Talk:John Dewey Academy/Archive 1

"Attack" or "consumer information" content
A newly registered user has seen fit to add content to this article that came across as an attack on the school that is the subject of the article. The user asserts that their purpose was to provide "information to the consumer." Either way, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. The Wikipedia policy "What Wikipedia is not" goes into detail about this, explaining (among other things) that Wikipedia is not a guide, guidebook, or advice column and it is not a platform for advocacy, scandal-mongering, or promotion. That page doesn't explicitly say "Wikipedia is not an online consumer guide", but it gives that message using other words. Encyclopedic articles can include information that might be of value to prospective consumers, but articles should not be written with a consumer-information perspective. Another policy states that Wikipedia does not tolerate attack pages, defined as pages that exist primarily to disparage or threaten their subjects. While it was not the entire page, the paragraph added by the user was clearly intended to disparage the article subject.

A couple of additional policies that are relevant to the scope of this page are Biographies of living persons (BLP) and Neutral point of view (NPOV). The BLP policy page says in part:
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Any content added to this article regarding misdeeds attributed to the school needs to be considered in light of this policy -- and the interests of people who might be identified as perpetrators or victims and their families. The NPOV policy is one of Wikipedia's three core policies and applies across all of Wikipedia -- it requires us to ensure that articles are based on good research, use an impartial tone, and do not give undue weight to any particular perspective.

In connection with the above, plus Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability of content, I am removing the subject paragraph from the article. (I removed it once last evening, but it was quickly reinserted by the editor who created it.) It is my judgment that the content seriously misrepresents the information in the cited sources (I will go into detail on that later, if necessary), it gives undue emphasis to some events that occurred a decade or more in the past, and it was added with an intention that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Let's not edit war in the article. It's a short stub right now that presents neutral factual information; there's no harm in keeping it that way (but there is potential harm in publishing misrepresentations that disparage the article subject) while we discuss the content on this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I get what you are saying. Loaded language is hard to get by when concerning rape and victim blaming is a common theme in American culture.  I think it would be a gross misconduct on your part to not accuretly paint the picture of rape, victim blaming and attack therapy found at John dewey.  As a victim myself and an advocate of information to all I think it is directly putting youth in harms way to not include this in the full picture of John Dewey. Troutbum898 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you that leaving out the criminal actions of staff directed towards students and the Attack Therapy style found is not harmful. Dis-information is a common theme throughout human history for people to find themselves in abusive situations. Eitehr way, as uncompfortable as this topic is and can be, it is negligent to leave it out of the picture. What is your opinion on the crimes conducted at Dewey?  Are they not worth public knowledge or should we hide it and let more parents get fooled into this "cult"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troutbum898 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the simple question I challenge you to ask yourself is this. Are two convictions of sexual assault and battery and one child birth between a therapist/student at an incredibly small school not pieces of the complete, objective picture of this school? You also seem to think the arbitrary length of times as you cited seems to wash it away and I guess you would think we should forget rapes/abuse that happen ten years or more ago. I am confused by your logic concerning ten years making a rape more or less important and would like you to clear that up. This is disturbing to say the least. I work with a victims of abuse network and also a victim-blaming organization if you ever need some advice or counseling on this matter I can lead you to resources that may clear this up for you. I hope you can come to the conclusion that rape is rape, abuse is abuse, victim blaming is wrong as is deleting the abuses from the objective facts that help to paint the WHOLE picture of John Dewey, not the one-sided one you seem to think is correct. I though wiki was a source of un-biased facts, here you seem to think it is a medium for a one sided agenda with no facts that may be uncomfortable. I think it is extremely important to make sure we do not have a one-sided wiki on these subjects and hope we can come to an agreement in which we are able to not hide rape/abuse and objectively highlight the entire picture of John Dewey. Keep in mind that childrens lives will be saved. Troutbum898 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Are two convictions of sexual assault and battery and one child birth between a therapist/student at an incredibly small school not pieces of the complete, objective picture of this school?" Where is the complete, objective picture of the school? Who is going to write it? As Han Solo said to Luke Skywalker, "you?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, good quote! Well yes!  I think it is objective and complete as of now!  What advice would you give me to make it more complete? Troutbum898 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oarngemike - I had cited a news article which referred to the crimes and cited published books concerning Attack Therapy on Google Book so you could see the pages themselves. What else can I do, I'm serious and if we need court documents then I will tirelessly find a way to source that on here also. I imagined a news article was sufficient and am sorry it was not but we need to move forward with this. Thanks Troutbum898 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Small schools have bad workers sometimes; but so what? See WP:UNDUE.
 * 2. Googlebooks is not a source of stable references. What we would need are references to actual books themselves; see WP:CITE for information on how to format those.
 * 3. Court documents are primary sources and have no place here. What we need are references to reliable secondary and tertiary sources by neutral third parties. Repeated unjustified accusations of "cover-up" against reputable editors will do nothing but poison the well against you ever being taken seriously. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to get back to this, but will try to do so. I have a hard time seeing this page as a drop-dead emergency, considering that the article has been a stable stub for a very long time. It hadn't had any substantive edits since this tiny change in May 2011, and the last real changes before that were in May-June 2010. If you don't count the burst of activity in the last day or so, it averages about 10 page views per day, which is pretty low. --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. This is a unique school, with unique tactics and unique consequences so comparing it to things it’s not is not good logic. But yes, I would disagree with you on a fundamental point beyond that I suppose.  Even if it were much larger and didn't work with vulnerable students, I would still think exposing abuse is something that should always be done.  Would you feel good if you sent your child to a school and only later found out your child’s therapist/teacher had been convicted twice of abuse?  Because that happens all the time at JDA.  I only said it is magnified when you only are talking about a few faculty members at a school with a few students. It is further magnified by the students being in vulnerable states and the abusers being in incredibly powerful and manipulative positions over the said students.  So when you say "So what?” that is not only incredibly insulting to victims of JDA but rape/abuse victims everywhere.  I hope you find some peace in yourself and find a safe place where you can begin to analyze your view of American rape culture, begin to have some empathy and not use language like that.
 * 2. I do not understand what you mean by Google Books not being reputable. It is a source that not only gives an abstract to the published books I referenced but even lets you, for free, browse pictures of the pages of the book so you can read what I am referencing yourself.  Then you can click a button and buy it!!  I really do not understand how this is not reliable.
 * 3. So if Google books isn't good enough for you nor any primary sources I guess you win.


