Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hospitals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance). Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. BC1278 ( talk · contribs) has been paid by Cliffside Malibu on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosed

I'm just starting this talk page, and I copied the above templates from Talk:Betty Ford Center. I hope I'm doing this right. You may want to check up on me. I will see if I need to list this article with those WPs. I don't remember. Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 01:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, and from Talk:addiction. I could really use some guidance. I'm just getting back to editing after like 7 years! :) Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 01:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The information in the claim statements was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, and has been removed. (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.)

I an am experienced Wikipedia editor but I have a WP: COI here as a a paid consultant to Cliffside Malibu. As such, it's important that proposed changes be reviewed by an independent editor. I try to abide by WP: Five Pillars, and am ready to do more work based on suggestions. BC1278 ( talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

Proposed edits:

1. Text to Remove: Sub-heading "Inflated success rates"

Text to Replace: Sub-heading: "Success Rates"

Rationale: Change to neutral language, without Wikipedia choosing a non-neutral characterization in Wikipedia's voice.

2. Text to Remove (same sub-section): "Cliffside has been criticized for inflating success rates."

This is not a neutral way to begin a paragraph about success rates, anymore than it would be neutral to begin the paragraph by saying "Cliffside has been praised for high success rates." Either would potentially be a NPOV violation as the set-up sentence when there are conflicting POVs. The subsequent conflicting statements should be included without a paragraph set up that constitutes WP: EDITORIALIZING.

3. Underlined text to add (same sub-section): While on a Today show episode in 2013, Taite stated that 95% of patients who complete treatment stay sober with an overall 70% success rate. ^[1]

Rationale: it's important to place this claim from the Today in a fixed time, in 2013, so it does not appear to making a statement about another time period.

3a. Please also change the citation (same sentence): points to a more neutral YouTube version of the same Today Show clip, this one without an improper claim of authorship, misleading title for the segment, and non-RS claims added to the text description of the clip. The old citation shoe-horns in a unreliable source (with inflammatory user generated content) by including the Today Show clip.

4. Text to add (same subsection) immediately after "...overall 70% success rate.": "In 2013, Taite also said the 95% sobriety rate was only applicable to the approximately 22% of patients who stayed until Cliffside Malibu told them they were ready to leave, with the rest of having closer to about a 50% success rate. He said he considered success as one-year clean and sober. ^[2]"

Rationale: provides important qualifying context to a broad assertion in the previous sentence.

5. Text to remove: (same subsection) The words: "However" and “just snake oil salesmanship.” from second sentence in "sub-heading: "Inflated Success Rates."

Text to add (same subsection): "John Kelly, director of the Addiction Recovery Management Service at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, said in 2013 that such success rate statements from residential treatment programs are inflated and that in general, about a third of residential program inpatients are in remission one year after intervention." ^[3]

Rationale: Remove WP: SLANG and WP:EDITORIALIZING while maintaining the substance of the criticism. Hyperbolic style of newspaper writing/quotations not appropriate for encyclopedia; just the substance of the criticism.

6. Text to remove: (same subsection) "He added, “There aren’t hard figures, but on average probably about a third of residential program inpatients are in remission one year after intervention.”

Rationale: condensed with sentence above.

- BC1278 ( talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

Reply

 Declined The information has been removed as being insufficiently paraphrased from the source material (See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.) A description of the problematic text is shown below. Although the COI editor has retained some of the quoted information in their request and attributed it, the other parts of the information are still too closely worded to how they appear in the source. This is not to say that the information shouldn't be placed into the article. However, it was 104.162.98.52's responsibility to properly paraphrase this information in the first place when they chose to add it on 23-MAY-2018. That responsibility should not now be forced upon the COI editor to fix the IP editor's mistake. There is nothing stopping the IP editor from returning and placing the properly paraphrased information into the article. I have left a message on their talk page informing them of this.  spintendo  01:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am a COI editor, disclosed above. Many thanks for requesting consideration of the following:

