Candace newmaker Story is linkd to a mysterious game called pertscope it is a game were you have to solve problems to get pet's you can also find a little girl called care you can get version A of care which is happy you can also get version B is average sad nor happy or you can get version C very sad and covers her face p.s. you can not play this game because I searched every app store and I could not find it .

Miss Newmaker claimed to have seen Candace adult other children and to set fires in the house but the nabers said that she was a good little girl. So was miss Newmarket lying to you and maby the nabers were lying to you

The two therapists who killed Candace Newmaker were both legally allowed to practice in Colorado. Connell Watkins had been an unlicensed psychotherapist registered with the State of Colorado, which allowed her to practice, which she had done for over fifteen years in Colorado. Julie Ponder was a marriage and family therapist in California, and under reciprocity agreements was allowed to y practice in Colorado. These are facts which came out in trial.

It was part of the scandal of this case that the little girl was (a) killed during what was claimed to be psychotherapy and (b) killed by persons legally allowed to practice. Additionally, part of the importance of the case was that these convictions were the first time that practicing therapists were criminally convicted for maltreatment during a therapy session, where the criminality did not involve sexual misconduct.

Thus, it is both inaccurate and misses the point to describe these therapists as "unlicensed". While some mental-health practitioners would like to place Newmaker's killers as outside the legal framework mental-health practice (licensing), that is only their point of view and is not supported by the facts of the matter.

I have accordingly improved the article to remove the words "unlicensed" as being wrong, POV and misleading to Wiki readers.

Larry Sarner 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Provide a citation, please for that. My understanding is that neither therapist was licensed in Colorado. A citation verifying that they two individuals were in fact licensed mental providers is indicated. RalphLender 15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the opportunity to establish this. The licensure facts as I've stated them are verifiable in Attachment Therapy on Trial (ISBN 027597675), pp. 44-45, which information was gleaned from trial transcripts. Their licensure status addressed the "reckless" component of the criminal charges. By convicting, the jury settled any question about their culpability deriving from their legal status and professional background. Larry Sarner 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't see any verification that the two individuals were, in fact, licensed mental health practitioners in Colorado when they committed the crime(s) mentioned. Can you provide a specific citation that is not a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, or a direct link to the trial transcript? DPeterson 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

[1] and [2] both report the therapists were unlicenced. That should be enough to make the claim and any counter claim would need to be sourced as well. Also, we're after the secondary sources here, we can't use primary sources under the original research provision. JPotter 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

As I stated above, the licensure facts as I stated them are verifiable in Attachment Therapy on Trial (ISBN 027597675), pp. 44-45. So the claim may have been made in good faith, but so is the correction. Since my secondary source (which is peer-reviewed, professionally edited, and from a reputable publisher) takes its facts from the trial transcript, and it specifically relates this matter, it trumps the tertiary sources cited above. To the extent that they differ from the book on this issue, they are wrong. Larry Sarner 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Strange, please correct me, as I am taking the excerpts from your book out of context:

• on Page 28:

"... April 2000, Jeane Newmaker and Candace were on their way to a small clinic, Connell Watkins Associates, run by the unlicensed therapist Connell Watkins in her home in Evergreen, Colorado, not far from Denver. Under Colorado law, Watkins, a social worker,

• on Page 44:

"... it of her. Colorado law did not ask for Watkins to be licensed as a therapist, and even registration of unlicensed therapists with the state was not needed until 1988, when registration with the state Mental Health Grievance Board became a ..."

• from Front Matter:

"... present at her death by suffocation (luring that therapy. This text examines the beliefs of the girl's mother and the unlicensed therapists, showing that the (heath, though Unintentional, ryas a logical outcome of this form of treatment. (continual on buck flap) ..."

JPotter 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

First, the dust cover is not a part of the source (it wasn't written by the authors) and is irrelevant and not usable as a reliable source. A case could be made that the reference made above was to the entire group of adults, and two of the five were unlicensed (the "therapeutic" foster parents), but they are not the subject of the present controversy.

Second, Ponder was licensed, and the fact of her licensure has been verified by the book. Continuing to refer to her as unlicensed is false and should stop. Ditto with Jeane Newmaker who was also licensed (as a nurse) and was being used during treatment as a "co-therapist".

Third, both on page 28 and 44 of the source, the meaning of Watkins's unlicensed status was discussed and placed into the proper context I described before. To take the term out of context and describe Watkins simply as unlicensed is to deliberately mislead and misinform the reader; her legal culpability and professional status was much more nuanced than that. I grant that extensive discussion of the meaning of being "registered" to practice psychotherapy in Colorado would be awkward in an encyclopedia, but if the term is used, then such a discussion should or must take place to properly inform the reader. It is avoided, however, by not mentioning it out of context, which is what I've been doing by removing the references (which are wrong in the case of Ponder in any case).

Fourth, mentioning the licensure twice (and indisputably erroneously in the case of Ponder) is gilding the lily, especially when I came up with a reasonable solution for the second mention (i.e., using the defendants' surnames) instead of characterizing them.

Fifth, the way is "unlicensed" is used in this article is unjustifiably POV. No justification for inclusion of this characterization has ever been tendered.

Larry Sarner 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

They were unlicensed and as a verifiable fact it is relevant. SamDavidson 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So I have reverted the page back since the therapists were clearly unlicensed per the newspaper article. In addition several of the edits made were not NPOV, requiring reversion.

question: is it acceptable for Mr. Sarner to list his own book in the reading section?

The changes from verified "unlicensed" to licensed should now stop.

DPeterson 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

An editor should be careful and specific about which edits are thought to be not NPOV before reverting another editor's hard work wholesale. For example, what is not NPOV about stating that Candace was killed at a home in Evergreen and not in Golden? Because it happens to be the geographical location of a lot of leading attachment therapists?

The therapists (plural) were not clearly unlicensed, as a reliable source has stated otherwise. It is POV to insist upon mistaken and misleading information be included, especially when the inclusion serves no good purpose.

It is a settled question that a reliable source about a topic can be listed in a reading section. Besides, I didn't list it in the first place.

The reversion is to a version which is, in my opinion, hopelessly inaccurate, biased and POV. Reversions to that version should stop.

Larry Sarner 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It is clear to this editor that the "therpists" were unlicensed in the state of Colorado, which is what is stated in the article. This is a fact and so should remain. SamDavidson 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Sarner, please stop your reverts. If you disagree, state that here and then follow the citations and consensus. Removing items from the Also see section, and other reverts you have made do not represent a NPOV. Please stop.

The references clearly state they were unlicensed, inlcuding the book you and your colleagues at Advocates for Children in Therapy wrote as cited by another editor in the previous section. DPeterson 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the issue is closed as the fact of the "therapists" not being licensed in Colorado has been made clear with reputable sources. SamDavidson 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David, much improved. JohnsonRon 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree DPeterson 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

does somebody mind editing the text? somebody was obviously very bitter about the event when it was written.-- Nicole M. 00:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please, proceed. DPeterson ^talk 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I also think the ^{citation needed} tags are good. There should be sources cited for those statements...that is helpful for the reader. RalphLender ^talk 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for editing it to NPOV! I didn't know how to word it properly so I just took what other articles on child abuse victims said and what the Rocky Mountain News editorials said about it. It wasn't my opinion. In reality, I'm neutral about this subject. The main reason I started this article was because there wasn't one yet, not because I knew about it. I wanted to find out more about it, and Wikipedia didn't have an article on it. Elle Bee 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The changes made to the article are justified as follows:

1. Candace Newmaker was not accidentally suffocated, but was found by a jury to have been killed by two practitioners of attachment therapy.

2. While contemporarily popularized by the press as a "rebirthing", the session wherein Candace was killed does in fact bear no relation to the New Age "rebirthing" of William Emerson, et al., and it would be a service to Wikipedia readers not to continue that misconception. The "rebirthing" scenario was actually just the script for one day's treatment during a two-week attachment-therapy intensive.

3. Ponder was a licensed marriage and family therapist at the time she killed Candace, and she lost her license as a result. Watkins was indeed unlicensed as a psychotherapist, but that was not a salient fact leading to the jury's guilty verdict on the principal charges. Thus, it is inaccurate and/or misleading to identify them as unlicensed.

4. The "therapeutic foster parents" (St Clair and McDaniel) were not "ad hoc"; their role was an integral part of the overall intensive. It was completely irrelevant that they were "unlicensed", as licenses were not then required for "therapeutic foster parents", or even for anyone to "assist" in therapy.

5. Jeanne Newmaker was more than just in "attendance" at her daughter's death, she was an active participant as evidenced by her pleading guilty to abuse/neglect charges.

6. The 11 hours of videotapes of Candace's treatment were made over 5 days, mostly in the preceding week, not 10 days.

7. The mention of ACT assisting the prosecution is gratuitous, and has nothing to do with the events or surrounding the death. Moreover, it doesn't enlighten Wiki readers about anything; it doesn't even say what ACT did to assist.

8. The facts about Jeanne Newmaker's plea bargain, and about most other flagged statements, are reported in the first external link (and its webography). They are also reported in Attachment Therapy on Trial.

9. Candace's Law in Colorado is widely reported. North Carolina's version copies Colorado's and is found at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-401.21.html.

10. The "death video" has never been publicly shown outside the trial of Watkins and Ponder. The judge "sealed" them to prevent it.

11. Mention of ACT in the "See Also" section is unnecessary as a relevant link appears in "External Links".

12. The external links needed repair.

13. I discovered Candace's birth year was given incorrectly.

Larry Sarner 09:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Source states unlicensed therapists. No source that "Therapeutic" foster parents were licensed by state...souce needed to assert that. DPeterson ^talk 13:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) link to rebirthing is not relevant, given article there...agreed. ACT claims credit for helping in prosecution and in interesting and relevant link. DPeterson ^talk 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"killed" seems to be a bit of a loaded term, implying intent. what does the jury finding actually say? StokerAce 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know. I read one article, but don't see what they were actually convicted of. What ever charge they were found guilty of, or plead guilty to, is the word that should be used. .I will add a ^{citation needed}tag and if after a few days/week or so no one can provide a source, I'd go along with your changing that word to something else. RalphLender ^talk 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

this appears to be the appeals court decision in the Watkins case: https://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/opinion/2005/2005q4/04CA1697.pdf. It refers to a sentence for "reckless child abuse resulting in death." so maybe that could be worked in to the article somehow. StokerAce 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Then that is the verifiable fact and I'd suggest using those specific words. I would certainly support your making that edit. RalphLender ^talk 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"kill" is a neutral term that means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary ( http://www.bartleby.com/61/86/K0058600.html), "1a. To put to death. b. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions. Notice that there is nothing saying that The Black Death intended to kill millions, just that it was the agent for depriving millions of their lives. "Kill" is a succinct, unambiguous term communicating exactly what happened to Candace. The only thing left to determine in using it here is how she was deprived of life.

The jury was instructed by the judge to make a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether "the defendant, in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged, recklessly, caused an injury to a child's life or health, or permitted a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment or an accumulation of injuries, which resulted in the death" of Candace Newmaker. They, of course, made this determination in the affirmative. In other words, "Candace was killed, during an Attachment Therapy session, by Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder at the former's home."

Given all this, what possible reasons could there be not to use the word killed in this context, except as an attempt either to obfuscate the facts or try to spin the matter in the defendants' favor?

By the way, the death certificate said the cause of death was "brainstem herniation/cerebral edema due to or as a consequence of cerebral anoxia due to or as a consequence of mechanical asphyxiation". In other words, suffocation.

I am restoring my wording in both cases.

