Talk:Animal-assisted therapy/Archive 2

Discussion on proposal above
In general: Some of the most important policies/guidelines that apply include WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Generally, criticism sections are inappropriate per NPOV. The material should instead be incorporated with the relevant information following NPOV and MEDRS. Health claims should be given prominence and sourced per MEDRS. General discussion on science and pseudoscience should not be included per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This section has been removed--Charles danten (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sections:
 * Criticism of zootherapy or animal-assisted therapy
 * How science works
 * This section should be removed per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Maybe some of the references could be used elsewhere? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does zootherapy stand? The section has been removed--Charles danten (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At a glance, the sources and some of the information from those sources might be used. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alleged esoteric nature of pets
 * Alleged Educational Benefits
 * Alleged General Health Benefits
 * Alleged Benefits for Disabled and Autistic children
 * Alleged Redeeming Benefits for Prisoners
 * Alleged Social Benefits
 * Alleged Effects on Cancer Patients
 * Pseudoscience
 * This section should be removed per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Maybe some of the information and references could be used elsewhere? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have worked on the second version further.--Charles danten (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the entire "Early Relationships" section
It's not clear if any of this first section is relevant to the practice of "animal assisted therapy" (and I'm not convinced that this is a notable medical term). This first section appears to be a statement of Aztec and Catholic dogma, rather than the foundation beliefs of a medical science. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

History section
The first part of the section appears to be a potted-history of pet ownership. I propose that we delete this on the basis that it is not relevant to the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nursing homes
Propose to delete this section. It consists of nothing other than a statement of the obvious (pets are companions), along with an unverifiable reference to the Beck book. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Montanabw (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of the above do you disagree with? Are you saying that this section is/was non-obvious (it seemed very obvious to me) or are you proposing a method by which the content of the Beck book may be verified? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS vs WP:RS
I think we need to clarify which standards apply here. In my view, any claim such as "x therapy may be effective against y condition" must comply fully with WP:MEDRS. In an article which is substantially about mainstream medical research fringe views (e.g. esoteric perspectives on pet-ownership) should not be included. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Example Medical Claims that were inserted: 1. Animals may be able to assist persons with physical disabilities including cerebral palsy, epilepsy or seizures, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, or spinal cord injuries. 2. Psychological disorders including panic attacks, posttraumatic stress disorder, and others may also benefit from AAT 3.Animals can be aware of internal states, and so they can alert individuals of an impending epileptic seizure, diabetic seizure, or a manic episode IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put the tag on the stuff you are having the most issues with. Per my comment above, I would appreciate it if you'd give me a couple of days to trot over to a library where I have located a copy of the book, check it out and see what it actually says.  For all we know, Becker says something like "according to study XYZ by whosis respected medical researcher... [footnote] and from there we have our peer-reviewed reference.  I still dispute the apparent inference that alternative medicine is inherently "fringe."  Is that, indeed, the fundamental point at which you are starting?    Montanabw (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are mis-stating my view (again). To some extent all alt-med is fringe, that's partly the definition of alt-med. In this case I'm concerned that the article should give most weight to the best research, since much (but not all) writing on this subject does not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I heard you just say "all alternative medicine is fringe." I'm not saying the existing article is all that great, I'm just fighting to preserve inclusion of legitimate medical claims until the sourcing issues are resolved.  Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we follow WP:MEDRS when determining what are legitimate medical claims. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I do not think you should be (re)adding text which requires a tag. That's an admission that the citations provided do not currently meet the WP:MEDRS standard. The appropriate time to re-add this text woudl be after the references have been verified! --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong, this is a classic case of WP:BRD. Someone (I think it was you?  Not sure now) too-boldly removed massive amounts of material without discussion, some of which was sourced.  The sourced material was restored.  You kept removing it, so as a compromise I restored it with tags that I presume you'd want to add. (I don't agree with the tags, but I was trying to show you proper wikipedia discussion form)  We are now discussing.   Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think animal assisted therapy is fringe, hence why we should only use mainstream sources. That is why we should not resort to unreliable sources like this Becker book; we should not even use it to characterize the beliefs in the field. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence Becker is not "mainstream," in fact, it seems to be a solid general public work. You just disagree with the title and the blurb, methinks??  Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be removing Becker as a source for medical information per MEDRS. There's absolutely nothing complicated about this. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Unsourced material when challenged should be removed until such a time as it is reliably sourced WP:CHALLENGED. The onus is on Montanabw to chase after the reliable sources as per WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Au contraire: The material remaining is sourced -- yes, much to Becker, and there is NO evidence produced that it is a fringe work (unless ALL works supportive of alternative medicine is inherently fringe, which is a dubious and unsupportable proposition) only that it's a "popular" work (i.e. written in normal English so laypeople can understand it, and that IS permissible under MEDRS, by the way).  It was stable in there for YEARS until this past week when it was arbitrarily removed without discussion or comment by someone who had never had any prior involvement with the article.  Burden is always on the person seeking to change the stable version unless it's a slander in a BLP or a blatent copyvio.  Tag, discuss and for god's sake give me a couple days to find the damn book!   Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - WP:BURDEN. Even if it was not, MEDRS applies, and so the information should be removed. We're here to improve this encyclopedia, not to prevent articles from being improved. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, the content is available in the edit history, you can restore the content later when you have it sourced. The Becker book is unreliable for the claims, if you go to RSN they will tell you the same thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It occurrs to me that none of us in this forum have ever read any of these books, so we have no actual reason to believe that they are reliable sources of medical information. The compromise (I thought) we had agreed to was that Montalbanw will go and get these books from his local library, verify the appropriateness of the texts, provide relevant excerpts and only then re-add the portions of the text which depend on these sources. In the meantime, we have a huge list of much better (easily verifiable, reliable sources) references from which we might construct a better article. We can add references to Becker (etc) if they are still required. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We can judge the reliability of the textbook without reading it by judging the quality and relevance of the publisher. Is this the correct publisher for a reliable medical book? The answer is, probably not since Disney aren't known for their medical books. This looks like a light hearted sort of book, not a serious medical book. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are we even worrying about the Becker book (whose reliability cannot be determined) when there are riches of very reliable sources that User:Ronz has found below. It seems foolish to keep re-inserting references to these books when we have so much better material to work with --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I've started to go through the links that were rescued from the discussion version of this article. Mostly they are very high-quality, reliable sources of scholarly / medical information. Given that we now have WP:MEDRS compliant sources to reference why do we even need to cite unverifiable offline pop-sci texts? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, every one of the sources below has an anti-animal POV and are studies with an agenda to debunk the practice entirely; the new editor who put them forward (above) proposed a number of bizarre conspiracy theories as well (that all the pro-research was funded by pet food companies? Really?)  The benefit of the Becker book is that I'm hoping it does have an extensive bibliography that links to peer-reviewed studies that can provide the balance perspective needed, but everyone here is so hot to trot on substituting one POV for another that there is no patience or willingness to let these sources sit for a bit.  It is clear that all three of you have a POV against AAT and seem to believe that it's total and complete pseudoscience bullshit and it is clear that I will not be able to convince you to look at the studies that have a more favorable view.  Frankly, I don't have the time in the next couple weeks to do the research myself, this article is of interest to me, but I'm not going to sacrifice real life work to spend 10 hours of research on it, so in absence of any good faith from the lot of you and with Ronz templating my user page, and a clear view that you must prove yourselves right and me wrong, I'm done here.  Have at it.  Insert your bias to your heart's content.  I'll let someone else fight this battle.   Montanabw (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, I'm sorry you feel this way. I always assumed that you were acting in good faith, however that does not mean we should suspend skepticism about the sources. In this case none of us (including yourself) had access to the Becker book. We could not verify it. On the other hand Google Scholar is full of higher quality publications that are verifiable. I just do not understand why you were so keen to include these references when there are no shortage of reliable sources we could use! --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look over any other sources that are added to the article just as critically. I suggest you assume good faith instead of thinking that all three of you have a POV against AAT since I can tell you I have no view about AAT. I suggest you validate the content you added per WP:BURDEN by providing reliable sources in either medical publications or in peer reviewed journals, or else remove it. I also suggest that you stop mixing discussions, in this section we are discussing the Becker source, in the other section we will discuss the other sources; highlight the issues with those sources in that thread. By adding unreliable material into the article you actually balance the article to the detriment of AAT. If you have issue with a particular source that is critical of AAT in the article you can message me and I will have a look and provide reasoning why I think it should be included/removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential references from proposal
From Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy. Note the list of references is incorrect, copying all references ever cited on this page as of some date that isn't indicated. Lots of duplicates here. I don't have time to go back and start over at this time. I tried to trim it down a bit to sources that at a glance might meet MEDRS, that is until I noticed the duplications. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs)
 * Anthrozoös. Journal of the international society for anthropology (IZAZ). A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals:http://www.bergpublishers.com/BergJournals/Anthrozoös/tabid/519/Default.aspx
 * Stuart Spencer. "History and Ethics of Keeping Pets: Comparison with Farm Animals.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 19. 2006. 17-25; Sztybel David. “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” Ethics and the environment, 11(1). 2006; Irvine Leslie. “Pampered or Enslaved? The Moral Dilemmas of Pets.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 24, no4. 2004. 5-16; Nibert D. Animal Rights/Human Rights. Entanglement of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2002; Canto-Sperber. Dictionnaire d’Éthique. PUF. 1997; Swabe Joanna. Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. 1996; Wolfensohn S. “The Things We Do to Dogs.” New Scientist. 1981. 404-407.West, Patrick (2004). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Is Really Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas.
 * Montagner, Hubert. Un élément de qualité de vie. » Rencontres à Nantes, éditions AFIRAC, 1998. 5. In : Talin, Christian. Anthropologie de l’animal de compagnie: L’animal autre figure de l’altérité. Paris: L’Atelier de L’Archet. 2000.
 * Koivusilta Leena K. and Ojanlatva Ansa (2006). « To have or not to have a pet for better health? » [En ligne]. PLoS One1(1): e109.doi:10.137/journal.pone.0000109
 * Koivusilta Leena K. and Ojanlatva Ansa (2006). Art. cited
 * Lori Marino et Scott Lilienfeld (2007). « Dolphin «therapy» : a dangerous fad, Researchers warn. » Science Daily: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218101131.htm ; Marino Lori et Lilienfield Scott (1998). « Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: Flawed Data, Flawed Conclusions. » Anthrozoös; 11(4); (2007). « Dolphin-Assisted therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions. » Anthrozoös; vol. 20, no 3, p. 239-249. Humphries Tracy L. (2003). « Effectiveness of Dolphin-Assisted therapy as a behavioral intervention for young children with disabilities. » Bridges, 1(6); A. Baverstock et F. Finlay (2008). « Archives of Disease in Childhood. » 93 (11), p. 994-995.
 * Monika Kehoe (1990). « Loneliness and the aging homosexual: Is pet therapy an answer. » Journal of Homosexuality; vol. 20, no 3 and 4. In fact, some scientists such as Finish scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva believe that a pet is more likely to exacerbate underlying problems, which remain unaddressed. Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva. Art. cited; Pachana, Nancy et al. “Relations between Companion Animals and Self-Reported Health in Older Women: Cause, Effect or Artifact?” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 2, no 2. 2005. 103-110
 * Charles Danten (2011). « Les enfants sauvages » et « Le centième singe » Québec sceptique no 74 ; « Le mythe de l’animal roi. » Québec sceptique; no 75 ; (2010). « La vaccination des animaux pour des raisons non scientifiques. » Québec sceptique; no 72 ; (2008). « Remise en question de la zoothérapie. » Québec sceptique; no 68 ; « Slaves of our affection » The Montreal Gazette: http://charles-danten.blog4ever.com/blog/index-511128.html↑ Lori Marino et Scott Lilienfeld (2007). “Dolphin “therapy”: a dangerous fad, Researchers warn.” Science Daily: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218101131.htm [archive]; Caroline Landry (2009]. Le scandale de l’animal business. Éditions du Rocher; Sergio Dalla Bernardina (2006). L’éloquence des bêtes. Métailié; Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer (2008) Éthique animale. PUF; Patrick West (2004). Book cited; Jean Luc Vadakarn (1994). Parle à mon chien, ma tête est malade. Albin Michel; Michael W. Fox (1990). Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals. St. Martin’s Press. Yi-Fu Tuan (1984). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. Yale University Press; Charles Danten (1998) Un vétérinaire en colère. VLB éditeur.
 * Bruce Psaty (2006). « Recent trials in hypertension: Compelling science or commercial speech? » Journal of the American Medical Association; Richard Smith. « Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies.» www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138PLoSMed
 * David T. Allen (1997). « Effects of Dogs on Human Health.» Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 210, no 7.In 2006
 * Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell (2008). « Animal-Assisted Interventions in Mental Health: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations. » In: Fine, A.H. (Ed.) Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press; p. 21-38.
 * Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern et Helen Winefield (2010) « Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress. » International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare; vol. 8, no 3, p. 140–146.
 * Takanori Shibata et Kazuyoshi Wada (2011). « Robot Therapy: A New Approach for Mental Healthcare of the Elderly – A Mini-Review. » Gerontology; 57, p. 378–386.
 * Stuart Spencer. "History and Ethics of Keeping Pets: Comparison with Farm Animals.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 19. 2006. 17-25; Sztybel David. “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” Ethics and the environment, 11(1). 2006; Irvine Leslie. “Pampered or Enslaved? The Moral Dilemmas of Pets.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 24, no4. 2004. 5-16; Nibert D. Animal Rights/Human Rights. Entanglement of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2002; Canto-Sperber. Dictionnaire d’Éthique. PUF. 1997; Swabe Joanna. Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. 1996; Wolfensohn S. “The Things We Do to Dogs.” New Scientist. 1981. 404-407.West, Patrick (2004). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Is Really Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas.
 * « Effectiveness of Dolphin-Assisted therapy as a behavioral intervention for young children with disabilities. » Bridges, 1(6), 2003; see also A. Baverstock et F. Finlay (2008). « Archives of Disease in Childhood. » 93 (11), p. 994-995.
 * Jean-Pierre Diggard (2005). Les Français et leurs animaux: Ethnologie d’un phénomène de société. Fayard; p.128.
 * Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice


 * I suggest that if any content is to be added that it is done so very very slowly, in that way the content can reasonably be checked. It isn't reasonable for a wall of references without links to be checked by anyone really. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources discussion
Rather than have separate sections for every disagreement, let's consolidate an overall discussion here. Keep in mind that this is not purely a physical health "medical" article, it is also a psychology article and an animal-topic article. Given that we have an editor (and apparently only one editor, there may have been two, but only one is around now) who wants to insert the POV that the whole thing is fringe pseudoscience, I am concerned that this merely inserts a different bias. I am seeing several threads develop. To summarize them in my own words they are:
 * 1. Is AAT total fringe pseudoscience, otherwise known as "crap"? My answer, no.  This is a legitimate field of study and has a place in mainstream health care, particularly mental health care, just the same as there exist articles on other alternative medicine such as my previous example of acupuncture, but also other mental health topics that are newer and have some attached controversy, such as, oh, for example, EMDR or maybe massage therapy.
 * No, there's definitely some legitimate research, here --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 2. What are suitable sources? Clearly, peer-reviewed literature is ideal, but reliable sources can also be works from mainstream presses and even, yes, advocacy organizations, particularly if they are balanced by groups on both/all relevant sides of the issue. USHS, by that standard, can be a reliable source for their own views and for statements that are properly sourced and the POV explained.
 * If this is a medical topic (as the title would suggest) then WP:MEDRS should be our guide.
 * But that's my point: "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."  BUT, it also says " Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources."  So we have the flexibility to add books and advocacy sources


