Talk:Judge Rotenberg Center/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Keeping quotes from parents

I can't see how these violate WP:UNDUE. The place wouldn't be open if it didn't have some people who think it's OK to torture disabled kids, and it wouldn't be controversial if there weren't others who found the practice abhorrent.

Yes, I'd shut the doors of this abomination tomorrow, along with Guantanamo, if I could; till then, rest assured I "wear my WP hat" first when editing, and edit this article as neutrally as anything else. So -- I think the quotes shed light on two significant POV's, and the article is improved by keeping them. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping your intro sentence, though, WLU -- definitely an improvement. regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it says a lot, having the quote from the mother on the page claiming that now that she's been permitted to abuse her child, he's become a "human being". All she's doing is forcing him to live a life of never ending fear, wondering when the next shock will come. Yet, her child is allowed to remain with her, not being taken away by child services. It illustrates that these parents, appear to be parents who were looking for a acceptable way to get by with abusing their children. They're not bothering to meet them at their level, this mother is more than happy she can shock her son and make him obey. That's not a parent, that's a monster.

Furthermore, you'd have to be at least a little sociopathic to work at a place where everyday you shock children. I'm sure if these people didn't have the Judge Rotenberg Center to work at, they'd be applying for a job in torturing animals in the name of science.Violet yoshi (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was terrified by the quote at the end!! "All I have to do is show the shoker to my son and he does what I say" thats boardering abuse!!

That's not bordering abuse, that is abuse. 74.33.98.208 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture": Law & Order episode based on this?

Wasn't there a "Law & Order" or "Law & Order: SVU" episode based on this, with the "buzz box" taking the place of the shocking device? Worth an "In popular culture" section?

70.169.149.207 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're thinking of the episode Cruel and Unusual; Episode #5.19, which aired on April 19, 1995. ----DanTD (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You need truth!

Why sugar-coat it? I just made it real! --66.31.113.120 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Z100 ads

The Judge Rotenberg Center advertises their facility on the z100 radio station in New York (100.3 in New York City). Truly scary 207.239.120.10 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I'm an autistic from NYC and it's always made me feel like I'm living in a dystopia. I'm of the opinion that pretty much anything should be broadcastable, but this crosses the line into some kind of incitement/hate speech (IANAL, so I don't know what kind of communication I'm intending to cite). 73.235.166.151 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

New draft

To everyone who is watching this article - I've been in contact via email with User:Judgerc gkkk04 regarding a draft they created for the article here (please ignore the AFC bit, it was moved from the user's sandbox for some reason so I left it alone and removed the AFC tag). I've gone over the contents and it seems well-balanced and better than what we have now, but as the creator has a conflict of interest, I'm requesting comments from involved editors as to its suitability to replace the current contents. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with the move in about a week (say, next Monday Feb. 10). Thanks all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

State of California report on sister school

The Mother Jones article "School of Shock" refers to this report from the State of California:

• http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/news/feature/2007/09/ca_investigation_1982.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwoDjc5D - Behavior Research Institute of California - 9342 Zelzah Avenue, Northridge, California

p. 3 of the Gonnerman article in Mother Jones states that Judy Weber runs the organization, it stopped using physical punishments in 1982 as part of a settlement with the state, and that its name changed to Tobinworld. It is a sister school of Rotenberg. Israel and Weber married in 2006 and Israel goes to California to see Weber WhisperToMe (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

CBS 2014

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversy-over-shocking-people-with-autism-behavioral-disorders/ Controversy over shocking people with autism, behavioral disorders "The FDA advisory panel's recommendations will be considered by the full FDA; a decision on whether to ban the use of shock devices at the Judge Rotenberg Center is expected at any time." --98.252.228.87 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Torture?

