Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

MEDRS needed

Content that describes medical treatments or biomedical information must be supported by WP:MEDRS; claims, theories, programs, treatments etc. must be based on MEDRS. I have and will continue to remove any content of a medical or treatment nature that is not supported by MEDRS.

The article must reflect the mainstream scientific consensus primarily and give additional information only as WP:DUE. The subject of this article is clearly WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience and should be treated accordingly. Editors purporting otherwise should provide MEDRS quality sources that present the programs/theories/treatments/claims of the subject.

The article currently relies excessively on WP:PRIMARY sources. Encyclopedic content should be based on secondary, independent WP:THIRDPARTY sources and never on sources with a clear conflict of interest.

The section Programs is currently improperly sourced and presented. The source for the bulleted list is describing the treatment used in the 1960 JAMA paper. We need a MEDRS source that describes the treatment employed by IAHP. There also needs to be a MEDRS source for the "Programs for well children" and "Epilepsy treatment". If these programs are not described and evaluated by MEDRS sources they should be mentioned only as WP:DUE and explicitly described as WP:FRINGE when mentioned not just in later sections.

If the books published by Doman are notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article they will be in reliable sources and if they relate to the IAHP this needs to be established through statements in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Corrections

Some of the grammar and spelling in this article was atrocious. I performed a quick read-through and made necessary (and frankly, basic) proof-reading corrections. 12:09, August 28 2009 (UTC)

Your changes are more than merely grammatical. They involve:

• "IAHP was among the first organizations to explore the potential of early-education for children". Can you provide a source for this. I suspect it may be truthful though the phrasing is a bit loaded: it is a matter of debate as to whether early-education (hot-housing) unlocks potential or merely brings abilities forward a few years. Suggest perhaps "promote" instead of "explore the potential".
• Steven Jay Gould is added to the list of supporters. Later his book ("Phylogeny and Ontogeny", Harvard 1985) is cited. I am sceptical. Could you please provide some page numbers and a quote so I can see in what way he supported them. Raymond Dart was a dedicated supporter so that one is reasonable, though he is an anatomist and anthropologist, not a child-development expert. As discussed in the past on this talk page, Linus Pauling praised IAHPs use of vitamins during a talk where IAHP was the host. His opinions on IAHP's overall program have as much weight as Liza Minnelli, to be honest.
• "While many of the methods used to promote the development and education of well children have been embraced and adopted by the educational establishment in recent years" This is not supported by sources, and is, frankly, unsubstantiated hype.
• The AAP criticism is watered down to become a "suggestion" and the damning statement "its effectiveness is not supported by evidence-based medicine, and its use is unwarranted." removed.
• The professions/qualifications of Glenn Doman and Carl Delacato were removed. These are relevant.
• The "the recapitulation theory, is considered obsolete" was replaced by "considered highly controversial". No. It is obsolete.
• The importance of patterning to IAHP was removed: This sentence: "Patterning is perhaps the key technique. IAHP state "if we have to put everything we do on one hook, patterning is really not a bad place to hang our hat" and "that if these patterns were applied rigorously, on a specific schedule, and done with a religious zeal, brain-injured kids improved."
• The sourced statement "Since 1960 the IAHP has published multiple studies professing to show the effectiveness of the program. These studies, upon review, have not stood up to scientific scrutiny and have not been reproduced by other sources." was removed.
• The sourced statement "the patterning method cannot be recommended for seriously retarded children" was removed.
• The sourced statement "Zigler wrote a 1981 editorial entitled "A plea to end the use of the patterning treatment for retarded children", which emphasized the harmful effect the treatment has by raising false hopes and increasing parental guilt." was removed.
• Several more items of criticism were removed.
• The heading "Notable supporters" was rebranded "Scientific support". This is misleading as there is no science (evidence) behind the support. For such a section to exist, it would need to cite scientific papers giving evidence of their success.
• "A few" was replaced by "Several". Really, there are only a few notable supporters.
• The text chosen from Paulings speech was changed to avoid mention of vitamins. But Orthomolecular aspects of IAHP was the focus of his talk. Perhaps we should quote the subsequent paragraph too, so we can all see what nonsense he was talking and how he was supposing rather than proving.
• The additional supporter, Ralph Pelligra, does not appear to be notable and his source doesn't mention IAHP.

I have reverted the changes as none of them appear justified. Please use edit summaries to explain your edits, and discuss any controversial edits. Colin°^Talk 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) refs

Agree with Colin about reverting these changes. Also, the edit summary "removal of non-neutral language from author's voice" was confusing and seems to reflect a mistaken understanding of WP:NPOV means. NPOV doesn't mean that critical words should be watered down; it means that the article's language should faithfully reflect what reliable sources say. Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

The following diff was added below the "Scientific criticism" section which I removed. The editor, Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk · contribs) then left a message on my talk page (below). Question: should the text be added? Jim1138 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Response To Criticism

Despite often vitriolic criticism from traditional medical practitioners, the Institutes have remained a steadfast advocate of their therapies for brain injured children, citing high success rates in their journal, The In-report. In fact, The Institutes frequently voice strong criticism of traditional medical practitioners who they claim focus on suppressing symptoms through excessive medication rather than treating underlying causes. The Institutes’ insistence on ‘detoxifying’ children from anti-convulsive medication is one such example of their differing approach. They point out that in most cases, traditional practitioners cannot claim to have made any significant progress in treating children with severe brain injury, whereas thousands of parents worldwide are willing to testify about the positive impact of The Institute’s treatment on their brain injured children, as documented in The Institutes’ In-Report. refs

• The editor Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk · contribs) left the following on my talk page diff Jim1138 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  

Dear Jim, Thanks you for your comments regarding my updates related to The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. I must admit that as a new user on Wikipedia, I am still figuring things out. I am not related to The Institutes. I am an independent physician who has seen first hand the great results of their programs. I fully appreciate your point on neutrality. However, if you read the article, much of it is not written in a neutral tone, rather with high negative bias. If you do a simple Google search about The Institutes, you will find that 80% of the views out there (blogs etc) are highly positive. Given this case, it does not seem neutral that 80% of the Wikipedia entry is negative. Can you please suggest how best to edit this article to represent a more balanced point of view? I attempted to start to do this with at least adding a small section called, "Response to Criticism." I have now cited The In-Report journal as the source. Is this sufficient?

We base articles on independent sources, especially for medical content. To show that this process works, we cannot use the IAHP's own in-house journal, which is clearly not independent. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For articles that make any statements about medical treatments the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline applies. Any claims, treatments or "programs" need to be presented in WP as described, explained and evaluated by current, independent and reliable sources. The section Programs needs to be rewritten to reflect appropriate medical references. Self published, involved sources are not appropriate. To quote the guideline, "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I do not wish to bite a newcomer but this is a "vital" requirement and should be within the understanding of a physician. Anecdotes, celebrity support and endorsement by individual members (or fringe groups) of the medical community are not the appropriate basis for content in WP. They should not receive undue weight. This article should probably be categorized Fringe science and/or Pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed material restored

I have restored the material recently removed. Per WP:MEDRS, "The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report." and "Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." This material clearly meets the criteria and standards set forth. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have re-removed the following:

In 1984, Sydney S. Gellis, editor of the Yearbook of Pediatrics and Pediatric Notes and a key commentator for the American Academy of Pediatrics’ journal, issued the following note:

“In 1982, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a Policy Statement on the Doman-Delacato patterning treatment of neurologically handicapped children as advocated by The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential which I commented on in a vein critical of the Institutes.(Pediatric Notes (1982), 6 p. 189)) Since the publication of the Academy Statement, it has been brought to our attention that the Institutes have endeavored unsuccessfully in the past to document their claims by offering to take part in scientifically controlled studies of the methodology under the aegis of the NIH or other nationally recognized scientific bodies and that they continue to express their sincere desire for involvement in a major control trial. This being the case, it is vital that such a study be conducted in order to settle once and for all the value of the patterning technique. This interest and willingness on the part of the Board and Staff of the Institutes should be encouraged by making every effort to develop with them a controlled study….”