 * Not if it means giving WP:UNDUE weight to non-peer reviewed sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Specifically, should things be tossed just because one editor thinks they are not suitable? Generally, no. WP:ERD is policy. I favor ADDING more info from other viewpoints, including those that are critical, as is being done. But let's not throw out the positive material favoring AAT just because one person doesn't like it.
 * We do not throw out material simply because of it's POV, only if it does not meet the various guidelines required for a medical/scientific topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See above.  Montanabw (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

4. As to sources, Becker is a mainstream book in the USA, hence passes WP:RS, though it would be helpful if someone had a copy or could find it in Google books. In my view, a 1996 book like Beck may well be a reliable source for some things, though clearly if the science has superseded it, then of course a better source is needed. But my suggestion is to tag problem areas on a case by case basis, then DISCUSS if they should be removed.
 * As I mentioned previously, the problem with the Becker text is WP:V. It's not a popular book outside of some parts of the UK. No copies of this book are available in the entire London inter-library system. I think it would be an over-statement to describe it as a "best-seller", but probably unfair to label it "fringe". --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliability is determined by what you do with a book. The book, which appears to be Pop Med, just isn't reliable for medical claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's an American work, so I'm not surprised that it isn't in a lot of UK libraries, but a cursory search on worldcat shows me over 950 copies exist in libraries around the world including not only many libraries in the USA, but also the Toronto public library, the University of Guelph (which has a major vet college), Durban, Perth and the Veterinary Library at the University of Pretoria. there is also a copy in my own public library. Do you trust me to check it out and tell you what's in it?   Montanabw (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were able to post relevant exceprpts it would help with the WP:V issue. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

5. NPOV is a Wikipedia pillar, thus all inflammatory language like "proponents claim" should be minimized and phrased more neutrally. All for now. Comments below? Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This language may be appropriate in case where proponents differ from a mainstream view of the topic. In such circumstances omitting this kind of language might be a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Circular argument. You have a clear POV, but I believe that your position that AAT is pseudoscience pretty much defeats your argument.   Montanabw (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not my belief. As I said a few paragraphs above, AAT does seem to be a legitimate field of scientific/medical enquiry. Not every source meets the appropriate standard which in this case is unambiguously WP:MEDRS.

Becker simply doesn't cut it for any medical claims at all. Given the age and pov, I think it should only be used sparingly for additional details where we have a better source that verifies the general information. --Ronz (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I partly agree --if we CAN find peer-reviewed sources for various claims, that is superior. I don't object if you want to tag the Becker claims you think most dubious, but let's leave them in and look for ways to improve verification.  The book is 2002 and there is a possible 2nd edition out there.  But tossing out Becker wholesale until the material has been reviewed or a sincere attempt is made to find peer-reviewed source material (and I really DO NOT have the time to drop everything this instant just because other people have shown up to challenge the article).  I'm willing to go get the book out of my own local library, which has a copy.  But I fear that other editors would not trust me to say, "OK, it's on page XYZ, he cites in a footnote study ABC." Or would you?   Montanabw (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsourced material when challenged should be removed until such a time as it is reliably sourced WP:CHALLENGED. The book is not reliable, if you really think it's reliable for medical claims take that to WP:RSN or WP:MEDRS. The onus is on you to make sure it is sourced WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have failed to find a reliable source for the cited text, Becker just isn't reliable for anything related to a medical claim per WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Becker is a reliable source per the criteria used by Wikipedia and it is used as a reference in multiple journal articles. Whether or not a specific claim found in Becker is reliable is another matter altogether. If you have a problem with a specific claim by Becker, then please specify that problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which criteria are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Becker
The becker source is not reliable for any sort of medical claim and does not pass WP:MEDRS. Per earlier discussion I allowed some time to find alternative sources, time is up. Either re-insert it sourced correctly per WP:BURDEN or do not re-insert it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to stop everything in my life due to your dictates. Becker is a perfectly reliable source and it is your anti-animal therapy POV that is the only problem here. But I have better things to do than beat my head against a well with people like you.  When I get around to it, I'll fix this, but in the meantime, have at it, this is your little playground, screw things up all you want.  I can revert for months back when the time comes.  Have fun.    Montanabw (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not an acceptable source for medical claims. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't even looked at it, you are, in fact, judging a book by its cover. But I really haven't the time to care.   Montanabw (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that nobody has been able to get hold of a copy of this book yet. It's far safer to use sources we can see. If one of us does get round to reviewing this source then I think it would be a very different story. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the issue. It fails MEDRS. The publication date alone is enough to prevent its use.
 * For the third time, the book is online at http://books.google.com/books/about/The_healing_power_of_pets.html?id=jRKJz4qZDKQC --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ronz, it's highly likely that this book does not pass WP:MEDRS. The google books link you provided does not actually show the content of the book, only the cover, the blurb and some reviews by unqualified random internet users. As yet nobody has reviewed the book, so there's no rational basis for claiming that it does pass WP:MEDRS and plenty of reasons to believe that it does not. --Salimfadhley (talk)
 * The google book link allows access to much of the book - enough to get a good idea about the content. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The google link shows the preface and intro, basically the first 26 pages of a book over 200 pages long. Hardly enough.   Montanabw (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Easy there Montanabw. Stay cool everyone. Peace, Jesse V. (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The book is widely available in many public libraries, including the one in my town. The real problem here is that there are three other editors with a POV agenda to debunk animal therapies as pseudoscience and they only have interest in looking for sources that already support their views, they are unwilling to take a serious look at a balanced view (I am not saying the earlier version of this article was very good, but I am adamant that we are now just substituting one unbalanced POV for another).  I believe that could provide a balanced and neutral view, but, as noted above, I have other projects here and in real life and don't have the time to put this particular project as a priority, and so, in that light, once again, what part of WP:DGAF do you fail to understand?  And people can also please quit stalking my talk page.   Montanabw (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Montalbanw, I do not think your POV allegations are warranted. I also think you misunderstand what NPOV means - it's not about giving equal voice to both sides of a debate. It is about reflecting the mainstream view of the reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See below, there are reliable studies on both sides of this issue, there is mainstream support for AAT and the point is WP:UNDUE, not equality, you wish to eliminate all pro-AAT material here and call it pseudoscience, which it is not. THAT is a biased POV.   Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not examined the current situation and I don't really have an incentive to do so. From a completely neutral position I just wanted to put out a reminder that we're all supposed to stay cool and work together. I'm not taking sides, I'm not trying to be accusatory, all I'm just hoping for is that everyone is friendly. It seems your incredibly busy so thank you for your time in reading this. Most everyone on Wikipedia is pretty calm about things, let's try to keep it that way. Also, you have "4.2 centijimbos" which is 109 Talk page stalkers including myself. Sorry for any offence there. Once again I haven't examined the situtation between you and IRWolfie/etc, but I agree with Salimfadhley's reply about NPOV just above. Best, Jesse V. (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesse, you would be well-advised to examine the current situation. I am beating my head against the wall with four editors who think they don't have a POV when they clearly have a blatant bias to rewrite this article as pseudoscience when it is simply alternative medicine.   Montanabw (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you even need to go that far, Montanabw. AAT seems much more established today than it was in 1969.  I think it is safe to say that the therapeutic benefits of AAT are recognized by mainstream medicine, but they don't necessarily understand how it works, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that.  There's also multiple perspectives on how to view the evidence.  Recently, I heard David Agus mention something very interesting about AAT in passing.  He said, and I'm very loosely paraphrasing from memory here, that in some instances, what we think about how AAT might work might be completely different in reality.  The example he gave had something to do with the ideas in his new book, The End of Illness (2012).  Basically, he was arguing that the very act of caring for dogs (feeding, walking, grooming) could help some people adhere to habits and schedules that would have the added benefit of improving their health.  So he was approaching this from a different angle altogether.  I'll check out his book to see if he has anything else to add, but his perspective was both skeptical and intriguing. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Montalbanw, you restored the text, per WP:BURDEN (I gave plenty of time to do this) it is your job to find the citations, not mine as you stated here:. I suggest you go find the sources or remove the text. Can you also please stop accusing me of having a POV, I have no opinion on AAT but I do have an opinion on using dubious sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IRW and Salimfad, don't lecture me on sources, I've been here longer than you have. And if you don't have a POV, then go up to the Google link I put in above and find some peer-reviewed sources yourself, there are PLENTY that support the pro-AAT view.  As I said, I am very busy in real life and am NOT going to kowtow to your dictates.   Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is dubious about the claims sourced to Becker in this article? Please be specific and brief as I am new to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the problems are a) It's a book that's written for a popular audience so therefore these editors have declared that its crap, b) An editor from the UK can't find it locally so he thinks it is therefore crap and c) It's pro-animal therapy, so therefore four editors here think it's crap. No one here really will do more than throw MEDRS at it, but absent specifics.  I can access a copy, I don't care to do so though if the work is going to be dismissed out of hand anyway.  But my guess is that it has an index and bibliography to the actual research.   Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please get a hold of a copy and I will work with you and others to make sure this source gets a fair hearing. My personal rule of thumb is that uncontroversial content should be easy to find in multiple sources so we never have to rely on one single source unless we are representing or attributing a specific POV.  So far, I don't see any issues with Becker, but we do no need to be careful how we use Becker. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See the top of the discussion as well where I list my issue with it. The issue is that the book is printed by Disney publishing and is not reliable for medical claims per WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've responded to your issue here. Feel free to reply to this comment to keep the thread readable.  I don't see how the book can be classified as unreliable.  And for that matter, which specific claims are not reliable or even dubious?  Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of Chur-Hansen et al.
The lead section currently features a statement debunking AAT sourced to Chur-Hansen et al. (2010). After reviewing the relevant literature and requesting the source over at the resource exchange, I found this interesting statement about the scope of the commentary:

