Jump to content

Talk:Equine-assisted therapy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge discussion

Hatting as this discussion seems to have a majority !vote to do the full merge

Consolidating merge and article improvement discussion here for the sake of keeping it all in one place. Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My own thinking is that this should be a general overview article. The Therapeutic riding and hippotherapy articles might (might!) be able to be merged into each other, if for no other reason than the terminology mishmash, but the equine-assisted psychotherapy article might work equally well merged into this one because it is so short. But because physical and mental health therapies are kind of apples and oranges, I think that the best approach is to make this article a general overview, keep the physical therapies separated out, and have the mental health section here until there is enough research to expand the article back into its own stand-alone piece. Oh, and the Equine therapy article was pretty poor and I support that merge. (Not sure I even knew it was there...) Montanabw(talk) 00:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I liked the merge as-was, and would favour re-instating it as a useful consolidation exercise. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:CFORK usually asks us to fork out when an article becomes too big. It is not at all clear that the as-was merged article was too big. While I am sympathetic to the claim that there is a difference between physical and mental health therapies, many of our sources discuss both of them in consort! jps (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the merge was fine as well. jps mentioned CFORK, which is pretty apt in this case. Most of the other articles were redundant or had next to no text. What should be done here is to merge everything relevant here with different sections for physical and mental treatments, and then split those sections off into daughter articles if they reach sufficient size. There's no reason to keep everything split up at this time, so I would suggest restoring the merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • My position is that the old "Equine Therapy" article was appropriate to merge, as it was a general overview and not well written (and the "Mom and me" as a RS for the horse stuff.. eek!). I left that as is. I originally restored the equine psychotherapy article, but then on reflection realized that jps did the right thing there: it was short and had sourcing issues better dealt with here. I am of mixed feelings about the other two, as there is about 40 years' worth of material on therapeutic riding and that article can clearly be expanded and improved upon. There is an argument to be made for merging the hippotherapy article into the therapeutic riding one, focusing on physical health issues, with brief summaries here. One problem is that "hippotherapy" appears to have one meaning in the US and another in the UK, with some people even in the USA using the word as the generic catchall. So for me, I feel the Therapeutic Riding article is big enough to stand alone, that the Hippotherapy article might be stand-alone or could be merged into the therapeutic riding one, but I oppose dumping them both in here. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • As written, there is a lot of redundancy between the articles. At the very least, there should be a justification for that. Also, the articles as written are very poor. One effect of merging would be that there would be one place where the copyediting and clean-up could happen. If we find that the content of the therapeutic riding section is too large, we can WP:CFORK properly using the WP:SUMMARY-style system where the detail content goes to the spun-off article and this article just has a summary. That would be much better than the status quo of having many awful articles. jps (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I do favor keeping the therapeutic riding article separate as a "proper" CFORK with summary here. I think the Hippotherapy article is salvagable as a stand-alone, but I don't really care where the work gets done, so long as it's done. Based on the MeSH stuff Alexbrn found, below, maybe the hippotherapy and therapeutic riding articles can be merged under a title like Horseback Riding Therapies, though some mental health programs do use riding... my thinking is to separate out the physical health components, where there is a lot more research, from the mental health stuff, which is still an emerging field. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the commercial sites, there appears to be some "in universe" confusion about terminology among the therapy vendors. I suspect these distinctions are only really of interest to such "in universe" people for the purposes of marketing differentiation and so on. What we need is an independent view on the taxonomy of these terms ... and: we have have! from MeSH which is available here. By this, the title of this article "Equine-assisted therapy" is the correct umbrella term, and within this we should include equine-assisted psychotherapy, horseback riding stuff, hippotherapy, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sweet find, Alexbrn. So we can at least agree on the title of THIS article! Do note that I share some of your "in-universe" concerns about marketing. In the equine-facilitated/assisted psychotherapy field, there is a turf war out there, especially between EAGALA and PATH and so they use different terms to distinguish their programs from one another. The underlying problem is that the lower-quality program, EAGALA, moved faster, has better PR, and claimed EAP as a term first; the older and more cautious program, PATH, implemented things like actual safety protocols and a review of existing research, such as it was, and thus was slow to get on board). Whoops, forgot to sign this yesterday or whenever I wrote this, so signing now. Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any reason to stop the merges. Hippotherapy as currently wrriten is therapy using horses, with potentially some current focus on cognitive therapy, but it also includes physical therapy. Therapeutic horseback riding is essentially the same. The most unique (in the relative sense) title was Equine-assisted psychotherapy as it's a subset which focuses specifically on mental health. We don't seem to have anything unique enough to warrant multiple articles beyond this one at least.

It should not be difficult to write a section saying horses are used for therapy (include cited commonly used names such the merge titles), subsections or even just initially paragraphs for physical and mental therapy and the reasoning behind the methods along with validity/efficacy. Does that sound like a plan of attack that makes the merges a little more intuitive? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It might, Kingofaces43, I guess my suggestion is that you, as a relatively new party to this discussion, look at the structure of this article and see if we are missing any major components or could organize it better overall. My gut feeling is still that the therapeutic riding article is substantial enough to remain as a spinoff, and I've leaned toward the hippotherapy article, if merged, being merged with that one and summarized here, based on my understanding of the American model which considers it primarily a riding-based therapy. But I'm kind of getting worn down on the merge question given that the more significant dispute is over content and efficacy. I guess at the end of the day I care more about what is said than where it's said. Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's best if we stick to an independent scheme like MeSH to decide what lies where, and only "spin out" articles if they get too large. That way we can be assured we're in alignment with an expert independent view of the topic area. All the horse-related therapies should be merged into here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm a newcomer as I've been following these developments from the start (aside from reading the sources in-depth until now). At this point, we really don't have any unique content over at the riding article. We can talk about maybes all we want, but we are at the point where the riding section would need to be significantly developed to justify splitting it back out. It should not be hard to keep future additions to it concise either, and the fact that some sources use riding therapy almost hand in hand when talking about hippotherapy as well seems to be strong justification for keeping everything centralized here. If the situation ever changes, we can split it out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm just giving up. Sourcing and the other issues below are more important than where it occurs. Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled why this was hatted. It hasn't even been open five days. Per WP:MERGEPROP, if there is any objection to the merger (and there has been in the discussion), the merge discussion can last up to 30 days. Plus the merge tags are still on both articles (that alone is reason to keep this discussion open). Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Source lists

Just a list of sources that may or may not be used in this article, but taken from some of the other articles and parked here for now.

  • Granados AC, Agís IF (March 2011). "Why children with special needs feel better with hippotherapy sessions: a conceptual review". J Altern Complement Med. 17 (3): 191–7. doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0229. PMID 21385087.
  • O'Haire ME (July 2013). "Animal-assisted intervention for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic literature review". J Autism Dev Disord. 43 (7): 1606–22. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1707-5. PMID 23124442.
  • Tseng SH, Chen HC, Tam KW (January 2013). "Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of equine assisted activities and therapies on gross motor outcome in children with cerebral palsy". Disabil Rehabil. 35 (2): 89–99. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.687033. PMID 22630812.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Whalen CN, Case-Smith J (August 2012). "Therapeutic effects of horseback riding therapy on gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review". Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 32 (3): 229–42. doi:10.3109/01942638.2011.619251. PMID 22122355.

This didn't source what it was supposed to source, but might be useful for something else (perhaps simply that EAT is used with Veterans):

We don't need the entire equine conformation article imported here (and some of this was copied) but the following is a good source as an overview of horse conformation:


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

Anestis, Selby, Lentini

We have three reviews here:

Of these:

  • Anestis et al is a strong source - currently our best; it is recent, PUBMED-included and MEDLINE-indexed, and from indepedent researchers.
  • Selby & Smith-Osborne looks comparable (if a bit older) except both authors appear to be equine therapist which raises the spectre of a lack of WP:FRINDependence. Doubts on this review are cast by Anestis et al who question its rigour:

    Our review differs in several meaningful ways from the review by Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013). First, we aimed to provide a description of threats to the internal and external validity of each study in an effort to place findings in their appropriate context. Second, we included only peer-reviewed publications that present research findings. Third, we did not restrict our review to the use of ERTs as adjunctive interventions. In this sense, although our reviews approach similar topics, they do so in an entirely dissimilar manner.

    Given these reasonable objections, we should not use this review.
  • Lentini & Knox is published in an obscure altmed open-access journal with an impact factor of ZERO; it is not MEDLINE-indexed. We simply do not use such weak sources for claims about therapeutic efficacy, especially when we have good sources to hand. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree to some extent:

  1. The Journal of Clinical Psychology is not a particularly prestigious journal; it ranked 31st out of 109 journals in the category "Psychology, Clinical." And it has a history of publishing non-peer reviewed material, so it doesn't exactly shy away from pseudoscience. Its impact factor right now is 2.12, but these things do fluctuate, in 2009 it was 1.525.[2]
  2. The Journal of Health Psychology is MEDLINE listed and has a current impact factor of 1.22, but in 2009 it was 1.683 (so higher than JCP then if I'm interpreting these number right) [3] and is ranked 50th in the category "Psychology, Clinical." So the sources really are pretty comparable.
  3. I think that Selby & Smith Osborne is at least as credible as Anestis. As for the "appear to be an equine therapist" argument, under normal circumstances, expertise is a good thing; we don't expect orthopedic surgeons to be oncologists, for example. Anestis also has his own therapy practice and works with veterans to prevent suicide. If anything, one could make an equally valid argument that Anestis sees equine therapy as a threat to his pocketbook if it takes people away from his style of practice.
  4. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health is quite new, so it is not surprising that it doesn't yet have an impact factor. I found an earlier title, I think it suspended publication in 2006 and then got started up after a gap of a few years. It is an imprint of the American Counseling Association, and its publishing guidelines state that it is peer-reviewed, so can you post a URL that says it is open-access?
  5. A journal doesn't have to be listed by MEDLINE to be reliable. And a 2015 article is not yet going to have a lot of cites in other works. WP:MEDRS states "Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE". That's not a "we simply do not" - it's an invitation to dig deeper. More to the point, it is a literature review, and admits such. It does contain some useful summary material (including, I must note, a criticism of the "in universe" lingo problem you raised) and can be used in appropriate places, which we can discuss.

