Talk:TeenScreen

Removed
Removed POV tag. If someone thinks it's POV they can put it back and explain why it's POV here. 70.66.48.130 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Added back POV tag. Here's a reference for the claim: http://www.counterpunch.org/lucas12302005.html 70.66.48.130 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

POV problems
Ombudsman, in your edit summary you wrote,

"# rv: restore parent consent wording, tag, wholesale deletions; the program is inherently controversial, as it uses deceptive, underhanded means to recruit more children)"

the POV tag is not meant to be a permanent feature of an article. Granted there is a controversy but the article itself should be NPOV.

1. Why are the scare quotes around "diagnostic psychiatric service" in the first paragraph?

2. Regarding, "It is claimed that this screening is often done without the knowledge of the student's parents, and that it only requires "passive consent"." Who makes this claim and how does TeenScreen respond to it?

3. Regarding, "In many cases, students who are screened are given a psychiatric label, and end up being prescribed psychotropic drugs." Again who makes this claim and what is the respnse to it?

4. Why the scare quotes around "passive consent"?

5. Is the passive consent form presented typical? Who vouches for it's accuracy?

The POV in this article has been longstanding and blatant. Could you address this? Dv82matt 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good questions, and yes, the article has been badly neglected. MindFreedom International has been critical of such programs, and at the very least has been circulating e-mails outlining the contention that the program is little more than another dangerous marketing ploy designed to get more kids hooked on psychotropic drugs.  The tag was restored as well as the content because the wholesale deletions seemed unmerited (extending well beyond mere npoving), but you are entirely correct in bringing renewed attention to the fact the article needs a rework.  Ombudsman 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response. Alright let's leave it for now and hope someone deals with it. Maybe I'll check back in a month or so to see if any progress has been made. In the long term I'd rather the article be incomplete than POV. I will just delete the scare quotes for now. Dv82matt 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation concerns
The citation for the statement "According to Terry Smith, program advocate from Flagler Palm Coast High School in FL, using passive consent boosts the number of children screened from 50% to near 95%." is referenced with a link to a low quality scan of an email hosted by a site that cannot claim to represent the opinions of TeenScreen or Terry Smith. As citations go it's awfully weak.

I have similar problems with "TeenScreen states that 24% of the referred students are prescribed psychiatric drugs." If we say that TeenScreen made a statement then the reference should link to where TeenScreen says it, not to where some website critical of TeenScreen (PsychSearch) claims they said it. Dv82matt 11:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and deleted the two statements I mentioned. I don't have a problem with putting them back if someone can provide a reasonable reference for them. Dv82matt 11:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

--- I'm not sure if this is the way to add a comment on this page or not....sorry if I goofed.

The e-mail from Terry Smith, Flagler Palm Coast High School, was recv'd from the high school as part of a documents request that was procured through a Freedom of Information Act request. What was posted as a reference link is the copy of the actual e-mail...That website (PsychSearch) does not claim to represent the opinions of TeenScreen or Terry Smith, we just show the actual documents that have been obtained. Anyone willing to do a FOIA request to that school would recv the very same data - directly from Flagler High School, who has implemented the TeenScreen program. I'm not sure how you could get a reference any stronger than that. Perhaps the sentence should read "According to an e-mail that was obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request from Flagler Palm Coast High School in FL, Terry Smith, program advocate wrote that using passive consent boosts the number of children screened from 50% to near 95%."

As far as the "24% of the referred students are prescribed psychiatric drugs" reference...up until 4 weeks ago you could go to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (www.nasmhpd.org) and find the referenced powerpoint presentation which was given at last years conference by TeenScreen director Laurie Flynn. That is, up until 4 weeks ago. The original ppt is not on the website anymore but we saved a copy. Sue


