Talk:Judge Rotenberg Center/Archive 1

Weird
Weird. Salad Days 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The collection of photographs of the school and student accommodation at http://www.judgerc.org/photos.html is also disturbing. Many rooms are full bright colours, loud patterns, shiny surfaces, eye-catching features - this would be upsetting to many autistic people and could cause sensory overload in some. DavidCooke 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Many autistic bloggers have commented on the decor being liable to cause sensory overload. JRC staffers dismiss this, because the artwork is "beautiful." I recognized some Warhols. Andy most probably was autistic, so their decorator may have been trying to install some autistic pride? I think all this should be mentioned.Berkeleysappho 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the decorator was thinking of anything other than "let's make the place look nice for these disabled kids". Autistic pride is the last thing you'll find at JRC, that's like jewish pride at a nazi convention. User:GarethNelson

Please fix the references!
Someone's got the syntax in a horrible mess, so much so that I can't work out how to fix it. Help! 81.158.0.113 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. There was a double open &lt;ref&gt; tag which was hard to spot.Goatchurch 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edit of this page was obviously written by Matthew Israel who directs the center, I reverted it back to the one before and changed a few words around to make it more unbiased. 129.64.23.64 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
We need to be very cautious with this article. I have noticed that not every citation to the Mother Jones actually comes from the article. Some come from the reader comments at the end. These cannot be assumed to be reliable sources. One specific instance I checked out was the statement about a girl who was shocked for requesting a tissue after sneezing. It turned out to be from a comment. The person who added the comment referred to this paper: http://nospank.net/jrc.pdf (which itself will be a useful source here) but according to it the child was told that the behavior -- not asking for a tissue per se, but speaking out in class -- was "was a target behavior that would result in her action being pinpointed as inappropriate (i.e., subject to aversive consequence);" it does not say she was actually shocked.

This is a highly controversial subject, and in this particular case I don't think it's going too far to insist that every single statement about the Center's practices be sourced to an article or paper. I've tagged a few of these, and there are probably more. If a statement does come from a reader comment, it should be clearly noted as such.

For balance, the article should also cite the rebuttal from the Center here: http://www.judgerc.org/ResponsetoGonnermanArticle.pdf

Please note that as the father of an autistic child myself, I would not and do not approve of the therapies described being used to treat the behaviors resulting from that condition. What I'm interested in here is adherence to Wikipedia's principle of a neutral point of view. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many are documented here http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/nagging_zap_swearing_zap.html http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/NYSED_2006_investigation.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that first one is linked from the main article, although no one has bothered to cite it, and the second is the same paper I linked to at nospank.net, which is actually a better copy. The problem is that when I checked that one story out, the documentation said something other than what this article, and the reader comment on the MJ article claimed. The sidebar doesn't say she was actually shocked either, but it does go to far when it says "[they] once threatened to shock a girl who sneezed and then asked for a tissue." The NYSED document does not say the girl in question was subjected to that particular treatment. (However, the incident raised concern that for students who are being shocked, there may be little discrimination in applying it.) So what you have just shown is that the MJ article is not an entirely reliable source either, and must be verified against its own sources whenever possible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'd like to thank the father which mentioned the need to be neutral, but I would like to also add that you really need to be careful when citing from articles. Just becuase it is written does not mean that it is true. I have seen many articles written about this particular school, which leave a negative impression. There is a lot of sensationlism, and bias, even from reporters. Just remember that they usually only visit the school for a few hours, and may only focus on the negative. They may not have a full grasp of how beneficial the therapies may be due to this. --S2001t 12:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the latest anonymous edit -- no sources. try again with sources please.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through the article and did a bunch of stuff. The page is about the center, not a POV-fork of criticisms of the center and ABA or bmod in general.  It would have to be an article titled 'criticisms of the JREC' to have that, and I'm pretty sure that page wouldn't fly.  Contributors should read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR, the page should describe the center first, criticisms, though a major part of the article, are not the primary purpose.  WLU (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, that nospank pdf file - can it be found on a better source? It's a considerable assumption of good faith that it's accurately represented by a posting from a visibly POV website.  WLU (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A commentary on the article by 74.140.181.180
I left a uw-npov1 message for this editor due to some heated language added to the article, like the word 'torture', and he answered with the following detailed critique, which I have moved here from my user talk. Someone working on this article could look over these references to see what can be properly added. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC) "74.140.181.180 You questioned my contributions as being from a non-neutral pov. The article had already been marked for lack of neutrality. I'm unsure if the verbiage alone was what motiviated your reaction. However, the article, prior to my having edited a few of the least non-neutral words that it had contained, had sounded like propaganda authored by the Ministry of Information of the Rotenberg Center. This led me to seek to assist to remedy the large disconnect of 'gee it's a grand place' vs. fact that ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN are reporting recent events where multiple disadvantaged children were electrocuted by it's staff members this week. If you haven't yet Googled the subject of the Judge Rotenberg Center, then read that vast, citable, material in juxtaposition to what that wikipedia article was portraying; I think that if you do so now, you will find that my having taken time to 'tone down the self-serving rhetoric, the page had possessed', was a service to wikipedia... to not only REDUCE the non-neutral pov I discovered on it, but also align it with the vast majority of materials published in the mainstream media for years, and, much more notably, within the past few days. Please read:     http://www.examiner.com/a-1108992~Fenty_aide_says_kids_will_be_out_of_shock_therapy_clinic.html  http://www.examiner.com/a-1108993~Therapists_petition_for_no_electroshock.html  http://www.examiner.com/a-1097832~Council_chair_blasts_continued_use_of_embattled_Massachusetts_school.html   (and several hundred more articles...from which, the objective conclusion or a reasonable person would be: 'There's something bad wrong there, and some people need to be arrested before they harm more children') Did you research what was going on in current events prior to chiding me for my first wikipedia contribution -- which was merely an attempt to correct what I perceived to be a huge chasm between a wikipedia site and current reality? This place is not perceived by the public as being worthy of the upbeat wikipedia article which had existed. They've killed 6 children. That's not non-neutral, that's factual. With regard to 'scholarly factual'...here are my citable sources: Observations and Findings of Out-of-State Program Visitation Judge Rotenberg Educational Center Rusty Kindlon, Regional Associate; Susan Bandini, Regional Associate; Christopher Suriano, Regional Associate; Paula Tyner-Doyle, RD; Dr. Caroline Magyar, Consultant; Dr. Daniel Crimmins, Consultant; Dr. David Roll, Consultant. This is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia page -- tell me, am I going to encounter this knee-jerk type of challenge every time I try to contribute to making Wikipedia a excellent source of factual information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.181.180 (talk • contribs) 22 December 2007"
 * Obviously the reliable sources can be integrated, I wonder if the massive number of news stories come from a single news source, in which case we should source that one rather than several. I edited the links to make them more compact.  Here's my analysis of the links:


 * 1) Inappropriate shocking, lots of opposition, parents like it 'cause it helps with dangerous behaviors, new supervision and recertified for a year. Suitable as a link, but a short news story.
 * 2) Basically a shorter version of 1, with more focus on the 2 kids who got shocked based on a prank from one of their peers
 * 3) Some lawyer's website summarizing 1&2, adding nothing and of uncertain reliability
 * 4) Nospank.net, not reliable and hopelessly POV
 * 5) ABC news, winning out on reliability so far, most extensive so far and pretty balanced, though this is a better choice of a link - the above link didn't go directly to the story, but the page did have a long list of comments, and we don't host web fora
 * 6) Short, adds nothing, repeats 1-3
 * 7) Interesting, from a D.C. perspective, could add some interesting bits
 * 8) As above, adds comments from the APA
 * 9) As above, further developments
 * 10) The same link as 1
 * 11) Not bad, also balanced. States that one child died at the center, but was due the kid's neurological disorder, not the center


 * The prank is obviously notable and should be included with the most reliable sources available. They're mostly news stories reporting the same thing - the prank - though each one has some interesting factoid that could be integrated.  They also all cite that the parents of the kids in therapy support the treatment, that it's effective, and that they're re-vamping their procedures.  Not bad sources, and hardly damning of the institution as a torture centre.  I'd say that at least some could be integrated to discuss the phone prank, the problems with the center, the praise from parents and the changes the center has made to their procedures.  Basically the good and the bad but nospank is right out.  I've seen the '6 killed' thing twice now, obviously it's notable with a reliable source but I haven't seen one yet and if it's re-inserted, should be removed immediately. WLU (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some further comments on the anon's comments - citeable doesn't mean reliable, and we only cite reliable sources; this is a single event, and the center obviously has a history far longer than one day in 2006 where two kids got shocked; the news articles completely fail to roundly condemn the center, they point out that it's the last stop for certain kids with dangerous behaviors; killing 6 kids isn't non-neutral, right now it's more accurately described as non-sourced, and should be portrayed as accurately as possible - if staff beat the kids to death with hammers, or if the kids died in care of unrelated causes; the observations and findings thing is very limited as a source considering the only place we can get it online is the nospank site, and it would probably be considered a primary source, meaning it should be cited and used with great care. However, the sources are indeed very useful, thanks for providing them, they provide valuable and balanced information on the center.  WLU (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate WLU's taking the time to contribute to this thread. I have no relationship with anyone having direct or tangential involvement with the place or people of this topic. However, as frequent reader of wikipedia, I've yet to encounter a page with a greater degree of disconnect between it's content and the content of other sites. Thus, my first-time-ever editing of wikipedia was performed solely as an attempt to increase the neutrality of the page -- not diminish that which hadn't yet existed. I'd ask that other, more seasoned wikipedia editors, assist in the effort of improving the neutrality of the page. (And the page, at this moment, it is improved from the version I had encountered just a couple of days ago). I point out that I'm not the first to use the word 'torture' in relation to the Judge Rotenberg Center (see citation #11, above) (The Boston Globe). I would accept the page in it's present condition if it were not for two specific items:

1. It states the facility "provides respite services for children and adults with developmental disabilities or emotional/behavior disorders". The Webster definitions of 'respite' are: (1) providing or being temporary care in relief of a primary caregiver; (2) an interval of rest or relief. I trust we can agree that (2) is false in this context. And that, for (1) if an 'in relief of a primary caregiver' clause were to explicitly appear in the sentence, if would clarify, to the reader, which definition of 'respite' was intended by the author. Thus, I suggest the text be changed to be: "provides respite services to the primary caregivers of children and adults with developmental disabilities...".

2. It states "Many parents of difficult children are highly supportive of the treatment" (the cited Mother Jones Magazine article does NOT state that). How many is many? I recommend revising the text to instead state "some parents may be supportive of the center's practices' <-- that's neutral pov. Because 'many' is a weasel word, and the word 'treatment' hazards an inference, by the reader, that the center is providing a therapy which is not contraindicated by the minimum standards of care specifications of the Autism Society of America, the NIH, and the American Psychiatric Associate Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders. Please cite:.

I agree that the scholarly application of neutrality is a noble goal for wikipedia. Ethically, though, if we are to err at all, I feel it appropriate to err on the side of protecting at-risk children... my concern is that a parent will one day decide to place the well being of their child in the hands of this center based, in part, about what they are told about it at the wikipedia site. And, based on the information available at other websites, would you want your own child to be subjected to their practices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.181.180 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is wikipedia's place to attempt to make ethical judgements on 'what might be best' -- it is an encyclopedia and its only job is scholarly. I don't have a problem with point 1...but with point 2 -- there are some parents that are highly supportive...(as evidenced by lawsuits -- I'll find sources and come back with them)--so if it were to read "some parents are highly supportive of the treatment"...that's fine.  Also -- you state that 'treatment' is not apt as it is contraindicated by those guidelines...I glanced at the weblink you provided and didn't see that...could you point me in the right direction?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh - thanks for the contribution -- we are almost on the same page ... on point 2: I'm not OK with the phrase "some parents are highly supportive of the treatment", but am OK with the phrase "some parents are highly supportive of the center's practices". From a scholarly perspective, I do not perceive the medical community to have attained a consensus view that the center's practices constitute a sanctionable form of medical treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.181.180 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the schools are being funded as treatment centers seems to indicate otherwise. But I don't have a problem going with 'practices' please start signing (use four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~) --the sinebot just caused an edit conflict which really messes with me.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point one is fine, point two looks OK to me as well in its second incarnation. Though the center does provide treatment and I have no doubt about that, it provides far more than that.  The only caveat might be what the sources say - if it's a general comment about the centre in general, then it's fine.  If all or most highlight the treatment specifically, then treatment is more appropriate.  Further, to evaluate the centre's treatment against the provided link would violate WP:OR.  I'll replace the relevant sentences, they are perfectly acceptable suggestions in my mind.  WLU (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