 * Orlady - So what is your opinion then? I do not see how the number of views could have any impact on this discussion.  Do you think we should mention the abuses and just simply delineate what type of controversial therapy is found at JDA or not?  Mind you this industry is closing schools everywhere and rapidly and it starts with this kind of thing. This school is $100,000 a year and only takes gifted students so they have had an easier time keeping all this quiet, it is the .01% of the 1% who is affected so harder to expose and shouldn’t minimize anything. Remember children’s lives WILL be saved so if you do not have time to invest in this maybe not the best move to delete and walk away but I am new what do I know.


 * Thank you guys truly. I may sound angry, mean or in attack mode but I only truly, truly want to find an agreed upon answer and use simple, hard hitting language.  This is a topic difficult to move forward with when non-accurate and around-the-bush language is used.  The language some of you have used concerning rape/abuse culture and victims has also been incredibly painful for us who have read it but I can move past that.  Ignorance in these realms is common and a pain many of us endure everyday.  I wish you all the best, send love and pray for a speedy resolution.  ~Namaste~    Troutbum898 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Bratter - founder, Carole - co-founder (?)
It seems that Thomas Bratter was the founder of John Dewey Academy but now that he is deceased his wife Carole Jaffe Bratter calls herself a co-founder.

Thomas Bratter is founder:
 * http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/suspect-in-brutal-dyer-rape-nabbed/article_a8618a38-a9c9-5b52-90ea-fc6f251f1d65.html
 * http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=10960997&privcapId=35109281&previousCapId=402730&previousTitle=LICT%20CORP
 * http://articles.courant.com/1993-09-18/news/0000004598_1_massachusetts-girl-fourth-degree-sexual-assault-state-police

Carole calls herself co-founder here: http://www.jda.org/faculty.html

63.247.160.139 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Version of article preferred by 63.247.160.139
The contents of the following article version were posted here by 63.247.160.139 (talk) at 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC):

Go to the link to read this user's preferred version of the page. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
John Dewey Academy president, founder and owner Thomas Bratter has a criminal history. In 1995, Bratter pleaded no contest in Connecticut to a charge of second-degree unlawful restraint, resulting from his conduct with a 17-year-old girl. The girl's father later filed a civil suit against Bratter, and the lawsuit was settled out of court. In 1999, Bratter was charged with indecent assault and battery on a different 17-year-old girl in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. He pleaded guilty to assault and battery in June 2002. He was placed on probation and ordered not to have unsupervised contact with girls under 18. Even after his convictions, Thomas Bratter continued to be the head of John Dewey Academy for decades, until his death in August 2012. In 2004, a federal civil lawsuit was filed against John Dewey Academy counselor, teacher, and houseparent Gwendolyn Hampton, saying that she had sex with a student and had given the student drugs and alcohol. (Hampton became pregnant with the student's child.)

63.247.160.139 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)