Talk:Wilderness therapy

Nice article!

Especially well referenced, good work! Sam Spade 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually went to two wilderness programs and know many people who have went to wilderness. Either the program has helped them, but they still misbehave or they are just plain pissed. I believe that this article is needs to be reevaluated for it's neutral point. --Bea 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbh123 (talk • contribs)

Highly Biased Article

This article does NOT reflect the current thinking in the field. There is a lot of propaganda (especially the "controversy" section which fails to discuss that the linkage to "boot camps" is a media creation. The GAO report was highly biased. Dr adventure (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help us fix that? Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is almost entirely about Wilderness Therapy programs aimed at behavior modification rather than the practice of integrating wilderness into more traditional therapeutic models. Highly biased information and innacurate/unconfirmable citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.192.216 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can ameliorate the slant. Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

POV issues

I tagged the article with a POV template because much of the article appears designed not to convey information, but to tell people what to think. It does include sections written from different viewpoints, but the juxtaposition of different opinionated statements is not the same thing as objectivity. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs editing or just some erasing.

Someone has obviously had a bad experience with wilderness camps and wanted to show there disdain in this article. Some parts fail to be informative but provide advice and opinions. its obvious to see the different writers, one uses opinion and no facts, the other quotes the most well known wilderness therapy organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.180.151 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article has changed very little since I created it in 2006 out of an exuberance for Wilderness Therapy. It is, I suppose, a credit to my Wikipedia experience at the time that I was able to temper my exuberance enough that you actually believe somebody had an axe to grind against Wilderness Therapy. All in all, I think the article presents the major points of view fairly and sympathetically, which is the heart of the absolute and non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy.

Why do all these type articles have to have a controversy section. Is that the only source of notoriety? I propose to make this and all articles like this more encyclopedic, to just describe the subject thoroughly. Anyone up for that? I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Tom Haws (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The overview section start with an incoherent statement regarding The New York Asylum, the San Francisco Agnew Asylum. Much of the content appears to be lifted from the referenced sources. The Harvard style references tend to hide the fact that content is copied, I suggest converting to footnote sources where appropriate and deleting unsourced or unverifiable content.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to address this problem. Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Adventure Therapy

Additional discussion of this proposed merge is talking place at Talk:Adventure therapy#Merge wilderness therapy here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am demoting this article to start class in psychology. I believe it is not at all comprehensive. The few worthwile portions should be merged with the article adventure therapy whose author appears to be an expert in the field. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion may not be worth much. But I think wilderness therapy is radical enough to deserve its own article, however short. If the article is not at all comprehensive, well then, let's add some content to make it so. Tom Haws (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Get jiggy wiv it, dude.182.240.34.78 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To bring this point up again: Why should this not be merged? I don't understand the arguments in favor of keeping it separate. One editor said that it is "radical" and different but how is wilderness therapy different? The article describes it as a sub-category of adventure therapy, but there is no clear description of what makes it different. The article says it is a kind of adventure therapy, then there is some unclear waffling about whether or not it involves behavior modification, and then there is text describing controversies surrounding this subtopic. Another editor said that they don't know of any other form of adventure therapy where people are forcibly removed from their homes, but that would be a justification for making wilderness therapy a subcategory (as it is the form of adventure therapy that involves forcible restraint), rather than simply deleting the topic altogether. Besides, my understanding from reading this article is that the restraints and force is not a part of the therapy per se anyway: it is the use of escort companies to get people to the wilderness therapy that involves the force and the restraints. That is a controversial element that might only apply to this subcategory, but the fact remains that this is a subcategory of adventure therapy. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Behavior Modification

I don't understand: The summary says that this is a "treatment modality for behavior modification" but the overview says that the aims and methods of wilderness therapy do not center on behavior modification. Which is it? ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse, deaths, and lawsuits