New comment by IP editor
WLU -- thanks for recognizing I'm trying to be civil & reasonable.

Josh -- I was taken aback by your earlier suggestion that my edit constituted vandalism. My being anon doesn't equate to any failure to act in good faith or lack of intention to enhance neutrality. I trust our subsequent dialog has clarified my intentions. Thank you for educating me in the use of the tildes -- I will begin using them.

I plan to leave the further improvements to this page to others, though will monitor it and intervene in the talk if it backslides to non-neutrality.

I would offer up an idea for a further revision to the current passage "Some parents of difficult children are highly supportive of the center's practices" to read "Some parents of difficult children are highly supportive of the center's use of the GED" if you each find such revision to be an improvement (thus sidestepping any disagreement re: appropriate use of the term 'treatment', and because it would provide a lead-in to the cited quotation from the mother that does not enlarge the meaning of the mother's statement beyond what we can reasonably conclude from reading her comment.

For anyone planning on further improving the page: please read and consider the following additional references when so doing:

] "I put one electrode on my arm and shocked myself using a remote control. I had been told by the center's employees that it feels like a bee sting or a pin prick. Let me tell you, it hurt far worse than that. Two seconds felt like two minutes. It was like a parade of pins stabbing me in the arm. I could see why students would alter their behavior after feeling that sensation." - Anderson Cooper, CNN
 * 1) from The Boston Herald, Feb 15 & 23, 1995:
 * 2) (If you want to see and example of what really does lack neutral pov, read this): [http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2006/06/judge-rotenberg-center-help-wanted-ad.html
 * 1) If seeking a primary and reliable source for a statement that the electric shocks are painful, here's CNN's Anderson Cooper:

As for the not yet covered subject of this sentence:

"JRC is currently approved by the New York State Education Department." While perhaps factual, including it without divulging it's tenuousness presents a durability of accuracy problem: see:



See also:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.181.180 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 74.140.181.180 -- if you'd sign your comments (with a name, I might know which place you referred to me calling you a vandal...I don't remember that -- I did say that I took out an unsourced sentence (different than vandalism, I think) -- your last post was hard to get through -- too long. Check out one of the guidelines for these pages:

Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.

for more information go Talk_page_guidelines

This page is getting unwieldy, should we archive soon?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Josh: It was a reference to this:

"WLU -- could you take a gander at this pageJudge Rotenberg Center and lemme know if it is a lost cause, or if we can do something to make sure that anonymous users can't vandalize? This is a very controversial issue that rarely seems to be represented neutrally -- I was hoping wikipedia would be a good place to start.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * Anon, please place your external links in single square brackets [like this] to shorten them and make the page easier to read. Josh, archiving is quite premature, usually it's when it's around 100K or so.  Shorter messages are better.  Some comments (I haven't read the page in detail, while putting in the link boxes I noticed some stuff) - blogs are ineligible unless they're noteworthy people.  There's no need to point out electric shocks are painful, a link to the appropriate article will be sufficient.
 * Also, please sign your posts and read the talk page guidelines in its entirety. Consider getting an account to make it easier to identify you if your IP address changes.  Perhaps read this essay or WP:SIMPLE for some broad overviews of wikipedia.  Including information about the review of the centre's certification is valid information, and really not a condemnation of the centre - it's simple good sense.  It doesn't mean it's an American Abu Girab (how does one spell this?) and it won't be portrayed as such.  The talk page is turning into a giant mess because of the formatting, please try to consider people who may not read it diff by diff.  WLU (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
What is your motivation for requesting an archive? -- the discussion is a healthy one.