So my position is that I think it is best to use all three articles and explain the strengths and weaknesses of each. Readers of this article need to know precisely where the research is at. I favor completeness. Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice that MastCell also gave a view on these sources. I shall ping WT:MED to get more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. In the meantime, I restored some of the language you removed. We need to be precise, your "There is no plausible theoretical basis for the use of equine-related treatments for people with mental health conditions, and no good medical evidence that it can help them." is WAAAAAYYYYY over the top WP:SYNTH. I think the question MastCell noted at his talk (and I suggested he come over here so we aren't discussing across a half-dozen places) is that we may have a difference of opinion as to whether equine therapies are "quackery" or "promising hypothesis" (for lack of a better term). To that end, I think it is best to follow MastCell's advice and move cautiously. Montanabw(talk) 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
You really shouldn't be putting these weak sources back in, especially as the consensus is now firming up. Also my summary wasn't "SYNTH", but was rather good. To quote from the article: "the conjunction of unconvincing research support and the absence of a convincing theoretical rationale is problematic" [my bd]. That is, incidentally, about as damning as it gets in an academic paper. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with Alexbrn's assessment of the source strengths here. Anestis et al. is strong because of independence, and it is refuting aspects of Selby & Smith-Osborne (which knocks down it's credibility a lot), so we can't gives claims made by the latter undue weight. I think it would be best to write the article from the point of view of Anestis where relevant and see if Selby & Smith-Osborne has any other background information that is non-controversial and not contradictory that could be useful at that point. I'm going to wait with commenting on efficacy content until the definitions are figured out though as the article redirects to here are probably the first priority at the moment before crafting content outside of the start. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well Montanabw is now repeatedly[4][5] pushing the Leniti and Selby sources into the articles (and mis-representing the latter). Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I am accurately stating what they are and what they say, if you disagree, I am open to suggesting other language. I am concerned with your personalizing of this discussion and your continued insistence on too-broad "no good evidence" language -- we can agree that Anestis and Selby disagree, but I think it is better to compare and contrast the studies so that readers can draw their own conclusions. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the studies are comparable enough in quality to both be included, with their contrasting conclusions discussed. I removed Alexbrn's phrasing "There is no plausible theoretical basis for the use of equine-related treatments for people with mental health conditions, and no good medical evidence that it can help them" as far too strong. I also do not agree that Anestis is free of bias, as he runs a private practice that appears to treat veterans with PTSD. That bias is not a bad thing, but it balances Selby-Smith Osborne -- Selby appears to be a masters' level therapist and Smith Osborne is a PhD, the article was published in a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed journal. That gives it adequate gravitas to be discussed. The Anestis' article's weaknesses include that he over-extrapolated his conclusions from studies on children's therapies to adults and veterans. It is only one study, and only one opinion. If you look at the number of times a paper has been cited, the Anestis review has been cited only 8 times, whereas the Selby review has been cited 35 times. I am simply arguing for balance and for discussing all relevant materials. I don't see it as an either-or, and I am trying very hard to incorporate what is relevant and to do so with proper weight. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs are of no consequence, and in fact WP:MEDRS explicitly says that personal objections count for nothing - so arguments based on "I believe" are a non-starter. You are using poor sources, edit-warring against consensus, and incompetently failing to summarize sources accurately - and it's becoming a real problem that looks like fringe POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I could say precisely the same thing about your personal beliefs, which I am discussing with you at your talk. You are not discussing the issues I am raising, and I'm beginning to see a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Please stop with the "you" statements and "incompetence" accusations, and discuss the issues. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree, though I won't be as polite as Montanabw: Alexbrn, your comment below arguing that people who use the term "allopathy" or "allopathic" are quacks is horrifying and calls your entire goal here into question. All that said, let's look at the content here. Let's say there's a dispute in the sources. What's keeping us from commenting on both? Article length? Hardly. All that's happening here is the suppression of one source on spurious presumptions that the principle authors have some kind of inappropriate conflict of interest because they're stakeholders. Come on. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There isn't a "dispute in the sources", that is to fall into the WP:GEVAL fallacy. We have one very strong source, one iffy source, and one terrible source. We reflect the best sources here, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@MontanaBW: you cannot reject a source because of personal objections. That is in WP:MEDRS. But in the case of Selby we are not dealing with personal objections, but with objections in a later review. As has been said, that seriously degrades the worth of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, you're incorrect in your assessment of the sources. If anything, the fact that Anestis et al. give such prominent treatment of Selby & Smith-Osborne suggests we should be discussing them here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And as to your claim that Anestis et al. discredits Selby & Smith-Osborne, I just don't see that in the article. I see substantial coverage of their work in Anestis et al., and the argument that their results differed. This is normal in science, for two different studies to come to different outcomes. Anestis et al. do not call Selby & Smith-Osborne discredited by any means, merely that they have different methodologies. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
They aren't comparable because issues with the Selby & Smith were directly addressed by Anestis, which means we cannot give Selby & Smith equal weight. That's been hashed out here pretty well here and I don't see attitudes on that changing anytime soon. This is how we deal with scientific content when a study makes claims that are refuted by a more recent and more reliable study. At the least, we shouldn't be discussing Lentini or including it in the article though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we probably shouldn't be discussing Lentini. I can see your argument for not giving Selby & Smith equal weight with Anestis, but I think that needs to be couched by an understanding that Alexbrn's "no plausible theoretical basis"-type point is inappropriate. As you say below, the theoretical basis is that physical activity has a therapeutic effect on mental health—and contrary to Alexbrn's point, sitting on a horse and maintaining balance is physical activity, even if people without disabilities take it for granted. And even if I can see the point about not giving Selby & Smith equal weight, I can't agree with leaving it out entirely. There's a one year gap between the publication dates... that doesn't make Selby & Smith ancient history, just that Anestis et al. had to comment on how their research related. Thus, if we comment on Selby & Smith, we can check the weight of that commentary by giving the position of Anestis et al. on Selby & Smith. Put briefly, my opposition is to the all-or-nothing attitude. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this, but I agree with "WAAAAAYYYYY over the top WP:SYNTH". For this to be true – never mind for it to be sourced – you have to agree:

  1. that any form of physical exercise has been proven to help people with mental health issues (especially depression),
  2. that riding a horse is physical exercise, but
  3. that riding a horse for exercise somehow, perhaps due to a special kind of anti-woo magic, does not provide any of the mental-health-related benefits of exercise.

This is not even remotely plausible. Sure: it's not going to cure autism. But "it won't completely cure your kid's autism" is not the same thing as "no plausible theoretical basis" for this form of physical exercise affecting people's mental health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's an invalid extension of the sources and gives undue weight to a particular interpretation of the sources. Don't get me wrong... I'm of the opinion that hippotherapy is hokum and is being advertised in an abusive manner. But the good sources don't come out and say that... and Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: hippotherapy is not "horse riding" - AIUI it is sitting on a horse (or horse simulator), which is sometimes led gently around (or activated) by the therapist who observes the response of the person being treated. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
AIUI: "As I Understand It"? I thought you opposed the use of personal understandings and beliefs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I mean, you called Montanabw out on a phrase above. I just wanted to make sure we were using the same terms of reference in this discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of what hippotherapy is (which may be faulty, correct me if I'm wrong) is based on the sources I've been looking at e.g.[6]. It is not a personal assessment. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand how what you say here is any different from what Montanabw said above such that your calling her out was appropriate. I think you should strike your above statement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I think you have too narrow a concept of physical exercise. Exercise isn't just the stuff the makes a healthy person hot and sweaty. It's any movement that requires physical exertion for that person. Just cooking a meal is bona fide aerobic exercise for some de-conditioned people. Even for a basically healthy person, sitting on a rocking, bouncing "chair" counts as physical exercise, because you have to exert a few muscles to avoid falling off. (Imagine what your leg and core muscles will feel like tomorrow, if you spent several hours doing it today. You don't have to gallop to end up sore.) PMID 22735475 says that it's probably moderate aerobic exercise for physically disabled children (and also that just 10 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise probably isn't enough to prevent heart disease). PMID 20942267 says 30 minutes a day is enough exercise to improve type 2 diabetes somewhat. PMID 25465508 says it improves balance through muscle use in frail elderly people. Those effects are all the result of physical exercise (on a horse simulator, in all of these studies).
Ground work is also physical exercise. Brushing a horse keeps you moving. It uses a lot more muscles than strolling around the block. Carrying and then lifting a 30-pound weight (a saddle) up to the height of your shoulders would certainly be considered physical exercise by most people. (Adult programs like this one often expect you to do all of the care yourself; kids won't be tall enough and strong enough to do as much.)
This isn't strenuous exercise for most people, but it also isn't lounging in front of the television. It is a form of exercise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the level of activity around horses can range from exertion for the de-conditioned to very hot and sweaty. Ground work around horses is fairly decent exercise, and even riding at a walk is not as passive as people think. Alexbrn, you are pretty much looking at superficial overviews by non-specialists. "Hippotherapy" on a machine is not hippotherapy, though some people are experimenting to see if using a Mechanical horse can exercise some of the same muscle groups, but it is not at all analogous. (Though the equicizer can give you one hell of a workout...but I wouldn't recommend one for a severely disabled person!) Hippotherapy that encompasses use of a person mounted on a horse IS "horse riding" albeit not traditional equestrianism. Montanabw(talk) 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference between this and hippotherapy

I see a case for someone arguing that therapeutic riding is different from (or, at least, a subset of) equine-assisted therapy. But how, praytell, can we distinguish between hippotherapy and equine-assisted therapy? I don't think the hippotherapists even do that. They only distinguish their work from therapeutic riding.

If no sources can be provided, I strongly suggest reverting the hippotherapy article to a redirect.

jps (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the redundancy seems to be being used as an excuse to remove neutral assessments of efficacy.[7]. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We have a terminology problem. "Hippotherapy" within the field of USA equine therapies generally appears to be used primarily for stuff that uses horses for occupational/speech therapy, at least as far as certification programs go. However, some people appear to use it as a generic catchall. You may have noticed that I created a "terminology" section in this article. So far no one has reverted it, so perhaps we can use it as a starting point? Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia goes, we should stick with the independent terminology (as used by MeSH e.g.) and if there's an "in-universe" dispute over terms it can then be framed as such. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
agree w/ Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how the terminology dispute is a "problem" that requires two articles. Can we just revert the hippotherapy article back to a redirect? It's all redundant content to this page. jps (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This is actually being debated in the broader merge discussion above, let's keep it there. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Um... no it's not.... or at least it doesn't seem like there is any disputing the points made here. jps (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Can't we re-merge? What's the objection exactly? Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, but for whatever reason Montana's friends aren't happy with it. jps (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's because a 2:1 dispute is still a dispute, not consensus. I've already met you halfway on this (i.e. agreed on the merge of two articles), and we are still discussing the others. Montanabw(talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no real dispute: you appear just to be advancing your preferred position with no basis in good sourcing or our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Says you. Hippotherapy is a distinct subfield of equine-assisted therapy that is trained, treated, and administered differently within the alt med industry. I agree there is overlap, and that part of the problem is that there's rather little standardization within the field itself. Coming from the insurance industry side of this, the problem resembles what is seen with the enormous varieties of electroanalgesia for musculoskeletal conditions. I will note that electroanalgesia is indeed a mass article, and we don't have individual articles for things like H-wave and interferential therapy. This is despite industry stakeholders fighting like crazy to produce research that treats their preferred therapy as different. So... it's possible that a similar move would be appropriate for hippotherapy... but I'm not seeing this adequately sussed out. In short, what's the urgency? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Citation required. Outside the world of horse therapies, these things are considered as being part of one category it seems - see the MeSH taxonomy referenced above on this page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to say this, but Wikipedia isn't exclusively written for allopathic professionals. Furthermore, I believe the burden is on you, as the moving party, to demonstrate that the merge is appropriate. Simply saying that it has been met doesn't mean it's met. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"Allopathic"? what's that, an archaic word used nowadays only by quacks? We write for the mainstream and that is the core of our neutrality policy. I see no reasoned arguments against the merge, thus it is - "appropriate". Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
You seem to misapprehend how consensus on Wikipedia works. That makes me sad. You've made no reasoned argument that a merge is appropriate, thus the status quo remains. The absence of a separate MeSH descriptor is utterly meaningless, and is absolutely not controlling on Wikipedia. There is no policy-based reason to confine Wikipedia to discussing only medical topics at the MeSH level. As an aside, I am horrified by your attitude as evidenced by the above outburst. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The argument is that we have RS giving us a take on the relationship between these subjects. We can follow that. In the absence of anything else, that makes sense. Consensus must be rooted in sources and our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That we can follow MeSH does not mean we must. Also, I'm convinced MeSH descriptors are per se reliable. They certainly shouldn't be absolutely controlling, as you appear to be arguing. There needs to be more discussion here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No there needs to be more data. If there's something better than MeSH than produce it, but in the absence of something better it's a solid basis on which to proceed. 20:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
MeSH isn't good enough to control here. It might call for a {{for}} dablink at the top, but it's not good enough to control here. It's advisory at best. If you can produce a MEDRS-compatible source that indicates they're the same thing, then you might have an argument. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing assertion not backed by anything. We should follow what independent sourcing we have. Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, same to you. You've not produced one shred of MEDRS-compatible evidence that a merger is appropriate. You're making bald assertions and claiming a controlling consensus based on those bald assertions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Categorization is not biomedical so does not strictly fall under MEDRS, but in any case MeSH is reliable for categorization of health topics. On the other hand, I'm just getting editors' personal opinion, which is worth nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
So we're in agreement that MeSH isn't MEDRS-compatible. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what "MEDRS-compatible" means. Since it doesn't make biomedical claims MEDRS doesn't really apply. It it certainly compatible with being a basis for the categorization Wikipedia should use for medical topics. Alexbrn (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. You're essentially arguing that if you find any source that says any two things are distinct, or are the same thing, but don't make explicit biomedical claims, then you can (actually, should) use that source to settle merge proposals about biomedical topics. That is preposterous. I ask you again, do you have a MEDRS basis for merging the articles? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
In looking how to organize our topics, we should draw from independent expert sources that are relevant to organization of topics. MeSH is relevant. It's hard to think of something more relevant. A MEDRS source is distinguished by being reliable for biomedical claims. If we are making biomedical claims, then we look to MEDRS sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so you're arguing that MeSH should be persuasive. You need to demonstrate it should be controlling to merge by fait accompli. Otherwise this needs more discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we're done I think. Nebulous demands to "demonstrate it should be controlling" (what would that look like exactly?) are not grounded in our WP:PAGs. And I'm seeing no counter-source ... or indeed any evidence of anything that would undermine the MeSH categorizations. Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What's nebulous about that? Your argument is logically flawed: You say (1) You find MeSH to be relevant, (2) You aren't aware of something more relevant, and (3) Because of (1) and (2), the articles must be merged. (3) does not follow by implication from (1) and (2). Relevance is interesting, but not controlling. To put it in terms you are fond of throwing around, WP:CIR. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, you seem to want to argue in the abstract with no substance. If you want to make a case for separate articles, do so. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. You have failed to present an argument for merging, and the burden is on you to do so. I point this out. You argue that a vague wave to MeSH is sufficient to make the merge a fait accompli. I point this out. The principal discussion is still ongoing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been adequate justification for the merges above. Nothing in the other articles really have enough unique content that would justify a separate article. At the moment there's just a lot of redundancy. If we follow what WP:CONSENSUS says, it's time to merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I found better sources for the terminology section summarizing the difference between therapeutic riding and hippotherapy. We don't need to iterate through the different ways someone can set up hippotherapy such as vaulting (carriage riding may fall into both); they belong within the category, not as a separate definition. Best to just incorporate into the applications section as I did to avoid redundancy. I will point out that I removed some sources because we already had a number of higher quality sources, or else we had some content that actually didn't reflect the cited sources. If a specific question comes up as to why something was changed feel free to bring it up here as it wasn't easily chopped up into multiple edits where I could have an edit summary for each little thing. All my edits should more or less be in line with what we've already discussed on this talk page though.

That all being said, I tried pretty hard to find distinctions made in sources between riding therapy and hippotherapy. The only constant seems to be that a licensed medical professional is required to be hippotherapy. The disorders they both try to address according to multiple reviews though seem to be more or less the same though. It's tempting to merge the two sections given how similar they are, but that's something for another day. I left the psychotherapy for now though as I'm out of time tonight. The next step aside from psychotherapy would be to see if the types section should be fleshed out more defining what actually is done in the different therapies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the general question (this is not a reply to not Kingofaces), I think several of you are approaching this from completely the wrong direction. This stuff about whether my source says that these are synonyms is irrelevant. The question of notability is a question of the subject of the article, not the title of the article. There's no policy or guideline that says we may not have one article about horse-related stuff for occupational/speech therapy and a separate one for horse-related stuff for other conditions. There is absolutely no rule against that. It doesn't even matter if every single source on the planet says that it's the same treatment. You can still have an article that focuses on sub-types or narrow uses, just like we could have not only an article on Aspirin but also another on Use of aspirin to prevent cancer and yet another on Use of aspirin in heart disease.
Additionally, in the event that it was decided that separating these two was a good idea, then it would be perfectly fine to assign one of them the name "Equine-assisted therapy" and the other "Hippotherapy", with hatnotes to point to each other. We do that for other things (Natural family planning and Fertility awareness are often considered synonyms, but the two articles have importantly different subjects: fertility-related actions that the Catholic Church approves of, and non-medical fertility-related actions when you just don't care what the Catholic Church thinks), and it could work here. You could also make both of those WP:DAB pages, and use descriptive names for the actual articles, like Horse-based therapy for mental health and Horse-based therapy for physical health.
But first you have to decide whether to have one article that covers everything, or separate articles for mental and physical ones. Neither MeSH nor any reliable source can actually tell you the answer to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You put up a good framework for how things could progress. I think the key distinction with the aspirin example in mind (just talking to the crowd here too) is that we don't have distinct enough terms to generate enough content for separate pages at this time. Take an example from my field such as Killing jar. We sometimes make cyanide jars, ethyl acetate jars, etc. There are different methodologies not only with the chemical, but especially with preparing the jar. If I split that article out into cyanide killing jar and ethyl acetate killing jar, I'd could create a bit of content for both with probably more content on how they are made than we currently have explaining what the therapies are in this article. However, the articles would maybe only differ by a a few sentences initially methodology and efficacy with the rest of the article being redundant content. That's why a single page is better when you are are dealing with somewhat similar methodologies for a similar product that can be summarized concisely.
Synonyms can be important in assessing whether a topic should have its own article. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a good read on this. We could reach a point where hippotherapy, etc. content is developed enough to show some level of distinctiveness where a fork is no longer redundant, but we need to get to that point first. I don't think we've really seen sources that show we'll be generating content that's distinct enough at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


Given that there is no deadline on wikipedia, does it do any harm to leave the Therapeutic riding article alone for now and just work on this one? As we get the sourcing questions sussed out, then we may be in a position to decide if we want to merge, do a wholesale rewrite, or whatever. My thinking is that the other article as it sits encompasses the major points of the discipline and a merge may lose us that perspective. Much of what's there can be sourced or better-sourced, but until it is, I think it is a useful outline to guide all of us in looking for appropriate source material. I've thrown up my hands on the hippotherapy article; I agree we have a huge terminology problem there, particularly if we add in UK sources, and while I still think that it should stand alone, it's not the battle I feel like fighting any more; the sourcing and providing proper weight and analysis of the research is where I want to focus my energies. Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted a large number of my deletions and restored unsourced material in the process without even discussing them like I asked. I've gone back and restored the changes line by line with edit summaries so it's clear what's going on. I'll do it in a series of edits meant as a single edit. There are some major issues with this edit due to unsourced statements, lower quality sources, and creating undue weight by trying to remove conclusions from the Anestis review, which is our most reliable source on the mental side of things. Selby can have mention, but we can't use it to contradict Anestis at this point, which is where my last BRD comment came in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not intend to restore "unsourced" material and I did not hit the revert button at all. I am sincerely attempting to incorporate all relevant viewpoints here. I am wishing to be very careful with the Anestis review, as "no good evidence" is truly an overbroad conclusion. Anestis, his wife, and two grad students don't like the Selby study. We need to simply state that Anestis and Selby disagree. We can note that Anestis got published in a slightly more prestigious journal. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
First, please read WP:REVERT (it's not just hitting the revert button). Comments on Anestis are in lower sections, but we don't just put the studies side by side when one directly refutes part of the other in this manner. That happens when sources simply don't match when they don't take into account or critique a previous study. It's somewhat misrepresentative to say Anestis just doesn't like the Selby study. They critiqued and fought issues with the methodology, which is an extremely valid criticism. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference between this and hippotherapy in France and Belgium

Hello. Just a little word to precise a simple terminology (gic ?) difference : in Belgium they say "hippotherapy", in France we say "equitherapy", but this is exactly the same.

That's all. somebody created an article about "Equicie" define as "equine-assisted help for relationships", but this is just a different name for an aspect of equitherapy. So afer a discussion, article deleted (see : fr:Discussion:Équicien/Suppression). Organization of your english articles looks strange for me because, it seems you have several names for a same practice. Hope this message will help. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That creates another issue: Definitions in the USA are different from Europe -- and everyone is fighting over words. You make a good point, the Americans are creating distinctions between different activities, more so than in Europe. Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New section

OK, the debate above is getting tl;dr, (though I did read it all anyway). So, I'm starting a new section to begin discussion based on where we are today. Here's the summary of where I'm at presently:

  1. Fighting a merge battle is less important than having well-written material with appropriate balance and sourcing, no matter where it sits. I've made my position clear, but I also am tired of focusing my energies on this issue. Merge, don't merge, I no longer GAF.
  2. I can live with the de-emphasis on the Lentini study, though I don't agree with leaving it out entirely (it's got the best definitions and accurately states the problem with terminology, which we all agree is a bugbear here). If others don't want to use it in the EAP section for now, so long as the Selby study - properly described (i.e. with favorable conclusions in contrast to the Anestis' unfavorable ones) - stays.
  3. We need a terminology section. Too much confusion not to. I restored the one I wrote, but am certainly open to further clarifying the definitions there.
  4. Definitions need to come from sources that understand the field and the safety issues involved; for example, I adjusted one of the paragraphs in the article that implied that a physical therapist might handle the horse as well as the client. NONE of the legitimate mainstream groups that certify people to do riding therapies advocate only one person to work with the clients! That's a major safety issue. (PATH probably has the best protocols). While some people in therapeutic riding programs, particularly people with developmental disabilities, may ride independently at some point, most start out with at least two people, one to manage the horse and the other to work with the client. (this applies to mental health ground-based work too). Often, particularly for people who use a wheelchair and have severe mobility issues, there are two "walkers" - one on each side of the person - as well as a person handling the horse. It would not be uncommon to have four people working with a severely disabled client: the medically-certified professional, the horse handler and two walkers.
  5. The use of mechanical horse models might need its own section: [8], [9]. I'm probably the skeptic on these, at least as being directly comparable to the real thing. But they are worth a discussion.
  6. There are many different designs of equine therapy out there, and some are not only poorly-designed but also unsafe. So it's hard even for the systemic reviews to suss them all out; but it's quite important to know that one can set up a straw man. (And Anestis does...)
  7. I strongly suggest we assume good faith toward one another and assume we are all quite competent. Snark, aspersions and accusations of whatever need to stop now.
  1. We've had general consensus on the merge for awhile now without any concrete reason not to while having concrete reasons to do so.
  2. Consensus on the talk page is not just de-emphasis of Lentini, but that's it's not an appropriate source to use at all.
  3. Including a terminology section at this time is completely redundant with the therapy type section.
  4. The definitions were provided by multiple literature reviews, which is about as high of quality as we can get. That is the current mainstream that we reflect.
  5. Mechanical horse models as treatment and assessing placebo effect have come up in sources a little bit, but not too much. It probably wouldn't warrant it's own section, but could be handled within the hippotherapy section from what I've seen in reviews so far.
  6. If the multiple reviews we currently have cited decide not to mention a certain kind of therapy, then it doesn't warrant inclusion in the article per WP:WEIGHT. If there are WP:FRINGE therapies that reviews wouldn't even bother covering, there's another tier of assessment to determine if they warrant inclusions (WP:PARITY). We'd need appropriate sources for that though.
  7. We've had general consensus for some things for awhile now, so you trying to go against implementing those edits is likely why people are getting a bit disgruntled with your recent comments and edits. To be blunt, you've made some of your standpoints extremely clear, but they have been ignored per WP:CONSENSUS (e.g., still trying to include Lentini). I think you have to realize you are not going to get traction for quite a few things you've been saying here lately.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we do not have "general consensus" for "awhile" now; I have thrown up my hands on the merge issue, though. We have three editors more or less arguing one thing and others (at least 3 or 4 other people are commenting here) disagreeing in various ways. Bullying is not consensus and I am quite concerned about the misrepresentation of some of the sources and material that could be viewed as favorable being treated as if it is tinfoil helmet fodder when it is not. This article is pretty critical of EAATs, it does have an obligation to note the positive studies. Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
First, please try to WP:FOC. Calling bullying when your ideas haven't gotten traction is not that (consensus building sometimes means this will happen), nor is this the place. The article is actually fairly positive on the physical side of treatments as much as the sources show, and it's not particularly negative on the mental side as sources show. That is what WP:NPOV is. It doesn't obligate us to provide positive notes to the subject that has major criticisms conflicting those notes. We follow what the sources reflect through due weight and avoid creating false balance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
GEVAL is actually achieved by keeping the actual conclusion of the Selby article, which is, "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines." I am not arguing for removing the Anestis conclusions, only to contrast those of Selby; we can say that Anestis criticized Selby and how, but I think it is truly a "false balance" to not state what the researchers actually said, your version implies that their study was also condemning of EAP when it was not. Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Anestis study

Some problems I'm seeing with the Anestis study. This doesn't invalidate the review, of course, and I'm fine with using it in the article, but I am just pointing out some weaknesses I see.

  1. Cost issue: Anestis cites to two private organization web sites for the proposition that Equine therapies have a "substantial" cost. One cite was a practitioner's "estimate" of $75-$175 per hour: [10], which at least in my neck of the woods is pretty much aligned with what traditional forms of therapy cost (my insurance provider will reimburse traditional therapy at $95 an hour, last I checked, and I live an area where costs are low, I'm sure in a bit city it is much higher). I know that insurance companies will reimburse mental health professionals who incorporate equine therapy into their program at regular therapy rates. I think the coding for reimbursements is similar to that used for play therapy and similar experiential treatments.
  2. The other citation for alleged costs .com/faq.html is a deadlink, but the last wayback link lists no prices at all, just a general statement that it's "higher than a psychotherapy session in the office". This was a pretty superficial analysis; Anestis' conclusions about cost wouldn't pass muster if we made them here.
  3. "Straw man" issue: Anestis cites this fact sheet for the proposition that equine therapies are "often marketed as such [standalone treatments]" No, this was a one-page "fact sheet" making no statement on way or the other about use in conjunction with other treatments and certainly makes no claims to be a standalone treatment. If one of us did that here, we'd get a [failed verification] tag for that one.
  4. The studies selected by Anestis were too wide-ranging for the very broad conclusions drawn: "Ten of these studies used child participants, whereas four used adult participants. Eight studies reported outcomes of THR and related programs, and six utilized EAP or related approaches." This is an "apples and oranges" approach. Anestis over-extrapolated their conclusions to adults/veterans.
  5. Anestis seems to not realize that the EAGALA model only uses groundwork. (Other models may incorporate groundwork and riding) THR versus ground-only based therapies are also rather difficult to contrast and compare.
  6. Anestis appears to mostly ignore the PATH model and appears to mostly be looking at EAGALA programs, which are, IMHO, the weaker of the two designs: The two main organizations promoting mental health therapies are PATH (which also has done therapeutic riding for physical disabilities for decades, only recently branching into mental health) and EAGALA. EAGALA is more aggressive in their marketing, has fewer mental health practitioners involved in its design, and has been criticized for their lack of safety protocols and focus on use of the horse as a mere therapeutic instrument as opposed to a living creature. (JMO, but comparing PATH and EAGALA programs, PATH has a more safety-conscious protocols and pay more attention to the welfare of the horse, as well as insisting on at least one person being licensed as a mental-health counselor).
  7. The COI of Anestis cannot be ignored, at least not so long as the COI of Selby is raised: Anestis has very related research record and a private practice, focused almost exclusively on suicide prevention treatment of military veterans. As far as I can tell, (I haven't gone over all of them) none of the studies in the review examined the effects of equine-based therapies on veterans.
This is all WP:OR an and inappropriate personal interpretation of the study per WP:MEDRS. If there are problems with a study, they will be pointed out in future peer-reviewed studies or appropriate sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Then the same applies to all the complaints leveled at Selby & Smith-Osborne above. The only difference is that Anestis et al. discuss Selby & Smith-Osborne. As a point of order, though, WP:NOR applies to articlespace. It doesn't apply to editorial discussion of the quality of sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. We as editors cannot engage in original research to critique studies. We let other researchers do the interpreting for us. The "only difference" you point out is a huge difference. WP:MEDRS is very clear that what Montanabw said above is not appropriate for an article talk page: "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." We don't engage in personal objections here, we need other sources to do that for us as Anestis did. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It's important to read that line from MEDRS (which I wrote years ago, so I do feel qualified to explain) in context. You can frame a source in a way that accurately describes its conclusions and respects its limitations. You cannot reject a meta-analysis because you think the author's bad, and then cite only the primary sources that you think are "better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Very astute, I agree entirely that these are definite issues with Anestis et al. that we cannot ignore. And before we have a rebuttal claiming that these are all minimal or shouldn't alter our perception of Anestis et al., the real take-away here is that the very same counter-points would apply to Selby & Smith-Osborne. The only point that Anestis et al. has that Selby & Smith-Osborne does not is that the former cites the latter as a prior study with different findings, and that the former was published about a year after the latter. Big deal. If we were talking about a study that was published in 1945 versus a study published in 2015, or even one published in 2000 versus one published in 2015, then that argument might have some persuasive value, but even then it's ridiculous to claim it mandates excluding the former and only including the latter. WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRESENTISM, in fact, militate against such a conclusion. In short, the proper approach is to address both studies. This doesn't have to be equal weight, and can discuss how Anestis et al. reached different conclusions than Selby & Smith-Osborne, but it would be irresponsible and contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (as well as common sense) to flat out exclude all discussion of Selby & Smith-Osborne. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies indicate this is a policy violation (WP:OR) and WP:WEIGHT is clear that we cannot do something like present the discredited parts of Selby & Smith alongside the current mainstream presented in Anestis. We reflect the current scientific mainstream. That is not recentism, and what you are suggesting goes against how the community deals with scientific topics at Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Mendaliv is correct. No policy violation exists to discuss an issue at the talk page. I am noting problems with Anestis, and some of them (COI, for example) are the same sort of complaints raised above about the Selby study. I disagree that Selby is "discredited"; I agree that Selby was criticized by Anestis. These are both recent studies and both were published in "mainstream", MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed journals. We have to give appropriate due weight to BOTH. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: On what basis are you even concluding that the Anestis et al. viewpoint is mainstream, versus just another voice out there? On what basis are you saying that Anestis et al. discredit Selby & Smith-Osborne? The study does no such thing: It merely notes that it reaches different conclusions. Neither science nor Wikipedia work in the almost legalistic way you seem to be advocating... though even if we were talking about United States labor law, we would still be foolish to omit any mention of Lochner v. New York, even though the doctrine that arose in that line of cases has been discredited. The only discrediting happening here is to Wikipedia, when we put an all-or-nothing viewpoint out there when there's a definite alternate viewpoint held. But let's take your logic as given for the moment: Let's say for a moment that because Anestis et al. published second, and because Anestis et al. include a discussion of Selby & Smith-Osborne that describes the study as being different and reaching different conclusions, that Selby & Smith-Osborne is discredited and not in the scientific mainstream. Now, let's say the opposite were true: Selby & Smith-Osborne published second, and included a discussion of Anestis et al. explaining that their study was different and reached different outcomes. Using your same train of logic, you would have to accept that Selby & Smith-Osborne's conclusions are the scientific mainstream... which is preposterous for reasons I shouldn't even have to explain. The right move here, per WP:DUE and in line with WP:MEDRS is to present both viewpoints. The woobuster "this isn't how we do things here" attitude is neither constructive nor controlling. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Mendaliv, this is all extremely basic application of MEDRS here. Mainstream is considered to be reputable secondary sources (usually reviews and sometimes government organizations like WHO, NIH, etc.). We take the available recent views on the subject and reflect their content. If some reviews in that pool come to different conclusions, we note the disparity. The double-edged sword is that we can't easily deal with reviews that come to flawed conclusions without another on-par source to do that, and sometimes we're just left with a numbers came of figuring one source said one thing, but five said another, etc. The exception is when we have an on-par or higher source actually directly saying the other review is incorrect or provides a more up to date interpretation of those previous conclusions. In that case, we generally ignore that part of the previous study and use the more recent refuting source it's place. That happened herein three different paragraphs of Anestis' introduction. That's one of the few times we don't resort to review A said X and review B said Y. So yes, if the tables were turned as you described and Selby was published later and they had some commentary on Anestis (weighing other things like WP:INDY), Selby would somewhat be the more go-to source. That's not the case here though. That's how scientific publishing works and how we reflect it under WP:DUE. Science can change it's mind on a dime, so the next review may confirm Anestis, or it may invalidate it and shift the weight towards Selby's ideas. That's a real world feature of science some people get a little uncomfortable with sometimes, but it's not a glitch in the real world or on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a WP:Med editor who is very familiar with WP:MEDRS. Looking at everything regarding this dispute, Mendaliv has made strong arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That stated, if there is a mainstream view regarding a literature dispute, the mainstream view should get the vast majority of weight, and the article should be clear about which viewpoint is the mainstream view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue here is that a later review directly refutes part of a previous review. As you said, the later review gets the vast majority of weight here on the specific conflicted information, and we need to be really careful we don't use the refuted conclusions from the previous review carte blanche. That's the step we need to get everyone on first though to move forward though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually "refuted", or just "disagreed with"? There's a big difference between papers having different conclusions and one paper being accepted as having proven the other wrong.
On point #1 about cost: Traditional talk therapy has a "substantial" cost, too, especially when compared to, say, a bottle of Valium, a book about coping skills, and instructions to reduce stress in your life. It doesn't actually matter whether the cost is borne by an insurance program or by the individual. We're still talking about riding sessions costing 10 to 20 times per hour what a minimum-wage worker earns per hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Though true of any type of medical care. Equine-assisted psychotherapy or physical therapy can be billed out at the same rates as in-office psychotherapy or PT and they can still stay afloat. (Albeit the owner probably lives in a modular house next to the barn as opposed to the mansion on a landscaped property characteristic of many surgeons, lol) Most of these programs are also run by non-profits who stretch their dollars with volunteer help and donations too. Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
And precisely -- Anestis disagrees with Selby, doesn't mean he's right, he's just recent. And Lintini "refutes" Anestis, though no one here wants to use the Lintini study because though peer-reviewed, it is not in a MEDLINE-indexed journal. Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's even assume we don't want to cite Lintini. We don't need to do that to let it factor into our editorial decision on how to balance Anestis et al. and Selby & Smith-Osborne. The fact that there's more recent peer-reviewed research out there that continues to disagree with Anestis et al. means that there's a significant enough viewpoint that the peer reviewers didn't just laugh the article out. We are capable of making those sorts of editorial judgments when dealing with a relatively thin spread of citable research. In any event, our picture of the science clearly indicates—despite the posturing in this discussion—that MEDRS and WP:DUE call for us to address the viewpoints of both Anestis et al. and Selby & Smith-Osborne in this article, and that we may not simply present Anestis et al. as the sole viewpoint. To do the latter would violate WP:NPOV. In line with the points made above regarding the merge of hippotherapy, you would clearly agree that there is a consensus to present both viewpoints as we have demonstrated there is no policy or guideline-based reason to exclude this research. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Selby/Smith-Osborne

There has been extensive discussion of our competing studies above, but I think it is important to note that the researchers on the Selby/Smith-Osbore piece DID state, "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines." It's said more than once throughout that piece. So I restored that line verbatim, as I suspect any attempt at a rephrase will have trouble getting everyone to agree. To merely discuss that they also agreed that existing studies were not very good without stating their conclusions is to misstate the result of the analysis. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been multiple notifications not to revert the specific content back in stating that consensus here on how to avoid undue weight issues would be needed. I've removed the content in the meantime as requested multiple times under WP:BRD.
The issue here is that we can't give the study this much weight because Anestis et al. refuted specific portions of it. It can be fine for other portions not criticized or directly contradicted by Anestis. First a little record keeping, we have extensive discussion on Anestist and Selby/Smith-Osborne reviews in an above section and at FTN so we aren't starting from scratch.
The Selby study doesn't get to include all their conclusions in this case carte blanch. That would violate WP:UNDUE as discussed previously because Anestis et al. directly addresses the quoted text.
One reason is that Selby did not demonstrate the therapy was better than placebo even as an adjunct treatment:[11]

Furthermore, although Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013) did not provide any evidence that adjunctive ERT is iatrogenic (psychologically harmful), they also did not offer a clear theoretical rationale or empirical test of the processes of change associated within the treatment. As such, it remains unclear how ERT is theorized to provide an effect that extends beyond those of either common factors (e.g., placebo effects, regression to the mean) or other treatments (if ERTs are utilized as adjuncts).

The last paragraph of the introduction also shows methodology Anestis used to address issues found in the Selby study. The conclusions from Anestis on this subject in the context of accounting for the issues brought up in Selby are important (my bolding):

The empirical literature on equine-related treatments for mental illness is limited in scope, the studies that exist are compromised by multiple methodological flaws, and there is no consistent evidence that the treatments afford benefits beyond those offered by the passage of time. Given the time and expense associated with ERT (and the dissemination of any new treatment), there appears to be scant justification at present for its use as a standalone or adjunctive treatment for any mental disorder.

and this

Given the strong evidence base for many treatments for a wide variety of diagnoses (e.g., Chambless et al., 1998), we recommend that, in view of the current evidence base, individuals in need of mental health services avoid seeking out ERT and treatment centers avoid practicing this approach.

The current mainstream view is that there is not sufficient evidence for benefits in terms of mental therapy as Anestis accounted for Selby's study. We can't give undue weight to Selby where Anestis has refuted their claims. We need to treat Selby as a minority view at best in that instance and not use Selby's claims unchallenged. That the two sources cannot be considered equal on this subject has been relatively well established in the previous discussions, so we shouldn't be rehashing that here. Now's the time to figure out if or how Selby should be mentioned in the context of Anestis, which is why I've removed instances where content based on Selby conflicts. Likewise, mental treatments are not typically used in the definitions used by reliable high-quality sources for things like therapeutic riding, so we need to reflect that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You are citing Anestis, not Selby. Please point to how the "current mainstream view" can be set by ONE article that has quite a few problems itself (uses primarily studies on children to extrapolate to adults, etc...). I'm also still scratching my head as to why the statement "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines" --which IS one of the conclusions of the study -- is a "false balance." I think excluding it actually portrays the study in a false light and borders on WP:SYNTH by making it look like it reaches the opposite conclusion. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Anestis et al. points to differences in the studies. That doesn't make Selby & Smith-Osborne "bad science". As was admitted above, if the publishing order were reversed, the same logic would compel us to accept Selby & Smith-Osborne's conclusions as gospel, which is preposterous. Presenting the contorted version of Selby & Smith-Osborne suggested here flies in the face of everything Wikipedia, as well as scientific writing, stand for. I'm simply aghast that this is seriously being suggested. It goes beyond synthesis: It's downright dishonest to print claims cited to sources that do not reflect those claims. In professional fields like mine, that sort of source misrepresentation might lead to sanction. Either you're completely incorrect, Kingofaces43, or there's something seriously wrong with how biomedical articles are being written on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The gotcha comment doesn't work here. Scientific literature is an iterative process. It's always updating. That's how this works. When an article refutes another, this is the kind of language they use as I quoted above. What isn't disputed from Selby that's used in the article is agreed upon by both sources and does not misrepresent Selby's separate claim of promise, etc. There are different pieces of Selby that are usable to different degrees under due weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, what source shows these apparent problems with the Anestis study? I don't see any more current sources commenting on them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Autism

Curious if anyone has looked at the studies cited here: [12], Bass, Duchowny, and Llabre (2008) [13] and Macauley (2007) (Which I am not finding). At present, that section only cites a broad, general statement from an autism organization plus the 2015 white paper I found in summary form. Given that the PATH factsheet here indicates that they work more with kids that have autism than any other group (followed closely by developmentally disabled folks, ADHD, and so on...) I think we need to do a better job on that section. A couple things I found on a quick search are [14] and what appears to be a systemic review: [15] Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I've written about this particular subject of autism and Equine-assisted therapy because I'm an autist (Asperger) and I practice Equine-assisted therapy. In french I createdf this article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soin_de_l%27autisme_par_l%27%C3%A9quith%C3%A9rapie , using some of the sources listed above --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
One a primary study, and the other is a conference presentation, which is probably why you're not finding anything unless an abstract is out there. Neither would be appropriate for this article though as they are both non-MEDRS sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I just need a little help to turn this into english :
  • [Pelletier-Milet 2010] Claudine Pelletier-Milet, Poneys et chevaux au secours de l'autisme, Belin, coll. « Pédagogie »,‎ 24 août 2010, 191 p. (ISBN 978-2-7011-5271-4)
  • [Pelletier-Milet 2012] (en) Claudine Pelletier-Milet (trad. David Walser), Riding on the Autism Spectrum: How Horses Open New Doors for Children with ASD: One Teacher's Experiences Using EAAT to Instill Confidence and Promote Independence, Trafalgar Square Books,‎ 2012, 188 p. (ISBN 157076574X et 9781570765742, lire en ligne)
  • [Beiger et Jean 2011] François Beiger et Aurélie Jean, Autisme et zoothérapie - Communication et apprentissages par la médiation animale, Dunod, coll. « Santé Social »,‎ 2011, 176 p. (ISBN 2100565613 et 9782100565610)
  • [Pavlides 2008] (en) Merope Pavlides (préf. Temple Grandin), « Therapeutic riding », dans Animal-assisted Interventions for Individuals with Autism, Jessica Kingsley Publishers,‎ 2008 (ISBN 1846427959 et 9781846427954)
  • [Bass, Duchowny et Llabre 2009] (en) Margaret M. Bass, Catherine A. Duchowny et Maria M. Llabre, « The effect of therapeutic horseback riding on social functioning in children with autism », Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 39, no 9,‎ septembre 2009, p. 1261-1267 (ISSN 1573-3432, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0734-3, lire en ligne)
  • [Gabriels et al 2012] Robin L. Gabriels, John A. Agnew, Katherine D. Holt et Amy Shoffner, « Pilot study measuring the effects of therapeutic horseback riding on school-age children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders », Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, vol. 6,‎ avril 2012, p. 578-588 (DOI 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.09.007, lire en ligne)
  • [Hameury et al 2010] L. Hameury, P. Delavous, B. Teste, C. Leroy et J.-C. Gaboriau, « Équithérapie et autisme », Annales Médico-Psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique, Elsevier Masson, vol. 168, no 9,‎ 2010, p. 655-659 (lire en ligne) Document utilisé pour la rédaction de l’article
  • [Lorin de Reure 2009] A. Lorin de Reure, « Enfants autistes en thérapie avec le poney : échelles d’évaluation et approches clinique et éthologique concernant les domaines relationnels, émotionnels et la communication », dans Neuropsychiatrie de l’enfance et de l’adolescence, vol. 57,‎ 2009 (ISSN 0222-9617), chap. 4
  • [O'Haire 2012] (en) Marguerite E. O’Haire, « Animal-Assisted Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review », Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 43,‎ 5 novembre 2012, p. 1606-1622 (ISSN 0162-3257 et 1573-3432, DOI 10.1007/s10803-012-1707-5, lire en ligne)
  • [Isaacson 2011] Rupert Isaacson (trad. Esther Ménévis), L'enfant cheval : La quête d'un père aux confins du monde pour guérir son fils autiste, J'ai lu,‎ 31 décembre 2011, 413 p. (ISBN 2290028991 et 978-2290028995)

Thanks. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How interesting. It would be nice to have a look at these. This would provide a nice way to counter systemic bias towards English language sources in this article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

I've lost track of where it was mentioned, but we did discuss that some of the industry jargon is not consistent. That's why we want to stick to our highest quality MEDRS sources when they explicitly define the terms. That not only gives us WP:INDY sources for the definitions, but we're also defining a medical treatment, so we do want to stick to what the reviews say when we have them in hand. That's not to say there can be some complimentary sourcing (speech therapy in hippotherapy could use more explaining), but we should be wary about removing high quality sources when we have them in the article already such as here. My understanding was that we didn't want to rely on sources like the American Hippotherapy Association and find better sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Hallberg mentions it as did Parish-Plass. I sourced it to Lentini who had a real clear explanation -- and you removed Lentini as a citation. So we really should put it back in for the proposition that the terminology is a mess: I'm doing so (We don't need MEDRS to say that the terminology is a mess). Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Montanabw. And as Alexbrn reasoned above, "Categorization [in reference to terminology/article naming] is not biomedical so does not strictly fall under MEDRS", which is why Alexbrn determined that we didn't need to follow a MEDRS source. If we're going to follow that reasoning up there, we should use the same reasoning here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: If you want Lentini out for definitions, then you're going to have to agree that the merge from Hippotherapy was incorrect. You can't have it both ways: Either you need sources that pass MEDRS for terminology (MeSH clearly fails, and was the sole basis for merging) or you don't need sources that pass MEDRS for terminology. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's settle this