"This paper is not an exhaustive literature review but rather, a synthesis of knowledge and ideas aimed to stimulate a better quality evidence base for future research. In this paper we focus on the adult literature (and not children). We refer to companion animals as any non-human animal that shares its life with a human caregiver. This is distinct from AAIs, which relates to any therapeutic process that intentionally includes or involves animals as part of the process. AAIs can be grouped as either animal-assisted activities (AAAs) or animal-assisted therapies (AATs). AAAs refer to ‘the utilisation of animals that meet specific criteria to provide participants with opportunities for motivational, educational, recreational, and/or therapeutic benefits to enhance quality of life’1 while AATs are ‘goal-directed inter- ventions directed and/or delivered by a health/human service professional with specialised expertise, and within the scope of practice of his/her profession’. (140)"

According to these authors in 2010, "There is a strong tendency in the literature to assume that human–companion animal interactions are beneficial, and while this may well be the case in many instances, hard evidence is lacking." This opinion does not support the current wording or cherry picking of this source in the article. Further, since 2010, the evidence has continued to be published. Marcus (2012) showed "significant improvements were reported for pain, mood, and other measures of distress among patients after the therapy dog visit but not the waiting room control, with clinically meaningful pain relief (decrease >= 2 points) in 23% after the therapy dog visit and 4% in the waiting room control. Significant improvements were likewise seen after therapy dog visits for family/friends and staff. Therapy dog visits in an outpatient setting can provide significant reduction in pain and emotional distress for chronic pain patients". (Pain Medicine. Jan 2012 13 (1):45; Pain & Central Nervous System Week, 2012) In 2012, Melson of Purdue University reported that "there is very good evidence that being with a calm and friendly dog lowers blood pressure and reduces feelings of stress" while Fine at California Polytechnic State University reports "real biological changes" from AAT.

In 2011, Ruchman at Monmouth Medical Center reported improved "patient satisfaction with medical care, and may reduce anxiety associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)...also likely to have fewer adverse effects than treatment with pharmacological anxiolysis." Also in 2011, The Veterinary Journal reported that the "value of the AAA/AAT (Animal Assisted Activities/Animal Assisted Therapy) programmes in children with a wide variety of clinical and social problems, such as behaviour problems and autistic spectrum symptoms, is discussed. The findings suggest that (companion) animals positively influence children's development and have a valuable role in therapy." Criticism of the use of seizure-alert dogs appeared in Epilepsy Research, but did not discount their benefit.

In short, the commentary piece by Chur-Hansen is not being used to accurately reflect the source and is being given undue weight for partisan purposes. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please WP:FOC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ron, this entire thread is about content. Do you have anything to say in reply, or will you only focus on commenting about contributors? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Struck out. --Ronz (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "and is being given undue weight for partisan purposes" I suggest we avoid making assumptions or statements about "purposes", let alone labeling them "partisan" without very strong evidence and a clear need to bring up the subject on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ronz, the source is being misstated, that is the problem. That is a misuse of the source and a violation of WP:V.   Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused here - which section of the document are you referring to? Can you spell out for me how the quoted section above suggests that the reference is being abused? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. The previous version sourced to Chur-Hansen et al. said, "The effectiveness of AAT remains unproven. There is no clear mechanism by which Animal Assisted Therapy is known to work, furthermore the research into this topic has been criticized for over-reliance on anecdotal evidence and poor methodology."  That is a highly selective and misleading use of  Chur-Hansen et al. as demonstrated by the above. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, the above paragraph is very close (but not an exact quote) of the paper's abstract. Can you explain to me why you think the text you objected to was "highly selective" and "misleading"? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained it and I gave examples. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS and the misuse of abstracts: "it is generally not advisable to cite a source after reading only its abstract, as the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says." Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are saying that the paper's abstract does not correctly summarize Chur-Hansen's views, specifically that the scope of the paper is more limited than the abstract might indicate. Could you kindly provide me with a copy of the paper for verification? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You say below that you have "re-read this thread a number of times" yet you seem to have missed the second sentence that states that I had to request the source over at the resource exchange, where it is still listed for download. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we re-add the critical references to Chur Hansen's paper. It appears to be a reliable study of this field which outlines a number of important problems in AAT. The original summary was a close (but not perfect) summary of the paper. The accusations of cherry-picking the source are baffling and unwarranted. Furthermore, I'm perplexed as to why references to this relevant, reliable source have been entirely removed from the article. What was the rationale for that? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. Please read this thread in its entirety again. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-read this thread a number of times and I am still puzzled. Could you describe the nature of my mistake?
 * When I asked you to explain the nature of your complaint you simply re-stated your complaint: That is a highly selective and misleading use of Chur-Hansen et al. as demonstrated by the above. Later you correctly point out that the quotation is based on an abstract, but you have not demonstrated why you think the abstract is misleading.
 * It's not obvious to me, and the paragraph at the top of this thread sheds no light on the matter. The quoted paragraph seems to be a definition of the scope of their study followed by a simple taxonomy of animal-based interventions.
 * Could you explain (in light of the text you quoted above) why you think the abstract provides a misleadingly selective summary of the source's views on the effectiveness, research methodology and use of anecdotal evidence? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why the abstract was used in a misleading and selective manner by directly quoting the paper up above. This was not a study as you claim, it was a commentary, and the thesis states simply states that "more research is needed".  Since you missed it the first time:
 * "This paper is not an exhaustive literature review but rather, a synthesis of knowledge and ideas aimed to stimulate a better quality evidence base for future research." In other words, the authors did not review nor study the subject, but rather published a commentary calling for better research.
 * The paper looks at a few adult studies concerning "the use of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) for the elderly in residential care" and they criticize the "methodological weaknesses in research that make claims that animals benefit the elderly a dubious conclusion, and one that is lacking in a solid evidence base." The authors do not look at any studies involving children and narrowly limit the scope.  According to Palley et al., 2010, a review of the literature "described a wide range of patient age groups—pediatric, adolescent, adult, and geriatric".
 * The authors write that "there is a strong tendency in the literature to assume that human–companion animal interactions are beneficial, and while this may well be the case in many instances, hard evidence is lacking." This is their central thesis. "This paper shows that sound, empirically based evidence of whether and how human psychological and physical health benefits arise from human-companion animal interactions is needed."
 * The claim that the "effectiveness of AAT remains unproven" does not appear anywhere in the source and is a highly selective misreading of the opinion of the authors. What the authors of the paper do claim is that "the conclusions that can be drawn from the present literature on the health effects of owning a companion animal are mixed, and the causal mechanisms are unclear."  However, the sources the authors use to support this statement are selective in themselves (as the authors admit) and represent just three older papers, Beck & Katcher (2003), Headey (2003), and McNicholas (2005).  It is currently 2012, and I've provided a small sample of studies released since that time.  A current appraisal of the literature is needed, however, the authors make it very clear that their paper does not do this.
 * The claim that "there is no clear mechanism by which AAT is known to work" is again, another misreading of the source. The authors very clearly state, "the causal mechanisms are unclear", and as I pointed out above, the authors cite research from 2003-2005.
 * The claim that this "topic has been criticized for over-reliance on anecdotal evidence and poor experimental methodology" is a poor attempt to selectively cherry pick the commentary. This particular claim in the paper reads, "Other authors have reported that any claims that companion animal ownership is beneficial should be viewed with caution, citing the weak methodologies used to investigate the hypothesis and the preponderance of anecdotal and biased research."  Although it is not exactly clear, it appears that this claim is sourced to a paper from 1998.
 * When we use critical papers on Wikipedia, we do so carefully and in context. In this respect, I provide as an example above, a paper critical of the use of seizure-alert dogs used in AAT.  If we are discussing SAD in this article, then we might include that criticism in context.  What we don't do is take the SAD criticism and say it criticizes all of AAT.  In this case, we have a paper that selectively criticizes research methodology, in particular, evidence that supports the use of AAT with the elderly.