I think the different parts of this section should be separated. In particular, deaths (when no abuse/neglect is involved) aren't particularly controversial. It's tragic when a tree kills a camper, but that's not a problem unique to wilderness therapy: boy scouts and other outdoor programs also suffer similar deaths from time to time. It's not clear from the current text which incidents involved controversy and which were tragic but uncontroversial. For the sake of neutrality, that should be made clear. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Children aren’t supposed to die in therapy and any death is controversial. Safety is integral to these programs. Farr4h2004 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• If a roof collapsed during indoor therapy, and there was no negligence involved (the therapist did not know of any structural damage or weakness, so there was no particular expectation that the roof might collapse), is the death controversial? At the very least, the deaths should be put into context: did more people die than might be expected to die from being outdoors? A program cannot be more safe than the environment allows. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles section

What function is the 'Articles' section of this article intended to serve? At the moment it appears to be a list of arbitrarily-selected articles about controversies surrounding wilderness therapy. The criteria for inclusion in the list are not described... And that information should be merged into the 'Controversy' section instead of presented as a list of stuff. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

Attended the ascent wilderness program which run by cedu educational services and that information was clearly written in the citation I provided "It was CEDU, Cascade and also Ascent, which is a wilderness program.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi 1keyhole. In the article [1] it says: "The particular program Hilton attended as a teenager was the Provo Canyon School in Utah". This leads me to belive that Hilton attended Provo Canyon School, which is not a wilderness therapy program. Later in the same article she makes the statement you quote, but the full context is:

"It was the entire time. As soon as I walked in there staff members targeted me and had it out for me. It was torture. It was abuse. It was a living nightmare. I literally thought I was in a nightmare. I couldn’t believe it was really happening and seeing what they were doing to everyone in there. It’s not just Provo. It was CEDU, Cascade and also Ascent, which is a wilderness program."

It is not clear to me that she attended CEDU, Cascade or Ascent, as my reading of that was that these are examples of other programs which she is alleging also mistreat children. Do you have a clearer source that says she attended Ascent? - Bilby (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

it's mention on the Provo Canyon School page and paris hilton talk page

Nypost article article“I was sent away to be hidden,” the celeb claims, charting her path through places she calls “emotional growth schools” located “in the middle of nowhere,” including Ascent, Cascade and CEDU.

It's in the her documentary this is paris 1keyhole (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the NY Post is not regarded as a reliable source, and both of pages pages you link to make these claims without providing sources. - Bilby (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

huffington post article

In the documentary, Hilton explains how, after a move to New York City, she began partying, prompting her parents to send her to Ascent, Cascade, and then to CEDU, before sending her to Provo Canyon, which Hilton describes as “the worst of the worst.” 1keyhole (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the reference. - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

Tents

The vast majority of program are not providing tents the clients are instead sleeping under are tarpaulin tied with paracord Anderson Sulome (August 12, 2014) When Wilderness Boot Camps Take Tough Love Too Far The Atlantic Retrived December 26, 2022

Models the two leading models are base camp and expedition/Nomadic but the most common is expedition/Nomadic were the cilents between 5 and 10 miles carrying all the equipment including staff items backpacks.A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Wilderness Therapy on Delinquent Behaviors Among Youth

1keyhole (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that Atlantic article indicating that this applies to "the vast majority" of programs. You have said this several times, but I have yet to see a reliable source indicating anything like that. Many sources seem to indicate that all kinds of programs might be called "wilderness therapy" programs, including ones where people go play outside as part of the therapy. Some programs don't involve transport services or any kind of "tough love" approach. The Atlantic article makes clear that some specific programs are problematic.

I don't see any sourcing that "the most common" model involves a 5-10 mile hike (though that is a typical hiking distance for backpacking excursions in general, in which backpackers carry the equipment often including shared equipment across hikers, so does not seem particularly notable in and of itself). ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Many sources seem to indicate that all kinds of programs might be called "wilderness therapy" programs, including ones where people go play outside as part of the therapy."

there is no go outside and play programs listed by Outdoor behavourial healthcare coucil or National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs

I really don't understand why you struggling to indentify wilderness therapy programs. 1keyhole (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Because, as many of the academic sources point out, the definition of the term is vague and differs across different people and agencies that have used the term. The main defining feature is that the program is therapeutic and involves an outdoor component, not that the program is listed by OUtdoor Behavioral Healthcare Council. ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a not a vague term at all it's use it's mainly by the trouble teen industry and most wilderness therapy are located in utah.

If you search wilderness therapy on the academic databse web of science the results are

by country

USA 203

Canda 33

Norway 21

Australia 19

England 19

By affilations

Utah system of higher education 24

University of utah 22

univeristy of colorado system 16

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus 14

University of new hampshire 1keyhole (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those search results are intended to demonstrate except that programs in Utah often use the term and that >30% of the sources in web of science that use the term are outside of the USA. That doesn't seem to indicate that the term has a firm definition. If anything, it points to the existence of a diverse set of programs using the term. A term being used "mainly" by one industry also suggests some vagueness in the definition: if it's used mainly to mean one thing but also used to mean other things, some sources will mean one thing and other sources will mean some other thing.

"There is no consistent or universally accepted definition of wilderness therapy, which makes it difficult to compare and replicate the outcome of studies on wilderness therapy." - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243908

"There is variation in models of wilderness therapy across the globe in type of experience, duration, intensity, and inclusion of traditional psychotherapy practices" - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graham-Pringle/publication/352260289_The_Next_Frontier_Wilderness_Therapy_and_the_Treatment_of_Complex_Trauma/links/62d617abc59ce7545944ae3d/The-Next-Frontier-Wilderness-Therapy-and-the-Treatment-of-Complex-Trauma.pdf

The first sentence of this "What is Wilderness Therapy?" article says that there is a lack of a consistent and accepted definition. http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Research/WhatIsWildernessTx.pdf

These programs are highly variable, and the term is often used interchangeably with other terms (i.e., adventure therapy). ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In any event, the source you provided does not say anything about "the vast majority" of programs. ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

POV issues

There appear to be POV issues with this article. The page seems to consist almost entirely of criticism. There is nothing indicating what the proponents of these programs claim that the programs do, nor what the purported benefits are. The text says that effectiveness is unclear, but it's unclear what it would look like if the programs were actually effective. Though the programs might not work and they have many ethical issues and controversies associated with them, presumably they are intended to accomplish something, and that is not currently being represented. How are the differences from traditional therapy expected to benefit the participants? ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilderness therapy can't publish what they really do.

One example of how of one program operates

90 days in middle of utah deserts like Escalante Desert hiking up the wah wah mountain range .

whilst carrying roughly 50lbs of gear and then setting up camp.

The clients have to carry staff gear as well because the staff need to be able to run after escapees.

the therapy session they give is between 30 to 60 minute per week.

the therapist does not hike with the group just travels out to each group location.

the field staff who surpvise switch over every 6 days.

clients have to start their own fires.

and the program staff use earth names. 1keyhole (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

They must have claims about what the program is intended to do for the participants. Otherwise no one would ever sign their children up for the program. Logically, there must be claims that proponents are making, and this page should not be completely one-sided. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Beck and Wong argue that the therapeutic nature of wilderness therapy is central to the definition, which is a decent method of separating it from boot camps (although not adventure therapy). They found positive results from the programs, noting that they were interested in "delinquent behaviours" rather than other issues they may lead people to be sent to the programs. The article is available at [2]. Otherwise there seem to be good outcomes with cancer therapy programs. Beck and Wong make an interesting point that the formation of the OBH Council may have impacted studies as it separated wilderness therapy from boot camps, so focused on the period between 1990 and 2021, which - as they pointed out - means that earlier studies may reflect older, less evolved, methodologies. I suspect that if we incorporate the different models and remove boot camps we'll get more positive results from the literature. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Outdoor behavioral healthcare council isn't a relible source it's by people who are these "boot camp" model so that's a conflict of intrest.

all it's good for providing a list of programs that are currently running. 1keyhole (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Beck and Wong paper looks reliable to me. It's from the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior, not from the OBH Council. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I found that article because 1keyhole recommended it in the "Misinformation" section above - it does a good job of distinguishing between models, and seems to be a viable meta study. I'm starting to think that there may be a useful distinction between adventure therapy and wilderness therapy, and between pre-2000's models and post-2000. - Bilby (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

All these academics are doing is taking the data given to them from outdoor behavioral council and mashing away at the keyboard.