Larry Sarner 16:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

you only listed some of the definitions. another is: "To commit murder." so, one meaning of "kill" is intentional killing. for that reason, i think you should stick with something that more accurately describes what happened, i.e. reckless child abuse causing death. StokerAce 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't believe we need talking about this! The sentence is accurate, succinct, and informative. Not every detail has to be in the topic sentence. Obviously "murder" wasn't meant by using "kill", or "murder" would have been used; that definition really saying that all murders are killings. Obviously "kill" doesn't mean "intentional killing," that would be circular. Aside from the uncommunicative nature and grammarical contortions of saying "reckless child abuse resulting in death", it is not accurate. That phrase describes the criminal nature of the defendants' action (discussed in the following paragraph) and not the physical act of what they did (which was to kill Candace by mechanical asphyxiation). By the way, "reckless" is a state of mind and describes the participant and not the consequence. Aren't you really arguing that "kill" shouldn't be used because it's a four-letter anglo-saxon word? Larry Sarner 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

i'm just offering my 2 cents: "kill" seems like the wrong word here, as it could involve intent. when i see "kill" without "accidentally" in front of it, and a person is involved (as opposed to the Black Death), i assume intentional killing. thus, i don't think opening the paragraph with "kill" is the best approach. but i'm not going to argue about it. i've made my point and you can do what you want. StokerAce 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with StokerAce here. We should stick with the actual term used in the conviction as quoted by StokerAce above. This is a verifiablefact and so consistent with a NPOV. I support that edit. However, if Sarner strongly objects, then I suggest taking a poll and seeing what other editors think and reaching a consensus...or as much of one as can be achieved here. RalphLender ^talk 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A poll?!? To determine whether Ponder and Watkins killed Candace? What would that prove. It is a verifiable fact that Candace was deprived of life by Watkins and Ponder -- i.e., they killed her! She was not "recklessly child abused to death". How much more NPOV can you get? It seems to me that avoiding the term is POV. What are you trying to avoid, making these therapists look like killers? But, they are!! A poll! Sheez.

As for StokerAce's point, I respect his thought that "kill" could involve intent, but actually it doesn't. It's a neutral statement of fact. Newspapers all the time report that somebody was "killed by a drunk driver", without implying intent on the part of the driver. That said, I will point out that Watkins and Ponder did intend to not help Candace get out of the sheet, and she was killed as a result.

Larry Sarner 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"kill" is definately the wrong word here. despite official definitions, it imply the two suffocated candance with the intention to murder her. "died" is also not a sufficant word. the death was accidental and should be labeld as such-- Nicole M. 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"Murder" implies the intention to kill. "Kill" does not imply the intention to murder. Kill is the word everyone uses in English to describe the act of taking a life, whatever the circumstances or intentions. It's outrageous to say that the death was "accidental"; no one here has any verifiable idea what was going through the killers' minds. Larry Sarner 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we have a consensus here to change the word to the word used in the legal proceedings...they were found guilty of....Is that OK? If so, either I or another can proceed to make that edit. However, if there is stong objection, then I suggest a poll. OK? RalphLender ^talk 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Consensus means common understanding, not majority vote. Larry Sarner 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In this instance, consensus can be achieved, even if there is one who disagrees. Since you and your spouce are leaders of ACT and have a vested interest in this material, if it turns out you are the only one disagreeing, then I'd say consensus has been reached. SamDavidson 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

PROPOSAL BASED ON BUILDING CONSENSUS

So, I propose the language in the article be changed to read that they were convicted of "reckless child abuse resulting in death." OK with everyone? RalphLender ^talk 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Aye-- Nicole M. 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with this proposal. It is a factual statement and so can be verified using sources or references. SamDavidson 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope. The paragraph immediately following the one in question makes the point about conviction already. The paragraph in question is trying to state the facts of the matter, i.e., what happened to Candace (she was killed) and who did it to her (Watkins and Ponder). What you want is a synonym for "killed", and I have an open mind on that, though I'm skeptical that you can come up with another word as accurate as the original. (Gosh, you got your poll, not that it makes any difference about the truth.) Larry Sarner 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

My concern was with the sentence "Candace was killed, during ..." How about just "Candace died, during ..." ? StokerAce 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That was essentially what was done in the introductory paragraph of the whole article, which said she was suffocated. During the trial, the defense tried to make a case that Candace had just died and wasn't killed. They didn't make their case. She didn't just keel over; somebody deprived her of life. Don't shy away from the fact just because its a hard one. She was killed by her therapists; there is simply no good reason for not saying so, even if it troubles some people to hear it said. I'm fighting so hard for the word because it goes to the significance of this case--a little girl was killed by her therapists and some others. She even told them she couldn't breathe, and they wouldn't save her life. Sounds deliberate, doesn't it? Larry Sarner 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

to me, it sounds "reckless," not "deliberate". just like with kill, "deliberate" implies intent. http://www.bartleby.com/61/8/D0110800.html no matter how horrible Watkins and the rest were, i doubt they intended to kill her. (not very good for business, for one thing.) StokerAce 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I certainly wouldn't argue against "recklessness" and I can't argue whether you doubt something, but I hope you can see the obvious here...the child told them she was in distress and they deliberately (intentionally, if you like) took no action on what she said. Then she dies. Did she just die, or was she, well, killed? A jury tasked with exactly that question had no trouble in answering, "killed". The therapists may not have intended that she die, but they certainly intended that she not be given the life-saving interventions (air, or release from confinement) that she requested and needed, and the outcome was fatal. Their actions deprived Candace Newmaker of her life...they killed her. What other word is there for what they did to her? Larry Sarner 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

But the jury didn't say "killed." They said "recklessly" caused her death. If I had to guess, I would say Watkins et al. believed she was faking her complaints about not being able to breathe, and thought their "therapy" would actually help her. All in all, this is somewhat of a minor quibble, but I really do think "killed" can be interpreted as intentional murder, and that's not what happened here. StokerAce 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with you and think the language should be changed to she died and that they were "convicted of reckless child abuse resulting in death." SamDavidson 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Heres some free common sense. Someone who has a heart attack and "Loses their life" dies. They were killed by a heart attack. Did the heart intend to kill the person its in? If someone is hit by a car, and loses their life, they are killed by the car. Did the car intend to kill the person it hit? (Im not interested in debating what the driver intended, its beside the point). Whether the driver intended to kill someone goes to the murder statement, but the car still took the life, i.e. killed the person. Dont change the word kill, its just absolute stupidity to debate over basic english. Kill means to take a life, whether its accidental or not. Murder means to kill someone intentionally. Premeditated means you thought about it, therefore its intentional. Kill means to take life away. Whether or not reckless means intention or not is also beside the point, the girl was still killed by someone else (Someone took her life, unless you have sources that say she died of natural causes). I learned that at about age 5. Squad'nLeedah 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, the mention of ACT is gratuitous and gives the Wiki reader nothing relevant to the case. Granted that there's a reliable source for the information (except for the contributor's spelling), but the source isn't a reason for including the information in the article? Without a good reason, it appears like advertising for ACT (which they didn't ask for) or is just there to drive readers to the Wiki article on ACT (the neutrality of which is in dispute). That certainly is not Wiki policy and a disservice to Wiki readers.

I am editing out the (long) mention of ACT until there is some relevance behind including it, and there is consensus about the relevance.

Larry Sarner 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The relevance is that this advocacy group claims credit for this and the material is directly related to the subject of the article and is verifiable. How the conviction occurred, what went on, who was involved, are all relevant here. So, I will add back that section, which was in the article before you began your recent edits. However, if you feel strongly about it...let's begin a poll to see if your suggestion should replace what is in the article now. RalphLender ^talk 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As a leader of ACT, I don't see why Sarner is objecting the the linkage here? He is one of the individual's taking credit for the result, according the the ACT website. SamDavidson 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The only thing that is verifiable is that ACT makes a claim to have contributed to the prosecution. Other than that, the information content in this section is close to zero, and what little is there is unimportant with relation to the subject of this article. Of what possible enlightenment does this information have for a Wiki reader? The reasons given above underscore how unimportant the information is. Relevance isn't the only standard for inclusion; importance is another. Larry Sarner 07:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

why are you objecting to your groups's mention in this article? You don't object to citing your own book as a soucrce of credible information, so your group's statement that it was instrumental in securing the conviction...or at least helped, is clearly relevant. It shows the broad impact of the case and the broad range of interested parties. Given that you and your wife are leaders of this group, your comments on this asepct of the article are suspect. SamDavidson 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The "See Also" section had only two references in it, and they were confusingly run together on the same line.

"Attachment Therapy" has an in-line link and so is unnecessary in the See Also section.

"Advocates for Children in Therapy" is not really relevant to the article as it stands, and there is no obvious reason in this article why any reader of it would be directed to the ACT article. Moreover, the ACT article's neutrality is in dispute and until that's resolved, the reference is questionable. Larry Sarner

As a leader of ACT, I don't see why Sarner would object to the link and say it's not relevant. He and his group take credit for helping achieve the end result. SamDavidson 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It is a principle that helping make information easily accessible to the reader is encouraged. Many article list links from the article in the Also see section as this makes it very easy for the reader to find the related article. ACT played an important role in this case, by their admission, so a link to their site is very relevant. RalphLender ^talk 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If you can't even describe what that role is, why is it relevant to mention the claim of one? There is no verifiable or reliable source cited for this information, and the information itself has no significance to the story of Candace Newmaker. Therefore, it must be deleted per Wiki policy. Similarly, there is no basis for the link in See Also. Larry Sarner 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You cite your own book, which is an ACT publication. Furthermore, the group's involvement in the case is relevant, therefore a link to the article about your group is also relevant. SamDavidson 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It will improve the article to provide citations for the staements I've tagged. verifiability is always helpful for the reader wishing to pursue more details. This is consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice. However, I am quite willing to setup a poll here if there is strong disagreement, since building consensus before changing an article is another important principle here. RalphLender ^talk 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. See the talk sections above for the citations on whether Watkins and Ponder killed Candace. That one is taken care of.

2. Your source on calling the therapists "unlicensed" was wrong and so is not reliable for this matter. Julie Ponder was a licensed marriage and licensed therapist who had her licensed revoked on 31 August 2002 (because of her conviction for killing Candace) ( http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=36166&P_LTE_ID=720)

3. See the talk sections above for the information on whether Candace was suffocated. Citations are legion. Every news story on the case mentions that she was suffocated.

4. See the "external links" section for a reliable source which describes Jeanne Newmaker's plea bargain.

5. See the talk section above for the citation to North Carolina's Candace's Law. Citations abound for Colorado's version, but see http://www.rickross.com/reference/rebirthing/rebirthing21.html for the Charlotte Observer's discussion of both.

This takes care of all the "citations needed" insertions, so I have removed them. If you think you need more, don't put them back. Just comment here and we can discuss it.

Larry Sarner 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Citations need to be in the article not on talk pages.

The link goes to an article identifying the therapist as unlicensed; seems reasonable to me.

will edit accordingly RalphLender ^talk 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The verification and citation can (and in this case should) go on the talk pages...unless your intent is to disrupt the readability of the article.

The article linked to is wrong in the case of Ponder, as the link I gave above clearly shows. When reliable sources disagree, the statement is to go with the more reliable -- which in this case is the online government database I cite.

She was 'unlicensed' at the time of the incident with Candace according to the news article. DPeterson ^talk 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. The government database clearly shows Ponder had a current license on the day she killed Candace. The database is a 'primary' source, and trumps the news article, which is a 'secondary' one. Therefore, it is incorrect for the article to say Ponder was unlicensed. That ends it, unless you have a contradictory primary source. Larry Sarner 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

We all want to be correct and follow Wiki guidelines...I hope. I will edit accordingly.