 * If this isn't making sense, feel free to ask questions. But, please do not continue to add papers you have not read, or misleading criticisms that do not reflect the focus of the paper. At best, Chur-Hansen et al. is a criticism of "the use of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) for the elderly in residential care", a very specific subject.  It does not belong in the lead section. The misleading attempt to turn a narrow commentary and criticism about AAT and the elderly into a wide-ranging criticism of AAT in general is inaccurate.  I recommend the creation of a methodology section that expresses the concerns raised by  Chur-Hansen et al., 2010 and other researchers, and then a single sentence regarding these concerns should be added to the lead.  I'm currently putting something together in my sandbox at this moment. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the following changes. Additionally, with the help of Colinan (2011) and Palley (2010), I have identified four sources that can be used to expand content and create a new, balanced section regarding methodology and concerns about the data:


 * Chur-Hansen, A., Stern, C. & Winefield, H. (2010). Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 8, 140–146
 * Serpell, J.A. (1990). Evidence for long term effects of pet ownership on human health. Pets, Benefits and Practice, 20, 1-7
 * Walsh, F. (2009). Human-animal bonds I: the relational significance of companion animals. Fam Proc, 48, 462–480.
 * Wilson CC. 2006. The future of research, education, and clinical practice in the animal-human bond and animal-assisted therapy. Part B: Human animal interactions and health: Best evidence and where we go from here. In: Fine AH, ed. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. San Diego: Elsevier. p 499-512.