With all due respect, I followed your advice to use the link you provided to Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice. . . it was there that I found something that said 'Please do not bite the newcomers'.

As for my anonymity, it is my right, and I shall retain it.
 * Anon user -- I'll call you Bob for my convenience...

Bob -- I was not referring to you when I asked about a way to make sure anon users can't vandalize (unless you're the anon that inserted 'torture' and 'asylum' instead of 'served' and 'residential programs'...I think it is clear that neither WLU nor myself consider you a vandal...I still think you should be signing your post (it doesn't mean you need to lose your anonymity -- but it will reduce edit conflicts that I have with the Sinebot). I don't know that I want to archive *this* discussion, but at least parts of this page...again, for my convenience -- it seems very long to me.  I don't know why you've taken anything I've said as a bite -- it was not intentionally soJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is far from the size where archiving is normally needed, but when threads become very long, editing is difficult. I added two section breaks above to simplify editing. It is easier to follow comments by logged-in editors than IPs, so creating a user ID helps the other participants. Creating a user ID (often a completely made-up name) preserves your anonymity. When you use an IP address it usually reveals your ISP, and thus gives away the city and state from which you are editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed -- that is much better, and what I really meant, I think -- archiving would have made prior parts of the comments less accessible -- and I would have had to keep checking other pages to remember :)
 * Bob -- I hope to see you get a userid soon, I think it'll help us all be better at this :)Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Josh, you've got your wish (btw - my name isn't Bob). Truthapedian (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Truth -- nice name...glad to have you as a part of our community -- I've welcomed you on your talk page -- I found those links extremely helpful, I hope you do as well!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

US Department of Education regulations, applicable to approved public or private day and residential special education school programs, prohibit “abuse or neglect, cruel, unusual, severe or corporal punishment.” 603 CMR 18.05(5)(e). OCCS (now DEEC) regulations, applicable to residential programs under the agency’s purview, prohibit abuse or neglect, cruel, unusual, severe or corporal punishment. 102 CMR 3.07(7)(g). Thus, it would be scholarly, factual, and relevant to add the following statement to the page: "JRC continues to operate with open defiance to the federal laws of the U.S. Government" Here is the citation which precludes any claim that the aforementioned would be WP:OR:  Truthapedian (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Start Here
In 1985 a young man died at JRC while being restrained at one of it's residences. The cause of death was ultimately determined to be natural causes related to his condition of tardive dyskinesia and not due to the restraint procedure that had been employed. Opponents of JRC seized on this death, however, to call for the closure of JRC. JRC’s opponents included officials of the National Society for Autistic Children and various other local advocacy groups, such as the Disabilities Law Center, Massachusetts Association for Retarded Citizens, Massachusetts Civil Liberties Association, etc. All of these agencies wrote letters to the Governor, urging him to close JRC. The governor of Massachusetts at that time was Michael Dukakis, who was preparing for his 1988 run for president. Despite the fact that Governor Dukakis was a High School friend of the head of JRC (Matthew L. Israel), and that Matthew L. Israel's father contributed to the Dukakis campaign, it was, according to Matthew L. Israel, Governor Dukakis' executive agency which had ordered JRC to close.

In September 1985, the Massachusetts Office for Children (OFC)[2] issued an order to JRC to close its program and closed JRC’s ability to take in any additional students. JRC’s parents organized in support of the program and brought suit against both OFC and JRC to prevent the closure. JRC also appealed the closure and countersued OFC. The matter was heard by an administrative law judge of the Department of Administrative Law, who ruled that the program could remain open, but curtailed JRC’s aversive treatment procedures. This caused an immediate and serious regression in the behaviors of many of JRC’s students. Some showed intense, problematic and dangerous behaviors and many staff members resigned due to the overwhelming task of managing intense behaviors without adequate treatment procedures. JRC appealed this decision of the Administrative Law judge to the courts and also fought numerous court battles with OFC over the legality of other actions that OFC took during that period.

While this litigation was taking place, in late 1985 and early 1986, JRC brought one of its seriously self-abusive, autistic students before the Bristol County Probate Court for a substituted judgment hearing that was held by Chief Judge Ernest Rotenberg. After hearing testimony on both sides of the issue, Judge Rotenberg determined: (1) that the student was incompetent to make her own medical treatment decisions; and (2) that the child, if competent, would have chosen treatment that included the use of the aversives that JRC had been employing, prior to the decision by the administrative judge. This substituted judgment hearing was the same type of hearing that was required in Massachusetts for individuals for whom agencies wished to employ psychotropic medication (or other intrusive medical procedures) and who were incompetent to make their own treatment decisions.

Armed with this determination, JRC resumed the use of aversives in this child’s treatment and the child, who had seriously regressed during the period when the aversives had been curtailed, recovered and resumed her treatment progress. JRC then began to bring each of the other students who needed aversives in his/her treatment before Judge Rotenberg for substituted judgment determinations.

When a proposal to employ aversives is examined in the context of an individual case, as is done in the substituted judgment proceedings, the matter always looks quite different from how it looks when aversives in general are discussed as a general philosophical matter. OFC objected, however, taking the position that Judge Rotenberg had no authority to permit the use of such aversives if OFC had banned their use.

At this point Judge Rotenberg was temporarily given the powers of a Superior Court judge, and all of the various legal battles that were ongoing between OFC and JRC (then known as the Behavior Research Institute, or BRI), and between the JRC parents and OFC, were consolidated in one legal action in front of Judge Rotenberg. At a critical point Judge Rotenberg enjoined OFC from taking any adverse licensing action against JRC and ruled that the further legal expenses of the parents and of JRC, which were now exceeding what either could bear, should be born by OFC. Judge Rotenberg also made findings that the OFC Director had been acting in bad faith in certain of her licensing actions. These included inviting a national panel to review JRC that she knew was biased against the use of aversives. OFC, through its counsel the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, appealed Judge Rotenberg’s findings and orders to a Single Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Judge Rotenberg was quickly affirmed.

Shortly after that the parties (OFC, JRC Parents, and JRC) reached a settlement that was embodied in a Settlement Agreement in 1986 that Judge Rotenberg approved in early 1987 and adopted as an order of the Court.

In 1993, Judge Ernest Rotenberg died. The Honorable Elizabeth LaStaiti succeeded him as Chief Judge of the Bristol County Probate Court. Shortly after that, DMR began a comprehensive campaign to close JRC and to interfere with JRC’s ability to obtain referrals from other states. Commissioner Campbell failed to abide by the provisions of the 1987 Settlement Agreement. This included a failure to act in good faith and a failure to use the mediation process to settle his disputes with JRC. In 1997, Judge LaStaiti’s decision in the lawsuit between JRC and DMR was considered by Massachusetts’ highest court. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court supported Judge LaStaiti’s decision. Shortly after receiving a copy of the decision of the Court, Governor Weld asked for and received the resignation of Commissioner Campbell. Gerald Morrissey, who had been the Deputy DMR Commissioner at that time, was then appointed to be new DMR Commissioner. Truthapedian (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the above text is your (truthapedian) interpretation of events based on sources and knowledge or a direct paste from somewhere. Here's a point about the sources - court testimony is somewhat tenuous of a source, generally on wikipedia I recall court sources being used for statements like 'charges were pressed' and not for history stuff - of necessity, it's the POV of one side of the dispute.  I'm also not really sure what truthapedian wants done with the above text.  There's too few sources for it to be used as a direct paste in mainspace, and too detailed on a single portion of history of the center.  A version could be used so long as it's referenced more thoroughly and is shorter.  It's obviously a very controversial place with a very controversial treatment approach.  I think the statement that the center is in violation of federal law would have to come from a federal court or federal lawyers, not either team's legal counsel as it's an obviously biased opinion.  WLU (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If this helps in our determining the most appropriate use of it: The entirety of the the info in the post which began "In 1985 a young man died" up to the beginning of your last reply was obtained from JRC's own website. Truthapedian (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The information is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion for, if no other reasons, it's relevance in the explanation of why/how it was named the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. (by the way . . . there is a very legally complex agency jurisdiction rationale for their having declared it an Educational Center / school . . . it is NOT a Medical Center (and most likely could not, for several reasons, in it's present form, become one) . . . thus my earlier advice to refrain from use of the word 'treatment' on the article page . . . it is not 'medical treatment' it is (misguided) 'educational practice'. Truthapedian (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Breaking News: This is a developing news story, Current Event Template Added to main page. Truthapedian (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the inclusion of how the center got its name!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh: re: providing educational, treatment and respite care services to the children and adults with developmental disabilities or emotional/ behavior disorders as well as their primary caregivers. I can agree with "providing educational services to children and adults with developmental disabilities and/or emotional/behavior disorders and respite services to their primary caregivers." Also, if you agree to not redact my addition of some of the investigative findings (currently found in the cited source) to the main page, I agree with the removal of the word 'appalling' and to let the reader reach their own conclusions (though I don't believe anyone of normative morality would consider it an inaccurate adjective after reading through the official findings). I look forward to continuing to work with to perfect this page even beyond the inevitable day when the prefix "Closed in 2008," is accurate.

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]
 * Josh, regarding: "JRC reported that in response to the incident, it has instituted the following:" I will accept it's continued inclusion provided:
 * 1) You cite the source.
 * 2) for "GED use has been suspended in all but 8 residences" you state how many total residences they have (is it 8?)

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]


 * Ok -- I'm citing the source as well as the number of homes...as for the insight into my being on the 'inside' -- I am not. I have been at facilities in which the media and state investigators were misrepresenting what was going on as a whole (media are wont to do that -- who will read stories about things being ok?...state agencies sometimes appear to have agendas for some reason or other.  Therefore, I must correct your impression -- I'm simply a person (knowledgeable?--probably debateable, according to some) looking in from the outside.

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]


 * Josh: I've done the research for you... there are 24 residences according to: (click on 'try demo', then on 'residences').  I've updated the main page accordingly. Truthapedian (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the site says they have 37...perhaps they only have pictures of 24. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is 24 if you count individual buildings, and 37 if you count each apartment as an individual residential facility. I'll cede this one and change the page to indicate 37 residences.  Thank you for citing the source. Truthapedian (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (revised)
 * [The IP number is back!] (I stay logged in always so that I don't have those ugly numbers replace my beautifully coined username) -- I don't care either way...I'm wondering if they meant 8 buildings, or 8 residential units (apartments)...Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes (I thought I was logged in) . . . you make a good point . . . and because we don't know the answer, I've modified the sentence in an effort to ensure it doesn't state what may be inaccurate quantities. Truthapedian (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]
 * Josh: Well, frankly, no, I would not attach a non-FDA approved electrical device which delivered an average of 48.6 volts and 2.025 milliamperes of electric current

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]
 * because
 * I know that 2.000 milliamperes results in an inability to let go, and because
 * voltages above 50 volts cause ventricular interference and respiratory difficulty, and because
 * repeated electric shock which does not lead to death has been shown to cause neuropathy,

[Removed for being an opinion-based discussion, irrelevent to article]
 * BTW -- the GED is FDA-approved: Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you edited 'my' comment - that is a big no-no...IF you must edit (I can't think of a good reason why) -- then you should include a tag indicating that you edited it. Please don't change my words againJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on both of you getting dragged into a common mistake - trying to sort out some sort of personal dilemma on wikipedia. You can now both stop doing so. These comments, though doubtless springing from very, very important issues, they are issues to be debated off of wikipedia. Please see WP:NOT and read the whole friggin' thing. Don't debate here, and I'm contemplating erasing all comments identifying the GED as a wonderful treatment tool or a horrible device of torture. As far as wikipedia is concerned (and me) they're both unsourced, POV opinions. Please remember what wikipedia is, what it's not, what can go on the page and what can not. The page can be saved from acrimony, but only by staying calm, staying civil, and adhering to the talk page guidelines. Thanks. WLU (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry -- I agree with removing the comments...I got swept away...Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WLU..thanks, I was wondering when you'd jump in to help us focus on the task. I've marked the parts that I'm fine with removing (provided the parts I have not marked for removal --  that are relevant to the decisions on what to place in the article -- remain in place)
 * Josh: I did not edit any of your text (other than to remove my IP address)
 * Josh, although the device is FDA Registered, it is not FDA Approved Truthapedian (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the FDA doesn't approve devices...so its as close to approved as one can get.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Briefly reading through this part of the page again - the information above could be used to fill out the history of the center on the main page, justifying non-controversial and non-self-serving statements. Also, a simple weblink and explanation would have been more efficient, and avoid a possibly enormous problem with copyright violation.  The status of the device isn't really that relevant that I can see it, it's used and that is relevant.  WLU (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Some comments:
 * 1) Though I appreciate the vote of confidence, I'm not here to help you focus on the task. I'm here to edit. You're both adults I assume, you focus on the task.
 * 2) I've just edited the page - current events it doesn't seem to be - unless this is an evolving news story that changes daily or several times a day (and I doubt that's the case), it doesn't really need a separate section. I've rolled it into the controversy section
 * 3) This is not a reliable source that I can see, it's not a news agency. Further, it identifies people by name, which may violate our BLP policy or something similar, but it's just rude and unnecessary.  And it's not a reliable source.  Find a better one to remove the fact tag.  This can be discussed, but in my mind, as of now, it's not reliable.  The information it justified was good (to my naive view), I assumed good faith that it was a good addition, but I've left the fact tag pending a better source.
 * 4) Please don't use section headings to split up the talk page as above. Use some other sort of break including the :: to indent or the ; to bold indent or # to number or * for a bulleted list.  Section headings are messy and overly-complicated.  WLU (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While ArcMass's publications may not be a good source is their copy of the investigation report also considered a poor source?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Adjusted spacing to separate it a bit better from my list. ArcMass's own statements and analysis aren't good sources for anything except what they believe (and their page should not be POV-fork to criticize the JRC, ABA or any other type of treatment).   When sourcing a report, the report itself should be a source, and any analysis of the report by a reliable source or notable commentator would also be a good source.  The copy of the report on ARCMass's own external page is a link of convenience - we're citing the report, and linking it to ArcMass out of convenience.  However, any link that is hosted to a POV site always runs the risk of editing, and a better link would be the report's original publisher or author.  Failing that, ArcMass works, but editors should realize it's not an ideal choice.  When we cite the report, we cite the report.  When we link, we link to what we can use; in this case the only on-line version we've found is on ArcMass, a site of dubious reliability.  Much better than nothing but still not ideal.  WLU (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok -- that makes sense. thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags on mainspace
I'm thinking about removing the tags still left on the mainspace page - unbalanced and limited - I think the page is OK now. Does anyone have any objections? WLU (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. Will do. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" section
--Kiyarr lls ton 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it "controversies" if the only controversy is the "use of GED"?
 * Is there a different name for that topic? One that more clearly summarizes what is in that section?
 * Isn't the fact that there were many news articles regarding this encyclopedic? If there were no articles, then there would be no controversy, right?


 * For Kiyarr:
 * The use of electric shocks ("GED") is not the only controversy. Other tortures aversives have been used in the past.  Things that happen in the past remain encyclopedic.
 * "Human rights violations"? "Aversives in the news"?
 * Not sure I follow, but yes, WP does have a notability threshold. News media articles are not the only way to meet it, but they do suffice.  --Jim Butler(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)