Title: Brat camp, boot camp, or ……..? Exploring wilderness therapy program theory

clients deemend not appoirate client for safety reasons.

Anorexic and eating disorders, Clients with sucial tendencys, violent clients, younger clients, because of safety.

clients deemed apporiate were:

Attention defict disorder, Alchol and drug problems, Behavioral problems, depression, oppositional defiant, commited parents,

In my mind no sense drug withdrawl is safety concern and since clients can only write letters to immediate family raises concerns over sending a depressed into a downward sprial as being cut of from friends isn't good for social health.

Plus why is a Correctional Psychologist journal reviewing programs that clients who no criminal record and just conditions such odd and adhd?

1keyhole (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I was intending to use Russell's "Brat camp, boot camp, or ....?" paper, so I'm glad you raised it. This follows on from Russell's 2001 paper where he was offering an integrated definition of wilderness therapy by combining the definitions used by several other researchers in the field, only in the second paper he uses four case studies to evaluate whether or not the practises in the programs reflect a therapy-based model or instead a based on the disproven boot camp approach. His conclusion was that the four programs he examined were not following the boot camp model. This goes well with other articles which regard the therapy component as essential and as a core part of the definition. - Bilby (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Beck and Wong state that the analysis was on criminogenic outcome variables "such as antisocial behaviors, antisocial attitudes, problem behaviors, official reports of delinquency or recidivism, or unofficial reports (self-reports or caregiver reports) of delinquency or recidivism." Those things are of obvious interest to correctional psychology. Studies were included that were conducted in Canada, the United States, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. I've only skimmed it, but it looks like they include programs not associated with the OBH Council (their scoring sheet allows for programs that are not OBH certified). I don't think it's justified to say that this meta-analysis of the literature available online is "taking the data given to them from outdoor behavioral council and mashing away at the keyboard". ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Have any of these refenced academics been out into the field obeserved the pratices? 1keyhole (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant for a meta-analysis of published literature.

Also irrelevant for the inclusion of other claims from reliable sources. I suspect that many or most of the already-cited sources on the page (news journalists, etc.) have not been out into the field observing the practices. ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me reclarify have the academic's used in the entire wikipedia page been out into the field to obverse the pratices in use.

The newspapers and journalists have conducted interviews with former clients some which have provided photographs to prove they were at the wilderness therapy program then there is hositpalizations and death on top of that.

plus the govermental accountability report from 2007 that also seems to contridicts the academic community. 1keyhole (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. What bearing does that have on the POV issues or the reliability of the Beck and Wong source? I am simply not understanding what you are getting at, sorry.

Sources sometimes contradict each other. That's fine! We can say things like "Proponents argue [x] but others have concluded that [y]." ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for tagging this as a psychology articles needing expert attention. It would be great if someone familiar with clinical practice could add some text re: what the purported benefits are, and how wilderness therapy differs from traditional therapy. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add Globalize since this article is focused on the american praticedo you concur? 1keyhole (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. Aside from the one sentence about the governmental report, most of the rest of the article might apply worldwide or might be specific to Utah... it depends on whether or not there are differences in these programs across country lines. Some sources (like the Beck and Wong source) are explicitly discussing the topic across multiple countries (Canada, the United States, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand), not specific to the US. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

They don't exist outside of usa it's why the UK reality tv show called brat camp filmed in Utah, Idaho, Arizona 1keyhole (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The literature generally states that wilderness therapy is found in the US, Canada, UK and Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The Netherlands version of Brat Camp was based in Kenya. - Bilby (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Brat camp

United Kingdom verison sent to teen to programs in the following - Utah, Idaho, Arizona,

United States verison - Sage Walk in Oregon

German verison sent teens to following states - Utah, Oregon, Colorado

Netherlands - Customized wilderness program in Kenya

Customized probably means a program they put get themselves. 1keyhole (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but... if you thought they did not exist outside of the USA, why would you add a globalize tag? ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

what globalisation tag states

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) 1keyhole (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a small amount from Jong et al and Harper et al on the different traditions used in different countries. I think we can add a fair bit more to help make this more international, but the problem at the moment is that we're lacking coverage of a lot of sections, from how the programs function through to their intended outcomes. I suspect some of this international perspective will emerge as we go, especially if we add a history section, and we'll certainly get more once we look at the registration/oversight. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that, in order to address the POV concerns, we'll eventually need six main sections. A definition, as we need to separate this from both adventure therapy and boot camps if it is to remain a viable article, which I've done some work on. A section on history - we have one sentence at the moment, but a more global account and more details about the models from which this emerged would be good. Safety, which will allow some of the controversy section to be moved into a broader topic, especially given that there have been a number of good, peer-reviewed papers looking at the safety issues. Efficacy, which is entirely missing at the moment. Clients, to mention the different roles which this is used in ("troubled teens" is one, but I'm also seeing a bit on cancer survivors, and there are others). Regulation, which is currently missing and will give a more global perspective. And I have made a section on Consent. In reading the peer-reviewed literature there is a decent amount showing that there are benefits to wilderness therapy, there are studies looking at the safety aspects (which generally come out in favour of wilderness therapy, when placed in context), but there is an almost - but not quite - universal view that forced attendance is unethical and of questionable value. I'd like to suggest that we follow WP:MEDRS as much as possible, and for the efficacy section rely on meta studies rather than primary research. - Bilby (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC

The neutrality of this article is disputed and we could use some extra comments to help move forward. 1keyhole (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You will need to be a bit more specific.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I figured it was best to let people read the article and then npov on the talk page.

The naturality of article is being disputed due to the size of the Controversy section and the critciszm of wilderness therapy.

@ParticipantObserver started pov issues with opening.

"There appear to be POV issues with this article. The page seems to consist almost entirely of criticism. There is nothing indicating what the proponents of these programs claim that the programs do, nor what the purported benefits are. The text says that effectiveness is unclear, but it's unclear what it would look like if the programs were actually effective. Though the programs might not work and they have many ethical issues and controversies associated with them, presumably they are intended to accomplish something, and that is not currently being represented. How are the differences from traditional therapy expected to benefit the participants?" 1keyhole (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for repeating what I wrote above, but it might be better here. I think as an overview we'll need 6 sections:

• Definition
• Clients
• Efficacy
• Safety
• Consent
• Regulation

My feeling is that if we can address these based on the peer-reviewed literature we will make good progress towards NPOV. I also feel that we should be focused more on WP:MEDRS rather than on mainstream media and lobby groups, as that will help with balance. - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Consent? I am sorry but if someone dosen't want to going with a person to a place that is kidnap. 1keyhole (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, including someone against their wishes would be a consent issue. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What would the defination be? 1keyhole (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which definition are you referring to? - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What the defination of wilderness therapy. 1keyhole (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've covered that in the article under "Overview". - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this article works it reads like someone is trying to say wilderness therapy is a legitmate form of therapy.

It would be like try legitmize converison therapy.

Much of Rowan’s therapy while at camp centered on her sexual orientation. She knew she was gay from a young age and had already come out to her family, who did not have an issue with the news.