refs

I am not sure how relevant the statement is. It is Gellis apologizing for criticizing IAHP for not doing research upon finding out they were reportedly attempting to become involved in research. It is dated and what remains important for the article is if research has been done and the results. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the commentary from Sydney Gellis is quite relevant, particularly since Gellis was a key member of the AAP and instrumental in the warnings that were issued about the institutes. Most of the controversy about the institutes stems from the fact that they have not conducted any controlled studies thus their willingness to participate in such studies as recognized by an AAP member deserves inclusion. I made this entry in response to some of the earlier comments on the talk page which allege that the page does not conform to neutral point of view by disallowing alternate perspectives. I believe that this commentary addresses those comments without materially changing the theme of the section. MojoMan100 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I added, "In contradiction of assertions that IHAP has attempted to participate in controlled scientific studies, the IHAP has instructed parents of children in their program not to take part in any independent studies designed to evaluate the program's effectiveness." citing Gellis and Hornby et al. This gives their assertion which Gellis refers to and presents the facts as found by Hornby et al. in 2013. As I said before that Gellis apologized (in 1984) for criticizing IAHP for not conducting controlled studies based on information they had attempted to do so is not current. What studies have they participated in, when and how have those studies been reviewed is what is current and appropriate per WP:MEDRS. Where in the article is a controversy about the institute not conducting controlled studies except this sentence I added today? Which has a 2013 book published by a reputable publisher as its source in addition to Gellis. I also added information about early studies, their evaluation and later studies supported again by current books from reputable publishers. Hornby et al.; Spitz; and Kavale and Mostert are strong reliable sources that meet WP:MEDRS. If commenters on this talk page would like to introduce content from alternate perspectives they are welcome to do so, so long as it comes from reliable independent sources and any medical claims are supported by MEDRS sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use of the Gellis reference. It may be misinterpreted to be understood that Gellis made this statement. MojoMan100 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)— MojoMan100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A sentence with two facts and two references for the facts. There is no use of Gellis name in the content, it is a reference from which the fact was extracted. There is no attribution to Gellis of the sentence, he is listed as a reference for the sentence, readers who are interested in the sources of the facts in the sentence can check the reference. That is what references are for. Sentences in an encyclopedia are not lifted directly from sources (unless quotes) they contain facts from multiple sources. Take some time to familiarize yourself with how WP is written and how references are cited. To provide clarity I will place the Gellis reference indicator into the middle of the sentence, however this is generally not considered necessary. I will also restructure the sentence to increase the separation of the two facts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Exercise caution with citing references

I removed the following statement which does not appear to be directly supported by the cited reference:

....the study had no control group and has not been replicated. Norum et al. stated regarding this study, "...any proof of effectiveness cannot be obtained from a non-randomized study."

Exercise caution with sourcing material, particularly given the contentious nature of this article. Poorly sourced material may be removed. CoolHandLuke2 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)— CoolHandLuke2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. refs

I restored,

"the study had no control group.[31] Norum et al. stated regarding this study, '...any proof of effectiveness cannot be obtained from a non-randomized study.'"

The first source the study itself (Malkowicz et al. 2006) states there is no control group, it is a retrospective study of 21 patients who had recieved treatment from within a single (IAHP) database that includes only patients who recieved treatment. See page 18, "The second challenge in this study is that the patients reviewed for these results of visual stimulation were compiled from patients all participating in a program of visual stimulation. There is no internal control group of patients who did not recieve visual stimulation." Of note also is that the endpoint of the study was achieving a certain level of progress or 15 months on the visual stimulation program and intensive treatment program. Multiple sources have pointed out the demands, expectations including financial of the IAHP program. It is a reasonable question if families not having some positive result might have dropped out. This is a concern with a retrospective study of a long term treatment.

The quote for Norum et al. is a verbatim quote from the source. See Norum et al. 2013 page 183, "On the other hand, The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential published a retrospective single arm study including a small series of 21 children with cortical visual impairment who had undergone an intensive visual stimulation program. They concluded their results indicated (even in their challenging group) a considerable neuroplasticity in visual systems leading to reintegration and visual recovery (Malcowicz et al., 2006). However, any proof of effectiveness cannot be obtained from a non-randomized study." I have left of that the study has not been replicated as this is not stated in a published source.

Use caution when asserting sources do not support content, reading the sources is usually a good place to start. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree, although as you state "...the study has not been replicated," was not part of the published source. CoolHandLuke2 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove 3 facts and claim they were not supported when 2 of them were explicitely and clearly in the sources? Lack of replication is supported by the absence of any published replication. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Three new single purpose accounts

Three new single purpose accounts have been editing this article or talk page, User:Dr. Samuel Goldstein, User:CoolHandLuke2 and User:MojoMan100. There are similarities in their edits. Dr. Samuel Goldstein has falsely asserted that sources are not WP:MEDRS when these sources clearly meet the criteria for ideal sources and has stated that these sources are not "scientific". CoolHandLuke2 has removed material claiming it is not supported by sources when it was. MojoMan100 has inserted and supported a lengthy quote about IAHP's willingness to participate in scientific studies. All three of these SPAs seem to present the same POV. Without accusation I would remind editors of the WP policies on sock puppetry, advocacy and conflict of interest. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Goldstein, then take it to WP:ANI. Jim1138 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Given that there is no RSMED supporting the Institute's methods, the edits by MrBill3 are quite valid and in alignment with Wikipedia policy. As the Institute does not appear willing to cooperate and conduct research with independent researchers, the 'damage' you speak of has been brought upon themselves by their secrecy. Jim1138 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

Refs needed. Phrasing in lead re "brain injury" with proposed change to lead

References are needed for the founding date Spitz (2013) gives 1962 not 1955. Reference is needed to establish this is a group of non profit organizations. These need to be secondary not primary. A reference is also needed for Delacato's position as psychologist Spitz calls him an "educator". A ref should be given for Temple Fay's beliefs. The "Gentle Revolution Series" needs a secondary source as do the programs for well children.

Is there any good secondary source that describes the program(s) of the IAHP. The one we are using is describing the program from the 1960 JAMA paper (Doman, et al.). The article should have a summary of what the current program(s) consist of.

The lead says, "children who have sustained a brain injury" this is not congruent with the body where the IAHP definition of "brain injured" is described as encompassing many things that are not injuries and could not be considered to have been sustained.

Proposed change to lead:

The Institutes for The Achievement of Human Potential, founded by Glenn Doman and Carl Delacato in 1962, teaches and provides literature on a treatment program which it promotes as improving the health and neurological development of "brain injured" and normal children.

This more accurately reflects the content of the article and the information in the secondary sources.

I renamed the Scientific criticism to Scientific evaluation this more accurately reflects the content. Scientific studies are not criticism. The section should (and does) contain critical (in the scientific sense not common usage) evaluations and studies.

The quote from Dart should go per WP:DUE (a non expert in the field's statement of a rejected theory) not sure he even belongs in the article. And Liza Minnelli??? - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the lead. I am using the IAHP "About Us" webpage for founder and founding date. If RS can be found to support the non profit status of IAHP it can be replaced in the lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Source for treatment program needed

As I have said before we need a WP:MEDRS source that describes the IAHP treatment program. The one currently being used is a 1986 book citing the 1960 Doman et al. study. Surely there is some MEDRS source that gives description of the program as it is offered now??? A good source describing the program would not only vastly improve the content of the article, but might help provide the "balance" sought by some editors.

Also secondary sources for the "Well Children" books and programs is needed. Again this might provide some balance as these programs may have been found to have some value. There may even be some MEDRS that supports IAHP programs for normal children, just because I can't/haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I also repeat my call for any MEDRS that support the IAHP and or it's programs. If given pointers I will use the resources I have access to for looking up and reading such sources (and I will add appropriate content).

I am a firm believer in the WP:NPOV policy and will make every effort to include content that provides additional viewpoints. There is some room in the WP:FRINGE policy for sources that advocate for the IAHP: experts in the field, academics, relevant notable commentators. If someone can provide such support please do so. Is there any non primary, non testimonial, non anecdotal, independent published support? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies

After going through Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, its quite clear that this article about The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential violates both the Neutral Point of View and Verifiable Source policies. It has been written with strong negative bias against The Institutes and most of the "scientific" sources that have been quoted are in fact opinions that are being passed as facts and most are not based on any scientific studies. I noticed that someone had added the results of The Institutes programs based on their In-report journal. This was removed based on the fact that it was using non-independent sources. However, almost all the sources quoted in the "Scientific Criticism" section, although third-party, are unverified opinions and are being presented in a one-sided manner. Why is it that Wikipedia has such a strict standard for anything positive that is added and is willing to keep standards more lax as long as the content is negative or critical? It should present a balanced view and not serve as a "rant website" for people with agendas. In the case of this article, this is not an academic discussion. This article is highly insidious and damaging for parents who can potentially get help for their brain injured children but are misguided by what is written here. A simple online search will reveal countless testimonials from both professionals and parents who swear by The Institutes work. The entire discussion here is presented in a way that suggests that Patterning is the only thing that The Institutes does which is what all the controversy is around. The reality is that this is one of many techniques that they use, something that has been stated by a pediatrician on the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children With Disabilities, in response to their view. I urge Wikipedia editors to take a close look at what is written here in accordance with Wikipedia policies and make amends to this insidious and misguided article. To assist with this, I have taken the time to address each specific point in the article below commenting on both Neutral Point of View and Source discrepancies:

In the introduction for The Institutes: "....their programs for brain injured children have been widely criticized."[2] "Widely Criticized" is a broad statement made without basis and the source that it refers to is not verifiable.

Also in the intro: "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the institute's patterning treatment is based on an outmoded and oversimplified theory of brain development, its effectiveness is not supported by evidence-based medicine, and its use is unwarranted.[3] This has issues with misquoting sources and with neutral point of view. The paper from the AAP refers to patterning as a treatment - a treatment used by The Institutes and many other organizations in the world. By stating "the institute's patterning treatment" the Wikipedia article suggests that this treatment is used only by The Institutes and that the AAP specifically criticizes The Institutes. While the AAP article does mention the Institutes as one of the creators of this treatment, their criticism is for Patterning and not The Institutes. The way of writing is designed to create negative bias for The Institutes. From a neutrality perspective, does a paragraph like this belong in the introduction? The Institutes has programs for well children and for brain injured children. For brain injured children, Patterning is one of many treatments it uses as written in this very article. The Introduction section should in fact be an introduction, not a condemnation meant to imply that all the Institutes does is Patterning and designed to create negative bias from the start.