 * The problem with presenting a teenscreen advocate's (Terry Smith's) opinions by linking to a site critical of teenscreen seems pretty obvious to me. It's a matter of proper context. I also don't think that the email is particularly relevant for establishing that passive consent boosts participation by the amount stated, I mean it's just Terry Smith's opinion as far as I can tell, and its just an email, hardly something that can be relied upon.
 * To me it pretty much goes without saying that you would have greater participation with passive consent than you would with active. I think most people will understand this without needing a reference.
 * Regarding "24% of the referred students are prescribed psychiatric drugs" Did any neutral parties save a copy? Maybe try internet archive sites and such. Also keep in mind that it may have been removed from TeenScreen's site for a good reason. Things change so it may not be up to date or represent TeenScreen's current views. --Dv82matt 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Dv82matt, Thank you for straightening up the page, I was at a complete loss on how to do that! I will be looking for another reference for the % of kids that end up on meds. Sue


 * No problem at all, thanks for adding the references in the first place. :-) --Dv82matt 10:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

CCHR links
A number of the links in the article are to sites of Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), but these aren't indicated as such in the article: www.teenscreentruth.com, www.teenscreen-locations.com, www.teenscreenfacts.com, www.psychsearch.net. Some others are to sites like indymedia.org which are not WP:RS since they do no fact checking and allow anyone to post. (The posters there usually just happen to be connected with the Church of Scientology and CCHR.) There's a blog in the external links section—"Links normally to be avoided" according to WP:EL. It does seem like a lot of unknowing or deliberate link-spamming for CCHR has been going on in the article. AndroidCat 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Added after noticing an editor with a Buffalo IP address) Look at the domain registration and IP address of www.teenscreentruth.com and www.cchrbuffalo.org. AndroidCat 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to link the (CCHR) "tags" to the CCHR article when referenced in the references and external links. There is no real mention of what CCHR is in the article, only (CCHR) behind some tags. Pyrogen 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

False positives
The mention of false positives seems poorly informed, and designed to create suspicion of TeenScreen. Diagnostic tests have to balance the risk of a subject falsely identified as positive, in this case meaning a healthy teen would be indicated as depressed or at risk of suicidal behavior, against the risk of a subject falsely identified as negative, where a depressed or potentially suicidal teen would be identified as healthy. A test for a serious, even life-threatening condition is typically designed to produce a low false negative rate than to focus on the false positive rate.

Imagine, for example, that you were being tested for cancer. Would you prefer to take a test that had a high false positive rate, so that you are more likely to undergo a second, more thorough examination to determine more accurately whether or not you do in fact have the disease, or a high false negative rate, so that you are more likely to be told that you are healthy when in fact you have a tumor? The first test does a better job guaranteeing that a "healthy" result is in fact correct. The cost of a false positive is comparatively low: you might have to pay for a second, more expensive test. The cost of the false negative is high: you might have a tumor undiagnosed until your next check-up (or possibly later). (The former outcome, when discovered, leads to relief and happiness. The latter leads to malpractice suits.)

A responsible test that has a high false positive rate is not treated as conclusive-- instead, the subject, patient or teen or whomever, is referred for a more thorough examination, which it seems that TeenScreen does.

More broadly, I'm dubious of an article in which the entire body of text, after a short description at the top, consists of a section titled "Controversy". Can't we give any further description of the program? How it works, how it's used, what any results are, for schools or individuals? Do we have to use information from a website, TeenScreenTruth.com, that gives no information about its sponsors and has a clear agenda? There's more to TeenScreen than "controversy", right? Msr657 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a religious issue.
If insisting on putting in religion we should also include Baptists, Catholics, Hari Krishnas, Protestants - there are plenty of references on the net showing that people of all faiths have a problem with this program. And so the political organizations don't feel left out we may want to include, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals... How about the minorities... Tsmutha 15:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Tsmutha


 * If a specific organization is involved (rather than the religion as a whole), then they should be included—but only if there's a citable position on the issue by a representive of the Church of Scientology. The rest is just a straw-man argument. Republicans in general couldn't be listed, but if there was a position on the isssue stated by the Republican National Committee, then of course they would be included. AndroidCat 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TeenScreen.png
Image:TeenScreen.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial
Rw2009, the way you "debate" something on Wikipedia is to click the discussion tab and start a new section -- not to keep undoing the changes.

So, why do you think that we should hide the controversial aspect of this program in the introduction? Are you familiar with the normal Wikipedia standards for the introduction of an article? (If not, you can read them here.) Note particularly the bits about "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article" and "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this edit. I do have to differ with the idea that my edit is intended to "hide" the supposed controversy. Quite the contrary, it is intended to make the article more accurate. And I will continue to learn my way around Wikipedia, so that I may make the argument as clearly as possible in the coming days and weeks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rw2009 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the note that you left on my user talk page. We should talk about all of this here:

This is the part that stands out for me:

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic."

Short, independent summary means without regard to "opinions" about it, I believe. It may be a "fact" that some believe TeenScreen to be "controversial," but since I work with this program, I happen to know that much of this controversy has been generated rather hysterically. I also note that the TeenScreen article has a lot of outdated material. (Many of the Web sites that are cited look strangely the same.)

While TeenScreen administrators may have worked with pharmaceutical companies in the early part of the century (and before working with TeenScreen) the assumptions that these same administrators are only working with TeenScreen to "promote" anti-depressants is not correct.

This link to the TeenScreen Web site sets the record straight:



I do know that there has been a lot of confusion about TeenScreen founder, David Shaffer. Unfortunately, there is a "spokesman" for Lilly with the same name and that's unfortunate and a source for some confusion.



I have attempted to reply to you with this comment. I am new to all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but I am studying it, so any help you can provide is most helpful. Thank you.


 * "Independent" in this case means "Stands on its own, so you don't have to read the whole article to make sense of it." The fact that the introduction is supposed to be independent is just further proof that we need to mention the controversy in the introduction -- precisely so that if a person only read the introduction, and stopped, they would have some idea about more or less everything in an article.
 * The policy that you're looking for (I think) is neutral point of view. This policy requires the inclusion of substantiated, verifiable controversies -- but not, of course, to the exclusion of everything else.  It also specifies that we can't present either the program's or the critics' perspectives as proven facts.
 * Please remember that the mere fact that the controversy exists does not mean that the organization has done anything wrong. Even if it were perfectly run, the stigma surrounding mental health problems, and the denial of these problems by ignorant people, would produce complaints.
 * Now let me introduce you to a third policy, on conflicts of interest, which you will need to follow carefully. If you want to have the least chance of someone complaining about whitewashing and bias (complaints are time-consuming and bad public relations), then you should avoid removing any negative information from your program's article, and avoid adding positive information (above all, avoid adding positive information that isn't reported in a third-party publication, like a major newspaper).  Instead, write what you think is appropriate here, and let some other editor (me, for example, but it could be anyone that doesn't work with the program) add it for you.  This keeps your hands perfectly clean.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I should add well-researched material to this Talk page? I very much appreciate your help. Rw2009 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rw2009 on the placement of the word "controversial." It sounds like it is standard to discuss any criticism in the opening paragraph, but I think that having it as the first descriptive word in the first sentence doesn't really describe the program to the reader. Being controversial is no program or person's main characteristic. Perhaps it can be mentioned somewhere else in the paragraph. This entry is outdated and incomplete in many places- neutral and fact-based suggestions to follow. Here is the best place to do that?Apple08 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Apple08


 * If you have a conflict of interest, this talk page is the best place to add information. Ideally, some editor without a conflict of interest will then see the information and add the parts that seem appropriate.  If you don't have a conflict of interest, then you can add it directly to the article.  Be sure to use reliable sources to support the information:  we don't want to just add our (or the program's) personal opinions.
 * I don't actually care where in the introduction the controversy is mentioned, just that it's present somewhere in the introduction so that we've complied with the advice at WP:LEAD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I wasn't here for the creation of this article's page, I wonder why "Controversy" is the first section of the article. Doesn't that in itself "cloud" the overview of the topic? If fact-based research is presented, shouldn't any controversial aspects come later in the article? Starting the entire article with "Controversy" seems to be a signal to "stop the presses." Much like yelling "Fire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rw2009 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Controversy" is the first section in the article because it's the only section in the article. ("See also" and "References" and "External links" aren't really part of the article.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I forgot to "sign" my post. I see your point about it being the "only" section. I also see that someone else has started the process of making the TeenScreen article much stronger. 68.95.1.141 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested additions
In general the original author wrote a fairly incomplete description of this program. The below is an attempt to present neutral text from fact-based sources. Thanks for the help and suggestions.

Intro
Make intro a more detailed description and update factual information (for example the number of sites and states).'''

Change reference of “TeenScreen”: actual program name is the Columbia University TeenScreen Program (CTSP)

Intro The Columbia University TeenScreen Program (CTSP) is an evidence-based, national mental health and suicide risk screening program. The program provides assistance in communities throughout the nation to establish early identification programs. Through these programs, families are offered the opportunity for their teen to participate in a screening for mental health problems, such as depression and other suicide risk factors. As of 2008, CTSP has over 500 active screening sites in 44 states in the U.S., plus 3 additional countries. Screening is voluntary and offered through schools, clinics, doctors' offices, juvenile justice facilities, and other youth-serving organizations and settings

Early mental health screening has been endorsed by former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher and the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Because of stigma and other factors, a few individuals oppose mental health screening. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program is included as an evidence-based program in the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)'s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) as a scientifically tested and reviewed intervention.

How
Add sections as sub-intro:- How CTSP is implemented - CTSP history/research on mental health screening



Research
Screening programs such as TeenScreen are generally accepted by the mental health community as being both effective and safe.

Screening is an accurate predictor of mental health problems that may develop into more serious conditions. In a study examining young adults several years after they had participated in TeenScreen in high school, two-thirds of those who made a later suicide attempt or went on to experience a major depression in young adulthood had been identified as being at risk in high school. Clinicians in school-based health centers (SBHCs) using screening tools to assess students who present for services correctly identify three times the number of depressed youth, five times the number of anxious youth, and four times the number of youth with multiple disorders as compared to SBHC clinicians who do not use screening tools.

Rates of self-reported suicide attempts decrease when screening is combined with education about suicide and its prevention. The U.S. Surgeon General has highlighted screening as an effective method of youth suicide prevention, and the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health places a high priority on the implementation of voluntary school-based screening programs.

Mental health screening and directly asking youth if they are thinking about suicide or have made a prior suicide attempt does not put the idea of committing suicide in their heads, increase suicidal ideation, or create distress. One randomized controlled trial determined that:


 * Teens who participated in screening did not have higher distress levels than teens who did not participate. This was true immediately after being screened and two days later.
 * Screening participants did not have higher rates of depressive symptoms than non-participants.
 * Screening participants were not more likely to report suicidal ideation after completing the screening.
 * Depressed teens and previous suicide attempters who were screened were less distressed and suicidal than depressed teens and previous suicide attempters who were not screened.

History
CTSP Research 

The Columbia University TeenScreen Program was created after a concerned father came to researchers at Columbia University and expressed an interest in the work being done there to identify youth at risk for suicide. Having experienced a death from suicide and mental illness in his own family, this parent decided to personally support Columbia’s efforts to offer mental health check-ups to families around the country, in the hope that others might be saved the pain experienced by his own family. As a result, pilot TeenScreen programs began in 1999 in Indiana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, with the TeenScreen National Initiative launched in 2003.

Debate
Controversy- change to debate'''

Debate Some organizations that have strong feelings against mental health screening programs persist in claiming that the program is funded by drug companies or is trying to encourage anti-depressant use. Both of these assertions are untrue. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program is funded by private foundations, individuals, and organizations in support of the early identification of mental illness in youth and the prevention of teen suicide. This funding also allows for ongoing outreach to help develop and expand local TeenScreen programs. For every dollar of support provided to the National TeenScreen Program, a local program attracts more than four times that amount in local donations, grants or in-kind support.

Several federal programs, including the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, directly support local screening efforts; a number of state programs have also created unique partnerships to support screening at the community level.

Some of the opposing groups include Scientology, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), the Eagle Forum, EdWatch, and Liberty Coalition. These groups spoke up in opposition of screenings that were being conducted without explicit parental consent that relied instead on passive consent, whereby consent is assumed if it is not explicitly denied. On June 5, 2006, TeenScreen changed their consent procedures for schools so that active parental consent - meaning that parents have to sign and turn in a permission slip - is now a requirement for all school-based TeenScreen sites. Where parents may not be accessible, passive consent is used- teen shelters and the juvenile justice system.

Apple08 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)apple08

Many of the organizations that have publicly criticized TeenScreen, such as Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), are known Church of Scientology groups. Scientologists do not believe in the biological basis of mental illness and oppose efforts to provide mental health screening programs for youth, even when voluntary and preventive in nature.

The Columbia TeenScreen Program says that it stands by its mission to provide voluntary mental health screening for young Americans and is happy to address details about the program and its success. Some frequently asked questions and their responses can be found on the TeenScreen website under "Setting the Record Straight About TeenScreen," which provides fact-based information and details the voluntary nature of the TeenScreen program.

Spam
Supporting Organizations The Columbia University TeenScreen Program has been endorsed by over 30 national professional health, family and advocacy organizations.

'''Referral to treatment: clarified in “How is CTSP implemented?” section above. Some of the information was inaccurate. The original "referral to treatment" section can probably be deleted being that it is discussed in greater detail above.'''

Refs
References 1Shaffer D, Restifo K, Garfinkel R, Wilcox H, Ehrensaft M, Munfakh J. (1998). Screening for young-adult suicidality and mood disorders in high school. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Anaheim, CA.

2Levitt JM, WonPat-Borja A, Buffered S, Jensen P. (2004). "Implementing evidence-based assessment strategies in schools." Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association; Honolulu, HI.

3Aseltine RH and DeMartino R. (2004). "An outcome evaluation of the SOS suicide prevention program." American Journal of Public Health; 94(3): 446-451.

4U.S. Surgeon General (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

5U.S. Public Health Service (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Children’s Mental Health: A National Action Agenda. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

6New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: 2003.

7Gould M, Marrocco F, Kleinman M, Thomas J, Mostkoff K, Cote J, Davies M. (2005). Evaluating iatrogenic risk of youth suicide screening programs: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association; 293: 1635-1643.

8 National Registry of Evidence Based Programs and Practice http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov

9 Columbia University TeenScreen Program http:www.teenscreen.org

10 Church of Scientology www.scientology.org

Apple08 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)apple08

Discussion
My first comments:


 * Intro:
 * The "However" in the last paragraph should be deleted because it has no direct connection to the previous sentence. changed


 * How:
 * We have no proof that schools universally provide unique, appropriate, or confidential venues. That sounds like marketing-speak, as well as essentially irrelevant, and should be struck.  The plain statement that most programs are in schools is good enough on its own. changed
 * Minor writing style issues in second paragraph (follow-up should not be hyphenated, use whether, not if)changed


 * History
 * I think the research information ought to precede the history section.changed
 * Do we know the name of the father? It would be my assumption that names aren't identified b/c his involvement in the program stems from a personal family reason


 * Controversy
 * I don't think that the label "anti-mental health groups" is either accurate or neutral. Some of them are anti-medication, some anti-psychiatry, and some anti-government -- but still in favor of people having good mental health.  changed
 * Sourcing this section to the TeenScreen website is wholly insufficient. will provide other citations
 * This section does not adequately represent the views of all critics. It just smears all of them with being against mental health and probably brainwashed cult members.  You need to write this so that all of the program's critics can find their actual views here.  We call it "writing for the enemy". These were suggested additions- added other opinions from current entry, will find better citation. Current one comes right from an opposing org website


 * Spam
 * The long list of supporters is not encyclopedic and should not be included. deleted

I'm sure there are more things to be considered here, but those are my first thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick comments. As you can see, a lot of work was put in to add more info- at the same time learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I will review these comments and make some changes. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached to provide the most accurate info. Apple08 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)apple08

See above for revisions and responses 151.205.99.148 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)apple08


 * This is looking better. I've split Research into a separate section from History.  As an editing tip, to get the formatting to work, you need to use an asterisk ( * ) at the beginning of a line for it to make bulleted lists.  Is there a specific page at the TeenScreen website that talks about its history?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you the moderator? Please let me know how to best get these suggestions approved and posted, or if I should make the edits myself. Thank you 151.205.99.148 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)apple08


 * Wikipedia is not moderated. If you don't have a conflict of interest, then you can make these changes yourself.
 * However, I see that the 'History' section is a simple cut-and-paste off their website, and that is a copyright violation. Copying something from another website is illegal.  It must be re-written entirely from scratch (along with anything else that might have been copied from another webisite).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that this "conflict of interest" charge is brought up quite often. The people who have the knowledge of this program are the ones who directly, or indirectly, know about it. It's like a description of numismatics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numismatics. I should think the most knowledgeable about it would be the ones to write about it. If the concept of "controversy" hadn't been mentioned, would we even be talking about "conflict of interest"? Rw2009 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest is a complex subject. You can easily imagine why a person whose job is public relations for TeenScreen would not be assumed to be a wholly unbiased source of information, and neither should someone who runs any anti-TeenScreen program.  Such a person might be able to edit related articles, such as Major depressive disorder in a perfectly neutral fashion, but if it's your job (whether paid or volunteer) to present an organization in the best (or worst) possible light, then your actions will always be seen as suspicious in that article by some people.  Thus the "safe" approach of advocating your position on the talk page -- if nothing else, it insulates you from all charges of bias.
 * Now compare this to someone who collect coins as a hobby. Realistically speaking, what could the average coin collector do with the Numismatics article to increase his wealth or influence?  It seems highly unlikely.  On the other hand, if you wrote a book about collecting coins -- that's a different story, and one that comes up regularly, in many, many articles.  Users have even gotten banned over "pushing" their books.
 * If there wasn't a controversy section, we would have started talking about conflicts of interest approximately the first time someone put up a glowing account of the perfections of the program. It's not actually difficult to identify the difference between a publicity effort and an encyclopedia article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some progress today. I've moved the inline refs up into the text. They will automatically re-number any time something gets added, which is often convenient for a growing article. I'd really appreciate it if someone could pick slightly less vague websites for some of these references. It would be better if the links went to specific webpages on the exact subject (you know, like some "Official Statement of Scientology Against Psychiatry", instead of "Here's a huge website, and it's probably in here somewhere").

The TeenScreen refs themselves I have not "included" (if you click the link, it will take you to a line that just says "9", which is the ref number from the original list). I think we want to link to several different pages on the TeenScreen website, not just the main webpage. I'd be happy if someone could find the right pages and paste them in. Here's some basic ref formatting tips:


 * Find the bit that says in the text. Replace the "9" with the right webpage or other reference for that particular fact.  (There are about seven different ones.)
 * If it's a webpage, then it looks most professional to type this:   (which gives you "Title of Specific Page at TeenScreen's official website.  Accessed on 2008-09-02.") instead of just the plain website link.
 * If you're using the same page over and over, you will want to name the "ref". Find the first time that this exact ref is used on the page, and change just the "first word" of the first one (it currently says bit), not just the first "word" of it in the second and later uses.  There are several examples in the text above; if it's too complicated, then I'll do it for you later.

I think that once we get these refs in place, that about half of this is ready for a copy edit and moving to the main page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I copy-edited and moved Screening process to the article today, and did a quick copy edit on Research. Do you think that section is ready to go? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Research looks good to go. It would be great to tackle the intro as the next step, as that looks to be the least comprehensive right now. Thoughts? Thank you for your editing eye 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)apple08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple08 (talk • contribs)
 * Excellent work. Thank you very much. Rw2009 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I have removed the "History" section. Apple, I wish you have paid a little more attention to the comments here. That section was not written for Wikipedia; it was a cut-and-paste direct copy from the TeenScreen website. It is a blatant copyright violation. We CANNOT use it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this gets cleared up. The work on this article with the recent changes/additions/edits has been excellent. Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

whatamIdoing: Thank you for your work and for helping in this process. If you notice, almost all of the changes that were made were based on your feedback from the discussion page. Aside from changing the order around and condensing some sections, it was the same text I posted on the discussion page. I very much appreciate all of your help- as I said before- I'm new to the process!! There had been a lull in movement for this page and I wanted to get things moving forward. Thanks again Apple08 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)apple08
 * Apple, I appreciate your work; it's what was needed. I just wish you had noticed the problem with this section, which was noted above ("However, I see that the 'History' section is a simple cut-and-paste off their website, and that is a copyright violation. Copying something from another website is illegal") in the middle of other comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the word "controversial" still appear when doing a search? I sense a lot of emotion from you, WhatamIdoing. I hadn't checked this article in a awhile and have been leaving it alone since you suggested I had a "conflict of interest." Fair enough.  But I do see that Apple08 has been doing a lot of work on this and I applaud that effort. Apple08 also seems reasonable. So, I hope that the tone of the discussions will remain calm. Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why controversial appeared in your search. It doesn't in mine.  However, practically all school-based mental health programs are considered controversial.  Mental health does not get the widespread support that it deserves.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "controversial" no longer appears when conducting a search. Your statement that "practically all school-based mental health programs are considered controversial" is an interesting one. While that may be true, it may be something that we can change with good, sound information that "educates" rather than "incites," that doesn't attempt to persuade, but provides facts and as much information that we can provide without bias. I see that this article is rated "C Class" on Wikipedia Quality Assessment Scale. What additional suggestions do you have for attaining an "A"? Thank you. Rw2009 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "A-class" can't be had: WP:MED doesn't have a process for promoting any articles to that level.  The standards for B-class articles are here, and with the addition of a very little bit of history (year of founding, for example), it might meet those standards.  The next step after B-class is Good article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this insight on the rating system. The article is certainly shaping up. Thank you, again. Rw2009 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions in continuing to move this forward. You will note that I added launch date and a few other historical details to the intro. Apple08 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)apple08
 * Excellent, Apple08. Thank you very much. You write beautifully. Rw2009 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To the latest text contributors: The screening questionnaire used by CTSP was developed by researchers using studies over several years. It is also listed in SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. As you said, identifying mental health problems is not as cut and dry as some medical screenings like blood tests or vision screens. That point only emphasizes the need to ask youth important questions about what is going on in their lives as a means to early identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple08 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Columbia University
What is this program's actual association with Columbia University. Was it just founded by a guy from Columbia or is it actually run by the university itself? If it is run by the univeristy does Columbia actually pay for it or is it just overseen with funding provided by other groups outside of the university itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HitManActual (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The TeenScreen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University and its programs are part of Columbia University's Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. They are supported by foundations, individuals, and organizations. Apple08 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)apple08

Merger proposal
For a little over three years now, there have been duplicate pages on this topic. There is this one, named TeenScreen and there is another, Columbia University TeenScreen Program. As even that article shows, the longer title is not the program's true name; because it is commonly referred to as "TeenScreen" this is the proper article title, and I propose redirecting the other article here. I hope this is fairly uncontroversial.

Next is the question of article content; both are well more than stubs and each contains roughly the same number of citations, which could make a merger challenging. Furthermore, neither article is particularly strong, which may complicate the process some. For these reasons, in preparation for this merger proposal I've undertaken the task of re-researching the topic and producing a third, I believe much better draft that combines the best of each article, and it's currently in my userspace here: User:WWB_Too/TeenScreen. Please note that I've disabled the categories for the moment.

I also need to mention here that I am working with TeenScreen on this; they've asked me to undertake this project, so I do come at this subject with a potential COI. That said, I hope it's clear that I've tried to be reasonable and encyclopedic. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Duplicated info. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support, Axl. Seeing how there has been no objection here, nor much interest in the issue on this article's related WikiProjects or the Help desk when I posted a similar request there, I've gone ahead and made the change. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

next step
Now that is is merged, it would help to remove some of the duplication which I suppose is the byproduct of the merger. The sort of duplication here verges into advocacy and promotionalism -- saying everything several times over.  DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Further
This is an article dealing with psychiatry, a branch of medicine. The references therefore need to be of WP:MEDRS standard, which means the use of recent authoritative reviews rather than isolated primary articles from  the medical literature. It also means that terms such has 'significantly" need numerical values.  DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on TeenScreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524033317/http://www.teenscreen.org:80/about/our-leadership/ to http://www.teenscreen.org/about/our-leadership/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on TeenScreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002222220/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)