Larry Sarner 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia policy and practice (see for example, verifiable, citation) have the sources go on the page. You can put in the souce so that it shows up in the Reference Section, and so does not disrupt the readability or flow of the article. DPeterson ^talk 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It makes for bad writing, but OK -- I will compromise by putting a citation at the end of the paragraph(s), since the source is usually the same for all the requirements. Where an additional source is involved, I'll cite it in situ. Larry Sarner 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In addition to citing verifiable sources, either "ad hoc" should remain or a citation verifying that those individuals were Therapeutic Foster Parents inserted. Did they recieve state approved training to be Therapeutic Foster Parents? If so, cite a source...if not, then I'd remove the entire term and state that they were present. RalphLender ^talk 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, that makes sense to me and I agree with your suggestion. SamDavidson 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The verifiable, reliable source is Attachment Therapy on Trial (pp. 60-61). St Clair and McDaniel were some of the staffers of Watkins and Associates with the task of being "therapeutic foster parents" for children going through Watkins's intensive. It was not an ad hoc thing, but a regular assignment. Larry Sarner 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) reply

They were not licensed by the state as "therapeutic foster parents." However, if you can provide a source stating differently, please do so. SamDavidson 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

They called themselves "therapeutic foster parents", they followed the foster parenting techniques of Nancy Thomas, and Colorado does not restrict use of that term to someone having any sort of license. The verifiable, reliable source for their use of the term has been cited, and you have not cited anything contradictory to it. Please leave the term alone until you do. Larry Sarner 00:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regardles of what they called themselves, Colorado does require specific training to be a "therapeutic foster parent" and to be a "foster parent." Please cite a verifiable source that they were, infact, "therapeutic foster parents" per Colorado. DPeterson ^talk 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant. They called themselves that. The phrase is in quotes. I have cited a verifiable and reliable source; you and "SamDavidson" have not. Colorado does not "reserve" the title, but it doesn't matter in all events. Wiki policy does not require that to refer to someone as a "therapeutic foster parent" requires that the person be licensed as such. Leave it alone until you can justify with a verifiable and more reliable source that the term is unjustifiably used in this case. 206.81.65.148 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems very relevant whether or not they were certifie as foster parents or therapeutic forster parents by Colorado or the relvant county social service department. Please provide a source that is verifiable that Colorado or the relevant county does not train foster parents. Otherwise we need another term. Were they trained and licensed by the county? DPeterson ^talk 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Then add a verifiable and more reliable statement to the article discussing your point. Removing a phrase which is cited verifiably and reliably is POV and vandalism IMHO. Too bad that the perps were described as such (by themselves and colleagues and others) and it perhaps embarrasses you and your colleagues in the AT community. But you don't get to delete unfortunate verifiable information from Wiki. Larry Sarner 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It is most salient whether or not they were state certified and trained foster parents. However, putting the term in quotes "self-described therapeutic foster parents" with the wording addition I have put, seems like a reasonable compromise. Yes? SamDavidson 17:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Salient is an interesting term. If it's truly salient, it shouldn't be eliminated and ignored. It should be elaborated upon. I would welcome a discussion of the role of the "therapeutic foster parents" in the case; it leads to all sorts of interesting places.

"Self-described" doesn't work, especially inside the quote marks. They probably did describe themselves that way, but others did, too; they were sold to Jeanne Newmaker as TFPs as part of the AT "intensive". Their participation in Candace's torture (not just her death) is significant, too.

While we're at it, Jeanne Newmaker's role and her deferred sentence is worthy of some comment, too. That leads to all sorts of interesting places, too.

Larry Sarner 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that self-described, without the quotes, would be best. If they were not certified or trained by the state or county, then they were "self-described," unless someone can provide a reference that is verifiable that they were, in fact, state trained foster parents. JohnsonRon 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The evidence presented in ATOT shows that they were part of the AT intensive and were hired as TFPs by Jeanne Newmaker. Their employer called them that. Their mentor (Nancy Thomas) called them that. Thus, they were not simply "self-described". Even if they were unlawfully acting as TFP's (which they apparently weren't — they weren't ever charged with that), it doesn't change whether they were acting as TFPs. It passes the duck test. Moreover, no source has been given for the claim here that Colorado restricts use of the TFP to state-licensed, certified, or trained persons. Larry Sarner 06:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regardless of what anyone calls them, if they not trained by the state they are not foster parents and and the proper term is "self-described." However if you have a verifiable source showing that they were so trained, please show that. Otherwise, stop bullying everyone and deleting material and make a constructive suggestion to see if it flys. JohnsonRon 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no evidence cited that the "therapeutic foster parents" were licensed. Either provide a citation or that term should be deleted and change to "two other adults." The references to ACT are clearly relevant and should stay; especially since Sarner is citing his own material as a verifiable source and he, along with his spouce, are the two leaders of ACT. SamDavidson 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1. It is not required that TFP's be licensed to use the term in Colorado, ie, the title is not "protected" there. Moreover, the term in quotes indicates that they may not have acted as a "professional" might; indeed, they likely did not since they were particularly following the techniques of "parenting specialist" Nancy Thomas (also from Colorado). This is what they called themselves and described by associates, so the term should (even must) remain.

2. You have given no citation for your idea that use of the term is restricted to licensed people.

3. As said above, the references to ACT are, prima facie, gratuitously made. They must be removed as completely irrelevant to the article, meaning it adds no useful information to the article. If someone from ACT had inserted these references, Wiki policy would regard them as advertising and remove them. It goes as useless.

Larry Sarner 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Training is necesary to be a foster parent or a therapeutic foster parent. Cite a source that they were certified, otherwise, let's stick with the other term.

As a leader of ACT, as others have pointed out, you are not in a position to objectively comment on this. I see the reference and material as very relevant and interesting. DPeterson ^talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

On TFPs, see my comments above.

You may see the ACT reference as "very relevant and interesting", but that doesn't make it so. Prima facie, it adds nothing to the article. Justify its inclusion in objective terms. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments. 206.81.65.148 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It is a fact that you are a leader of ACT and that you cite ACT and your book as a reference. Your group claims some credit for the prosecution of this case; therefore it is relevant. Your assertion that is it not is suspect given the facts of your position. DPeterson ^talk 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

How does the claim to have assisted the prosecution have anything to do with the events described in the article? You don't even say what the assistance consisted of, much less do so from a reliable and verifiable source. You even go further afield and state more things about ACT that is of even lesser relevance. You don't even put it all in the right paragraph.

And where have I asserted that ACT did not assist the prosecution? Your repeated use of non sequiturs and falsehoods makes it very difficult to improve this article.

Larry Sarner 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You assisted in the prosecution, the article is about her death...the link is apparently clear to everyone here except you...and since you are clearly linked directly to the subject, that does raise a question about your objectivity. In this instance, I think the opinion of editors is clear. SamDavidson 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

'see below' SamDavidson 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why there is any dispute here. If some knowledgeable (but neutral) editor came along, the references to ACT would probably be seen as a vanity mention. In fact, I've only been able to verify ACT's involvement with the case through their own assertions. I'm sure that many people were involved in the prosecution, should we list them off as well? ACT's involvement with this case is being given undue weight here. The only mention that ACT deserves in this article is in regards to the book. This is because that book appears to be the book about this case. Even then, it should read vaguely like "A book was written about this by Jean Mercer, Larry Sarner, and Linda Rosa from ACT."

This article is sadly lacking in information that would actually be useful. Why did she end up in the Evergreen center in the first place? Why were they video-taping? Why were they doing this terrible thing to her? Are such practices common? She did much more than cry for air, why isn't this mentioned? Furthermore, they did much more than just "restrain" her in a sheet. They taunted her as she slowly died; why isn't this mentioned? As far as I can tell, this was a fairly important case in that it brought some media, legislative, and professional attention to AT. What things beyond Candace's Law happened as a result of this case? These questions deserve to be answered.

I think our goal should be to bring this article to FA status. This is a very well-documented case that many people would (or should) like to know about. I also think that this is the one AT-related article that we should all be able to agree on because it is very well-documented by many reliable sources. shotwell 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree and am most intrigued by the last comment. Being a Featured Article would be a wonderful outcome. There is a real story here that has been obscured by people with agendas. However, in addition to requiring a vast improvement in this article, the immense problems with the inevitably cross-referenced articles would also have to be addressed, so that Wiki users who follow the links will reach information they can truly trust. Larry Sarner 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ACT's citation of its involvement in the case and it's Director, Sarner's use of his and ACT's book as a reference, support the inclusion of material about them and then a link to an article in Wikipedia about them for those who want more details. So, I "vote" for the material to stay. JohnsonRon 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Maybe Sarner does not want his organization linked to this case? Regardless, he has a vested interest and a conflict of interest here, so other editors should decide. However, if he disagrees, maybe he should bring the issue to mediation. JohnsonRon 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So, the only editor with first-hand knowledge of the case can't edit because he's published a book on it. Hmmm, that's a great way for Wikipedia to get good articles! Larry Sarner 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You are distorting and misconstruing what I wrote. All I am saying is that a consensus is present and your standing is questionable given your conflict of interest and vested interests. For this reason you should discuss changes here and either ask for a poll or mediation You are alone in your position. JohnsonRon 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No one behind the disputed material makes the least effort to justify or even explain its inclusion or value when challenged. That's reason enough to delete it. Larry Sarner 06:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

All you need to do is provide a verifiable and reliable source for your statements. Please stop being bully by deleting material. Try to follow Wikkipedia policy regarding resolving disputes by considering: taking a poll, engaging in mediation, arbitration, etc. Merely starting an edit and revert war, as you did on the Bowlby page, which cause you to be sanctioned, is not constructive. JohnsonRon 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I echo JohnsonRon's statement and support his suggestion that you follow Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures and stop bullying other editors by your continual reverstions. DPeterson ^talk 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your own website states that you were actively involved. The link in the article leads to: 'It’s finally here! A book entirely devoted to critically examining the bizarre world of Attachment (Holding) Therapy, the most pernicious pseudoscience and dangerous quackery thriving in the United States today. Attachment Therapy on Trial: The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker by Jean Mercer, Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa (Praeger; May 30, 2003). This book sells at a whopping $44.95, reflecting the wealth of insights provided by psychology professor Jean Mercer on nature of Attachment Therapy and AT parenting methods. All three authors assisted the prosecution in the “rebirthing” trial that resulted in historic 16-year sentences for therapists Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder.' SamDavidson 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

So what? It doesn't make the ACT reference in this article any more relevant or informative. The material in this article doesn't say what was done to assist, or what significance any of it has to understanding what happened to either Candace or her killers. Larry Sarner 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the Advocates for Children in Therapy reference and material is very relevant and informative. However, your involvement as a leader of ACT, author of the book, etc. mean you have vested interests here and a conflict of interest. As I said above, if you disagree, perhaps you should request mediation. I notice that you had some difficulties with Administrators regarding your edits to the Bowlby page. In the meantime, your comments here are suspect and it should be up to other editors to discuss this and build consensus. JohnsonRon 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is the reasons for including this irrelevant and uninformative material on this page that is very suspicious. The attempt at mediation on the Bowlby page was a complete failure. Instead, you and the others supporting the materials inclusion might try explaining just what this material is supposed to be informing (ie, why the reader of this article might care to learn it). Larry Sarner 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Except for you, there is a consensus here for keeping the material on ACT. Your role as a leader of ACT suggests a vested interest and conflict of interest regarding making changes about this group. The mediation effort on the Bowlby page worked just fine. A consensus occured and you were banned from continuing to make destructive changes...at least that's how I read the talk page there and the related Admin pages. The material is on this page, so it is up to you to explain why it should be deleted and to see if you can convince others to agree with you (building consensus it is called); not bully other editors by contining to unilaterally make changes that are unsupported. JohnsonRon 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. Like the material in question, these comments are in error and irrelevant. Larry Sarner 06:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There you go again avoiding the salient issue that 'you are a leader of ACT and that this creates a vested interest' and conflict of interest. You are continuing to be disruptive by not seeking consensus and by being a bully here. I strongly urge you to follow Wikipedia policy and practice regarding resolving disputes: consider a poll, consider trying to build consensus and not bully other editors, consider mediation. JohnsonRon 11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

All anyone needs to do to build real consensus about the inclusion of the ACT reference is satisfactorily explain what is the value of the information contained. So far, no one has made any attempt to do that. The failure to even make the attempt is telling. Per Wiki policy, the ACT reference should not be in the article; it could be restored if and when a satisfactory justification is made for inclusion. Larry Sarner 06:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I's been explained in great detail previously, above; you just don't agree or like the explaination. Furthermore you have a vested interest in this issue 'See Below'

DPeterson ^talk 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

And what, pray tell, is my "vested interest" in removing the ACT material from this article? Questioning my motives is bad form in Wikipedia, old chap. So is accusing someone of vandalism for making good-faith edits.

I can find no explanation, great or small, for the material's relevance. Try restating it here, so it can be cogently discussed.

Larry Sarner 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't know what is your vested interest, but you are a leader of ACT and therefore have an interest in where your group is mentioned and how.