In the History section: ".....also known as the recapitulation theory, is considered obsolete by modern mainstream biologists."[8] The source of this statemnet refers to an article by Ernst Haeckel, who lived between 1834 - 1919. His views cannot be considered current, modern or mainstream. He died almost a hundred years ago! Since then, this theory has been further studied and accepted by many biologists. While I am not quoting the sources of acceptance here, I am saying that it is misleading to try to pass him off as a modern biologist and make this sweeping statement in his name.

In Programs for brain-injured children: "Patterning is perhaps the key technique. IAHP state "if we have to put everything we do on one hook, patterning is really not a bad place to hang our hat"[19] This is selective quoting to create negative bias. The same article also states: "The word patterning has assumed a power and life all its own. It is often used as a one-word description of the entire program of The Institutes. It is curious that a sophisticated and carefully designed neurological program that embraces hundreds of techniques and dozens of programs should be boiled down to one word."

In the Scientific Criticism Section: The only thing verifiable is the view of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Children With Disabilities. However, there is another side to this view as well. Pediatricians have responded to this article on the same website stating that implying that Patterning is the only thing The Institutes does is misleading.

The study quoted by Sara Sparrow and Edward Ziggler is from 1978 and entirely outdated.

The statement from Kathleen Ann Quill's book is an opinion that is not based on scientific study. There is clear conflict of interest here since in the book, she is trying to sell her own approach to treating children with autism.

The statements quoted by Martha Farrell Erickson, Karen Marie Kurz-Riemer, Martin Robards and Steven Novella, although from published sources, are once again opinions which the sources do not quote any scientific studies for. They have been made in the interest of promoting their own techniques. If publishing an opinion in your own book or journal is enough to get on Wikipedia, why have the opinions of The Institutes and their supporters been excluded here to provide a more balanced view?

Once again, I urge Wikipedia editors to evaluate this article. It may be of low importance in Wikipedia as a whole but important for parents of brain injured children who are being misled by it.

Dr. Samuel Goldstein, Neurophysiologist Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In your review of policies, i think you have somehow missed WP:UNDUE , WP:VALID, WP:PSCI. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrBill3 MrBill3 is a 'skeptic' and therefore is not editing this page with a NPOV. MrBill3 is editing the page with a singular non-neutral POV. —  Jjibber76 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC) comment added by Jjibber76 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

First actually read and understand WP:NPOV. Second sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Third read this talk page and see the clear and policy based support for all the content I have added. Your wholesale removal of content and sources is WP:VANDALISM and your repeated reversions are WP:EDIT WARRING. Welcome to WP invest some time and energy in learning about WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. Jjibber76 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Provide policy based objections to specific content before reverting other editors contributions. You will find the content and sources have been the subject of extensive policy based discussions here with multiple editors involved. NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The significance and due proportionality of the published reliable sources which have been used to add content has been established on this talk page. The removal of sourced content without discussion is not appropriate editing. Take some time to understand the NPOV policy. Once your reverts of other editors contributions have been undone bring specific, clear, reasoned arguments to the talk page. Don't repeat your reverts without such discussion. There has been no discussion of any content or source from you here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 The previous content in this article has been in violation of numerous WP policies. Multiple editors are involved and share a NPOV. Clearly you do not. Most references removed were outdated and incorrectly referenced. Other references referred to outdated and incorrectly referenced citations. See WP:MEDDATE. Jjibber76 (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)— Jjibber76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have failed to provide specifics of what you are talking about. Per MEDRS and MEDDATE the most current available high quality sources are used. As the IAHP does not participate in quality studies there is little more current content available. This material is WP:FRINGE and the sources and content reflect that. Where is the up to date support in MEDRS quality sources for IAHP claims, treatments and theories? There is none, the theoretical underpinning was outdated and discredited years ago thus the sources reflect that. There are multiple sources that support this and it has been discussed already. After reading this talk page thoroughly provide specific examples of your allegations and propose changes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable supporters section

What is the purpose of this section? I read articles on a number of NGOs including International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders. (see Category:International nongovernmental organizations) Those two and a number of others I reviewed do not have a "notable supporters" section nor list celebrities. Why does IAHP have one? These 'celebrities' appear to have little, if any, qualifications in this area. Pauling's statement of support was at a conference hosted by IAHP, seems more of a "thank you for agreeing with me on vitamin C". Liza Minnelli was on the board of directors (so therefore IAHP's methods are scientifically sound?) Minnelli appears to have no formal education beyond high school. Raymond Dart was an anthropologist. I propose to remove this section as it does not support, and seems to merely distract from the central topics of the article. Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Dart's mention appears to be SYNTH (source cited does not even mention IAHP) and that Pauling was at one of their conferences 35 years ago seems not particularly encyclopedic. Manelli's mentions are cited to primary sources, and does not establish WP:WEIGHT. I have therefore removed this section. Yobol (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated MEDRS required