 * Let me know if you have any questions. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be concerned about the reliability of the second source. It appears to be from conference proceedings and a small sample sized test. You commented above about papers from around 2003 as being old, a paper from 1990 must be very old then. Also, source 3 is from a family studies journal so I am a little skeptical of using that source, especially since the source talks about the "spiritual dimensions" of human experience and "soulful interactions" that can restore a sense of calm, balance, and harmony. At a glance the other two seem fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * These are citations used by secondary sources critical of AAT methodology. Serpell, who is considered a reliable source, published this research in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.  There's nothing wrong with it.  Walsh (2009) is another reliable source and critic.  She uses the term "spiritual dimension" to refer to the relationship between animals and humans in the history of religious traditions, which is explained in the introduction.  When you read the paragraph regarding "soulful interactions" that can "restore a sense of calm, balance, and harmony" in this context, then it makes sense. This is the "animal-assisted interventions in historical perspective" referred to by Serpell (2006), discussed in the context of "animal souls and spiritual healing", otherwise known as animism.  Serpell talks about this in great detail.  I think you are missing the backstory. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't the individual we are considering a reliable source or not, it's the particular articles/books. We don't declare individuals to be inherently reliable (although the reverse can happen). The study you linked to of 71 individuals who acquired pets and 26 subjects who didn't, is also incredibly small. Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. The study is also appears to have a poor method by waiting outside a pet store to get individuals for the study rather than some randomised selection per WP:MEDASSESS. Walsh appears to have no expertise in this area and the publication is not in a relevant journal, whether she is a critic or not is irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do evaluate individuals for reliability, it's called testing for authoritativeness, but it is one of many factors involved in evaluating a source, and depends on how the source is being used. Again, the study I linked to isn't being used because of the study. It's being used for its criticism of methodology, in particular, the methodological limitations described, for example, on p. 719.  And I'm not the one using it that way, the secondary sources are using it that way, as I've already said.  The same is true for Walsh, a clinical psychologist who has published about human-animal interaction, the role of companion animals, pets in families, and family therapy.  She is widely cited as a source in the AAT literature. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are using the study for it's secondary source aspects then that is fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I would like to read the Chur-Hansen study. Could you kindly provide me with a link to where you obtained it? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were given the link the first time you asked for it. I can't help but notice that this is second or third time you have asked the same question over and over again after it has already been answered. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Scope of this article
It seems to me that this article is not just about animal-assisted therapy but also about animal-assisted activities as well. Do people want this article to cover both subjects or only AAT? --Dodo bird (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing some kind of split? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can cover both topics on one page like the sources do, such as Pichot & Coulter 2007. We can then split later, if necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly prefer than an article about Animal Assisted Therapy should only list activities which can be construed my mainstream medicine as therapeutic. So for example, we might not include guide-dogs since they are arguably not a form of therapy. It might be a little early to split the article since it's still in a state of flux. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is a perfectly reasonable preference, it is way too narrow for a general purpose encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? Many of the sources we have are for activities which are potentially therapeutic. If the sources are there, and the topic is notable, an article devoted to this topic is fully justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread my comment, or I'm not understanding your reply. Yes, we have an article on seizure response dogs, but the topic of assistance dogs is also covered in general sources about AAT. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want the topic to be more general I would suggest a renaming of the article to reflect usage outside of assisted therapy. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not what I want, it's how the sources treat it, which is exactly what I said in my initial comment to this thread. Many of these sources make note of the lack of standardization of terms. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have shown one source. Do the majority of secondary sources do this? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, most current sources are using the definitions published by the Delta Society which includes both as an AAI, I believe. See Kruger & Serpell 2006 for more info, in particular, pages 24-25. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie, you are missing the point. We need to get this article into shape first, then figure out if we need additional merges, renames or spinoffs as material is deveoped.  The term "animal assisted therapy" is easily found in google scholar and is appropriate here.  There are already separate articles on guide dogs and such.  Let's not get off focus. And remember WP:DEMOLISH.   Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not making a suggestion either way. Just that if this is only about AAT, then non-AAT content should be moved to an AAA article. If this is about both, then the lead needs to include AAA and the article might be more appropriately named. Animal-assisted intervention is what the Delta Society uses. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just passing through to note that this proposal to start a page entitled Zootherapy might be of some relevance to the discussion here. —MistyMorn (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Zootherapy more references the biological therapeutic uses of animals-- something ENTIRELY different. Leeches!  =:-O   Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Barak et al., (2001)
I'm at a loss understanding why IRWolfie deleted this content as "undue". The section appears significant according to Pachana et al. (2011) on page 158. WP:MEDRS is clear that the "use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability." In fact, that is exactly what was done, as Pachana discusses this significance in the same mental health context as the editor who added it. Further, Pachana only mentions two examples of relevant studies, noting that "although the sample size (N = 10 in each group) was small, on a measure for adaptive social function the treated group showed significant gains which extended to other activities of daily living." Barak et al. is also cited throughout the Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy, by at least three authors. So, we have secondary sources highlighting the significance of the study, which is good enough for us to add. The fact that Pachana notes that the sample size was small also allows us to note it. There's nothing "undue" here. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an absolutely tiny study (just 10 in each group). Even the link you've shown mentions the group is small. Adding a tiny study to an article saying "A study of elderly schizophrenic patients found significant improvements through the use of cats and dogs as companions" completely misrepresents the signficance of the small study. If a large body of research exists, we should be using that, i.e any systematic reviews. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems there are plenty of reviews related to AAT, I'm not sure why we don't make use of them in the article rather than with small studies. Reviews such as here: which appears to cite the above small study but I don't have access to check it out. I notice there conclusion though is Future research employing more rigorous designs and systematically building upon a clearly defined line of inquiry is needed to advance our knowledge of the benefits of human-companion animal interaction. Also here  where it notes on dementia that AAT offers promise but that overall, the quality of current studies is limited and that Future research needs to use “blind” raters larger, and well-designed studies, that are randomized when possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, but showing the relevant small studies is essential to understanding why there are methodological concerns. The "warts and all" approach makes this clear to the reader and justifies the concerns. Further,  I think Pachana was reviewing the literature. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Particularly when the relevant small study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Small studies lead to larger studies.  Here, we have a new field of research, of course there will be limited material.   Montanabw (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When the studies fail MEDRS we remove them or give them only the weight demonstrated by MEDRS sources. Otherwise we're cherry-picking studies while ignoring medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Barak article easily passes MEDRS, there is room for variants on weight.  Montanabw (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually easily fails MEDRS: It's old and it's a single study not being used in conjunction with better MEDRS studies.
 * With the proper, relevant inclusion of Pachana et al, as suggested by Viriditas, Barak might be included. I don't have access to Pachana et al, so I cannot determine if such inclusion might be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that these small studies pass WP:MEDRS, but we still have to be careful not to structure the article in a way that might allow a reader to infer that this is an effective or proven therapy. I can think of no good-quality medical articles that consist of little more than a list of very small studies. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It took until the voyage of Magellan to "prove" the world was round, my friends, and gravity is still a "theory" but I'm not about to go jumping out of windows. Scientific thought simply notes the weight of the evidence.  We don't censor relevant material just because it is imperfect.  Remember WP:DEMOLISH.   Montanabw (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Demolish is just an essay, essays reflect the opinions of some wikipedians. It also refers to the article being built, not waiting around for the studies to be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you basing this on? MEDRS specifically warns about using small studies, the reviews exist on this topic, we should be using them. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there are meta-analyses which we might base an article on? I think we would be far better off basing our article on that kind of study than the plethora of tiny studies. There is a real danger of WP:SYNTH here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What part of this is from a peer-reviewed journal do you not understand??? The study was small, but it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and stands for what it stands for, which is that evidence exists.  I ask both of you again:  Do you consider AAT to be pseudoscience and if so, do you also consider things like acupuncture or chiropractic medicine to also be unproven pseudoscience?  Montanabw (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not means it meets WP:MEDRS criteria. That should be clear from the discussion.
 * The subject of AAT being pseudoscience is unrelated to this discussion of the single reference. Please start a new discussion if you feel this pseudoscience question needs to be addressed. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a bureaucracy. If you think AAT is pseudoscience, then please produce sources saying just that. I don't need to start another thread for you to fulfill this source request. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one appears to have mentioned or suggested it being pseudoscience, so I am confused as to why you are bringing this up. Montanabw appears to have some sort of issue with constantly asking Salimfadhley if he thinks AAT is pseudoscience. Even though Salimfadhley has already said last month that he does not think it is pseudoscience: . Is AAT total fringe pseudoscience ... My answer, no. ... This is a legitimate field of study and has a place in mainstream health care,.... Montanabw is trying to put up a strawman to attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, Hello Wolfie, I was asking everyone and -- what did you say above here but: "Err, By Charles' standards, acupunture is also pseudoscience. Acupuncture is pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)"    I read that to say YOU, as well as Charles, believe another type of alternative medicine with an ancient track record, which I used as an analogy and to clarify people's views on alternative medicine generally, to be mere pseudoscience, therefore, it appears you believe AAT is such as well. Please clarify your position if I misinterpreted that. My own position is that alternative medicine is not the same as "pseudoscience" which to me constitutes quackery and fakery that has been completely debunked, such as the laetrile fad. Alternative medicine may have varying degrees of acceptance by the mainstream medial field, but it usually has some validity in some contexts, with (usually) small preliminary studies to support it. Montanabw (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AAT appears to be a scientific discipline of study with no pseudoscience component in the research. If you dislike me calling acupuncture pseudoscience, substitute in "acupuncture is not scientific" but sometimes people try dress it up as science (i.e pseudoscience). Acupuncture has no shown benefit beyond placebo. The possible scientific mechanisms for acupuncture for pain relief for example, are completely unrelated to qi and meridians and other such supposed acupuncture ideas. Contrast that with AAT which I don't think is comparable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about acupuncture, I merely used it as an example of alternative medicine, anything else out there that isn't perfectly "mainstream" would do as well. I think your definition of "pseudoscience" and mine differ, you seem to use it to mean simply "not scientific", i.e. not yet subject to a lot of scientific rigor (?), even if there may be something to it. I use the term to mean flat out fraud and quackery that cheats people and might even harm them. So if you feel there may be something to AAT, but the article needs improvement, then we merely had a semantic misunderstanding.  Montanabw (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is we are using small studies when the reviews exist, we should be using them. I will have a look in the coming week at the review(s) and add them to the article, in place of or complementary to the small study. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Am not clear if you therefore are supporting or opposing the inclusion of the Barak article??  Montanabw (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am supporting only it's usage to complement the reviews, I have not looked at the reviews yet so I can not say. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we all agree more searches for reference material are needed.  Montanabw (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section and child section added
Hello all, I just added in a criticism section in order to make this article more neutral seeing as there is a dispute of it's neutrality, and there are plenty of criticisms of it. I also added more to the health section with scholarly articles. I also included more references in certain sections such as the equine therapy, mostly just to boost the reference section of this article. I also added a section about children benefiting from AAT, there is a lot of research out there on this particular topic especially when it comes to children with learning or social disorders, and I was surprised that it was not mentioned in this article. So I thought i would throw that in there with a study that was conducted on it; however, it needs to be built on more, so if anyone has anything to add to it please feel free!! --LEHussain (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me, keep adding good stuff with strong sources! Montanabw (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are typically a sign of poor style, I suggest any criticisms be integrated throughout the article in an appropriate location. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are a good initial start, and can be integrated as the article is improved.  Montanabw (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Book check - Becker
"The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy" is being used for a lot of article content. Is this really due weight; does the book satisfy WP:MEDRS for the medical claims it makes? About the publisher for example: ''Hyperion Books is a general-interest book publishing part of the Disney-ABC Television Group, a division of The Walt Disney Company, established in 1991. Hyperion publishes general-interest fiction and non-fiction books for adults ''. This doesn't seem suitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this book seems a bit fringe to me. It's author does not appear to be notable for his TV appearances rather than as a scientific researcher. From what I can tell the book is self-published, and that would definitely make it unsuitable as a reliable source of medical information. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Salimfadheley, you are using an unusual definition of "self-published" here. The book is not classified as "self-published" in any way.  Because of media ownership and consolidation in the United States, there is indeed a close relationship between the author and the publisher; the author is a contributor to Good Morning America, an ABC television show, which is probably how he landed his book deal. The publisher of the book, Hyperion, is owned by Disney-ABC Television Group.  However, when you consider the list of assets owned by Disney, there is nothing unusual about this relationship.  To conclude, this is not a self-published book nor does it meet the criteria for "questionable sources".  On the other hand, specific claims are always subject to critical appraisal.  The problem here, however, is that editors have removed what they have determined to be "dubious" medical claims without looking at the source or sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed out the medical claims from this book. I have removed the sections that were completely based on the unreliable reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please use Wikipedia policies and guidelines to demonstrate how this source can be classified as an "unreliable" reference. I prefer to see evidence. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did already. It's a pop med book, printed by a publisher that usaully prints childrens books, which advocates about AAT. It is not a reliable source for any medical claims. WP:MEDRS talks about popular science books printed by university presses or the National Academy of Science as being mostly suitable. From google scholar Becker appears to have zero impact in this area of research rather he is a practicing vetinarian who appears to make tv appearances than being a serious researcher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw, stop re-inserting the becker book, it is not a reliable source and does not satisfy WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not purely a medical article, there is a place for multiple views here, Becker is a veterinarian, the book blurb states that it reflects recent research, and Hyperion is a mainstream press, the work is not self-published. I mean,  for example, Deepak Chopra shows up on TV a lot too. That doesn't make his views fringe, just popularized.   Montanabw (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Montanabw - Deepak Chopra is a perfect example of somebody whose views are definitely WP:FRINGE. His published works & statements are not reliable sources of scientific, theraputic or medical opinion. I've no way of knowing whether Becker's book is fringe, here the issue is that it's not a particularly notable book and we have no way of verifying what it actually says! It's not available in any of the public libraries in the Greater London area, so that suggests this book had very limited circulation. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The book, which is published by a Disney sub-company, just isn't reliable for medical claims of any sort. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please specify exactly which medical claims the book makes and why they are not reliable. My understanding is that Becker is simply acting as a secondary source and reproducing common and uncontroversial claims from the medical literature.  If he has given these claims undue weight, then please make that case. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Google Books: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_healing_power_of_pets.html?id=jRKJz4qZDKQC