If you read the previous sections you will find lots off details on the materials reference. The following from above are examples:

The relevance is that this advocacy group claims credit for this and the material is directly related to the subject of the article and is verifiable. How the conviction occurred, what went on, who was involved, are all relevant here. So, I will add back that section, which was in the article before you began your recent edits. However, if you feel strongly about it...let's begin a poll to see if your suggestion should replace what is in the article now. RalphLendertalk 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is circular -- someone makes relevant comments about the case, so their comments are relevant to the case. Relevance in an encyclopedia article is more than that. I agree that how the conviction occurred, what went on, and who was involved, might be relevant and even interesting to readers, but the material in question conveys no information about any of these and is a poor substitution for a good encyclopedic discussion of these points. Do you really think that the statement above is an adequate justification of why the material should be included? Larry Sarner 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As a leader of ACT, I don't see why Sarner is objecting the the linkage here? He is one of the individual's taking credit for the result, according the the ACT website. SamDavidson 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a justification of why the material should be included? Larry Sarner 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

why are you objecting to your groups's mention in this article? You don't object to citing your own book as a soucrce of credible information, so your group's statement that it was instrumental in securing the conviction...or at least helped, is clearly relevant. It shows the broad impact of the case and the broad range of interested parties. Given that you and your wife are leaders of this group, your comments on this asepct of the article are suspect. SamDavidson 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is proof by assertion: some people write an authoritative book, a group makes a statement of involvement, and so that proves relevance. It still leaves the reader with a "so what?" So what is the importance of mentioning it? To give ACT a plug? I'd especially like to know why you want it so badly that you would start a revert war over it. Larry Sarner 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

why are you objecting to your groups's mention in this article? You don't object to citing your own book as a soucrce of credible information, so your group's statement that it was instrumental in securing the conviction...or at least helped, is clearly relevant. It shows the broad impact of the case and the broad range of interested parties. Given that you and your wife are leaders of this group, your comments on this asepct of the article are suspect. SamDavidson 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RalphLender ^talk 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Read addtional details above. A consensus exists that the material is relevant. Your objections do not have a sound basis and reflect your status as a leader of ACT, with a vested interest/conflict of interest in this regard. RalphLender ^talk 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope. Relevance requires accuracy and pertinence. There is consensus that it is accurate to say that ACT claims that three people helped the prosecution in this case. There is no consensus that the claim has any pertinence to the article. One editor has asserted, without even an offer of argument, that the claim alone has pertinence; two others have cogently stated that the claim is uninformative in itself and much more information is required. Larry Sarner 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The relevant issue is that you are a leader of ACT and that this creates a vested interest and conflict of interest. Therefore your edits are suspect. Furthermore you continue to avoid the consensus that has been built here. You are continuing to be disruptive by not seeking consensus and by being a bully here. I strongly urge you to follow Wikipedia policy and practice regarding resolving disputes: consider a poll, consider trying to build consensus and not bully other editors, consider mediation. This has been suggested before you you continue to ignore that. This is one reason you were sanctioned from editing the Bowlby page. DPeterson ^talk 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree witht the above and hope that Mr. Larry Sarner will either stop his disruptive actions...or use sound Wikipedia procedures for managing disputes. RalphLender ^talk 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Another controversy here is the application of the word "unlicensed" in reference to Watkins and Ponder. I have cited above reliable and verifiable (primary) sources that Ponder was licensed at all times relevant to this case. Per Wiki policy, this term should be removed as being false, and I have done so. Larry Sarner 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Still another controversy is the qualification of the term "'therapeutic foster parents'", and whether "self-described" is appropriate. I have shown above that it is not. However, I am willing to see the word "unlicensed" used as a qualifier instead, and have edited accordingly. Larry Sarner 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Finally, there are continual reverts of my editing as to whether this case has caused enduring controversy over "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing". There is no controversy over rebirthing (a New Age practice uninvolved with this case) and was conflated by the contemporary press and others. Evidence of this is in Wiki itself, where there is no rebirthing article, but there is one on Rebirthing-Breathwork. However, there is plenty of enduring controversy about Attachment Therapy -- and a Wiki article on the topic. Inserting "rebirthing" for "Attachment Therapy" is a great disservice to Wiki readers. Larry Sarner 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The newsarticles and your book use the term "rebirthing" and so it is applicable and belongs here...but without a link to the rebirthing article. Watkins was unlicensed and the article should indicate that. Unlicensed as a term for the self-described foster parents is a good suggestion. DPeterson ^talk 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The news articles are not verification of an "enduring controversy". The book is entitled Attachment Therapy on Trial not Rebirthing on Trial. Furthermore, the book discusses "rebirthing" on only a handful of pages, and on one of those (p. 242) it is said, "Rebirthing may be a senseless ritual, but it is dangerous only in combination with the beliefs and attitudes characteristic of the AT philosophy....What killed [Candace] was the belief system of the therapists..." The same paragraph also makes a point similar to the one I made above, "...to attempt a ban on rebirthing is to distract attention from the real issues [AT beliefs and attitudes]. In sum, it is not accurate to say there is an "enduring controversy" over rebirthing, but is accurate to say there is one over Attachment Therapy. (Just look at the fighting over the Wiki article on AT -- of which I have not been part, BTW). Larry Sarner 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Using your book to justify your position is an example of the vested interests you have as a leader of ACT. Newspaper articles are verifiable sources, if not acceptable, then neither would web material, which is extensively used in this article...these are all verifiable. Rebirthing was the "treatment" they provided and that resulted in her death. RalphLender ^talk 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Once again, the news articles, all contemporaneous to the trial, cannot be sources about any controversy after the trial. As explained in ATOT (and above), rebirthing was only the script for that day's AT session, not the "treatment". It is well documented that the jury convicted the therapists for "reckless" conduct that killed Candace; recklessness is a state of mind (as opposed to negligent or careless). Thus, the "beliefs and attitudes" of the therapists were the proximate cause of Candace's death. As quoted above from ATOT (a reliable source), those beliefs and attitudes are "characteristic of the AT philosophy," which is at length the reason that the case has caused enduring controversy over AT. There is absolutely no controversy over rebirthing, enduring or otherwise, resulting from this case. If you have evidence to the contrary from reliable sources published well after the trial, please cite them. Larry Sarner 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have made the changes suggested by Sarner...I hope that I have not overstepped here. If other editors disagree, please say so here and feel free to revert the article back to the version in place before my edits so we can have further discussion here and build a consensus. It did seem to me that Mr. Sarner's suggestions were consistent with the comments and opinions, as I read them, of other editors. What I did:

1. Put rebirthing in quotes and removed the link to the rebirthing article.
2. Indicated that one therapist was licensed and the other not.
3. Added the term "unlicensed" to the description of the "therapeutic foster parents."

Again, if I've overstepped, please accept my apologies...I would like to see a consensus develop here. DPeterson ^talk 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There has been a clear consensus on this page regarding language and materials to include. If you disagree, the appropriate action is to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes and not bully others by continually reverting pages. You might consider a poll...or presenting options here and seeking consensus....or mediation, as just a few appropriate steps. I know other's have suggested this and you have ignorerd it...but it would be good to consider following these steps...not following them is what got you banned on the Bolwlby article. RalphLender ^talk 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I would remind you that it is you who have been reverting my edits, not the other way around. I have not been "merely" reverting pages, but editing extensively and in good faith. I have been justifying my edits on this talk page, and then having to protect them from your reversions. Truth be known, I was not banned on the Bowlby or any other article. Please stop slandering me. Larry Sarner 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You began a while ago making changes that did not represent consensus and several editors have raised this concern with you here and on other talk pages. All people are asking is that you start to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution proceese and procedures. RalphLender ^talk 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You have not been slandered... the truth is:

'You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks [3] and disruption, including the AfD which in my opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. When you come back, you are to disengage with DPeterson; he has complained to me that he feels harassed and I don't blame him. I have looked through his contributions and I don't see any incivility coming from him. You may contest this block by placing {{unblock|(reason you should be unblocked)}} on your user talk page, which you can still edit. Mango juice ^talk 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)' reply

From your talk page regarding your conduct on the Bowlby article. RalphLender ^talk 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Being blocked is not being banned. When I went to contest the block a few hours after discovery, I found that I was not blocked after all. Apparently another administrator did not find the action as justifiable as did "Mangojuice".

Please note that none of this is relevant to the current content dispute.

Larry Sarner 05:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, you were blocked and that is relevant because, as I read the talk pages of both articles, I see that the same behavior that led to your being 'blocked' on the Bowlby article is occuring on this article. Several other editors have encouraged you to engage in constructive discussions and not just continue to revert to your unique POV. They have suggested you follow dispute resolution procedures, and I support that. MarkWood 13:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

See my comments and suggestions below for the dispute resolution procedure I intend to follow, unless an administrator or impartial editor has a reasonable suggestion for another course. Larry Sarner 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest the editors here open a request for comment to bring in fresh opinions. Also I'd like to suggest this essay. Respectfully, Durova 05:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Excellent suggestion. I think a case may have already been opened regarding this article and the Bowlby article; both involving Sarner, his conduct, and apparent vested interests regarding this article and his group, ACT. RalphLender ^talk 14:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

hmmm. I have visited WP:RFC/BIO and there appears to be no request there involving this page. Larry Sarner 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rather than continuing to revert or make unacceptable edits, I suggest that you propose suggested changes here. Then other editors can comment, make further suggestions and we can achieve a consensus. JonesRD _talk 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That's one approach, but it sounds an awful lot like having to clear changes ahead of time, or "de facto" protection by non-administrator(s). Wiki is supposed to be an open encyclopedia. No one person or group has ownership of an article. I've seen it said on Wiki, "If you don't want what you write mercilessly edited, don't post it here". How about this approach, instead: If anyone disputes something that has been added by another editor, put next to it an inline ^{dubious – discuss} tag, or for larger material, a section warning,

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (March 2008) ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

Then open up a section on this talk page and discuss it. The tag or warning stays up until a genuine consensus (or other dispute resolution) is reached. I think the templates for such things were created just for situations like this. Larry Sarner 23:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

See, there you go again being confrontational and not seeking common ground. 'The page represented a consensus developed in the past, after you were blocked for a while'. To build another consensus, you should participate in a colloaborative effort to build consensus and not continue to be uncivil and rever other's changes and ignore the consensus on this page. Your edits have been "mercilessly edited" because no one agrees with you. However, I am willing to engage with you in a reasoned dialogue focused on building agreement. Changes not accepted are reverted because you are pushing a very limited and unaccepted view. But, I think we can find agreement if you will follow Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution. DPeterson ^talk 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I take it this is another no, with a personal attacks hung onto it. It's plain that your ideas of "consensus" and "consensus building" are just enablers for de facto ownership of this article. Larry Sarner 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

'I urge you to make proposed changes' here for community discussion rather than continuing to revert and change what represented a broad consensus. This way you can detail what you propose to add, delete, and change and other editors can comment and we can build another consensus. 'Please stop being contentious' and creating conflict rather than building coneensus through collaboration as I keep trying to do. DPeterson ^talk 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think I will follow the Wiki dispute procedures that I suggested earlier. You do what you want. You will anyway. Larry Sarner 08:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

As recommended by several other editors, you have been asked to stop reverting from the consensus version to your own. Since you've rejected taking a poll and various other Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures; let me suggest another option. Instead of merely reverting to your version and deleting material that others find acceptable, how about if you just 'ADD' what you think would improve the article first, get a consensus on that and then begin discussions about what you think should be chnaged or delted and build consensus for that? RalphLender ^talk 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I see no evidence of sincerity in your making this "option". I did exactly what you suggested 18 hours before you posted this. I even summarized it as "restoring uncontroversial edits". I answered the (incorrectly specified) {fact} tag with citations. [4] And it was you who reverted those edits! I've given you 24 hours and more to catch yourself and voluntarily back off your edit, but you haven't. "Dave Peterson" had reverted similar edits in the past. So, I'll go back to an earlier attempt -- put in my additions, also add very proper {Content} tag in good faith, and see what you and the rest of Buffalo decide to do to my good-faith efforts at editing on Wikipedia. Larry Sarner 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I urge you to follow RalphLender's suggestions. You should assume good faith and stop being uncivil and provocative. This is what got you blocked on the Bowlby page.

