which isn't me) can sort that out. It appears to me that much of the editing to this article is by people who have the single purpose of either promoting the school or discrediting it, and I assume that most of those people have first-hand information about the school. --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Your point is obvious to me after the fact, and yes, the allegations in light of what you just pointed out are a crock. Part of what has made me a bit paranoid is reports i have been hearing that NATSAP is using paid web advocacy as of late. I have not been able to substantiate these. SO from this point on best course would be for me to ignore such rumors.


 * I will do what i can to find the current staffing info for the infobox. Question: would for something simple like staffing info, would the school's own site be considered wp:rs? Snertking (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Belatedly replying to gratefully accept your gracious apologies and to say that the school's website is a fine source for simple details like the names of key staff.


 * Furthermore, while it's easy to imagine that NATSAP is paying for web advocacy (after all, many less controversial organizations are doing the same), I don't perceive that to be an issue here. At Wikipedia, advocacy for individual member schools definitely does occur and possibly there has been advocacy for the NATSAP organization, but I've not seen evidence of coordinated positive editing of both the NATSAP article and articles about its member schools. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)