At WinGate, she was told her homosexuality was a sin, and that she needed to seek God. The camp was not religiously affiliated, but many of the staff were members of the Mormon church and even though WinGate claims to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ teens that does not tolerate microaggressions of any kind, some staff would project their beliefs on participants. Former participants explained that being assigned a therapist that was homophobic was simply a matter of random determination.[3] 1keyhole (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Negative aspects of the programs need to be covered in full, but the way I approach this is to work through peer-reviewed literature first without looking for particular outcomes, and develop it from there. I'd also recommend looking at the full article, rather than just the aspects that support a particular view - the one you linked to also says that groups who are OBHC-accredited are significantly better than those which are unaccredited, and discusses different people who attended an accredited program with positive results in two of the three examples. The reality of these programs is, unfortunately, complicated. - Bilby (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

These are non-relible because these academic are not observing the pratices for themselves.

The meta analysis study itself sources data is coming from a non-relible. 1keyhole (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

OBHC Outdoor behavioral healthcare council is not a relible source it is run by people who run wilderness therapy programs

WP:RSP

WP:BIASED

Until 1995 there was very little public awareness of the industry. That year, Outside Magazine published an article by John Krakauer called Loving Them To Death, detailing the six preventable deaths of minors under the care of undertrained staff at multiple wilderness therapy programs throughout Utah.

The article was so shocking that the wilderness therapy industry leaders gathered together to find ways to prevent more deaths, which is how the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Center (OBHC), the third-party monitor specific to the wilderness therapy field, was created. It sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management.

Parents don’t always know about the OBHC, and most don’t know that accredited programs have 424% better treatment outcomes than unaccredited ones. Without a national set of standards, parents rely on Google searches to divine their efficacy, rather than data-led knowledge about how the program performs.[4] 1keyhole (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote you provide at the end about the 424% better outcomes for programs accredited with OBHC is what I was referring to in the article you provided. Yes, that could also be covered in the article along with negative aspects. I don't know what you mean by "These are non-relible because these academic are not observing the pratices for themselves". That would depend on the nature of the study, but I am not sure what academics you are commenting on. Meta-analysis papers are papers which examine findings from multiple other published researchers and summarise the research as a whole. They wouldn't conduct their own research (other than, of course, the process of selecting the studies), as that would mean that it is primary research rather than a meta study. - Bilby (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Problem 1 - no primary research studies.
• Problem 2 - the meta study sourced it's data from the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare council which is not a relible source since it's run by the troubled teen industry. Also various articles state the program duration is closer too 12 weeks.
• Problem 3 - clients being sent to programs for their sexual orentitation.
• Problem 4 - Human rights abuse such being kidnapped, neglect,
• problem 5 - Clients being sent for learning disabilities.

problem 6 - Mutiple website say there treatment for

• Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Anxiety
• Borderline Personality Disorder
• Bulimia and Anorexia
• Bipolar Disorder
• Gaming addiction
• Post-traumatic stress disorder
• Oppositional Defiant Disorder
• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
• substance abuse
• failure to launch (that's the actul wording)
• entitlement
• Schoool avoidence
• School underperformance
• Self-Harm

So basically it treats everything...

Problem 7 - pratices

• denying access to shower or other bathing facilties
• hiking long distance whilst carrying gear weight over 30 lbs
• Indqaute shelters

1keyhole (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what this list is for, but I will comment that your statement about the "meta study", by which I assume you are referring to the Beck and Wong 2022 paper [5] is incorrect. If the intent is to cover these topics, and they can be adequately sourced, then yes, I would expect them to be included along with other coverage, although a distinction may need to be drawn between "wilderness therapy" in general and an individual program.- Bilby (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Converison therapy isn't a legitmate form of therapy because it's abuse of human rights and free will correct Then how is this a legitmate form of therapy? 1keyhole (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we need to say that the programs are effective (they appear to generally not be effective) but that we should be discussing the theories and techniques and not simply reporting the controversies. There is a great deal that is of potential interest to a general reader. Note that the conversion therapy page both makes it clear that conversion therapy is ineffective pseudoscience (and that it's inhumane and causes harms etc) but also provides the other perspective, describing the views typically held in those programs, the techniques that are/were used, and underlying theories. The equivalent should be presented for wilderness therapy.