I did. You didn't. Seems to be end of story. Larry Sarner 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see where you put your suggestions here for community review, as many editors have suggested in the spirit of adhering to Wikipedia dispute resolution policies. DPeterson ^talk 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Seeing as how his revision added non-controversial and factual information, I don't see the basis upon which you reverted. Reverting maybe would have been appropriate if he added false or POV information or deleted something you found useful. Specifically, you apparently believe the ACT mention belongs here, so why couldn't you have added it in without reverting the good information? If you'd like to add to the article rather than make wholesale reverts because of the editor, go ahead. I'm reverting back to his version. This article will never get better if you don't allow other editors to add information. shotwell 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

He continues to delete material that many other editors find acceptable. This represents a specific POV on his part. If you read the previous notes on this talk page you will see that not only has he previously raised the issue of deleting material that others find acceptable, but more to the point, he has a vested interest here as a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy, which is the material he wants deleted. Furthermore, his own book is listed here. DPeterson ^talk 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It would be better for Shotwell and Sarner together to just add material to the article and no delete material that many other editors on this page have found valuable and relevant. However, if you both feel material should be deleted or changed, why don't you just follow the suggestions, made 'MANY' times here that you put that into a separate section for comment by others and see if a consensus emerges. SamDavidson 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. Before deleting or changing material it would be much better to put your suggestion here for comment. My opinion is that adding material is fine and you should do so...then if anyone disagrees they should probably comment here and, if others agree, it can be changed. RalphLender ^talk 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Which, of course, is just an assertion of ownership of the article. Larry Sarner 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No, actually it is a procedure for developing consensus in accord with Wikipedia policies. Engaging in a revert-war, as you are, is not in accord with Wikipedia policies. DPeterson ^talk 12:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd like to reiterate that this is a very well-documented case that had some enormous implications in the world of attachment-based therapy. We can all agree on that point. I think that the large majority of editors here can come to an agreement about most of the information regarding this case. Perhaps we could find some common ground if we focused on adding factual and npov information, copy-editing, standardizing reference format (footnotes or Harvard?), and so forth. I can standardize the references when I have some spare-time tonight.

If we started focusing on this sort of editing activity, we could really build a nice article with multiple points of view. The fact that some of the editors have very differing opinions on AT could really be a positive thing. Can we all agree to not revert each other's edits if the edits are for the purpose of adding credible information? If there is some issue with phrasing, then just rephrase it. This is, after all, a wiki!

Since I have questions that others could answer quite easily, I'll list them here. I'd like to see this information added to the article. I encourage anyone with additional questions to add them below mine in the same format. In this fashion we can start building up a list of missing information.

Shotwell's questions

1. Why did she end up at the Evergreen center in the first place? If this is answered, then what is the Evergreen center? Have they accidentally killed anyone else?
2. On what basis was she given holding therapy? What was she diagnosed with? Was this diagnosis appropriate?
3. What else happened while she was being smothered?
4. What other legal, professional, and cultural consequences did this event have? (Wasn't it on Oprah? Have other states banned AT?)

shotwell 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If we all start listing questions like this, perhaps it'd be efficient for the person answering them in the article to strike out the question. shotwell 13:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Good Questions

1. Don't believe she was at the "Evergreen center," whatever that is...she appears to have been "treated" in a private home.
2. I think the news articles may provide light on this, as well as some of the other links
3. That is in the court transcript and briefly described in this article.
4. No states I know of have banned "attachment therapy." Several, as cited in the article, have banned "rebirthing."

RalphLender ^talk 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I was under the impression that these "therapists" were somehow associated with the The Attachment Center at Evergreen. shotwell 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

According to this article, Watkins, one of the therapists, was considered by someone from ATTACH to be "a well-regarded therapist who'd opened her own practice after working at the nationally known Attachment Center in Evergreen, one of the nation's first facilities to treat attachment disorders." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010128rebirthnat3.asp. StokerAce 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There's some other good stuff here ( http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010128rebirthnat3.asp) that might be relevant for the page:

Debra Combs, president of the Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, refused to comment on the exercise that resulted in Candace Newmaker's death.

Combs, whose national group provides education and support for parents and professionals who treat attachment disorders, said leaders of the group had agreed not to discuss the specifics of that case.

"I don't think you can say rebirthing is always good or bad unless you were in that room at the time," said Combs, who does not employ the practice on children she treats. "Unless you were there, you can't know what really happened."

But Combs said she'd known of Watkins prior to Candace Newmaker's death because Watkins was a founding member of Combs' ATTACH organization. She said she considered Watkins to be a well-regarded therapist who'd opened her own practice after working at the nationally known Attachment Center in Evergreen, one of the nation's first facilities to treat attachment disorders.

"I don't know her well, but I heard nothing but good things about her work," Combs said. "She took really tough cases, and she succeeded with them."

...

Newmaker continued to research her daughter's ailments and behavior and eventually discovered information about attachment disorder and the ATTACH group on the Internet, according to an affidavit filed by Jefferson County Sheriff's investigator Diane Obbema.

While attending an ATTACH conference in 1999, Newmaker spoke with a social worker who suggested that she contact Watkins. StokerAce 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Sarner/Stoker Ace, Some of this is very old and may be irrelevant and may reflect your POV as a leader of ACT...or at least should be put into context with current information to provide balance and a NPOV. Good start, though. RalphLender ^talk 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not Larry Sarner, as an administrator has confirmed. I'm not sure why you think I am. My only reason for posting the article was to explain the connection between Watkins and Evergreen, which it does. It also highlights others' connection as well. Basically, it helps show how Newmaker got in touch with Watkins. What's your concern with it? And since you're here now, can we go back to our discussion of the word "fringe"? How do you define it? StokerAce 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Maybe. The investigation is ongoing regarding your status as a sockpuppet. After the results that investigation, we will know the facts. RalphLender ^talk 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's a thumbnail sketch about Watkins. She was clinical director at the Attachment Center at Evergreen (ACE), before going into private practice in Attachment Therapy, run out of her home in Evergreen (literally a few hundred feet away from ACE). She is an MSW, and was registered for many years as a psychotherapist in Colorado (that state has not required psychotherapists to be licensed since 1988). While CD at ACE, she and others founded ATTACh (the leading person in the founding was her boss at ACE, Foster Cline), and remained an active member for many years in the nineties. At the time of Candace's "treatment", Watkins had let her psychotherapist registration lapse (she claimed at trial that she had paid the required fee, but presented no documentary evidence), and also let her ATTACh membership lapse. The latter lapse has allowed ATTACh to claim that she was not one of them. On her disclosure forms to patients (include Newmaker), Watkins claimed that she was "working under" the LCSW license of Neil Feinberg, one of her associates. (Earlier, at ACE, she claimed to be "working under" the MD license of Cline.) Her departure from ACE allowed that center to claim that they had nothing to do with her; in truth, there were close ties. Watkins was widely known and praised in the AT community -- she either co-invented or popularized the "two-week intensive" which was, and is, a ubiquitous AT approach.

Bill Goble referred Jeanne Newmaker to Watkins. Goble was not a social worker, but licensed as a psychologist in North Carolina. At the 1999 ATTACh Conference (seven months before Candace's death), he gave Jeanne a RADQ (an unvalidated instrument developed at ACE and still owned by them) and scored it after she faxed it to him after the conference. He thus "diagnosed" Candace as a "severe" case of reactive attachment disorder and referred Jeanne specifically to Connell Watkins for treatment.

I've been gradually working up this story for the article.

Labeling Watkins as "unlicensed" is an AT red herring to distance themselves from the bad publicity surrounding the Newmaker case. In sum, Watkins was an experienced attachment therapist and a highly respected leader of the AT community. She was a Clinical Director at the leading AT facility in the world (ACE). Her private practice was successful, and she got referrals from licensed people who are also ATers. A licensed MFT assisted her with the Newmaker case. The leading ATer promoting AT "parenting", Nancy Thomas, who also was an associate with "Watkins & Associates", is also "unlicensed", and no one in AT makes a point of that! Indeed, here is a link where a leading ATer recommends Becker-Weidman's and Nancy Thomas's writings together.

Larry Sarner 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The fact remains, she was unlicensed and this meets the Wikipedia standard for verifiability. Your last paragraph is irrelevant. What relevance does Nancy Thomas work have to this specific article...What relevance is it what a "leading ATer recommends" to this article? Please try to keep your comments focused, on point, and relevant to this article. In fact much of what you state here, while interesting, is not relevant and may not even be factual...This is the same material your alleged sockpuppet StokerAce referred to, I think, above. RalphLender ^talk 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mine was a direct quote from an article. If you don't like it, talk to the newspaper. I have no evidence about what Larry Sarner said. Not that I disagree, I just have no evidence. StokerAce 23:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The fact remains that she was unlicensed and the last paragraph above is irrelevant, as I said before. Regarding the sockpuppet issue, as soon as that is finally resolved, we will know whether or not StokerAce and Sarner are one and the same. RalphLender ^talk 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it should be mentioned that she was unlicensed. There is no need to revert -- just add the information. All of the information about her being a respected member of the AT community should also be provided since it shows up in multiple sources. The information that she was claiming to work under Feinberg's license should be included but we need to be very careful about making a possibly libellous connection. If Feinberg was unaware of her claims (or we don't have multiple reliable citations to the contrary), then I'm not sure we should mention Fienberg's name. (Just "she was claiming to work under the license of another therapist".) shotwell 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The information about her therapy leading up to her eventual death is also interesting:

Prosecutors said the powerful drugs Candace took to control her moods and behavior were changed repeatedly in the two weeks before her death. Just before arriving in Evergreen, Jeane took her off Dexadrine, the amphetamine being used to combat attention deficit disorder. Alston stopped Candace's use of Effexor, an anti-depressant, investigators said. Candace's dosage of Risperdal, a calming medication, was doubled on April 11. Jeane told investigators the anti-psychotic drug was to counteract Candace's history of assaultive behavior — again without providing specifics. Although Alston had stopped the Effexor, Candace began taking it again the day before she died because her therapy hadn't progressed as they'd hoped, Jeane told investigators. The drugs were dispensed to Candace each day by Brita St. Clair, Watkins' office manager, who hosted the Newmakers during their stay in Evergreen. St. Clair was engaged to Jack McDaniel, whom Candace was told to call "Daddy Jack." McDaniel, a high school graduate with no medical or therapy training, was to be paid $700 to write a report about Candace's two weeks with Watkins and Julie Ponder, a California therapist. Watkins later told investigators that the drugged Candace had "a look in her eye like nobody's home." Prosecutor Steve Jensen charged that the therapists modified Candace's drug intake in order to manipulate her. "They went so far as to control even the mental state of the child," Jensen said during a hearing in August. A week into the program, Jeane and Candace were led through "compression" therapy — a breakthrough. Candace, wrapped in a sheet but with her head exposed, was directed to lie down on the floor. Two cushions from a nearby couch were placed on either side of her. Then, Jeane lay across the cushions and Candace, making a cross with their bodies. The goal was control, for Candace to become compliant and for Jeane to be in charge. If all went well, Candace would connect visually or in some other way with Jeane, the therapists said. As Candace was unwrapped after the three-hour session, Jeane moved to a chair. The therapists told Candace to crawl to the chair, to lie in her mother's arms like an infant, and to let her mother feed her from a plate. Candace did as she was told. She looked into Jeane's eyes and let her mother hold her. Jeane was so happy she began to sob uncontrollably. "The child actually connected," said David Savitz, one of the defense lawyers who has viewed the videotaped session. "How thrilled Jeane Newmaker was." [5]

So is the (highly disturbing) information describing her eventual death:

The four adults, with a cumulative weight of 673 pounds, begin pushing against the 70-pound girl. Candace is uncomfortable and confused. "Whoever is pushing on my head, it's not helping," she says, exasperated. Ten minutes in, Candace is ready to give up. I can't do it, I can't do it," she says. "I can't breathe. I can't breathe." A minute later, Candace says she is going to die. She begs for air. Watkins and Ponder keep pushing, telling Candace that being reborn is "the hardest thing that you do." The adults reposition themselves, Watkins bracing her feet against a couch, Ponder pushing from a brick hearth. "Please," Candace says, "please stop pushing, I can't breathe. "OK, I'm dying. I'm sorry," Candace says. Watkins and Ponder yell back at Candace. "You want to die? OK, then die. Go ahead, die right now." It goes on. All four are pushing, sometimes sitting up against Candace, sometimes reclining, placing more weight on top of her. Jeane begins to feel rejected. Candace isn't trying to be reborn to her. Watkins had warned Jeane it would be like this. The kids try to get out of it by saying they can't breathe, that they have to go to the bathroom. The unattached child is manipulative. You must show who's in control. "Please, you said you would give me some oxygen," Candace says after 20 minutes. A minute later, Candace gags and vomits. "I'm throwing up. I just threw up. I gotta poop. I gotta poop." "Go ahead," Ponder says. "Uh, I'm going in my pants," Candace says. "Stay there with the poop and vomit," Watkins says. A half-hour into it, Candace becomes quiet. Ponder and Watkins order her to scream for her life. She's gagging, but says no. Ponder digs in, repositions herself, breathing hard and grunting while pushing on Candace with her hands and body. Candace gasps for air, then whimpers. "She needs more pressure over here so she can't ... so she really needs to fight if she wants air," Ponder says. McDaniel obeys, and repositions himself on the pillow over Candace's head. She whimpers again. "Getting pretty tight in here," Watkins says. "Yep, getting tighter and tighter and getting less and less air," Ponder says. Ten minutes pass. "Baby, do you want to be reborn?" Jeane asks. A weak response. "No." It is Candace's last word. "She's stuck there in her own puke and poop," Ponder says. Another 10 minutes go by. Ponder reaches inside the sheet. "I got my hand right in front of her face," she says. "No, she's breathing fine," Watkins says. Candace stays quiet. Seven minutes pass, and Ponder places her hand inside again. "She's pretty sweaty, which is good," Ponder says. "It is wet inside there." Watkins gestures to Ponder, putting her hand to her face, as if to ask, is Candace breathing? "Oh, I'm not sure. I touched her face and it's just sweaty," Ponder says. "She's not answered. We could do this forever, just stay here." Another minute and Watkins decides Jeane must leave the room. Candace is able to pick up on your sorrow, Watkins says. Jeane goes to an upstairs room to watch on a TV monitor. She cries. Watkins joins Jeane, encouraging her not to give up, and then goes back to the rebirthing room. Watkins asks McDaniel and St. Clair to leave six minutes later. They join Jeane to watch the session on the monitor, taking Tammy with them. Watkins and Ponder are alone in the room with Candace, bundled in the sheet, still and quiet. They work for four more minutes, then decide to check on her. They unwrap her. "Oh, there she is," Watkins says. "She's sleeping in her vomit." Candace doesn't move. She's lying on the floor, still and quiet. "Candace?" Watkins says. "Candace," she repeats, louder. It's 10:53 a.m. and the videotape continues to roll. Jeane runs into the room. Candace is not breathing. Her face is blue. Jeane and Ponder start CPR. Watkins calls 911 at 10:56 a.m. [6]

I feel that incorporating much of the above information into the article would give her "therapy" further some context. shotwell 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

In an effort to stop the revert war and start building a comprehensive article, I merged the two versions of the article that are being argued about. I also standardized the reference format and did some wikification. I'm in a rush (teach soon) and probably left redundant information or some other problem. Please check accordingly.

The edit history shows that the reasoning behind the constant reverting was something along the lines of "lacks important information". Since that information is now included, I see no reason to continue reverting. As for the mention of ACT, I think it is quite irrelevant, but I'm willing to ignore it while we build a better article. Maybe after a comprehensive article is written, the importance of this information will become more clear.

If someone doesn't like something in this article, then rephrase it, possibly request a citation, put a template on it, etc. All of those templates exist for a reason. shotwell 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rationale for Request for Citations

Some of the citations are from material prepared by Sarner, his wife Rosa, and their colleague Mercer, the three leaders of ACT. Whether their material is factual can be a question, given the fact that this advocacy group has a vested interest in the case and issues. So, their material may not be verifiable. What would be more NPOV would be a citation to either a part of the court transcript or a newspaper article. DPeterson ^talk 15:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: I was careful in my editing to not delete any material. I did make a few grammer changes, and added some information...but removed nothing...to facilitate an end to the edit/revert war. DPeterson ^talk 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This is fantastic. I think that if we continue in this fashion, we may end up finding agreement on all of the articles under dispute.

Also, I wrapped two more references in ref tags. shotwell 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand the placement of citation requests on web materials, but I do not understand why they are placed on something that is already cited by a fairly reliable source. Is it that you don't trust the book? Is that you'd like more cross-referencing? It isn't that large of an issue because 1.)I like multiple sources 2.)I'm sure one readily exists. The main reason I ask is because if you don't trust the book as a reliable source, then we need to address the fact. I would point out, however, that it is published under a very respected publisher. shotwell 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rationale for NPOV tag

Perceived NPOV issues cannot be corrected unless an explanation is given. shotwell 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

More information

The reason I'm making these edits in small steps is so that its very easy for everyone to see what is happening to the article. I personally hate a cluttered edit history. I will gladly stop editing like this if everyone agrees that it is unnecessary.

Also, I'd like to see more information regarding her two week intensive. It seems that she was being given meds and other treatments. What other treatments? Who was the prescribing doctor for these medicines? shotwell 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to see some relenting on the revert war. I have left the ACT reference for the time being. It still reads like an advertisement and there is no justification made for the importance of this information to be included in an encyclopedic article. But I am willing to forego further deletions of that material to see if that importance is eventually demonstrated, in the same spirit as expressed by Shotwell.

I have many more edits to make, but I've made one already. In the "Effects" section, the enduring controversy deriving from this case does not surround "rebirthing". Except for the initial press coverage, the legislation in CO and NC, and the non-binding resolutions in Congress, no one is concerned with "rebirthing". All the attention of people concerned has focused in the last five years on Attachment Therapy. Note that the definitive book on the case is entitled, Attachment Therapy on Trial. So I have changed the reference in the article accordingly.

I've also eliminated the useless list of newspapers about the national and international coverage of this case. The papers cited were not representative of the extent of the coverage, and I don't think a truly representative list would be useful to Wiki readers. TMI.

Larry Sarner 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought this article was about Candace Newmaker, not the book "Attachment Therapy on Trial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.21.135 ( talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply

First, he has a vested interest here as a leader, with his wife Rosa, of ACT, and as author of the book. Second, and more importantly, the book is flawed with factual errors and so cannot be relied upon as a source. the Candace Newmaker article need to be sourced by something other than the book written by the ACT leaders, Sarner, Mercer, and Rosa...There are many inaccuracies in that book:

Ever since I first read the title of this book I was somewhat concerned. As part of the Newmaker trial coverage for a national news service bureau in Denver, one day during the trial while coming out for lunch I cornered lead prosecutor Steve Jensen and asked him what his prosecution was based on.

Was it going to put "attachment therapy on trial?" Jensen's answer was simple and straight-forward. "No!"

He intended on pursuing a very narrow prosecution to prove that Watkins and Ponder were responsible under the terms of the state's child abuse / homicide statute for the death of Candace Newmaker. Child abuse/homicide is the most serious felony in the Colorado state criminal code.

Thus, with the title, the authors are fraudulenty trying to assert something which simply is not true. The only part of the Newmaker trial that was concerned with the value of Attachment Therapy was the defense. And, unfortunately, that was because of the existence of a videotape which showed Watkins and Ponder "in the act." The defense had no other alternative than to assert that it was simply a mistake of the therapy. Certainly, if the videotape did not exist, the defense would have probably have opted for a different defensive strategy.

And, unfortunately, the book does have several factual errors ... such as the notation by Mr. Patterson. A check with the local Midvale, Utah police department shows Krystal's date of birth as December 7, 1991, and her date of death as July 7, 1995, making her three years, eight months old at her death.

However, Mr. Patterson was incorrect in his statement about the spelling of Newmaker's name. It is correctly spelled J-E-A-N-E.

It was also ironic that when I had lunch with Linda Rosa one day during the trial, that when I asked her about her thoughts on the Jeannie Warren case in Texas with "rage-reduction therapy," she said that she had never heard of it!

Yet, Larry Sarner and his wife / co-author Linda Rosa would leave the courtroom early every day to be ready to give sound bites to the Denver TV news media - about something that they both knew little, if anything about, at that time.

This book seems to reflect the same type of continuing mentality.

Another quote: While the authors arrogantly look down upon "the journalistic practice that has been called pseudosymmetry" (page 6), they have effectively also ignored another journalistic practice: accuracy. It is totally amazing that they contradict themselves on very basic information: page 5: "...Krystal Tibbets, a 4-year-old Utah child..." page 243: "...Krystal Tibbets, who died at the age of 3 in 1996."

What is totally mind-boggling is the arrogant presumption to change or deliberately misspell the name of one of the major historical figures: adoptive mother Jeanne Newmaker.

Apparently the authors did not like the spelling of her name, so they changed it to "Jeane" in the book.

If you can't get even the most minor of facts correct, then most certainly one should not place any credibility in the authors for anything else.

Ignore ... avoid this book, which is riddled with arrogant, ignorant errors and not to be depended upon for any type of credible statement. If in a library, please remove it!

BOTH FROM: http://www.amazon.ca/Attachment-Therapy-Trial-Torture-Newmaker/dp/0275976750/ref=sr_11_1/702-4433484-4142426 serveral others there too

So, using this book as a source of reliable information on the just does not meet the Wikipedia verifiable standard, I think

JohnsonRon

First, continually citing Sarner's interest is a waste of time; this is a matter for logic 101. As for the "reviews" from amazon.com, those are user reviews... that hardly constitutes credible criticism of this book. This book was published under a highly reputable publisher. I am in strong favor of providing multiple references for everything, but it would be unwise to eliminate the only book about this subject because some attachment therapists on amazon.com got pissy. shotwell 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There is ample material on the subject without using a "source" that is inaccurate and full of errors. Let's use credible sources that people can have confidence in being a NPOV or objective. JohnsonRon 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding the Neutrality tag....Please let that stay. Since so much of this article is written by Sarner and ACT and since they have this vested interest in the case (selling their book for example), I have serious questions about how the facts are being presented. I see a clear POV here. JohnsonRon 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This is not a logical reason for the placement of the tag. That said, I am not going to remove the tag. We could all work together on fixing the perceived issue if you would explain why the tag is there. shotwell 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually the reviews are quite relevant as one or more of the reviewers was a reporter who followed the story quite closely and published on it. The article shows bias in its inclusion of irrelvant information...what is the point of detailing the affiliations of Gobel, or example? There are so many other POV statements... The status of the book's publisher's status is a matter of opinion,but I see your view is the same as Sarner's on this point. Your statemnt regarding, "some attachment therapists" on amazon further delineates your stance vis-a-vis this article, POV, and Sarner. JohnsonRon 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Which one was a reporter and what did he/she publish on it? StokerAce 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

For the items that are poorly sourced, it would be appropriate to remove them, if there is agreement. So, we should have a poll regarding the deleting of statements without credible sources. JohnsonRon 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete such Material

1. JohnsonRon 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
2. DPeterson ^talk 05:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Well, that really is Wiki policy. If relaible sources can be provided, then the material should stay. It is clear that the Sarner book is not reliable or factual. The fact that is represents a specific POV is not really relevant..but the fact that is contains inaccuracies is very relevant. He, and ACT, have a vested interest, including a financial interest, in list topic that must also be considered. reply
3. RalphLender ^talk 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Agree with above statement. reply
4. Yes...but give some time to see if there are reliable sources. SamDavidson 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Yes, if reliable references can be found, the material should stay, otherwise it should be deleted. The Mercer, Rosa, Sarner book is not reliable. MarkWood 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Do not delete such material

1. _

Discussion

This is a very unfortunate development. I was under the impression that you were not going to engage in such behaviors. I really encourage you to add citation requests where you'd like further citations. I can provide loads of references considering that I have full access to tools such as LexisNexis and EBSCOhost. I'm also sure that Sarner could provide further references given that he literally wrote the book on this subject. shotwell 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If items are poorly sourced or inaccurate, they should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. I am suggesting that ONLY poorly sourced items be deleted...so if you have reliable souces that can be verified, then by all means add those. Sarner's book is full of errors and is serioulsy flawed and cannot be relied upon as a verifiable source, as previoulsy cited. Furthermore, his book is an advocacy tact published by ACT. SEE ABOVE. JohnsonRon 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be left in but balanced with opposing views. StokerAce 02:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia policy is:

The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The Sarner/ACT book is not a reliable source DPeterson ^talk 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Why not? shotwell 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

See above...it's all explained there. RalphLender ^talk 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Reviews on amazon.com don't count as reliable criticisms. We'd end up eliminating thousands of books as references if we took amazon.com criticism seriously. Moreover, Sarner's, Rosa's, and Mercer's personal opinions on the matter don't immediately discredit the book. We're using the book to cite essentially non-controversial factual assertions. Publishers such as Praeger do fact checking. Do you have a more substantive criticism of the book? shotwell 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The following quote is from a reliable newsreporter and meets the verifiable standard: Furhtermore Sarner and ACT have a financial stake in the issue and so given these two fact: factual errors in the book and conflict of interest, the book is not reliable.