While personally I believe it is torture, would adding the category "Category:Torture in the United States" be a violation of WP:NPOV? It might not be the best category to add for it to be kept at a neutral point of view. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 12:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

One other editor, who seems dead set against the idea of adding anything negative about the place to the article, keeps removing the category. Adding the "Torture in the United States" category is no less of a violation of NPOV as any category associated with Nazi atrocities, Communist atrocities, Islamist atrocities or Ku Klux Klan violence. The only people saying otherwise are staff members and the parents they've brainwashed into believing it works for their kids. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

Please discuss reverts on talk page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"aversives"

I'd never heard of this place till I read the article, the lead smooths over the controversy a bit. why is the word "aversives" used 13 times? It's not a very common term. Should at least be changed to Aversive therapy which is a bit more intuitive, or maybe corporal punishment? additionally, one of the sources says the residents actually carry around the shocking devices on their person. should be added. Hydromania (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Content removal

User:Cpotisch: Your recent removal contained a large amount of sourced content. Please do not remove appropriately sourced content. --108.77.202.140 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. My removal took out duplicate content from the lead that is mentioned in detail in the rest of the article. The lede summarizes the article. We don't get into every little thing. You did not have consensus to add all that to lede. I won't fight you on most of it, but that was getting excessive. Cpotisch (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cpotisch: That is not true. Your edit removes content from both the lede and body. Additionally, it violates WP:JARGON and is ungrammatical. I do not need consensus to add content to the article-- you need consensus to remove it. Per WP:STATUSQUO, please do not revert again. I do not want an edit war. --108.77.202.140 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me what specific content am I removing from the body. None of my edits have resulted in the article having any less information. Before removing that stuff from the lede, I specifically made sure that it was all there in the body. Additionally I'm pretty sure all my grammar is proper (I just checked with Grammarly), and in fact I cleaned up a slew of grammatical errors that I think you left behind (assuming that you are the same IP that made hundreds of edits here last month). Now, per WP:MOSLEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The use of "behavioral rehearsal lessons" is neither a notable controversy in and of itself (it falls under the general parachute of aversive abuse/torture there), nor is it one of the article's "most important points." I get the sense that you have some real contempt for this place, and I'm right there with you. Further, I really do appreciate you adding all this important content, and I don't want to start an edit war. But the article as you left it does not follow lede guidelines. Cpotisch (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cpotisch: Again, this is a diff of your edit. Please look at it and see that it removes a substantial amount of content from the body. I disagree that behavior rehearsal lessons are not a notable controversy. I have found a few sources discussing them specifically, and I will add them to the article as soon as I get the chance. For an example of an ungrammatical passage, see "the JRC continues to employ other means of "aversives" on its students". I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, but that last edit is not helping. --108.77.202.140 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So, looking at the edit history, it's kind of messy, but those two paragraphs were taken out by @Diannaa:, since they copied or very-closely paraphrased certain sources. You then reverted her edit, which included my grammatical fixes and trimming of the lede, and I subsequently reverted back to her version, which was the last one before you undid mine. So the timeline's kind of messy, but that was her call, and maybe you two can try to clear that bit up? My own edit did not take anything out of the body. So on that note, is it OK if I just revert the lede back to my original version, and I'll leave you to sort out the rest of it with her? So in the meantime, all of your content in the body will stay? Cpotisch (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The content from the body was removed for being too close to source, so I re-wrote it with better paraphrasing before returning it to the body. It no longer violates copywriter law. As for the lede, it may be a bit long, but I would trim it differently. Bearing in mind that this article is dynamic, and I some expansion still remains, I definitely want to keep the part about behavior rehearsal lessons. I'll see if I can trim it down to four paragraphs. --108.77.202.140 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Pictures and Video

What this article really needs is some pictures. Does anyone know if it might be possible to upload a clip and Andre McCollins being shocked? I think the court released it to the public, but I'm still not sure about the copywrite. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Source

• Children at the Behavior Research Institute in Providence were handcuffed and forced to inhale ammonia while buckets of cold water were dumped on them.
• One kid got this for 11 days straight.
• Locked in a closed as aversive. State investigation finds no evidence of positive reinforcement. 1977 attempt to close the California clinic.

--66.244.121.212 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Did they stop using aversives?

User:ATC: Show me the source that says they stopped using aversives. Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC: You have again reverted without discussion. Let’s not make this a rerun of talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas. Let me again remind you that you are required to discuss. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Inmates

User:Wikiman2718: Is the objection to the term inmate because people associate the word with someone sentenced by a criminal court? We know there are diverse other settings in which people are inmates, and it seems appropriate to use a word that makes clear that these are people being confined and incarcerated without chance for redress. - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You and I may know that these people are prisoners in all but the legal sense, but because they not technically prisoners it would not be right to call them that in an encyclopedia. This is mostly an issue of tone. Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, in the legal sense, the law sees them as detained / confined, so I take those as appropriate-toned verbs. The noun "inmate" doesn't refer solely to prisoners but that's a side point. ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikiman2718: It is not neutral or objective to talk as if disabled people legally confined to an institution condemned for torture, who will be returned with police force if they flee, are simply "residents" in the same way that you or I may be residents of our homes. I am open to which phrasing you and others consider more neutral: "confined to" vs "detained at" vs "involuntarilly committed to" vs "in the custody of." I don't think that *every* mention needs to use one of these descriptors rather than "residents of, but it seems important to include at least some *initial explanation*, early in the article, of how these dynamics work. I realize, also, that this may require writing some additional explanation of how children are placed in the JRC, and how parents and the JRC itself then use guardianship litigation to keep adults confined there after they turn 18 (with additional sources and citations) - which I will gladly do this weekend. Let me know if you find one of the above descriptors preferable to the others. - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ARMILLARIA.9 Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. "Residents" may not be great, but it is is certainly better than "students". Even earlier versions of the article referred to them as "patients", which was just flat out JRC propaganda. While would certainly be factually accurate to refer to them as inmates or even victims, we have to ask ourselves if these are the kind of terms that we would expect to find in an encyclopedia. With regards to "in the custody of", it is my understanding that legal custody usually belongs to the parents, and not the JRC so this is technically inaccurate. The words "committed to" might be used a few time. I think that the "involuntary" part is implied. And if you could find some better coverage of the litigation that used to keep people confined at this place, that would certainly help the article along. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture revisited

What happened to the "In popular culture" section? Because there was another depiction of the kind of torture that goes on at this place in a 1979 made-for-TV movie called "Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"ABA international is closely associated with the JRC"

While ABA international may have entertained the ideas of the JRC in 2001, since 2012 they have officially and wholeheartedly condemned their efforts. Many of their most senior members have made statements to this affect. Some have even gone to street protest against the centere. I am trying to find better sources to demonstrate this but continually run into the issue that they are all behind a pay wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSyntaxin (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's not as easy as going to the organisation's website and finding a press release about that is probably more telling. If the organisation itself is against it, they should say so publicly. The fact that a handful of ABA therapists are decent human beings who don't think autistics are monsters doesn't mean the organisation feels the same way. 80.6.203.241 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Whole article in violation of 5p2

This reads much more like the mother Jones hatchet job rather than a Wikipedia article.

One example right off the bat: “relies heavily on aversion therapy.” This is false on two counts: there is no aversion therapy used at JRC currently (perhaps in its past?); and it does not rely *heavily*; less than 20% of their population has aversive procedures at all (and 0 use aversion therapy).

There is a firestorm happening in ABA right now that looks much more like a lynch mob than a scientific discourse. I wonder if this page ought to be pulled until things calm down and folks stop using this page as part of their advocacy? 64.98.71.171 (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

JRC's own website has a page full of links devoted to defending the practice of contingent skin shock (https://www.judgerc.org/css.html), which would be pointless if they weren't using it. Even if it were JRC's claim that aversion therapy is no longer used, should an institution which has repeatedly been found to lie about its practices by official government investigations in multiple states be taken at its word? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. At most it would warrant adding something to the effect of "JRC disputes these claims" and a couple sentences explaining why.

Poemisaglock (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)