1. Please delete this "Controversy" sub-section:

Cost prohibitive

In an episode of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver and Vice's Vice Reports, Taite and Cliffside Malibu faced criticism for being cost prohibitive with a 30-day stay going as high as $80,000 or more for programs and amenities that many experts deem to be unnecessary and lacking medical benefit. ^[1]

Comment:

1. John Oliver Show is a comedy show and not a RS. It doesn't support the statement, in any case. John Oliver says it seems like a lot of money, but he's not an expert and not making a claim about outcomes or benefits. There's no actual expert who says anything about Cliffside Malibu on the segment.

2. I've watched the Vice Report carefully and there's only one expert, Lance Dodes, quoted about costs, not "many", and he's never speaking specifically about Cliffside Malibu. He's making general comments about expensive programs. As the Vice Report says, there are many drug rehab programs in the city of Malibu, which is a "hotbed" of such programs. It's WP: SYN to specifically say the expert doctor is talking about Cliffside Malibu and Taite. "[D]o not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." WP: SYNTH The reporter of this piece does go to visit Cliffside Malibu right after speaking to the expert, but we don't know how the expert would evaluate the Cliffside Malibu program if allowed to look in depth at its specific protocols and outcomes.

I think the expert was careful not to mention specific programs such as Cliffside Malibu because he knows it would be irresponsible to single any one out without taking the time to research it. An expert's general criticism about the cost of one school of rehab facilities could go in the article about Drug rehabilitation, rather than into an article about a company not mentioned by the expert.

3. Only in the event it is decided to keep, instead of delete, the "Cost Prohibitive" sub-section above, there is a contrary opinion in a Reliable Source, which should then be included as the response to the critcism as per NPOV:

"Taite says that patients in treatment are looking for an excuse not to stay and that the amenities provided by Cliffside remove reasons to leave." ^[2]

3a. In the event it is decided to keep the "Cost Prohibitive" paragraph, please delete "Cost Prohibitive" as a sub-section and "Criticism" as a section, moving the relevant paragraph instead to start as sentence three of paragraph three of the section "Addiction Treatment" (after sentence that ends "...turndown service."), which is already about the same exact subject. Articles generally shouldn't have a separate "Criticism" section,except in special circumstances such "particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc." It discourages NPOV, in conflict with basic Wikipedia policy. WP: CRITS. BC1278 ( talk) 23:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278 reply

Reply 13-JUN-2018

Agree

1. The criticism section was removed as not being specific enough to Cliffside Malibu. As reporting from both Vice and the Oliver program suggests, these "Malibu" style treatment centers are what is being discussed here, and not Cliffside in particular. These shows are making a tangential reference to Cliffside in the form of claims made about Malibu treatment centers as a whole. Claims such as these need to be linked to Cliffside more specifically and less tangentially in order to merit being placed in the Cliffside Wikipedia article.
2. The claims made by The Verge which were specific to Cliffside but nevertheless were removed as being insufficiently paraphrased from the source material (i.e., the second row from the "Comparison of texts" box dated 7-JUN-2018) have now been properly paraphrased and will take the place of the omitted Vice material in a section titled Clean and Sober Media LLC.  spintendo  10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The article is full of promotional verbiage. E.g. "Cliffside Malibu is a treatment program that does not lock its doors and returns cell phones to patients after 72 hours of in-house sobriety." No "according to the facility" or even "as the brochure claims". Only a boast cited as fact. Why is such cruft left up? We're busy fielding the questions posed by the editor who's being paid by the facility and we ignore the promotional nature of the text. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

{{ request edit}} This page is basically an ad campaign for a facility that's mostly a scam. The text should be modified to reflect the critical position on both the 'extravagant' description and rehab business (see the documentaries From Rehab to a Body Bag | Dying for Treatment: VICE Reports (Full Length) [1] and the show Rehab: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [2])

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.195.145 ( talk) 03:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply