User talk:Davidrettinger

While I can appreciate the effort which has gone into the rewrite of the Animal Assisted Therapy article, I do not agree that it is an "improvement". What is a concise and informative article is being turned into someone's college paper (as the editor freely admits). The focus of the rewrite is on spiritual and/or esoteric aspects of human/pet relations which, while interesting, are outside the scope of the subject. Furthermore, the edits represent a specific point of view, which is against Wikipedia standards.

It may surprise you to know that I actually agree with some of the points made, but what *I* believe about Animal Assisted Therapy is irrelevant. An encyclopedic article needs to be concise, informative, and objective. The rewrite is lacking in two of these aspects. I will continue to oppose such a drastic and unilateral change to this article. The Dogfather (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)