Talk:Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening Statement[edit]

I believe that it should exist, especially because one of the leading members of Youthrights are on Wikipedia.

The two organisations also work closely together - see CafetyWiki on Youthrights.

Last and not least they are an organization, which contributed heavily to the work in Congress regarding protecting lives of children placed in treatment. Somehow the readers should be able to read what kind of groups, who influence our politicians.

Covergaard (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not contagious; you can't "catch" it by working with a notable group or person. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But their statements in congress is not something they inherited by other groups. It was done by themselves. The bill would not have existed without them Covergaard (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you keep asserting, but we need references to articles saying so. What we're getting instead is articles about the bill or the issues they work on, with passing mention of one of their leaders but in some cases no mention of the organization at all! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case for inclusion[edit]

I believe this article should exist, because any group that assists in organizing grass-roots legislation, which is also supported by major health and human rights organizations similarly represented on Wikipedia (e.g. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association, Children's Defense Fund, National Alliance on Mental Illness), that protects young people from abusive practices or death, is at least as notable as Paris Hilton, Spongebob Square Pants, details of the cult following of Ok Soda, and/or the near-pornographic Sex Positions article.

SCARPTA is significant legislation aimed at protecting the rights of children. As such, all organizations that played a roll in its drafting are arguably of equal noteworthiness and should be duly represented. - Wikiwag 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. Notability is not contagious; you can't "catch" it by working with notable groups or persons, or on a notable cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apparently don't understand the vital notability criteria. To the point: I'd like to know how is it that the organizations in these articles (all from the Child Abuse Category): here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, are worthy of existence on Wikipedia (apparently without threat of deletion), with their thin citations and in several cases, categorically self-published references (presumably meeting the WP:Notability test), when this article does not. What am I missing? Many thanks. - Wikiwag 22:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you gain notability by doing notable things though. This group has definitely done notable things, like testifying before congress, getting good press coverage, and getting published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps the article should be fleshed out more, but there is certainly more than enough justification for keeping the page. KPalicz (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional content and references that should make notability clearer for this article and have removed the deletion notice. KPalicz (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given your obvious conflict of interest as a member of the board of directors, Alex, I would advise you not to do any more edits in this article. I've had to revert most of what you added. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KPalicz. I did some digging and think I have a better understanding of how this got pounced on and dispatched so quickly. Am I correct in my guess that the user CAFETY (talk) attempted to create an article before that was decidedly biased? - Wikiwag 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of previous versions of this article. It seems though that removing the bias from the article is a better solution that simply deleting it. I understand how my position could present a conflict of interest but I believe my edits were factual and did not present any bias. I just put in a brief bit of effort to find more sources to increase the quality of this article. Something Orange Mike could have easily done himself were he so inclined. KPalicz (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure seems that he really had it in for this article, but on what grounds I have no idea. I would expect an editor with such broad, deep and noteworthy experience in support of Wikipedia would be more kindly disposed to good faith efforts. I'm glad we got a second opinion. Thanks for your work, KPalicz! - Wikiwag 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article is supposed to be about the organization. So far, a lot of the "references" provided don't even mention the organization. I fail to see how you are making any case for notability this way. This is about upholding our standards, believe me; it's not about any lack of support for what you guys are trying to do! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me just say that I'm a fairly experienced, independent editor who's just trying to write a good article. I have nothing to do with CAFETY. Frankly, I'm feeling like all I'm hearing from you Orange Mike amounts to little more than "wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!" with little of the guidance I'm asking for.
I'm trying to follow the standards, but like I said before: this isn't important enough to me to spend hours and hours researching, asking questions asking for guidance and then writing, only to be shot down. With all due respect, you seem intent on applying a standard to this article that I've already demonstrated does not exist in no less than nine other articles from a single, related category.
Now, if that point is off the table and won't be directly addressed, then this honestly isn't worth my time. Just go ahead and delete it again. I'm done. - Wikiwag 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is explictly defined as not an excuse for holding articles to lower standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The guideline has been met by citing congressional testimony in which the org has participated and been cited. Very few organizations ever have the opportunity for that type of exposure or validity, and inclusion in the Congressional Record is more than enough to satisfy the requirements - especially because they have been included more than once. If any editors continue to take issue as to the the notability, verifiability or content of this article please take it to AfD in order to allow/encourage other editors to participate in the conversation. • Freechild'sup? 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again, Freechild. - Wikiwag 14:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed external links[edit]