The follow policy statements from the 1960's need to be updated with Current MEDRS, similar to the AAP statements:

In addition to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a number of other organizations have issued cautionary statements about claims for efficacy of this therapy. These include the executive committee of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy, the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Texas, the Canadian Association for Retarded Children the executive board of the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. CoolHandLuke2 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

refs

Statements of policy from nationally recognized organizations are durable, if you have updated versions that differ provide them. The fact these organizations made these statements is not biomedical information it is factual information about the subject of the article. Read MEDRS it does not apply to this material. Regardless as I said, policy statements from national organizations are durable MEDRS until updated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS states the following: Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

This policy clearly treats statements from recognized bodies the same as those from other sources, requiring them to be current. Can you please provide the policy reference that considers this source "durable" (for statements over 50 years old) or allows an exception to current information. CoolHandLuke2 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think yours is a selective reading of the WP:MEDRS guideline. The idea is that we need to use the best available independent, reliable sources. If the best available sources are policy statements from the 1960s, then we should use those. If there are more recent statements from the AAP or other reputable expert bodies, then we should update our citations to use the more recent documents. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Policy statements from the AAP as recent as 2010 have already been included as independent, reliable and current sources. Including these other half century old statements seems redundant. CoolHandLuke2 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1999 AAP Policy Statement (reaffirmed 2010) cites these policy statements, giving them additional weight and demonstrating that they are the most current available. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As this article contains what MEDRS is available and most of the material from primary sources has been removed, I am removing the MEDRS tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To provide specific policy requested WP:MEDRS at WP:MEDDATE, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Not exactly 'actively researched'. This topic is WP:FRINGE ("A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field") so, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." applies, these are clearly prominent opinions. Also per FRINGE, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." these statements document the rejection with reliable sources.- - MrBill3 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

RS discussion

I am creating this section for discussion of the reliability of specific sources for specific content.

Spitz 1986

Content

The IAHP was criticized by Herman H. Spitz in his 1986 book, The Raising of Intelligence who said, "The wasted money and shattered marriages are undocumented in the information provided to its potential customers by the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential, which must take its place in the long list of pseudoscientific impressive sounding remedies sold by self-righteous advocates who feed on human anguish."

Sternberg on Spitz

Sternberg's 1988 review of Spitz's book has been cited as in some way impugning it as a reliable source or reliable source for medical information. Of note Spitz does not provide medical information but criticism of IAHP in a more general sense. The following is an analysis of Sternberg's review.

Sternberg (1988) on Spitz (1986):

"This book, also like that one [Kamin 1974], is not a new contribution to theory or research, but rather a painstaking and often highly critical documentary of a body of research - in that case, on hertability of IQ, in this case, on attempts to raise IQ."

As I said before this is clearly supportive of the case for this to be a reliable source. Highly critical analysis of research, by a competant and qualified author is absolutely valid RS. That it is painstaking speaks to a positive quality of the source.

"Finally, this book, like the earlier one, is written by someone with an axe to grind, and it is this last attribute that renders this book, like Kamin's, a good book that could have been great."

Note the conclusion is that this is a good book. This supports the book as RS, particularly as the review is by a noted author in a reputable journal. As I have also said, that the author of a source has a point of view does not render that source unreliable. It does allow for inclusion of other views published in reliable sources. I have and again invite the suggestion of other reliable sources with differing views.

"Chapter 10 deals with 'A Potpourri of Claims and Issues,' reviewing projects such as Doman and Delacato's patterning therapy for brain damage, Kephart's perceptual motor therapy..."

There is no criticism of Spitz's review of Doman and Delacato nor any 'specifics of the flaws of his conclusions'.

"First, the author has been quite thorough in his selection of programs."..."Spitz certainly does not select for inclusion only those programs that most stunningly make his case."

So the book is not a 'hit peice' on selected 'bad guys' but is comprehensive.

"Second, Spitz, like Kamin, has a gift for the reanalysis of data, and his reanalyses genuinely cast doubt upon many of the conclusions that have been drawn from past studies to raise retarded intelligence."

Clearly supports Spitz as RS and makes clear that the claim 'Spritz has no scientific basis for this opinion whatsoever' is false.

"Fourth, the book serves a scientific and social function in pointing out that claims for increasing retarded intelligence have been, in many cases, overstated, and, in some cases, irresponsible or even fraudulent."

Wow note Sternberg specifically says scientific. This is powerful support for MEDRS. Per WP:MEDDATE instructions about currency, "...may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." If there are more current sources that reflect this level of quality they should certainly be considered (where are they?). That Routledge has reissued the book in 2013 makes a strong case for it's currency.

Sternberg's criticism, "First, the emphasis given to programs in the book seems to be inversely related to their scientific merit, and directly related to their disrepute." is a criticism of the overall balance of the book. It in no way impugns the accuracy or validity of Spitz's evaluation of the programs which Sternberg has previously described as gifted reanalyis of data and cutting with a "keenly sharpened axe."

Another comment by Sternberg, "Second, Spitz has an annoying habit of discussing almost in the same breath programs that, in his view (and mine), are of highly questionable value, and programs that are among the best. For example, we go in a single chapter (10) from hearing about Doman's Better Baby Institute and programs of that ilk to hearing about the Venezuela Project, about the work of Bereiter and Englemann, and about the work of Butterfield and Belmont, which certainly represent some of the class projects in the field." 'Programs of that ilk' specifically about the Doman Institute, pretty damning and again no invalidation of Spitz's evaluation of IAHP (actually sounds like direct support).

Sternberg's strongest criticism, "Third, Spitz is just too strong in his claims that nothing works in a way that anyone would care about."

This doesn't apply to the material used as content in the article. If the article were to discuss the specific gains in intelligence asserted by IAHP (no RS details these assertions, wonder why?) and Spitz's analysis of the value of those gains a qualifier mentioning Sternberg's criticism or a different analysis from a reliable source (where is it?) would be warranted but that is not the case.

Sternberg concludes, "And, indeed, many thousands should read it. It is refreshing, disturbing, entertaining, challenging and inspiring. It is a model of historical, intellectual, and critical analysis at its very best."

This is clear and substantial support for Spitz's book as RS and MEDRS, validating inclusion of material from the book in the article. Again, other viewpoints from reliable published sources can be considered for inclusion.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Founder(s) and date of founding

The founding date and founder(s) information is not supported in reliable sources.

Hornby et al. state, "This programme was originated by Glen Doman and Carl Delacato who established the Institute for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia in the 1960's" Kavale and Mostert state, "In 1955, Carl H. Delacato, an educational psychologist, and Glen Doman, a physical therapist, founded the Rehabilitation Center, which in 1963, became reorganized into the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential (IAHP) in Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania. Doman acted as director and Delacato as associate director." Robards states, "Doman and Delacato established the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia in the 1960s." Spitz states, "The IAHP was established in 1962 by Glenn Doman, a physical therapist, and Carl Delacato, an educator who is no longer on the staff."

I am not entirely sure how to give the founding date and founder(s) in the lead in a manner that is concise and readable, however the date and founder given in the article by policy should be from published, reliable independent sources, thus we can't just use Doman in 1955 from the subject's own website. Suggestions? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No suggestions? - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that on the most basic points like the date of founding of the organization, location of the organization, etc, that the organization itself is a reliable source for it. Yobol (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No its a primary source and the RS' disagree. It is not unheard of or uncommon for organizations to make claims about themselves that are not accurate. In any case the independent RS' is what WP uses. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if independent RS's disagree, we should state the sources disagree, and describe the disagreement. Not particularly satisfying, but maybe the best way forward. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a way to provide a concise, clear explanation of the disagreement in particular for the lead. The explanation in history can be more detailed but I was hoping to be fairly straightforward in the lead. Any suggested prose? - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the only thing they have in common is the fact that the entity named IAHP was started in 1960s, and is probably a good place to start (whether it was renamed or started before under a different name then can be discussed in the body). Yobol (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They also all credit both Doman and Delacato, whereas the IAHP site does not. So "founded in the 1960s by Glenn Doman and Carl Delacato" sounds about right. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes made. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits reverted, vandalism, no talk

Per WP:Criticism, "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." So this edit diff with the following edit summary, "Completely removed one-sided outdated 'skeptical criticism' out of the main areas of the article. Those belong in their own section. NPOV needs to be established in this article." is completely incorrect. Additionally WP:NPOV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." so the criticism that is properly sourced needs to be included proportionately according to WP:DUE. The weight due Bland's letter is negligible (it can be included as due, but it is a letter to the editor in a WP:FRINGE journal). The content removed has been the subject of extensive discussion here and is well supported. Wholesale removal of sourced content that has been discussed on the talk page is WP:VANDALISM. Again removal of sourced content diff with no edit summary. Addition of unsourced content diff. Another removal of a sourced fact with no edit summary diff. And again diff. Removal of source with no edit summary diff. And again diff. Another removal of a source with no edit summary diff. Another source removed without edit summary diff. Removal of two sources, no edit summary diff. Talk (unsupported by sources) in article diff. Removal of content and source with no edit summary diff. More talk in the article citing only primary involved source tangentially diff. Change to content without supporting source diff.

This editing is clearly vandalism and has been reverted. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism ..."best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. Previous versions only include negative material, and no positive material. This article must be written with NPOV. Previous versions diff were warranted.MrBill3 is participating in edit war. == 3RR NI notice == Redjim987 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC) — Redjim987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Positive and negative material from quality reliable sources was included as WP:DUE following reasoned policy based discussion on this page. By reverting the work of other editors without discussion and consensus you are participating in an edit war. Note that the allegations made of 3RR against me 1) represent restoring sourced content, 2) are carefully explained above with diffs and 3) don't add up (do the math). Read the WP:NPOV policy with an attempt to understand it. Take some time to learn about editing WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not associated with IAHP. I read about this organization a number of years ago and was returning today to update myself on what they are doing. I am surprised by the article's content in that it is focusing on only one aspect of their programs. I was interested in their programs to teach toddlers how to read and do math, which is not mentioned at all in this article. From what I do know about these two programs, there is nothing harmful with the instruction. Additionally, it makes intuitive sense to me that if you expose your child to reading and math at an early age, they will have that much more time to develop their expertise. Without a mention of these programs, I see this article as completely biased. Mhbrooks (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources WP:RS. If reliable sources find the programs mentioned notable enough to give them significant coverage they might be mentioned. "From what I know" and "it makes intuitive senses" are the unpublished opinions of a WP editor WP:OR not the basis for encyclopedic content. Take some time to read the policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV and it will make clear WP represents what is published in reliable sources with due weight WP:DUE. A reading of the weighty sources clearly reveals the basis for the content of this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Positive critiques of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

I attended IAHP in 1993 as a parent of a child with brain-injury. At the end of the first week there, we were told to "...go home and forget about The Institutes. After a few days come together as a family and decide if you do or do not want to do any of the offered programs". I was never forced to do anything. My husband left prior to my going to IAHP and probably doesn't even know they exist. Yes it is expensive, because no insurance company, education system or medical system will help fund it. I could only offer it to my son for 2.5 years. But had I not done exactly what I learned to do my son would be dead. I am so grateful for The Institutes. I read nothing positive about IAHP. Almost all the references shared are non-objective and this does damage to parents with children like mine, as well as children that could get help.

Are there any others out there who had a positive experience with IAHP? It was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life, but my son is alive and blessing the lives of others. I am a much better parent because of IAHP and I will be eternally grateful for all they taught us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infavorofiahop (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of improving the article. It is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM) for discussing the subject of the article. Content for Wikipedia articles is based on reliable sources see, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR guidelines and policies on reliable sources, neutral point of view and no original research. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

brain Injuries

This Institutes serves children who are suffered for brain injuries. i have a quertion if a child suffers from brain injury who lives in India. how can we contact them ? what kind of service they provide to this child? Ivneet1995 (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Spitz and Hines on IAHP's willingness (or lackthereof) to participate in controlled studies.

The page currently states:

The IAHP has asserted in the past that it was willing and interested in participating in controlled scientific studies. The IAHP has instructed parents of children in their program not to take part in any independent studies designed to evaluate the program's effectiveness. The IAHP withdrew its agreement to participate in a "carefully designed study supported by federal and private agencies" when the study was in its final planning stages. According to Herman Spitz, "The IAHP no longer appears to be interested in a scientific evaluation of their techniques; they have grown large, wealthy, and independent, and their staff is satisfied to provide case histories and propaganda tracts in support of their claims." Similarly Terrence M. Hines stated that they "have shown very little interest in providing empirical support for their methods."

This is still wp:synth. The opinions of Spitz and Hines, while well-sourced, are juxtaposed with the previous assertion to insinuate that the previous assertion (i.e. the IAHP is willing to participate in studies) is incorrect. It's a back-door way to introduce wp:or to say "The Institutes is not willing to participate in controlled scientific studies" in direct contravention to the reliable sources which state otherwise. AbuRuud (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't SYNTH; when reliable sources contradict each other or disagree, we report the disagreement with due weight. We absolutely do NOT decide one side is right and then remove the material that disagrees with that side. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right where disagreeing or contradicting facts are concerned. But that's not what this is here. There is a reliable, secondary source that states one thing: IAHP is willing to participate in studies. Then the opinions of two people who disagree are juxtaposed with it. Further, they are primary sources for what they're being used to prove. Also problematic is that their opinions have been included in the scientific evaluation portion of the article. Opinions are not science.AbuRuud (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not synth. it is tracking historical changes. At point A they said X. At point B they said Y. Third parties analysed the change and came to conclusions. We present their conclusions as their conclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References