After taking a quick look, I think it might be used as a primary source for details, in conjunction with better source. Given the date and approach, it shouldn't be used for any MEDRS material. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a secondary, not a primary source, and it has been cited in multiple journal articles. Anyone who continues to claim that this is self-published or unreliable is making false claims and needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content. Thanks!--Ronz (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ronz, please stop commenting on contributors. It is false to claim that Becker is self-published and unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC
 * "It is false to claim that Becker is self-published and unreliable. " Thanks for this rewrite! --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this book is an unreliable source. Pets have no « amazing abilities » of healing as such, no more than prayer or or a sugar pill. The claim is sensationalist and obviously unscientific. It gives the impression that animals have magic powers of some kind which is obviously false. Pets do have a short lived placebo effect (in 30 % of people like all placebos) but contrary to prayer, pets are also sentient being who suffer enormously from such false claims--Charles danten (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One POV for another
I restored the old version of the article because the rewrites deleted sourced material without discussion, which is against WP's guidelines and policies. While the editor's comment that there are multiple views on Animal therapies, to simply replace a pro-animal therapy view with an anti-animal therapy view is to simply keep the same problem, only in a different direction. My suggestion is that there be a balance of views. For each subsection, have a neutral explanation of what the type of therapy is, followed by the views of the "pro" side, and then contrasted by the criticisms of the practice. And everything footnoted as it goes. I think it goes too far to say this is a WP:FRINGE theory, but I put up an NPOV tag to indicate that there is a dispute. Montanabw (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but when it comes to claims on human health, we follow WP:MEDRS. We never simply balance all viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a false equivalence. It implies that the one view is always equal to another view. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. We report in the article what is covered by reliable sources and very carefully to the peer reviewed literature when it comes to medical claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Relativism is contrary to science. Although there are differing opinions about AAT, everyone cannot be right at the same time. No matter how you interpret it, the world is fundamentally the same for everyone. Some theories are true some are not. AAT is a pseudoscience because it fails to follow the rules and requirements of science by refusing to use quantitative studies to document its claims. The reason it does so is because none of its claims would stand up to scientific scrutiny. After 60 years of intense if not prolific research, nothing has changed. The few rare quality independent meta-analysis and reviews which I have cited have shown that AAT studies are deeply flawed and that this therapy has no substance beyond a short-lived placebo effect. All the studies in this field are financed by the pet-food companies foremost Mars/Waltham which even has its own peer-reviewed scienfic journals.--Charles danten (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The dolphin studies cited are deeply flawed as well as the studies on equine therapy (Lana Kaiser et Coll. (2004). « Can a week of therapeutic riding make a différence? A pilot study. » Anthrozoös, 17 (1), p. 63-72). Most of them are made by the owners themselves of the data collected by the owners and their employees with the obvious bias this implies. And there is no reason to believe this is not so for every other form of AAT with other species. Why would it work better with a dog as opposed to a horse or a dolphin.--Charles danten (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we follow the french version that was settled on. --Charles danten (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will search Pubmed for more recent reviews and meta analysis. --Charles danten (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What is missing at this point, in your view, in the critic as it stands now? Can you be more specific instead of referring to the rules of Wikipedia? Can you pinpoint problems in the text as such so we can settle the issues asp.--Charles danten (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest therefore that the claims of AAT be stated first followed by the critic as is.
 * Nice summary of the situation, Charles danten. We need to source this all properly, incorporate it into the article where applicable, and change the weight of information in the article to reflect medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a merging of the two versions of the existing article, restored deleted items that were sourced (tag if a problematic source, don't just toss stuff) and reworded some material. The real problem with this article is that it needs to be a general overview that serves as the "feeder" into the articles on more specific therapies, and as such, it's pretty disorganized.  By the way, I found a meta-analysis in about 30 seconds here. I'm not about to go through all of the material above, it does belong in a sandbox and should be moved there.  I am not going to argue on a tendentious point by point basis with an editor with an agenda.  On a cursory review, the material above is clearly is quite blatently anti-animal therapy and has cherry-picked the research; my concern that this merely substitutes one POV for another stands.  It is not a WP:FRINGE issue that animal-based therapies have their place, we are simply looking at another form of alternative medicine/therapy. Many alternative therapies have their critics as well as their supporters, this does not mean that only the critical view should be included.  By Charles' standards, acupunture is also pseudoscience. And indeed, we cannot use one wiki as a source for another.  I think that the approach of providing balanced views does not fly in the face of the WP:V and WP:RS source guidelines, and actually, no not "all" studies in this field are financed by pet food companies or testimonials of pet owners, Note, Google Scholar lists 171,000 articles on a search on the term and 68,000 since 2000. I would agree that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there on the web, but it doesn't take much digging to find peer-reviewed material. That "all" statement alone shows the bias concerns of which I'm speaking.   Montanabw (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Err, By Charles' standards, acupunture is also pseudoscience. Acupuncture is pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is any material that was removed that should not have been, it needs to either be discussed here, or folded back in bit by bit so it can be addressed. A wholesale "merge" of past and present versions is not a way to resolve a dispute. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, accupuncture is definitely a pseudoscientific topic. It's a good example of the kind of thing whose proponents should not be given undue weight in an encyclopaedia which should be presenting reliable secondary sources. Montanabw, the material you reverted was deleted for a good reason: It does not meet the standards of reliability that WP needs for medical research. It could mis-inform or harm people. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, therefore, we should have no articles on any of these topics? Clearly we have a POV problem here -- Acupuncture is not a "pseudoscience," it is alternative medicine, there's a difference between that and the truly whacky fakery such as, for example Laetrile. Same with AAT.  Ronz, what I did was to fold back in material that had been removed without discussion.  If "becker" is a problem, then the "dubious" tag should be applied and the topic discussed.  Per Wiki's MOS, sourced material is not to be removed without discussion.   Montanabw (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

'''It might be your opinion but an opinion is just that. Unless you substantiate your claims with credible sources, they have no value. --Charles danten (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC) '''
 * The solution to handling the material removed without discussion is to discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we *can* have articles on these topics. However these articles must avoid giving undue weight to fringe views of these subjects. Wikipedia should reflect the mainstream consensus based on reliable 2nd party sources. Speaking of the sources, in this article the reliability cannot be determined since the vast majority of references cite 3 books which are not available online. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a NPOV tag on the article which was placed on 10 March 2012 and this seems to be the corresponding discussion. But this discussion section is quite stale now and the article has been extensively edited since.  For example, the lead was edited on 8 April 2012 to make a general statement about the state of the field.  That statement seems quite even-handed so what is the NPOV problem now?  Please provide actionable specifics. Warden (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Prisons section
Does this even count as a form of therapy? According to this section a social-worker (not a medical practitioner) gave prisoners some pets and observed some behavioral changes amongst the inmates. At no time was this an attempt to treat a disease or condition. This section appears to be about the educational and socializing effects of pets rather than any kind of therapy. Furthermore, the experiment does not seem to have any citation from any medical publication which implies that medical researchers do not regard this finding as having any significance. I propose to remove it and invite the original author to merge the section in to an article about Pets. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Therapy" encompasses more than medicine -- animals in prison settings help. In a prison, socialization itself is an end. I am not the "original author" but I think that it is time to invite some other editors in on this, so am adding some tags and will post a few messages.   Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your view that this was a notable example of a theraputic intervention? What is your basis for including this anecdote about prision behavior in an article about a kind of therapy? --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Advocates of this theory actually believe that dogs particularly have the power to protect people from evil spirits. There is a widely held belief that dogs can actually attract evil spirits and disease like a sponge and redeem delinquant which are thought to be literally possessed, like John Coffey does in The green line. In South America, people buy dogs explicitly for that reason where as here it belongs more to folklore, its often an unconscious beliefs that people don't brag about. You can look this up in any dictionary of beliefs, symbols, mythes and legends. I have only french references, unfortunately : Morel Corinne. Dictionnaire des symboles, mythes et croyances. L’Archipel. 2004 and Ronecker Jean Paul. Le symbolisme animal: Mythes, croyances, légendes, archétypes, folklore, imaginaire. Éditions Dangles. 1994. I'd like to point out, here, that my assertions are not a mere opinion but a substantiated claim with reliable''' sources.--Charles danten (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Whatever these claims are, it is quite easy to see that delinquance is more a social problem that cannot be rooted out or cured by such an intervention. The deeper problems have to be addressed. This is a misclaimer, a very dangerous one, that can give the illusion that business is being taken care of.-'''-Charles danten (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is such thing as a clinical social worker! Clinical social workers are often thought of being on the same level as Ph.D. psychologists and mental health nurses. So yes, they are recognized in the medical fiel and many work in medical fields. Social workers do alot of work around treatment plans and receive education on biology, psychology, sociology, and much more. Social workers are trained to recognize behavioral changes and identify triggers for clients along with teaching the clients themselves how to adapt to these triggers/work through them. Also, they recieved classes on how to conduct research properly. I would propose keeping the section on prisons in the article, but expand to other settings as well; there is a lot of information about AAT. In fact, I am writing a paper about it right now. I think the author needs to include information about Boris Levinson and develop the section better (poorly crafted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.245.83 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

is this "a relatively new field of study"?
The opening paragraph which reads "is a relatively new field of study, although the human-animal bond has existed for thousands of years" contradicts the history section which suggests that the theraputic use of animals began in the 18th c. This section also includes speculations concering the use of animals in education or for motivation which may be true, but I cannot see how this is relevant to therapy involving animals. Propose that this section should be reverted back to condition before Montanabw's recent edit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with the "recent" comment inasmuch as there is history to the 18th c. "Therapy" however, includes education and motivation in some circumstances.   Montanabw (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think an article about AAT needs to begin with a history of pet-ownership. We could cover this in more depth on pets or some other page. The history of AAT should begin with the first theraputic use of animals. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The history section is off to a bad start and very misleading. AAT has to be put in perspective first.--Charles danten (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AAT is part of Zootherapy a term “that can refer to institutionalized therapy sessions led by health professionals (Animal Assisted Therapy) or another such intermediary, as well as simply having an animal at home. The word ‘zootherapy’ is thus a generic term designating the positive impact of animals on people,” but also the impact of people on animals, since it is generally agreed that zootherapy is as good for them as it is for us.

(It is not a new field. Research started in the 1950' so its more than 60 years old, yet almost no quantitative studies have been made. The few studies that have been made, the ones you claim falsely I have cherry-picked, all point to the same thing : it has no lasting effect, its just a placebo effect,no more)

American psychiatrist Boris Levinson, who is considered the father of post-modern animal-assisted therapy, summarized the importance that animals could have in people’s lives in several beacon articles published in the sixties and seventies.2 His ideas, which have been accepted into pop culture and become the leitmotif of the pet industry, offer justification for our present passion for animals. According to Levinson, an emotional relationship with an animal is in itself a physiological intervention comparable to a drug. Since the publication of his writings, this line of thinking has become so widely accepted that zootherapy is now a modern institution, with many such interventions being carried out as official treatments. They are “administered” by individuals and by organizations, all of whom promote the perceived benefits of companion animals. Here are just a few of the many praises zootherapy receives:--Charles danten (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

“The enhancive and stimulating presence of an animal, and particularly that of a dog, in a school setting can thus trigger good conduct, but can also serve as a behavior modifier for young people,” writes the veterinary chronicler Dr François Lubrina. His article put the spotlight on a group of specialized psychologists solidly implanted in small schools – much in the same way as are multinational corporations like Coca Cola – with its program “Fudge.” The goal of the program is to create public awareness of the benefits of zootherapy.--Charles danten (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

“‘The presence of an animal has an effect on pain. Much like video games. It’s proven,’ says Dr. P. Déry. [He does not] hesitate today to recommend this program (zootherapy) to other establishments (children’s hospitals). Dr. Déry, you should keep in mind, is an infectiologist,” concludes an article from the magazine L’Actualité from March 1, 2005 entitled “The Pack of Happiness.”

French psychiatrist David Servan-Schreiber, author of the book Healing without Freud or Prozac, cannot say enough good things about zootherapy: “As for his depression, the most beneficial thing this patient could do would be to get himself a dog (a little dog, of course, to minimize the risk of falling). If the patient believes this to involve too much work, a cat, which won’t have to go outside, will do the job. If a cat is still too much, a bird, or even a fish will do. If the patient still refuses, then a nice apartment plant.”3

American veterinarian Marty Becker summed up the vital role he believes animals play in people’s lives at a symposium on animal wellness: “Most important, veterinary medicine is embracing the bond as a vital force for not just happy, healthy pets…but happy, healthy people as well.”4

'''You can see here that zootherapy is much more appropriate as it is broader, encompassing its many uses which spread from ATT to simply having a pet at home. In fact, the industry has transfered the benefits of ATT to the community in general promoting the benefits of pets to ordinary owners.'''--Charles danten (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

According to its advocates Zootherapy increases the survival rate of cancer patients, helps autistic and disabled children improve, facilitates social interactions, relieves loneliness and cures depression, stimulates good conduct in children, encourages the development of their sense of empathy and compassion, redeems delinquents, contributes to better health, and leads to a greater respect for nature and animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where the criticism should come in starting first with a general statement on the methodological issues. All these claims have no scientific foundations. After more thsan 50 years of research no one has been able to come out with hard evidence. etc. --Charles danten (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)