Should the sentence, " but also stated that "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines." as seen in this diff be included to accurately describe one of the conclusions of Selby/Smith-Osborne (2013)? Or, put generally, should some statement be added saying that this study took a positive view. Please stick with just the question of adding this single sentence, even if reworded. My view is that without it, the present wording appears to make it look like Selby is simply a wholly critical study. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My preference is for a shorter statement paraphrasing the quote, but that might just be my legal writing professor haunting my thought processes still. Of course, we might not be able to reach a consensus on an adequate paraphrasing that can't be called synthetic, so just straight up quoting would probably be better. Omitting the quote entirely isn't acceptable because the discussion would present a warped view of Selby & Smith-Osborne. Presenting Selby & Smith-Osborne as negative on EAT, particularly in light of the discussion above where even those opposed to its inclusion clearly understand it's not a negative study, strikes me as damaging the credibility of the article. If the goal is to provide a neutral, or even skeptical view of the subject, then we should avoid using the snake oil salesman's own tactics of citing and quoting studies out of context. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that this article has been pretty quiet for a few days and no one seems to be disputing your views, I'll restore the direct quote, but you are, of course, welcome to rephrase (so long as we don't commit the dreaded crime of "close paraphrasing") if you can come up with a better way to do it. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed the repeated attempt to insert the content. How many times has someone tried to reinsert this now when it's been clear it's highly disputed? We've had extensive discussion across multiple talk sections now on this and we cannot ignore the undue weight situation. Creating yet another talk section does not change that. As already described above, we can't present this particular comment of Selby & Smith-Osborne carte blanche. That's what happens when a more recent review disputes specific aspect of a previous study like this. As it sits right now, we can't create the impression that this therapy has promise as an adjunct or complimentary treatment for mental health. When the literature changes and shows some evidence, then we can revisit that. For now though, I'm going to defer to the previous discussions on this, and editors will need to realize that at this point per how WP:CONSENSUS works, we cannot just keep readding the content in this manner. If someone comes along a week later and makes the same arguments as we've had before, it's still not going to have consensus if it's just going to be the exact same content.
I should also point out that this is not unduly skewing Selby & Smith-Osborne. It references the specific aspects of the study that are mainstream thought and in agreement with the rest of the literature. The remaining part that is cited is not negative towards EAT; it's just saying there are currently poorly designed studies and better ones are needed as research progresses. This is how scientific fields develop regardless of validity, so it is not inherently negative. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It's clear Kingofaces43 that you don't like it. Further, you fail to make your case that the Anestis review is the "mainstream" view... it is one article, and a new one at that. (Selby has actually been cited quite a bit more). However, Mendaliv is spot-on that the way the Selby material was summarized as negative was disingenious at best -- the study did draw positive conclusions. We can debate their weight, but not the fact that this is, in fact, what was said. It is very important that we don't censor findings that fail to match up with our preconceived beliefs and then claim they stand for the opposite of what they stated. You must not edit-war to remove carefully-sourced, neutrally-phrased material. I haven't edited for three days, and you failed to raise this issue, so I went with the weight of the arguments. If you wish to ADD to the commentary and explain Selby further, we can look at that. Also, you reverted all of my edits, including the expanded definition of Hippotherapy, which drew from a different source, addressing the objection of the person who reverted that one. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The case for the Anestis review is well documented on this talk page and referenced noticeboards. You can refer back to those discussions, but based on them, you cannot keep reinserting the content as-is. That does not have consensus and even if you disagree with it, the content addition has been disputed for some time now, so it stays out until something supportive of the point of view comes along of appropriate weight or context is changed to not give the idea undue weight. The positive conclusions were refuted by a study that specifically pointed out the shortcomings of Selby and refuted their claims by doing so. That's been covered by multiple editors now on this page, so we are at the point that the content cannot remain even if some disagree with that. That's how the consensus process works. We should not need to keep going in circles where the content is disputed and re-added, but instead either leave it out or figure out something else when the content is removed that hasn't gained consensus. This tendency to keep reverting the content back in after it was initially disputed needs to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
As for Lentini, you are the only editor here who has pushed for using it at all. The general agreement has been that we don't use it at all or even need to spend our time discussing it further here. We don't need to rehash what's already been agreed upon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Because a few people discussed things a little in a different section a little while ago, it's binding on everyone for all the future? That might work on a high traffic article when you're dealing with a constant flood of complaints about a disturbing picture or the lack of a controversy section, but we're still quite in the middle of hashing things out regarding this article. You can't play the "Oh, it's settled, so stop talking about it" card to suppress legitimate discussion. Wikipedia is not a court of law: We don't do res judicata. I mean, the whole Lentini issue is case in point: You (falsely) claim that only Montanabw supported using Lentini, but here I am arguing that Lentini is quite appropriate—completely the opposite of my initial reaction—given the consensus that sources for terminology don't need to pass MEDRS. Montanabw's discussion of that source convinced me. And if you're unhappy with the consensus about MEDRS sources re: terminology, you're more than welcome to argue against that consensus. Just stop pretending that you're the ultimate arbiter of what stays and goes in this article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
At the time of my posting, only Montanabw supported the use of Lentini. MEDRS isn't an issue here though. It's still a fringe journal. We don't use those even outside of MEDRS topics. Please stop the personalizing and realize there isn't consensus for the changes some people want added. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Patently false. Please read the discussion if you're going to participate. Furthermore, it's not a fringe journal unless we're applying MEDRS anyway. You can't have it both ways with the Hippotherapy merge and the terminology section. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is like a bad joke. Undue weight is not the problem here, it's an original research problem: You cannot carve the parts of Selby out that you don't agree with simply because another study came to different conclusions, and states that this is because they had different methodologies (I won't even stoop to calling it a more recent study: One year's time does not make a significant difference in this kind of scholarship). At this point, Kingofaces43, you're the one editing contrary to consensus. Please don't edit war. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There isn't consensus that this portrayal is appropriate. Having a new talk page section doesn't change what's been discussed previously in other sections on this. It's not original research when another study specifically refutes the findings as opposed to editors personally not agreeing with something. It's called giving due weight as outlined in the literature. It's also inappropriate to not focus on content and tell someone to stop edit warring who is responding to the initial edit warring that occurred instead of following WP:BRD when it became clear the new content someone was trying to add didn't have consensus. We're at the D stage (not R) where editors should not be trying to add in the disputed part of the Selby hat does not have consensus to multiple parts of the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You need to drop the stick on that and start listening to the points being made: No part of Selby has been refuted. There is another study which noted it came to different conclusions. That is all. At this point, I must assume that you have not read the study yourself, because it simply does not say what you claim. Please read it before you respond again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'm going to ignore your goading (especially citing AGF while doing so) as you're well aware I read the article from previous conversation. You're well aware of points brought up here and here that indicate there is not consensus to add the content from the Selby paper as is. That means it's time to drop the idea of just reinserting the content all the time and deal with the alternatives I mentioned. That's how the consensus-building process works. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If you've read it, then you've either managed to not understand the study, or there's something else going on here. Your persistence in distorting Anestis into a rebuttal of Selby, or some kind of debunking work, or God knows what, is frankly becoming disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is a clear policy-based guideline WP:SYNTH that mandates that we not distort the sources. So the sentence I proposed above or something similar in tone needs to be there to explain Selby and Selby needs to be in the article, it's a major study and the use in the article needs to go to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence. (At present, I think it's about right, actually) I also think that we don't need a MEDRS-compliant source for simple definitions, though where they coincide, that is, of course, helpful. Also, though the Lentini work is not MEDLINE indexed, it is a peer-reviewed journal published under the imprint of the American Counseling Association, so though it may not be fully MEDRS-compliant, it isn't "fringe" in the way that a blog or magazine covering UFOs or Bigfoot might be. In short, equine therapies have some scientific study and depending on which branch, some of it is, admittedly still in its early stages -- plus psychotherapy is a really tough field to have methodologically perfect studies in anyway (humans aren't lab rats). But to that extent, it is not a "fringe" theory nor "pseudoscience" belief system either -- to steal another user's definition, a pseudoscience is presented with scientific trappings but is completely unfalsifiable (examples of pseudoscience would include intelligent design or climate change denial). Here we simply have a group of physical and mental health therapies that need to be examined with full and appropriate balance. Pretending there is "no good evidence" is as surely a NPOV violation as would be claiming that magic unicorns could cure cancer and bring world peace. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well put, particularly putting MEDRS back into perspective: We are trying to keep fraudulent/false (yet verifiable) research from outshining legitimate science. Even though Lentini wasn't published in The Lancet, it falls into the latter category—legitimate science. And while we might weight a study appearing in Nature or The Lancet higher than one appearing in a much less prestigious (but still peer-reviewed) journal, we don't simply throw out the latter. We comment on the disagreement—if there is any—and let our readers decide what they believe. What's happened here is a baldfaced distortion of the studies and the scientific mainstream. Lentini is not ideal, but it sure as hell isn't fringe. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Independent Sources in Accreditation Section

The whole section seems to be missing any independent sources on the importance of any of these accreditations. They are seem to be pointing back to the website of whatever group is offering the courses. Is there any verification that these accreditations and certificates are valued by anyone? Without some kind of independent source that these certificates are respected by anyone the section seems promotional.2601:645:C201:3B60:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We probably need to review these with an eye to explaining their strengths and weaknesses. The bottom line is that absent legislation requiring certification, and in the USA there is no such requirement for equine-assisted work, these private groups are the only game in town, at least in the USA. In Europe the situation may be different. But in the US, the issue is more what insurance will or will not cover; usually if these therapies are performed under the auspices of a licensed professional in the proper field, insurance will cover them up to a point. The certification stuff helps groups get liability and malpractice insurance, an it all rests on the relative reputation of each certifying group. PATH (formerly NARHA) is probably the most respected, American Hippotherapy Association is a spinoff from PATH, I think. EFMHA merged with PATH, and in the mental health field, the EAGALA certification is trying to go mainstream, but they aren't quite as well-respected, and then there are the total fly-by-night "come to our weekend clinic and we will give you a pretty piece of paper." My take is that we probably just need clarify that all certification is private, perhaps explain any way of determining a good certificate from a worthless one, and note that there is no national (or even state-level) mandate for certification at all. (But if I had a kid with a physical disability, I sure would want them to be in a program that certifies insturctors; a licensed practitioner isn't necessarily a horse expert...) I'm not opposed to describing what the various "mainstream" groups required, but yeah. It's all private organizations here. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect I am not seeing any sources for any of this. Without an independent source on the value of any of these certifications then this is all just promotion. It has nothing to do with public or private but independent verification that all of this isn't meaningless.2601:645:C201:3B60:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I think leaving everything out gives us a less complete picture. Simply discussing something objectively isn't promotional. We are, after all, permitted to make some editorial decisions based on what makes sense. Like if we had some indication that a particular accreditation or certification program was a bunch of bull, we could make an editorial decision to pull mentions of it even though we didn't have a citable source to say so. But we don't have such an indication—unless you're trying to present something, and if so by all means, please do. I'll be the first to say it doesn't thrill me to be using primary sources to build that section, but I don't see it as promotional either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If your only reference is promotional material then how can writing about a product in the same way as the reference not be promotional? Too find a reference that the accreditation is "bull" as you say would necessitate anyone caring about the accreditation in the first place. I have not been able to find any sources that care about this accreditation one way or the other. That of course doesn't mean such sources don't exist. Which is why i asked.2601:645:C201:3B60:9018:34D2:7E5C:25F3 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's circular reasoning. Certification exists, but as it is all private, the organizations that offer the certification are the best sources to explain their own requirements. As for why anyone should care, we can cite to pages of insurance companies that will provide liability coverage to individuals so certified (for example, Markel, a major insurer of other horse professionals, will insure PATH-certified but not EAGALA-certified programs). But bottom line is that we do a disservice to pretend it's not there. Montanabw(talk) 06:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semantically Difference

Dear folks,
While reading I was wondering about the formulation in the first section, which reads as:
"Equine-assisted therapy (EAT) encompasses a range of treatments that includes activities with horses and other equines ..."
Could one please explain the difference between "horses" and "(other) equines"? Since "equines" is also defined as a "characteristic of a horse" due to equus (= horse (lat.)) in it; and, generally seen, "equines" is related to "equidae" (= horse (mammal) family, which includes horses, zebras, asses (donkeys) or the like- source = http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equines), there is no difference between them.
Thus, the term "equines" can only mean horse, since any known zebra- or asses-based therapies exist.
Best wishes. --77.0.181.253 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Donkeys and mules can be used, at least in theory. Probably a few out there. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Status Quo Ante

I believe that this diff shows the status quo ante on this article, with various wikignoming being the only significant changes since. (At least, changes that have stuck). I did see a couple unreferenced mentions of a Canadian program that appear to have snuck in unnoticed, but probably easy enough to source. Any major changes need to come back to talk, given how surprisingly controversial this topic has turned out to be. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've returned the article back to the rough status quo (retaining other updates) here by removing the still disputed pieces of text. Montanabw, please remember that these changes had snuck back in without gaining talk page consensus for them as you were well aware of in those previous conversations. If you want those edits to stick, you need to gain consensus for them first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite agree that there were "still disputed" pieces, and re-added some content that reflects balance in what the source material said. There was debate and compromise had been reached. I agree some other stuff that none of us added did pop in somewhere between the status quo ante and the present. Montanabw(talk) 08:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Then I suggest rereading the relevant previous conversations. There was substantial discussion how using the sources in question as you have in many edits is not in line with the mainstream science and relevant wiki policies. At the end of the day, there was no compromise reached, the horse just simply became very dead while these proposed edits you've been making failed to gain traction. That is not a free license to add the content back in again after a short time has passed. To insert edits relating to weighting that much against the Anestis review at this point, you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You are misreading the "consensus"; it’s always just been our small little group. We are well in line with relevant wiki policies and the debate on scientific consensus goes to weight, not admissibility; as we’ve been over repeatedly. We beat the topic of the Anestis review to death, there were two subsequent studies that partly contradicted Anestis to some degree and you know this. This is an endless debate and we all got tired of the stick, but that IS the point of a status quo ante, for whatever reason it occurred. I suggest that the December status quo ante (which I think was Alexbrn’s last edit) be maintained, other than wikignoming of others, the legitimate removal of the Canadian stuff that I took out, and perhaps the paralympic comment, which seems harmless, but in a spirit of compromise, I can live with that. There's also been a fair bit of new research that we need to take a look at, particularly some autism studies: [16], [17]. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You still need to gain consensus for these edits when there is a clear issue like this, which you did not do. Coming in and reinserting them (I'm counting at least 5 times now) after things settled down or reinserting it within other edits as you've done in the past (please read previous guidance to you on this) and calling that the status quo is not the way consensus works either. At the end of the day, it's still a policy violation to try to use the other sources to counter the Anestis source. We've discussed that already as a WP:WEIGHT violation due to issues with the other two sources, not to mention getting into WP:FRINGE territory based on what the Anestis source is saying.
Right now, your edits related to this issue didn't get traction in the previous talk page discussions, so when you keep inserting them, that isn't going to change anything in terms of consensus. Please also keep in mind that mistakenly calling the December version the status quo at the time is part of the problem. You know very well there wasn't consensus for that content back then when you reverted it back in, and you know there isn't consensus for that now. That means you need to gain consensus on the talk page for it, not keep trying to reinsert it without consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The status quo ante, as far as I can tell was Alexbrn’s edit in April of 2016 with this version. In December, I tried to remove some stuff we all would agree was cruft, and did some other cleanup. Thus the diff to my most recent edit is this, which, as you can see is very different from the edits you were trying to insert. So basically, it is the version you are wanting to restore that requires consensus. I would be fine if you wanted to revert to the April 2016 version, minus the coatracking on the PATH, Canada, and paralympics stuff but including the minor wikignoming. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC):

This is at least the sixth time you've tried to revert in this content when you know there isn't consensus for it per this talk page. Any status quo would not contain that particular piece of content per the previous talk page discussions. At this point, you need to gain consensus for that content instead of choosing dates that contain it to call a status quo. You need to stop reinserting that content whenever you make other edits as that just confounds the issue even more. Again, that goes back to our conversation over a year ago where this particular content was inserted within a much larger edit that was not noticed until more recently. The WP:BURDEN is still on you (not seeing anyone else advocating for this right now) to gain consensus for that particular edit due to the previous conversations. The rest of the recent edits in question can be handled in the paraphrasing talk section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify since my browser went a little haywire and somehow reverted one of my edits while trying to do a dummy edit, this diff with the second paragraph is what needs consensus before readding:

Equine assisted activities and therapies (EAAT) are not designed or intended to replace more commonly used treatments; rather, they are considered complementary and adjunct interventions in addition to more traditional forms of therapy.

Alexbrn was removing all of it, but I'm fine with just the first clause as long as it's sourced (and that might address their main concern if it's sourced). That has also been around more recently too. The first clause does deal with the non-mainstream issues in a way, but I'd rather see what Alexbrn's specific concerns were. The second clause on adjunct, complementary, etc. is what has not had consensus though since a year ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point, the old version is gone, the new version is two sentences, so we probably need to -- later -- rewrite the whole thing along the lines of the “one sentence per section” rule… just summarize the article section by section. But, given that we’re opening up the article some, I think it is best to just leave the short version for now, wait until we are done with the rest and then redo the lede. The main thing is that the lead needs to be very NPOV and calm, not have red meat statements that draw in the drive bys the way the acupuncture article was when the world press noticed. Even though I have a different view than you do on the underlying science, neither of us want to see a lot of pink pony and magic unicorn woo in here, and most of the IPs and drive-by edits are of that type. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That said, on the general concept, my take is that if we say that it should not replace mainstream treatment (which is a perfectly normal CYA thing to say and acceptable) but then not explain that it’s a complementary (or adjunct, or alternative, whatever word you like) therapy seems to again be censoring a full explanation of the field. On the 1-10 scale of woo, we’re really at no more than a 5 here… right up there with acupuncture… ;-) Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: My concern about "Equine assisted activities and therapies (EAAT) are not designed [...]" is twofold: first that it seems to being used to undercut another source; secondly (and more particularly) that it is so fringey: who or what is the "designer" behind this heterogeneous mix of therapies? What source deals in such design concepts? - I don't remember anything like this from the ones used. The fact this concept has been repeatedly reverted in is also problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
To some degree, saying it basically cannot be recommended (which is the approach I was seeing) doesn't undercut what I'm assuming to be the Anestis source you're referring to, but rather supports it. I see the issue with the "design" usage though. I think the intent might have been to echo that it shouldn't be replacing mainstream medicine, but it's arguably going to be diverting from that anyways based on Anestis. I'm fine with leaving it out at this point, especially since it's unsourced anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sports in lede

I removed this content from the lede because it is unsourced and not mentioned in the body whatsoever. With that in mind, content needs to be developed first in the body before anything about it is considered in the WP:LEDE. Additionally, the first sentence is largely unneeded as we have various definitions in the lede and body. The second sentence is definitely getting into coatrack territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the lead should reflect the sourced content of the article, and any independent content needs to be sourced in the lead. It is worth noting the difference between riding for people with disabilities (which occurs clear up to the Paralympic level) and equine-assisted therapy, which is broader. Montanabw(talk) 08:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
On ledes, that's exactly why it was deleted. No such content exists in the body, nor do we go around stating all the things that thing X is not in most cases. We already define what therapy is, and there's really no reason provided to list something like this in the lede of all places. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
We can include something unique in the lede if sourced, but it isn’t worth a huge debate. That said, PATH does expand therapeutic riding to competitive levels for people who want to do so, and it is relevant to that degree, and a sentence or two could go in the body (PATH is the oldest of the EAAT horse groups in the US). But we can discuss that later. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

List of treatments in lede

In this example edit, I removed a long list of behavior related disorders that were included in the lede without similar mention in the body. In the body, we don't even go this far to say such therapies are used for those disorders, but quite the opposite that they actually aren't even recommended according to the cited Anestis WP:MEDRS source. To mention all of those disorders as previously done in the lede is extremely WP:UNDUE at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The lede reflects whatever is in the body text or else it is cited. My impression is that the content was what remained after the dust settled on the big battle. But not worth a lot of jawing over. Montanabw(talk) 08:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Similar to my reply on the sports topic, the content was not mentioned in the body of the text in this manner. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Um, that’s because you just removed it. I was actually throwing your side a bone with the first rephrase, in case you didn’t notice. I don’t entirely disagree with you on all points, you know. Assume a little good faith. Montanabw(talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, such content wasn't recently present in the body for that kind of mention. This was the only thing I recently removed. Information was removed that would maybe fit the lede's description awhile ago because the practice cannot yet be recommended for such treatments. Again, what I removed in the lede wasn't even mentioned to that degree in the body even before my recent removal. Even considering if I hadn't made that recent edit under accreditation on specific services, we wouldn't want to list them anyways. Some are debatable whether they should even be included, and that far down in the article, we've already defined what EAT is. Also keep in mind that section had a slightly promotional tone that wasn't hard to fix by condensing the services available language.
Also, please refrain from this "side" business or tossing around assume good faith. That only makes it harder to get anything done here while focusing on content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Just a note that normally it's better not to rely on quotes, but instead paraphrase unless quotes are needed. That especially goes for cases when a sectioned quote can be paraphrased much better for an encyclopedic audience or avoiding scare quotes like I removed in this edit. There's also a WP:MOS issue when we start saying, "A review in year X found Y" and using that format as it clutters up the article. I fixed that in this edit. Generally, Wikipedia's voice is used for facts like this when we have WP:MEDRS level sources to that degree. I'm obviously open to tweaks, but the original edits I changed each had some moderate to major issues that shouldn't be immediately reinserted either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree if a paraphrase is either a) too close and hence a copyvio, or b) too far and hence WP:SYNTH. Sometimes, as here, where there is disagreement, the best we can do is quote the article and then let the readers weigh the evidence themselves. The bottom line, though, is balance to the article to meet NPOV. We all agree that there are not enough high-quality studies on the topic. However, where we disagree is how to use that exists. My view is that the issue is the weight of the evidence, not inclusion or exclusion. I am also concerned that we not slant the article in either a positive or negative direction. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As for content, there were two good meta-analyses done, one rather unfavorable, one more favorable. The unfavorable one was published in a higher-prestige journal than the favorable one, but the favorable one looked at more studies, is more recent, and appears to have used sound methodology. Further, both did some editorializing and cherrypicking, each in their own way. I feel that the way to handle it is to just put both out there and try to phrase what we do to reflect as accurately as possible what the authors were trying to convey (as opposed to our own interpretation or spin). Most of our readers are pretty sharp folks. I have made my own views pretty clear before. I think there is a lot of good evidence on the various physical therapeutic benefits. We don’t seem to have a lot of disagreement there other than to be sure we sort through what has been well-studied and what has not. I think that the psychotherapy area, being the newest, has the least amount of study and, we have to sift carefully because there are also two different main approaches. I think the in-between area is what is going on with autism spectrum disorders, and above I just pointed to two new (2016) articles that might be worth looking at to see what to add. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you recall previous talk page conversations, we had one good meta-analysis, not two. The other (i.e., the more favorable one) was not WP:INDEPENDENT. What you're suggesting with your comments in the first paragraph would violate WP:GEVAL. That is not how weighting is done in scientific topics. Quite frankly, the kind of idea is often used by climate change deniers, and other contrarian groups, which is why that idea is so strongly cautioned against for editors delving into scientific topics. Also, please remember that we don't engage in WP:OR, which your comments about editorializing and cherrypicking are.
Additionally, changing Anestis' very clear point that resources should not be diverted from mainstream treatments to saying that some researchers have raised concerns is a major WP:FRINGE and WP:WEASEL issue. Quoting the single word "divert" that easily appears as scare quotes to readers and directly recommended against in the MOS. Again, please slow down. You're missing a lot of major issues in this text with the blanket reverts that you've never even addressed. You didn't even address any of the relevant paraphrasing copyedits in your response above either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have fully addressed the issues that I see. There is one paragraph in this article (about the Selby study) that you have altered from the status quo ante and I will address it below. The Selby study is published, as far as I can tell, in an independent, peer-reviewed journal indexed for MEDLINE and if you disagree, please present your proof. It is disingenuous to misrepresent the conclusions of the Selby study and only point to the parts where the author makes an appropriate and professional caveat, and claim they are conclusory. Everyone agrees there is not enough top-notch research out there. The academic debate is that some studies appear promising, but other researchers are concerned about the inadequacy of evidence-based research and will not acknowledge the efficacy of the field until more and better studies exist. Classic debate, and one that needs to be outlined here. More below... Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop beating the horse. We've already discussed that Selby isn't independent above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Where? I don't see it, just your assertions -- please point out diff -- as far as I can see, your “not independent” is just IDONTLIKEIT. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
You should be very much aware of the various conversations you've been involved in where this has been discussed. That horse was whacked pretty good already in Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy#Anestis.2C_Selby.2C_Lentini, not to mention other sections. To ignore that and make frivolous claims of IDONTLIKEIT is silly at best in a topic where discretionary sanctions apply related to fringe topics, CAM, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That wall of text had a number of discussions and I don’t really see anything “whacked” about Selby … but the main issue is if there was some kind of excess bias that the authors allegedly had, and for that just give me the one sentence direct quote and the link that there was some kind of improper COI going on. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned below, the lack of independence and other shortcomings with Selby were discussed in the very first few sentences of that section. No need for a wall of text or searching to point out that issue. On "whacked", that was in reference to WP:STICK in the sense that we all pretty much whacked the horse to death on the topic of those three sources over a year ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
A wall of text is not a diff, particularly where there was a 3-3 (or perhaps 3-4, with drivebys) editor deadlock and no consensus. Looks like no consensus will be reached here now, either, until that famous but elusive "additional study" appears. That said, for the record I want to clarify my own position. In response to your "lack of independence" remark, it is inaccurate. I just reread Anestis, and while he criticizes the Selby meta-analysis, at no point does he say Selby has an improper bias or was "not independent." He stated, "The authors [Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013)] concluded that the overall results were promising and justified consideration of ERT as a potentially useful adjunctive approach in the treatment of mental illness" (p.1116) He goes on to critique their methodology (which is fine, that's what scientists do) and concludes, "although Selby and Smith-Osborne (2013) did not provide any evidence that adjunctive ERT is iatrogenic (psychologically harmful), they also did not offer a clear theoretical rationale or empirical test of the processes of change associated within the treatment." (ibid) His "bias" comments occur where he discusses design flaws in the studies he reviewed: "an almost uniform lack of ... independent, unbiased raters." (p. 1117) He again mentions experimenter bias on page 1122, but again, this is not in relation to the Selby analysis. So, to me, even a read of Anestis produces support for what I basically have been asking to include in the article -- that Selby found there were "promising results", Anestis grudgingly admitted that it doesn't cause harm (p. 1125), but that it's expensive, should not replace evidence-based therapies, and fair to criticize the state of research because pretty much every study out there has methodological flaws. I hope that with the record clear, we can all disengage from this discussion. Let the record also note that we have had a vigorous discussion here, but it has remained within the boundaries of the DS limits for such topics. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, please read the relevant talk section that I directly pointed you to many, many times. No one has ever been talking about Anestis saying Selby lacked independence. WP:FRIND is a Wikipedia term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I read the wall of text several times, and I'm not seeing what you seem to be seeing, which is why I asked for specific diffs. As for your independence comment above, my point is that you are the one claiming Selby isn't an independent study, but you have not presented a scintilla of evidence to back your claim and there is definitely none in the Anestis study. Your own comments above, to wit: "If you recall previous talk page conversations, we had one good meta-analysis, not two. The other (i.e., the more favorable one) was not WP:INDEPENDENT." linked Selby. Your comment "Please stop beating the horse. We've already discussed that Selby isn't independent above." My point is that if you are going to make definitive statements, hold yourself to the same standard you hold others and please refrain from making ad hoc comments without providing your basis. Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Crux of the issue

OK, discussing status quo ante as noted in diff, which, as you can see, the paragraph in question has been stable since at least last April with Alexbrn’s edit, so I believe it is the status quo ante. Next, a statement such as “all studies examined had methodological flaws” is meaningless. ALL studies have methodological flaws, unless there is such a thing as a perfect study, which I doubt exists. So “strongly questioned” accurately reflects the tone. A statement such as “The review recommended that both individuals and organizations avoid this therapy unless future research establishes verifiable treatment benefits” also is not an accurate paraphrase of the actual quote, “ "unless and until a strong research foundation [...] emerges”.” So here, I believe the status quo ante is superior.

If you are not happy with the quote inside the citation that says “ |quote=the conjunction of unconvincing research support and the absence of a convincing theoretical rationale is problematic}}” we can remove it, but it actually supports your position, so I’m not sure what your concern is.

You added “Multiple reviews have noted problems with the quality of research such as the lack of independent rigorous randomized clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and comparisons to currently accepted and effective treatments” and a backup citation to Anestis to replace the direct description of the Selby study, which said “A 2013 review noted problems with the quality of research, particularly the lack of randomized clinical trials, but also stated that "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines." The researchers recommended further studies be done that "utilize rigorous and creative designs, especially longitudinal studies and comparisons with established effective treatments.”” In essence — and we have been over this repeatedly — Selby was a more positive review, and to remove its conclusions violates NPOV. It is appropriate to keep the conclusions from this study, which was both more recent and covered more material than did Anestis. To say that Selby stands for “noted problems” is to misstate Selby and cherry-pick only the negative conclusions of an overall positive study. Therefore, if you wish to reduce quotations, we can work on that, but we cannot misstate that Selby viewed EAP programs as more promising than did Anestis, which, to me, is a pretty standard dispute amongst experts and appropriate for this article. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

First, please keep in mind that this reverting to the status quo on new edits just for the sake of returning to the status quo as evidenced by the edit summaries is highly inappropriate to this discussion (and making it hard not to comment on behavior). Being stable does not mean edits cannot be made to it, especially when MOS violations were being dealt with in part (and still restored for some odd reason) on content that wasn't under dispute yet.
On the all studies having methodological flaws, that's WP:OR hence irrelevant here. The authors directly said there were methodological flaws that made them question the significant of those studies.
On the multiple reviews comments, those particular conclusions in the two studies are matching. When multiple reviews discuss methodologies that are lacking or should be pursued in the future, that is when two footnotes are used instead of one while paraphrasing the content. It's also odd that you would be opposed to wikilinking longitudinal studies. As we have been over Selby repeatedly, you are aware the promising comment is WP:UNDUE. Even a source that is positive in some areas can still say there are issues with the current literature (as the source does). What you are otherwise describing is how WP:NPOV works when weighting studies as we've discussed before, especially as WP:FRINGE comes into play based on Anestis' comments. We don't give equal balance as you suggest.
On removing the quote, did you read the edit summary of the edit you reverted? I spelled it out right there that multiple parts of the source were being cited. Not to mention that the particular quote wasn't even being used or articulating that clear of a message compared to what has been paraphrased elsewhere where the ref is used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty, this ongoing dispute between the lot of us is going nowhere and I guess my take is that we can keep the lede chopped down for now, but the discussion in the body text of what exists needs to stay other than the wikignoming fixes. We cannot agree on a paraphrase, so direct quotation and letting the reader decide is really all we can do. If you have the slightest actual interest in this topic, we could do another review of the research, as there has been more stuff published this past year. Also, there apparently has been a fair bit of work done in France on the autism spectrum issue, but, sadly, it’s all in French — but possibly some has been abstracted in English to at least assess quality of the study. We all understand that "promising" is not "proven" but it is equally OR to argue that leaving it out is appropriate. The balance of the literature reviewed up through our last round here was "more study needed, most existing studies have flaws, but there’s interesting stuff going on." Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are suggesting we violate WP:FRINGE with the let the reader decide comments or that following WP:UNDUE would somehow violate OR. UNDUE is pretty clear that even if something is sourced, that does not mean that specific viewpoint will be included. That is the standard way scientific topics are dealt with when we have this kind of situation in the literature. If you have a problem with how Wikipedia deals with that, you'll need to change how the community deals with that at the policy or guideline level.
As for your odd comment "If you have the slightest actual interest in this topic" (especially considering you're aware of the discretionary sanctions in this topic and on thin ice already), I already did by adding another review.[18] When such sources say things like "there is no unified, widely accepted, or empirically supported, theoretical framework for how and why these interventions may be therapeutic" (while even citing Anestis), we don't make the method sound "promising" or anything of the sort. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that making the threats about sanctions and such is not helpful, I am not on “thin ice” for disagreeing with you, I’m attempting to figure out where your claims of unacceptable bias in Selby came from because I have also done an exhaustive search through past discussions and sincerely cannot find where you claimed that. If you can find the diff, please provide it here, or drop the stick. The bottom line is that almost every study out there (and I read a bunch of them) use the “preliminary results are promising, but more study is needed” phrasing. Selby concluded it as well. So I fail to see how there is anything undue about saying that.

Where you and I and the meta-analyses out there all agree is that there are a lot of poor studies. (But, it is hard to measure things involving human-horse interactions, so designing a good study has got to be a real challenge) Where we seem to part company is that I get the impression that you think this field is, in its entirety, totally worthless woo-woo to be debunked, nuked and the rubble bounced — Please clarify if you think otherwise because I don’t want to misunderstand your position. My personal concern is that there are competing models and the ones that are not very good (the ones that present safety issues or have too much woo-woo magic pink pony romanticism) are creating red herrings that distract from the legitimate models.

I can only view the abstract of the Australian article you noted above, if you’ve got full text, let me know how it can be accessed, as I don’t currently have free access to University databases.

Here are some abstracts of 2016 meta-analysis-type studies — perhaps you can access full text — If you are sincere about adding or updating based on current literature (and not merely confirming previous biases) I am curious about these studies and their conclusions. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC):

  • http://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol14/iss3/12/ “The current body of evidence is constrained by small sample size, lack of comparator, crude sampling methods, and the lack of standardised outcome measures. Equine-based therapy shows potential as a treatment method for behaviours and social interactions in children with ASD.”
  • http://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/655/ “All articles found positive aspects in working with horses and concluded children and adolescents gained skills. With these skills, children and adolescents are able to overcome effects of early trauma and stress related disorders.”
Don't think any of these are WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear they are either for the most part. The only one that passes some muster is this in terms of the journal, but it's on shaky ground being written by an undergrad, not to mention not really offering anything new when I look through the paper. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't find an open-access version of the Australian paper anywhere, otherwise I would have linked it (I rarely email out pdfs due to privacy concerns). Also, please keep in mind you're on thin ice for the battleground behavior you're continuing to display even in your above post. I'm not going to respond to that further per WP:TPG. With that in mind though, I already discussed on your talk page some time ago the problems with such battleground behavior, so while it's not appropriate for me to reiterate those details even more here, hyperbolizing such reminders as "threats" (read Personal threats at WP:TPNO) is not helping either. Please follow the talk page guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
KOA, do note that I haven’t edited this article in quite some time (over a month) and am attempting to discuss the substantive issues. I am sincerely requesting clarification because I honestly cannot find a diff to some of the things you are saying. I suggest that repeatedly stating “you are on thin ice” is not conducive to reasoned discussion. I do interpret that statement as a threat of invoking discretionary sanctions, which you templated me about once, and I do think that you would be very wise to follow your own advice. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, please WP:FOC. I've explained more on my user talk page comments where it primarily belongs, but the peppering of comments about editors into content discussion (my only reminders directed at you are only in response to such instances) has no place here.
As for the clarification you requested, I already provided that earlier, but here it is again where Alexbrn outlined the core issues with Selby in the first few sentences of that section (especially lack of independence). I don't think we need to rehash that all again as we discussed things pretty much to death over a year ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You know, if we can’t even agree on what we were debating, the only real solution here is probably to wait until we have a few more meta-analyses to look at. It is not worth further conflict until we have more studies to examine, which should occur in the next couple of years. Montanabw(talk) 02:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC) That said:
We concur that the Anestis source was a higher quality one due to the prestige of the journal in which he published and the methodology he used. But as I read that whole wall of text you cite, I see evidence of problems with the Lentini study. We all finally did reach a consensus to toss most of Lentini, but me, along with WhatamIdoing and Mendaliv provided some pretty convincing arguments for Selby and then we all sort of ran out of gas by the end, but there was a consensus to keep Selby with appropriate caveats, the issue now is how to summarize it. That said, I really do not understand what harm there is in saying both that the Selby study found both favorable outcomes AND was appropriately critical of the flaws in existing studies. To me, that is accurate and NPOV. Can we agree on some way to restore one or two of my sentences with the slightly positive language? If we cannot reach an agreement to balance the article, well, this is not a consensus, it is a mere majority vote. Montanabw(talk) 02:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The Selby source failed to gain traction in previous conversations in part because Anestis does not give that kind of weight to the source when they cite it in addition to the lack of independence. Anestis is instead quite critical of the Selby review, which is why we don't violate WP:GE or WP:WEIGHT by citing Selby more than we already do by attempting to "balance" content. Again, this has been covered time and again on this talk page. Until the literature changes, we're going to reflect what it says while following MEDRS. Selby is more or less superseded by Anestis as this point, and later reviews are still saying that Anestis' characterization of the literature cannot be ignored. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Which "later reviews"? Can you provide a cite for what reviews you are speaking of (ie there's a new one out?)? My main gripe with Anestis is actually that he appears to mainly be looking at equine therapy use by the VA, and at the moment the VA appears to be enamored by the EAGALA model (at least at the center near I live), which even I have some dubious feelings about as the weaker of the two main programs (equine liability insurance companies won't cover EAGALA programs, but they will cover PATH ones)... the thing I'm looking or waiting for are studies that examine the differences between the different approaches -- so far all I've seen is a master's project poster that appears to have citations to some articles, but the content is a jpeg rather than a PDF and I can't read them so I can't assess what is there. Frustrating. Anyway, I am sincere that if you find something, pop by with the link... I can probably get the research help desk to forward full text if you cannot. Montanabw(talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, your first question was already just answered above here and you are welcome to reread it. It's been quite a few times now here you've been directly pointed to something to only ask about it again (and why I'm done trying to respond to that now). Please keep in mind the rest of your post is WP:OR and not relevant here. At this point if the literature changes at some point in the future, so will the article. Otherwise, nothing is going to change at this point in time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I have repeatedly requested diffs, you have not provided them and only link to a wall of text where reasonable minds can differ. Because you have chosen to exert ownership over this article, as evidenced by your "nothing is gong to change" comment, it is obvious that there is no sense debating this further. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That said, your statements that misrepresent my positions are getting tiresome, so I shall source my comments, though on a talkpage, that is generally not required. Nonetheless, to the "OR" accusation above, my "enamored with EAGALA" comment is evidenced by these: [19], [20], and especially this and this. My personal opinion (i.e. this is the OR part) is that there are problems with safety protocols in that model; and I suspect that part of what Anestis was seeing as problematic, though he did not distinguish between the various programs and philosophies. As for the insurance issue, EAGALA itself only lists two providers in the USA writing liability coverage for their programs, though today I did locate one specialist program that advertises they now do cover EAGALA. Nonetheless, in contrast, PATH has partnered with one of the major equine insurance providers, works with another major equine insurer that advertises they cover PATH programs, and PATH lists multiple major carriers they recommend, plus explains the nuances in detail. I think you know that I am a lawyer IRL, and for me the insurance coverage issues are well worth factoring into the discussion. They aren't the same as MEDRS-compliant studies, but they do sift out the worst of the woo. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Tangential remarks

To clarify my own position here, obviously I believe that EAT is beneficial, BUT I also do agree with those who state that the field suffers from inconsistency in programs and application, along with a lack of good-quality studies. (Funding is an issue, work with horses is expensive and designing animal studies is a challenge.) One of the problems with EAT is that some models are better than others — a lot better — but most of the outside research does not compare them to each other and, to be honest, the mental health program I consider the weaker one (insurance companies won’t even give its practitioners liability coverage…) seems to also be the more aggressive about creating weak (if not bogus) “studies” to support their model, and I find that frustrating… and Anestis probably ran into the weaker program because they seem to have been more assertive in approaching the VA. I wish the mainstream programs would work to create evidence-based protocols for appropriate study. But, funding… turf, egos... sigh. Montanabw(talk) 02:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy/Archive_1&oldid=1089887051"