This page is not intended to promote your personal agenda that parents should be convinced not enroll their children in these programs. The page is meant to be encyclopedic in nature. WP:ADVOCACY To include only criticism and to treat all positive claims as suspicious and unreliable would be taking a specific POV, which is not the goal here.

Re: the meta-analysis, academics do not need to be observing the practices in-person in order for their analyses and reports to be reliable. Meta-analysis is a technique that does not rely on direct observation. It's simply not how a meta-analysis works. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

All my edits to the article page are the facts that's all I've done is stated the proven facts. 1keyhole (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The POV issue is that other facts need to also be included, not solely criticisms and reports of abuse/death. ParticipantObserver (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

WP:WEIGHT 1keyhole (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Most other pages describing therapeutic approaches include sections on the history of the approach, the techniques that are used, the theories, the medical uses, etc. I do not understand your resistance to including basic encyclopedic information. It is not true that including text describing what these programs are intended to do or describing how the approach differs from traditional therapy would be giving undue weight.

The article on Earth certainly describes what the Earth is (and does so in great detail), and this page currently provides only a vague description that the approach is 'a treatment option for behavioral disorders, substance abuse, and mental health issues in adolescents', and that patients spend time living outdoor with peers (which is inaccurate, as some programs appear to use cabins). The overview begins with text that you have cut down to sentence fragments ('and the term can describe programs using a variety of theoretical orientations. The lack') and does not describe in even brief general terms what any of the theoretical orientations are.

What is wilderness therapy? How is it different from traditional therapy? Who attends these programs? Why do they attend them? ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

For example, you have said that the OBHC sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management, and that accredited programs have better outcomes. Why is that not mentioned in the article? The page currently says that there are no national standards, but those sound to me like national standards. ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you should create a post on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

and check to see if meets wikipedia standards on being reliable source before including anything from the outdoor behavioural healthcare council

Just seems the best course of action to check first. 1keyhole (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I have added or suggested adding is sourced directly from the OBHC. ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from The Guardian that says that the OBHC sets standards for accreditation, cost-benefit analysis, outcome-based research and risk management. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/14/us-wilderness-therapy-camps-troubled-teen-industry-abuse ParticipantObserver (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Read their website section https://www.obhcenter.org/accreditation/ 1keyhole (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I did. But why? You don't want me to cite that; you just said so. ParticipantObserver (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

After reading the website do you think that is website of legitmate accredition body? 1keyhole (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you find illegitimate about the website. But The Guardian obviously considered it legitimate. Unless you have a reliable source saying that they are not legitimate, it would be original research or improper synthesis to conclude otherwise. ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Can Involuntary Youth Transport into Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Treatment Programs (Wilderness Therapy) Ever Be Ethical? https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00864-2

The industry acknowledged the GAO report, and some

but not all of the worst programs seemed to disappear. Pri-

vate pay wilderness therapy programs have continued (Nor-

ton et al., 2014), often out of sight of regulatory agencies,

in service to wealthy families who can afford the high fees

(i.e., approx. $500–600 USD per day for an average of 90

days, according to Gass et al., 2019). OBH programs and

transport companies appear to depend on each other for a

steady supply of clients. The programs, referral services,

transport services, and researchers who study them have a

mutual financial incentive to approve their own practices,

and the desperate parents who contract with them may not

know enough about other options. In fact, grassroots move-

ments, such as #BreakingCodeSilence, and the recent efforts

of Paris Hilton (2021) and Rosen (2021) have demonstrated

that this industry did not disappear in the early 2000s;

instead, it has thrived. About 50% of youth receiving OBH 1keyhole (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I read that article earlier. The academic literature is almost universal that involuntary transport is unethical and leads to negative outcomes, with two exceptions which have been heavily questioned by later studies. While many wilderness programs use involuntary transport, I'm inclined to treat these as two separate issues, as wilderness therapy programs can exist without involuntary transport (especially outside the US), and involuntary transport is used for a range of programs that are not wilderness-based. It should still be covered in this article, though. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The section which was relevant was how OBH has caused the cause troubled teen industry to thrive. 1keyhole (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, you want to add some text about that to the page? That seems OK to me, as long as it stays on topic.

But none of that suggests that they don't provide accreditation. ParticipantObserver (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time that you've pointed to some facts, cited a source, and then when another editor wants to use the source you say that it's not reliable--even for drawing the same conclusions that you pointed to! I'm not sure what you're aiming to accomplish, but it is disruptive. ParticipantObserver (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I need a chiropracter. - Roxy the dog 23:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what to say anymore

They want to talk about legitmate wilderness programs

whilst using the same accrediation body that the troubled teen industry uses.... 1keyhole (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If the industry this article is about uses a particular accreditation body, and reliable sources consider it notable, why would we not mention that? The Guardian mentioned it. You yourself mentioned it. I didn't know about the accreditation until you linked to it above. ParticipantObserver (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well raises another problem as the academic Michael Gass that has been used as academic source also Works OBH

https://www.obhcenter.org/research-scientists/

Since he's declared no conflict of intrest that's a WP:NOR problem 1keyhole (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

He doesn't work "for the OBH". I think you are confusing the OBH Council, which is the body that accredits a number of wilderness therapy programs, and the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Center which is part of the University of New Hampshire and is not an accreditation body. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We're way off track here. Are you opposed to the addition of a 'History' section? Are you opposed to the addition of a 'theories and techniques' section?

Are you opposed to the addition of some text describing the differences from traditional therapy?

If so, why? ParticipantObserver (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The meta-analysis sourced its data from multiple places, not just the OBHC. And the OBHC is probably in a very good position to provide information re: what the programs are intended to do and how they are intended to work. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that I've removed the RFC template as this isn't actually an RFC, just a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I had put in a request for comments to help and no one has weighed in? 1keyhole (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RFCs are for specific questions and issues, not for general discussion. See the examples of bad RFC statements at WP:RFCBRIEF and compare to your own statement. If you're looking to solicit more general input a brief statement at WP:NPOVN is likely a better bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of which wikipedia resources to use. 1keyhole (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition

I'm very confused by these edits and this subsequent revert, which left the section largely illegible. Russell's 2001 paper is now one of the most common sources for a definition that I could find in the literature. Is there a reason why Russell should be removed? - Bilby (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS it's too old 1keyhole (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is a definition, and it is the most common definition I can find. Plus you have made the section illegible. But ok, I will put it back with newer sources, if that helps. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've used a 2021 source and made some modifications to the text to match. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR

We can't use academic from Michael Gass University of New Hampshire as He also works for Outdoor Behavioral healthcare.

Source

Can Involuntary Youth Transport into Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Treatment Programs (Wilderness Therapy) Ever Be Ethical?https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00864-2

OBH Center Research Scientists https://www.obhcenter.org/research-scientists/

1keyhole (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No, he works for the University of New Hampshire as part of the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare (OBH) Center. That said, we aren't using Gass as a source in any way that should be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Gass et al. (2019) stated “the lead author is paid a partial

summer stipend of his university salary by the Outdoor

Behavioral Council, the National Association of Thera-

peutic Schools and Programs” (NATSAP) (p. 1) yet in the

same paper the authors declare receiving no financial sup-

port. The central goal of conflict-of-interest expression “is

to protect the integrity of professional judgement” (Field

& Lo, 2009, p. 4). which preserves the public trust, but

can also obscure biases and vested interests if not declared

(Galea & Saitz, 2017; Little, 1999). 1keyhole (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, given we aren't using him as a source, I don't think this counts as a problem. - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 1keyhole (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

90 days?

I kept reading how many programs are 90 days and it was starting to bother me after some research I found the reason the most likely explanation

The National Institute on Drug Abuse recommends 90 days for substace abuse treatment.[6]

Leaves questioning why are non-substance abusers staying 90 days as well? 1keyhole (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindseybean27 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)