I removed a bunch of links from the article because they did not meet the tests in WP:EL -- that is, they don't add unique value regarding the article topic that is not already in the article. Some of these could be cited in the article as references because they tell about activities of CAFETY or its key personnel (i.e., the hearing testimony that is covered in the article). However, some others are merely about issues of interest to CAFETY.

Here's what I removed:

--Orlady (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAFETY / FFS Section[edit]

In the section that includes information on the mass mailing for The Family Foundation school, I made some edits including changing Jeff Brain's title, which is included in the source as well as including what the mailing had in it. I also fixed a few words in the section about Chris Noroski speaking at the rally. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed that section, as it came across as excessively detailed. (I also trimmed details in other parts of that article, about board membership, meeting dates, etc.) I removed the information about how the Delaware County mailing list was compiled because this is totally nonencyclopedic trivia. I removed the details about Jeff Brain's title at FFS because those details add no information value to an article about CAFETY. I removed the information about the Gainesville rally because holding rallies is what activist organizations do. The organization should tell about this rally in the newsletter it sends to its members, but the information does not belong in an encyclopedia.

I have a pretty good hunch that this item was added here in order to get CAFETY members' allegations against FFS into Wikipedia, but WP:SOAP applies here -- Wikipedia is not a publicity platform for activists. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, there was no such motive and I do not think that we should be checking into motives for including material. The material should have been added from the get go and not the way it was. It seems as if all the editors on wikipedia are against any type of activism information against a facility or facilities on wikipedia but it is an important piece of the article. But no, that was not the motive and I am quite offended that was brought into this discussion! Flyboi9 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I am okay with the new edit, but Chris noroski's statement should also be included. Flyboi9 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What makes this one rally worthy of note in an encyclopedia? The fact that it was covered in a local newspaper does not, by itself, make the event sufficiently important to be discussed in an encyclopedia article.
Analogy: I bet the Gainesville newspaper has an article on this year's Christmas parade, but that doesn't mean that particular Christmas parade deserves to be mentioned in the encyclopedia article about Gainesville. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its relevant to CAFETY's outreach and activism. CAFETY is not just an organization, they are about educating the public to the horrid conditions that occur in treatment facilities that are unregulated and can basically do anything they want. Flyboi9 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defining CAFETY's mission statement with original research[edit]

I guess I'll have to be the one to start a discussion on ORlady's continuous edits and apparent ownership of this article. ORLADY has in several different ways tried to advance this as the organization's mission and the lead sentence of this article: "The Community Alliance For the Ethical Treatment of Youth, or CAFETY, is an advocacy group for people enrolled in residential treatment programs for at-risk teenagers." My question is, do you have a reference for this, or does this constitute your own opinion of the organization? --EarlySquid (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the one who changed long-standing wording after clashing with Orlady on another article, it is best that you start the discussion. You seem to be replacing an objective NPOV description of the group with their mission statement, which seems very promotional in tone. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did start the discussion, but thanks for telling me to do something I've already done. Since when is it NPOV to describe an established organization as it defines itself to the IRS, to other organizations, and to the rest of the world? Since you've been babysitting the [West Ridge Academy] for quite some time, surely you are aware of the fact that on that article, the organization is defined by what it writes about itself. In fact, most of the wording in that article comes directly from the [West Ridge Academy] website itself. I'm confident you can explain the difference to me. Also, I still don't see a reference for the description ORLADY added. Maybe you have one, too? Since you both are following me around? --EarlySquid (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlySquid (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking here, are you saying the current description ("an advocacy group for people enrolled in residential treatment programs for at-risk teenagers.") is inaccurate?

And if you're looking for guidance, please don't take it from the way the West Ridge Academy article is written. It's a mess, and has been protected before because of NPOV editing. the five pillars of wikipedia is probably a good place to start. Dayewalker (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this discussion suggests a fundamental misunderstanding (a misunderstanding possibly inspired by articles like West Ridge Academy). The lead sentence of an article is supposed to be a brief, objective, summary description of the subject of the article. It is not supposed to be a quotation from, nor a restatement of, the mission statement of the organization described in the article. Because the lead sentence summarizes information elsewhere in the article, it seldom requires reference citations. --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a description from a symposium at the University of South Florida. It sounds a little promotional, but comes from a third party. I'd like to hear the thoughts of editors on this approach. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. That's a description of CAFETY in a paper authored by a sister advocacy group. Not exactly a neutral third party. Anyway, regardless of the substance and the source, it's important to remember that Wikipedia articles are supposed to consist primarily of original content. not assemblages of verbatim quotations from other sources. (See WP:QUOTEFARM.) The WP:Lead section, in particular, needs to be written by Wikipedia contributors and should summarize the article topic. I am taking the liberty of editing the lead to restore original text. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the use of quotes. I thought that might be a way in this case to come to an agreement even though it does not keep with the general style of the encyclopedia. I am not averse to the verbiage Orlady just restored, but will continue to look for something we can all agree on. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if EarlySquid would try to articulate what s/he considers to be inaccurate about the wording that is there now. The only objection I have seen is an indication that it is not CAFETY's mission statement. As noted above, that is not a concern for Wikipedia. Until EarlySquid identifies the perceived inaccuracies in the statement, there isn't much to be gained from other contributors attempting to guess at wording that might satisfy his/her objections. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for ORLADY to say where she got here information from. Does this description constitute Original Research on ORLADY's part? Where are you getting this information from. And yes, I'm saying it is incorrect. Please explain where you are getting that statement from. I've already explained that it is incorrect and why. --EarlySquid (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have said it is incorrect, but you have not indicated what is inaccurate about it. The fact that it is not CAFETY's own mission statement does not make it an incorrect description of CAFETY. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And FWIW, it appears that this article had the same lead sentence from its creation in 2008 until Alanraywiki edited one word ("survivors") on 4 May 2011. He correctly pointed out that "for survivors of" was POV and he changed the word to "for patients of." Because "patients" is not an accurate description of people enrolled in most of these programs, I created the wording "of people formerly enrolled in" as a non-POV synonym for "survivors." EarlySquid responded by replacing the sentence with a mission statement, and things progressed downhill from there. Personal attacks, edit warring, and other forms of disruption will not improve this article. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give Orlady a day or so to calm down and relax. This is getting ridiculous. What happened to the policy of Wikipedia regarding Original Research? No one has addressed that. Orlady, do you have a reference for your desired additions? Hopefully when I check back on this talk page you'll have answered that question, and why it is okay to use the West Ridge Academy mission statement and promotional material all throughout the article, but the mission statement - what an organization uses to define itself to the world - of CAFETY is unacceptable. Clearly there are other factors motivating certain editors here. Sad. --EarlySquid (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I warned you on your talk page, EarlySquid, Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. The above is a personal attack, particularly when viewed together with the other edit summaries and comments that I compiled on your talk page. If you choose to continue in this pattern, you will be blocked. --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) You may want to consider revising your comments here to strike out the parts that are personal attacks. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, the problem with your addition is that CAFETY is not "youth run." Can I ask you what it is in the description I've been trying to add that is so objectionable? --EarlySquid (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)The "youth run" was from the source, so I included that in the quote. The standard convention on Wikipedia is not to include mission statements (see WP:MISSION). Usually descriptions are written in an editor's own words. What was wrong with the original wording (except for the change of the word "survivor")? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Alanraywiki says, "youth run" is part of a quotation of a description given by a sister advocacy organization. I object to it as a quotation, advert-like, and not a summary of the article. The sentence that was there previous to the quotation was simply The Community Alliance For the Ethical Treatment of Youth, or CAFETY, is an advocacy group for people enrolled in residential treatment programs for at-risk teenagers. What is incorrect about that sentence? --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community_Alliance_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Youth&oldid=1206762981"