Ever since I first read the title of this book I was somewhat concerned. As part of the Newmaker trial coverage for a national news service bureau in Denver, one day during the trial while coming out for lunch I cornered lead prosecutor Steve Jensen and asked him what his prosecution was based on.

Was it going to put "attachment therapy on trial?" Jensen's answer was simple and straight-forward. "No!"

He intended on pursuing a very narrow prosecution to prove that Watkins and Ponder were responsible under the terms of the state's child abuse / homicide statute for the death of Candace Newmaker. Child abuse/homicide is the most serious felony in the Colorado state criminal code.

Thus, with the title, the authors are fraudulenty trying to assert something which simply is not true. The only part of the Newmaker trial that was concerned with the value of Attachment Therapy was the defense. And, unfortunately, that was because of the existence of a videotape which showed Watkins and Ponder "in the act." The defense had no other alternative than to assert that it was simply a mistake of the therapy. Certainly, if the videotape did not exist, the defense would have probably have opted for a different defensive strategy.

And, unfortunately, the book does have several factual errors ... such as the notation by Mr. Patterson. A check with the local Midvale, Utah police department shows Krystal's date of birth as December 7, 1991, and her date of death as July 7, 1995, making her three years, eight months old at her death.

However, Mr. Patterson was incorrect in his statement about the spelling of Newmaker's name. It is correctly spelled J-E-A-N-E.

It was also ironic that when I had lunch with Linda Rosa one day during the trial, that when I asked her about her thoughts on the Jeannie Warren case in Texas with "rage-reduction therapy," she said that she had never heard of it!

Yet, Larry Sarner and his wife / co-author Linda Rosa would leave the courtroom early every day to be ready to give sound bites to the Denver TV news media - about something that they both knew little, if anything about, at that time.

This book seems to reflect the same type of continuing mentality.

DPeterson ^talk 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Where was that published? Is it only on amazon.com? Moreover, don't those criticisms seem rather trivial to you? shotwell 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There are many other inaccuracies and misstatements in the book, so, no, these re not trivial...these are major flaws in a text. DPeterson ^talk 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A birthdate? Anyone who has ever published something can relate to making such trivial errors. Praeger is a reputable publisher. Finally, where has this criticism been published? Please answer that question. shotwell 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You are acting as if the following are not substantial errors:

1. Misrepresenting the trail: "Was it going to put "attachment therapy on trial?" Jensen's answer was simple and straight-forward. "No!" "
2. spelling of name.

I don't know if the publisher is reputable or not...but, clearly, at a minimum, their fact checking department is deficient. For more details and other problmes with the book, see the previous section. It is clear the book has factual errors...maybe others not yet detected, therefore the reliability of the text is in question. Therefore, lets use reliable and non-disputed material that is neutral and without clear conflicts of interest for sources on this article. DPeterson ^talk 22:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I've seen the above section. It consists of copy/pasted user reviews from amazon.com; those don't tell us anything. I see that the skeptic's column in Scientific American has cited this book and a scientific organization gave it a favorable review.

I imagine that the facts can be found in the court transcripts. I haven't read the court transcripts yet, but I'll do so later (I'm on my way out the door). Perhaps you'll be satisfied if the information is also in the transcripts? I think the transcripts constitute a primary source and we're not generally supposed to use primary sources as references. However, if the information has already been cited by a secondary source, I think it should be ok.

shotwell 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The transcript seems like a great idea. As to Sarner's book, I do think some balance is in order. Sarner clearly has a particular view, so no matter how hard he tries to be objective there is bound to be some bias in there. So, does anyone have a suggestion for another secondary source that can be used to balance things out? There was mention of a reporter writing about the trial, but I haven't seen a cite. If someone could get that, it would be useful. StokerAce 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree, lets try to find less disputed sources that are, therefore, more reliable and consistent with Wikipedia standards. DPeterson ^talk 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Too many inaccuracies to accept the Sarner/Rosa/Mercer/ACT book as a reliable source...but give it some time for others to come up with legit sources before the unsourced material is removed. SamDavidson 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Still no citations provided. I think it is time to remove the unsourced/unsupported sections. RalphLender ^talk 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

They are only unsupported because you removed the citations. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I wish that you would at least engage in rational dialog on this talk page. I am specifically concerned with using amazon.com user reviews to judge the credibility of a book. The book was mainly used to support historical and factual information (as opposed to opinions like "attachment therapy is terrible"). Do you dispute the veracity of this information? If so, why haven't you brought that up? Why did you simply remove citations (rather than change the information)? shotwell 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

the book clearly has factual errors and so in unreliable and does not adhere to the Wikipeida standard for a verifiable source. Therefore, other sources should be provided. That is all that is being requested: reliable and factually accurate sources. I think that is a reasonable request. RalphLender ^talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Many highly respected books contain small factual errors. On my desk right now, I count seven books containing mathematical errors (that I know of). If we were to eliminate references because they had some small factual errors, we'd end up eliminating nearly everything. Small factual errors are normally corrected in later editions, this is a primary reason for releasing multiple editions. My point is that the book has no serious flaw. I am, however, in strong favor of providing multiple references because of the very reason you'd like to exclude the book as a source. If you do not dispute the veracity of this information, perhaps you could help find some extra references? I admit that it would be very easy to turn this article into an all out attack against attachment therapy (even if it were just based on news sources). The solution to this problem is to somehow include information which balances things out. For example, Watkins was highly respected and well-known, yet controversial at the same time. Isn't there some source which presents information about why she was controversial? I personally feel that Candace's death was not a freak accident. Rather, it was something that was just waiting to happen somewhere in Evergreen. In fact, I am surprised it didn't happen more frequently. Perhaps the information I've added is biased in the sense that it supports my personal view. Perhaps you have a different point of view, it'd be helpful for you to add information accordingly. shotwell 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The book contains 'significant factual errors' and there is the issue of the blatent conflict of interest here. Sarner, Mercer, Rosa, and their group ACT, have a financial stake in the matter on several fronts. If more reliable sources can be found, then that is the solution. RalphLender ^talk 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

A birthday and a misspelling of a name are not significant factual errors. That these errors were brought up on amazon.com user reviews (rather than a credible medium) indicates as much. Moreover, their interest as the leaders of ACT doesn't imply that they've written a factually incorrect book. It seems paranoid to assume that they'd make things up. I would completely understand you if we used editorial from the book, but we're citing historical information. Finally, I don't understand what you're talking about when it comes to a "financial stake". I imagine that it is irrelevant per my previous point. shotwell 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't misrepresent the errors in the book:

Ever since I first read the title of this book I was somewhat concerned. As part of the Newmaker trial coverage for a national news service bureau in Denver, one day during the trial while coming out for lunch I cornered lead prosecutor Steve Jensen and asked him what his prosecution was based on.

Was it going to put "attachment therapy on trial?" Jensen's answer was simple and straight-forward. "No!"

He intended on pursuing a very narrow prosecution to prove that Watkins and Ponder were responsible under the terms of the state's child abuse / homicide statute for the death of Candace Newmaker. Child abuse/homicide is the most serious felony in the Colorado state criminal code.

Thus, with the title, the authors are fraudulenty trying to assert something which simply is not true. This, and other, errors and misrepresentations are serious flaws here. Therefore we cannot rely on the book for reliable facts. The statement made about financial interests is clear to me and to anyone who reads it. They make money from the sale of their book, their organization seeks donations and dues and contributions and makes money from the book. DPeterson ^talk 01:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That is from amazon.com user reviews. I frankly don't trust the story because it sounds silly to me. Moreover, this simply addresses the title of the book. As for "financial motivations", doesn't most anyone who writes a book stand to profit? Shall we ignore every book that was published for profit? shotwell 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The writer is a reporter who has extensively reported on the events. This raises concerns about the writer's bias. Furthermore, since the book was written by the leaders of an advocacy group with a vested interest in the outcome of the case...that was the basis for their book and they take credit for the outcome on their website, and they try to garner financial support for their group, it just taints this as a reliable source. If there are not other sources for the statements other than their statements, then I believe the article's statements should be removed as not reliable or verifiable and as only representing the polemics of an advocacy group. So, the simple solution here is just put other references that are reliable and verifiable and, so, in accord with Wikipedia policy, practice, and standards. DPeterson ^talk 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Where were the comments published? I would expect any legitimate criticism to be published somewhere other than amazon.com user reviews. I cannot find any published criticism. Can you point me in the right direction? shotwell 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The quote is above and it is written by a legit news reporter. The writer is a reporter who has extensively reported on the events. This raises concerns about the writer's bias. Furthermore, since the book was written by the leaders of an advocacy group with a vested interest in the outcome of the case...that was the basis for their book and they take credit for the outcome on their website, and they try to garner financial support for their group, it just taints this as a reliable source. If there are not other sources for the statements other than their statements, then I believe the article's statements should be removed as not reliable or verifiable and as only representing the polemics of an advocacy group. So, the simple solution here is just put other references that are reliable and verifiable and, so, in accord with Wikipedia policy, practice, and standards. DPeterson ^talk 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Just to set the record straight, all this is humbug. While there are lots of little errors in Attachment Therapy on Trial, mostly typographical in nature, there is only one of the above that can be conceded: we did mistakenly call Krystal Tibbets a 4-year-old in the introduction (but correctly identified her age later in the book). We did not misspell Jeane Newmaker's name. We did not say that the prosecution was putting AT on trial, but it was the point of our book that AT was nevertheless under scrutiny (metaphorically "on trial") because of this case. One of the co-authors was in the courtroom for every minute of the 3-week trial, from jury selection to verdict, and later the sentencing. (The author of the review was frequently absent, and not even there for the verdict, and didn't return for the sentencing.) Linda may not have heard of the Jeannie Warren case at the time of the trial, but so what, she (and I) discovered it soon enough afterwards (though it had no real bearing on this trial, anyway). So where are the articles of impeachment against the book? The writer of the review, on the other hand, is not "a reporter who has extensively reported on the events"; just try to find anything he has written about this case or anything else. Whether he can correctly be called a "legit news reporter" is a matter of opinion. Finally, we have never, ever, taken credit for the outcome of the actual trial, on our website or anywhere else, though we have met all or nearly all of the people -- dozens of them -- who can be given credit for it, and we were honored to be of at least some assistance to them along the way. There is certainly nothing mentioned here that should give anyone pause in relying upon the contents of Attachment Therapy on Trial. Larry Sarner 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The first article clearly states within the first few paragraphs that both therapists were unlicensed. JohnsonRon 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The two references I've provided each state that Ponder had a CA license at the time of the therapy. I can provide more if you really want. I don't think having a license in one state generally allows one to practice in different state. Perhaps this is the reason for the discrepancy. shotwell 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The first reference clearly states she was not licensed. The relevant fact is that she was not licensed in Colorado. To practice a licensed profession in a state you must be licensed in that state. Therefore, it is accurate to state she was not licensed. DPeterson ^talk 05:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It is more accurate to state that she has a CA license, but was not legally permitted to practice in CO on that license. We need a source that explains licensing regulations in CO. shotwell 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Why? It only seems germain to this article that neither she nor Watkins wer not licensed in Colorado. DPeterson ^talk 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone with the username Billgoble has made a few edits to the article. We need to carefully examine the claims made about people not immediately related to this case, possibly remove their names, and if that is not possible, provide a load of references on such claims. We can convey the essential meaning of the paragraphs about Goble and Thomas (Watkin's was a recommended by the AT community) without naming people. This is a matter of WP:BLP. We need to err strongly on the side of caution when it comes to such things. I'm going to remove some names for now. shotwell 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Let me clarify that I know the statements are true and properly sourced. Perhaps I am wrong about removing their names. Anyone care to comment? shotwell 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree, it is best not to list such names and err on the side of caution. JohnsonRon 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I concur. thanks for bringing that up shotwell.-- Nicole M. 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, let's avoid needless conflicts and problems...the material as edited to rm the Goble name is good. DPeterson ^talk 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a suggestion for how to deal with the issue of mentioning ACT's role. It does look odd to have ACT there all by itself, but how about including a larger section on the prosecution (i.e. the Colorado state attorneys, etc.), and in that section mention ACT's role. StokerAce 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That sounds like a good idea. I'm trying to figure out how to break up the larger sections (or what will become larger) into sub-sections. Any ideas? shotwell 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

How about a section on "The Trial", with the following sub-sections: The prosecution; the defense; expert witnesses; the verdict. StokerAce 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it fits nicely in the current section. DPeterson ^talk 05:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The mention of ACT is quite relevant and could use expansion. MarkWood 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The poll above seems to lead to the conclusion that it maybe time for the unsourced material to be deleted. No appropriate citations have been provided. In the interests of keeping it all clear, I'd suggest deleting the material and putting it in a separate section, so that if some one can produce verifiable and reliable soucrces, it will be easy to replace the deleted paragraph(s). RalphLender ^talk 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll take a shot at that. SamDavidson 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Material removed as not meeting Wikipedia verifiable standard

I've deleted the following material from the article....if reliable and factually accurate references can be provided, then I support replacing the material at that time. SamDavidson 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC) The policy: reply

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

'REMOVED FROM ARTICLE'

By October, Jeane Newmaker was saying that there was no discernible improvement in Candace's behavior. At the suggestion of the attachment therapists in Guilford, Jeanne Newmaker attended the annual conference of the Association for Treatment and Training of Attachment in Children (ATTACh), that year being held in Alexandria, Virginia. She approached two prominent figures in the attachment therapy community, one being a therapeutic foster parent from Colorado who is a frequent speaker at ATTACh conferences and elsewhere. ^{citation needed}

Ms. Newmaker was given a copy of the Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire (RADQ) by one of the therapists she approached, along with instructions to facsimile her responses after the conference. The RADQ is a parental checklist about a child's behavior used in the attachment community, but it is an unvalidated diagnostic tool. ^{citation needed}

Through 1999, Jeane Newmaker was attending workshops, conferences, and support groups associated with Attachment Therapy. She was told that Candace had a childhood disorder called Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and took Candace to a center fifty miles away in Guilford, North Carolina for weekly treatments by a practitioner of Attachment Therapy. ^{citation needed}

After discussions with Jeane and review of the the RADQ, this therapist recommended Connell Watkins & Associates to Jeane. Connell Watkins was a founding member of ATTACh, but no longer maintained a membership in the organization and was not licensed at the time, although she had been in the past. This recommendation echoed one made by another member of the attachment-therapy community who was an associate of Ms. Watkins ^{citation needed}

Watkins later explained the adults' refusal to release Candace on two grounds. First, they believed the girl could breathe through the sheet and saw her speech and yells as evidence of her breathing. Second, they saw all of Candace's protestations as not genuine, as attempts to manipulate the adults into releasing her. The first of these two was not only refuted by her death, but did not take into account the pillows used to contain her. Also, if the adults had medical training, they would have realized that a person can speak and yell while unable to get oxygen. As to the second matter about viewing Candace's claims as attempts to deceive the adults into letting her go, this is entirely consistent with Attachment Therapy philosophy and practice -- children in treatment are regarded as liars and manipulators, and they must be disregarded or the therapy will fail. Thus, with the adults prepared and determined to disbelieve her distress, nothing Candace could have said would have secured her escape from confinement in a suffocating sheet. The session went on for over an hour, while previous sessions with other children using the same "rebirthing" script, had lasted less than five minutes. ^{citation needed}

Ok, I'll try to find some more sources, but I don't think the information should have been removed. The deeper issue is that this material is only unsourced because you deleted the source prior to removing this information. I have a remarkably busy life outside of wikipedia and I cannot spend all of my time hunting down references for things that were already referenced -- but I'll give it a shot anyhow. What don't you agree with in the above information? shotwell 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The removal of unsourced material is fine. You (Shotwell) don't have to find appropriate references. There are other's who may have more of an interest in the topic who can do that, in part because they are more familiar with the subject. I can see several statements that should probably be referenced (but this is just my view). A few examples include:

1. Ms. Newmaker attending that annual conference.
2. She was given the RADQ.
3. A therapist reviewed the RADQ and made a referral,
4. etc...each paragraph could probably use a citation or two.

JohnsonRon 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing those paragraphs is in order, unless someone can find a citation to support the statements. JonesRD _talk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It appears the the disputes regarding this page have again been settled by mediation and the section without sources will remain deleted unless/untill reliable and verifiable citations are found. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy JohnsonRon 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It is fine for the mediation to be ended so long as that means that I don't have to argue this same issue for a third time! RalphLender ^talk 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

It appears that the dispute has been resolved and the mediation case can be closed with the result being the article as is. That is a fine resolution that appears to represent consensus. JonesRD _talk 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an acceptable result of the mediation process. MarkWood 01:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There was a typo in the above title (Watkins -> Watkins'). I also removed the "in Evergreen, Colorado" because it is just mentioned below. I think I'm the one who added the Evergreen part, so I don't anticipate any problems here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. shotwell 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It reads better with the change, I think. DPeterson ^talk 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I don't think its much of a content change. I just announced it here given the history. At any rate, I won't argue with anyone that wants to change it back. shotwell 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I removed the following material:

An episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit titled Cage was based on the Candace Newmaker case.

because it is inaccurate. The episode is "based" on the incident in Ohio regarding a foster family that kept children in cages. DPeterson ^talk 13:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As an objective outsider, I'm confused. Did the therapists tell Jeane and Candace that they were going to be using pillows, hands, etc. to stop Candace getting out? As in, is that part of the usual rebirthing therapy, or were they lying, or did they not say anything at all? (the rebirthing article says nothing about this) Perhaps it would improve the article if you specified that. Eilicea 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am a professional Rebirthing therapist (a process which many are now calling Rebirthing-Breathwork, practitioner trainer and author, of international standing and some 12 years' experience. At no time during my own training, or in any of the training courses I have led, has any use of force against a client's will, or with any risk to a client's safety, been condoned. This position is echoed throughout the global rebirthing community and its published literature.

The therapists involved in Candace Newmaker's tragic death misappropriated the term Rebirthing in promoting their therapy, which in truth had no more resemblance to rebirthing than the conduct of Jack Kevorkian had to mainstream medicine, and should more accurately have been termed Attachment Therapy.

In recent years, many practitioners of rebirthing have switched to the term Rebirthing-Breathwork in order to escape adverse associations with the Candace Newmaker incident. However, what these practitioners practise is identical to Rebirthing as originally discovered by Leonard Orr et al.

Rebirthing is a "technique" in which the child is wrapped in a blanket and coerced to "reexperience" the birth process again in an attempt to "cure" reactive attachment disorder. As such it is not a practice accepted by any reputable organization. What you practice is not the same thing. Unfortunately, the two practices use the same word...much like to "press a suit" means something different to an attorney than to a taylor! The newspaper articles and their own testimony are clear that what they were doing was "rebirthing," as I just described it. DPeterson ^talk 12:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That is simply not accurate. There is not a single published rebirthing text which even remotely concurs with this ludicrous assertion. You have supplied no citations because there are none available. If you want an accurate definition of Rebirthing as a therapy, please refer to the first and seminal text on the topic - Rebirthing In The New Age, by Leonard Orr and Sondra Ray, 1974, Celestial Arts Publications, ISBN  978-0890871348. Again, it is highly unfortunate that the media did not research the rebirthing technique for themselves - if they had, they would have realised that the therapists were misappropriating the word. The innacuracies in the media coverage have blackened an otherwise excellent and helpful process. Aum108

Again, you are correct and the term is also used as described in the article, hence the confusion. The citations are listed in the article. It is unfortunate that the term is used to describe both a very coercive and horrible technique and a very reputible one. However, the technique used on Candice was "rebirthing" as defined in the newspaper article and as defined by the "practitioners" of it. So, the term in this article must stay as it is. DPeterson ^talk 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

What I recommend you do is provide a link to the article on Rebirthing and in that article describe the confusion and unfortunate use of the same term to describe two very different procedures. DPeterson ^talk 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems pretty clear that the therapists thought that what they were doing was 'rebirthing' even if it was not done 'correctly'. Did they themselves describe what they did as rebirthing? Fainites 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The newspaper accounts of the incident use that term, as do the therapists and the group ACT. What is confusing is that rebirthing has two different meanings. SamDavidson 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi all just to say that I have edited the Rebirthing-Breathwork article and it now should explain the difference between the two types of therapy. Although it is by no means perfect, with sources etc. I mainly was just concentrating on a merge I was doing and haven't checked the sources for anything that was already written about this issue there, so feel free to edit it.:) Merkinsmum 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I just read through the section. I'm afraid it's not very accurate. In particular, the bit about Sondra Ray convincing Colorado legislators to change Candace's Law to eliminate reference to re-birthing is a fiction. The law is today exactly as it was passed six years ago. The pertinent thing to know about this "confusion" is that Candace was not killed by the "rebirthing", but by the arrogance of her attachment therapists. Being "reborn" to her adoptive mother was just the script for that day's coercive restraint therapy. The therapists were not looking for a cathartic emotional experience derived from her breathing, nor was the rebirthing script all that important. But because the whole deadly incident was early on labelled "rebirthing" by the press, it's the name which has stuck. Orr & Emerson's silly breathwork has been unjustly tarred by this label, and attachment therapy has been given a scapegoat by which to escape responsibility as a proximate cause. Both are unfortunate outcomes from a headline writer's choice of words seven years ago. Larry Sarner 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I just merged the content and don't really know a lot about it, that bit did sound a bit wierd, please try and change the article to make it clearer if you fancy it. So didn't these 2 abusive therapists refer to/base the technique they used on something called 'rebirthing'? (not the orr version, but didn't they use that word?) Merkinsmum 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at doing so after the ArbCom on Attachment Therapy resolves some issues. I want to address the issue here in this article as well, so there will be some consistency in the article namespace. The short answer to your question, is yes, the therapists used the term "rebirthing", but if you stop there you make the same mistake the press did initially. There was a California attachment therapist, Douglas Gosney, whose familiarity with Emerson led him to think of applying the name "rebirthing" to his script for recapitulating the birth experience as an attachment intervention. Gosney's script otherwise had no other apparent connection to Orr & Emerson's beliefs or practices, which are all wrapped up with "breathwork". Gosney taught his script to Watkins and Ponder, and they of course used his nomenclature for it. Watkins told the cops that they were doing a "rebirthing," the press saw the term in the police report, and the rest is history. But the truth of the matter is, the technique being used on poor Candace the day of her death was principally recapitulation, and its use has always been a key element of coercive restraint therapy. The beliefs of the therapists proximately responsible for killing Candace were all AT's, not anything else's, Gosney's obfuscating nomenclature notwithstanding. All this can be found in Attachment Therapy on Trial, pp 68-71 and 75-77. Larry Sarner 05:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok I will try and tinker with the Rebirthing-Breathwork article a tiny but. I thought the last section of that article made it clear that this that they did, is not RebirthingB. I'll look at the bit about sondra ray changing the law or whatever too. Thanks for your help. Merkinsmum 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Could somebody explain the 'unlicensed foster parents' please? Do you have a national or state based system for licensing foster parents in the USA? Are foster parents required to have licenses? Fainites ^barley 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

We have a mixed system, not only by state but by payer and activity. Basically, if you are to be paid for giving "foster" (overnight, non-custodial) care, and the payer is the state, then you need a license, having had a background check, formal "training", and spotty regulation. But a parent can place a child overnight with whomever they want for however long they want. If they pay, it can sometimes run afoul of licensing requirements for "day care", but generally this is when there is more than a certain number of children in the home who are unrelated to the owner. Sometimes a business license is required, and zoning laws must be observed, but that is usually independent of the intended meaning of "licensing".

With attachment-therapy/parenting, the usual thing is to place a child in a "therapeutic foster home" while the child is attending therapy, both as a supplement to and a component of the therapy. Invariably, these "foster homes" are not licensed as such, but so what? Attachment therapy pointing out that their "foster home" where dreadful incidents happen to occur were "unlicensed" is like the kid who kills his parents and pleads for mercy on the basis that he is an orphan.

In the case of Candace, her death did not occur in or even near the foster home, so the fact that her "foster parents", who helped kill her, were unlicensed as caregivers, or as nurses, or as doctors, or as electricians had no bearing on their culpability. So why make a point of it?

Larry Sarner 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK. Got that. Over here you have local authority foster carers (most of them), Agency foster carers that Local Authority's use when they run out of their own and 'private foster carers' where things are a little more unregulated and controversial! Also, fairly uncommon. Never heard of therapists employing them though. Agree with you that it seems irrelevent here unless you are not allowed to be a foster parent in the USA without a license. We need to be carteful to take into account non USA readers who may have a different understanding of the terms. (The FP's were at the therapy session though weren't they?) Fainites ^barley 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply