Talk:Association for Behavior Analysis International

Edit warring by IP

Per this discussion. Discuss new content, don't just undo it. Binksternet and IP 66.244.121.212|66.244.121.212, I'm forced to issue a warning. See WP:VANDALISM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.1.22 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not edit remove appropriately sourced content. Please do not edit war. Please do discuss on talk page. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

IP 66.244.121.212|66.244.121.212: Then the talk section is the appropriate section to also discuss the relationship between ABAI and JRC. "Endorsement" is incorrect terminology and this has been pointed out by multiple users. Please remove that language from the article and move JRC discussion to the talk. Please do not force users to report your IP for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:F08D:1027:D2D5:8B52 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out by multiple IPs, you mean. I suspect they are the same user. Three sources find evidence of this connection. It is not reasonably in dispute. In 1987, this organization gave an award to the guy who allowed the JRC to keep torturing kids. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion belongs in a "controversies" section and should not be stated as fact. the word "endorsed" has been disputed by the organization itself and printed materials explicitly state that ABAI does not endorse organizations. If there are groups who disagree with what constitutes an endorsement, it should be phrased as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:F08D:1027:D2D5:8B52 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. You have shown no evidence that this is true. I have already reported you to ANI for socking and violating WP:3RR, as you can surely see on your talk page.. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Publication of any content or acceptance of advertisements in this book does not imply endorsement by ABAI. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and speakers in this book and during the ABAI annual convention do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of ABAI or official policies of ABAI." And " The inclusion of this material is not an indication of endorsement, authorization, sponsorship, or affiliation by ABAI of these organizations or their work, services, or the content of the material they present."

Page 5 and page 31 of the ABAI program book for the 45th Annual Convention (https://www.abainternational.org/media/175855/abai2019progbk_web.pdf) Page 7 and page 23 of the ABAI program book for the 44th Annual Convention (https://www.abainternational.org/media/175858/anncnv18_prgmbk_web.pdf) Page 7 and page 23 of the ABAI program book for the 43rd Annual Convention (https://media.abainternational.org/download/AnnCnv17PrgmBk.pdf)

And it goes on and on throughout the printed program books found here: https://www.abainternational.org/events/archives.aspx

I am sorry if I aggressively edited your content, but it's simply not true that ABAI has "endorsed" anyone and has actually explicitly stated the opposite as demonstrated above. You have posted opinion at best and falsehood at worst and continue to perpetuate and escalate an edit war just to do so. Please, reword statements of opinion to reflect their nature and place them in their proper context in a "controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.1.22 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That generic disclaimer is a rather weak argument. This source says that the JRC was a sponsor of ABAI's conference, and that “ABAI Convention Sponsors have been approved by the Organizational Review Committee as being aligned with ABAI’s mission”. Seems like an endorsement to me. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ASAN is far from a reliable source and their research should be called into question/ Especially since the very same page they use to support their claim also includes the language that ABAI doesn't endorse the people at their conferences. The "evidence" in the ASAN is quite literally taken out of context, as referenced before. The very wording of "Seems like an endorsement to me" betrays the subjectivity of your view. This should not be stated as fact in a Wikipedia article. It should be moved to the controversies section and reworded as such.

I have looked at primary and secondary sources available online and it certainly looks like the ABAI regularly gives the JRC a friendly platform to defend and promote their electrical torture research practiced on children. At no point does the ABAI break away from the JRC and deny the validity of the JRC's behavioral work, especially their controversial electrical GED tool. The award given by ABAI to Robert A. Sherman is especially damning. The IPs from Portage, Michigan, should not be allowed to edit here, because they are whitewashing the article and promoting the topic. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The very fact that we're arguing about this by definition means this issue in dispute. No one is arguing whether ABAI has featured speakers with ties to the JRC or that they've given awards to individuals. That some people dislike this is a CONTROVERSY and should discussed in these terms. It is vandalism to claim that here that ABAI makes an endorsement they clearly do not. No one is saying that these issues are not important, but they should properly contextualized. Create a separate article on the issue and link the ABAI page to it, or even create a controversy section here and discuss it as that -- a subject that is being disputed.

No more baseless accusations of vandalism, please, as these may be considered personal attacks. Also, please see WP:POVFORK and WP:CRIT. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to please see WP:VANDALISM and evaluate your own activity accordingly in order to prevent further escalation in this article and to avoid a violation. Your own citations above seem to undercut your position and I am simply requesting that your article edits remain consistent with the very Wikipedia standards you cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.1.22 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Look. There has to be some way to update outdated information and restructure criticism as neutral POV with getting accused of whitewashing or COI. I can't help it that I live in the Kalamazoo area. I've tried to maintain all the content and references of the original editors and update information that is out of date, as well as provide additional content and perspective. Please explain how any of my edits violate standards.Scandevi (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Scandevi:, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, do not simply revert material you disagree with. This is edit-warring and you have been previously warned about it. Secondly, and to answer your question, to remove material you think is derogatory or violates WP:NPOV you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS that the material needs to be removed. Edit-warring is not gaining consensus, nor is making vague demands. It requires discussion here on this talk page. You need to explicitly identify what material is NPOV, explain why it is NPOV, and discuss why the references used to support that material should not be accepted as reliable sources. Upon initial inspection, the material you are edit-warring appears to be supported by RS and not WP:UNDUE. Please explain why you believe otherwise. Lastly, new comments in a discussion belong at the bottom of the section. I have moved your comment accordingly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:Jesus, a handful of trolls can really suck up a ton of time here. First, please see the edits made on Aug 11, 2020. There was no consensus for these changes, yet that edit is now considered the default. At the very least, it seems like this article should revert back to that version, as disagreement on content started after that edit was made.

(1) “ABAI is closely connected to the Judge Rotenberg Center” – This is an opinion and not substantiated in the references, in part because of how vague the statement is. The current ABAI leadership has no one associated with JRC. The JRC has exhibited at ABAI conventions, but simply looking through ABAI’s list of former exhibitor reveals that list is diverse and not strongly connected. Furthermore, ABAI itself goes out of its way to say it does not endorse exhibitors, stating in its most recent printed program book, “The inclusion of this material is not an indication of endorsement, authorization, sponsorship, or affiliation by ABAI of these organizations or their work, services, or the content of the material they present.” [1] Maybe that feel like not a strong enough rejection, but again, that’s a matter of opinion. Why would is there such a rejection to frame it as such? (2) “Margaret Vaughan who edits the ABAI journal The Behavior Analyst.” This is just inaccurate. According to the link provided by the individual who made the edit Margaret Vaughan isn’t listed among the JRC board of directors. Also, she isn’t the editor of The Behavior Analyst, because that isn’t the title of that journal anymore. It’s now called Perspectives on Behavior Science and the editor is M. Christopher Newland (https://www.springer.com/journal/40614) (3) “Several times, the ABAI has invited the Judge Rotenberg Center to speak at their conferences to promote the Graduated Electronic Decelerator…” That isn’t how speakers at ABAI events work. According to their Call for Submissions, (https://www.abainternational.org/events/annual/annual2021/call-for-submissions.aspx) prospective speaker submit proposals for talks, those proposal are reviewed, and if they are sufficiently behavioral, then they are allowed to present. Maybe the critics don’t like the inclusion, but it’s inaccurate to say ABAI has reached out to the JRC and asked them to promote GED. (4) “ABAI has published position papers to influence the practice of ABA. Published papers include The Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment (1989), Student's Right to Effective Education (1990), and Facilitated Communication (1995). The papers are distinguished by their specificity in telling practitioners what they must and must not do” It seems like a link to the actual position statements is relevant and should be provided in the references: https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/policies-and-positions.aspx (5) “ABAI has repeatedly endorsed the Judge Rotenberg Center's use of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator” Again, ABAI has never stated they endorse the JRC or the GED and their own official statements make no such claim. This is opinion and the references provided to support the claim are to opinion pieces posted by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (6) The entire journals section is straight up out of date. ABAI publishes 6 journals, not 4, and they are The Psychological Record, Perspectives on Behavior Science, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Behavior Analysis in Practice, Behavior and Social Issues, and Education and Treatment of Children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandevi (talk • contribs)

Can you point to a statement from ABAI distancing themselves from JRC? Outside observers have said that ABAI failed to take a stance against JRC when it would have been very wise to issue one, to show that the U.N.'s assessment of torture was being taken seriously. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they have and I agree the criticism has a valid place in the article, which is why it wasn't removed in the edits and simply placed into context. It's totally valid to criticize the ABAI for not taking a stronger stance. However, it's inaccurate to state that they have "endorsed" the JRC or their methods, when they have explicitly stated they don't endorse any of their exhibitors. Can you provide a statement where ABAI has endorsed the JRC, because looking through their materials and statements, I'm not seeing it. Furthermore, it's really inaccurate to say they have close ties to the JRC. The closest seems to be that their President from 7 years ago is now on the JRC, but he hasn't had any leadership within the association since then and current ABAI leadership has no connection to the JRC as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandevi (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Endorse" is wording used by one source to describe ABAI's stance on JRC. The close ties are described pretty well, with multiple people working for both groups, and the award given to Sherman for defending JRC legally. That last bit truly revealed ABAI's colors. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, an organization (ASAN) that has been vocally critical ABAI has overstated their position on JRC using the language of "endorsement" despite the fact that ABAI routinely states on an annual basis that they don't endorse anyone. It seems like the fact that this position is in dispute should be reflected in the language of the article, if a neutral POV is really something important here. I'm not advocating for the removal of the criticism, only that the language and word-use be updated to more accurately describe the nature of ABAI's position and the disagreement surrounding it. As currently written, I think the neutrality of current article is very suspect and readers ought to be aware, as there seems to be little motivation for those who have maneuvered themselves to be gatekeepers of this content to compromise on this issue. Can we at least update the outdated content? Margaret Vaughan is clearly no longer on the JRC Board (your own references show this) and she isn't editor of the journal that is no longer titled The Behavior Analyst. Also, the list of ABAI journals is out of date -- the title of The Behavior Analyst has changed and there are additional publications that are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandevi (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you got sources for any of this? And that generic disclaimer you showed us earlier does not count. I have seen no evidence that the nature of this organization's relationship with the JRC is in dispute. Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Provide evidence, but not that evidence." This is why I didn't want to expend energy on the talk--there doesn't seem to be an honest willingness to reach a consensus. Please let's update the outdated content on the Journals and Vaughan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandevi (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw Margaret Vaughan listed as board member in August 2020 on the ABAI website, which means the website was out of date, or Vaughan stepped down very recently. Vaughan's former position on the board is still demonstrative of an intimate connection between ABAI and JRC, so I found an archived webpage of the JRC board which lists Vaughan in 2018. I also updated the name of the main ABAI publication. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Effective treatment

Hey, User:Blinksternet! I liked everything about your edit except this one thing: "they emphasize that practitioners must provide very effective treatment." They may say this, but the phrase is somewhat misleading since their idea of "effective treatment" is different from everyone else's. It's kind of like if NARTH issued a statement saying that they support "effective treatment"-- we woulndn't quote them. Therefore I have removed that part and kept the rest. Happy editing! --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The source says that ABAI goes beyond public safety to require practitioners to give the most effective treatment. I was wondering whether that was code for "safety is less of a concern than results". Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

For sure. "Effective treatment" for them has always been code for supporting aversives, especially since 1989 when they gave that lawyer the "Humanitarian Award for Effective Treatment". The JRC even has a website called effectivetreatment.org where they promote the GED, so this code is used by them and the JRC. The "effective treatment argument" is the only thing that has got the courts to approve this stuff. Every time they try to ban this stuff, its supporters show up and ramble on about how these poor kids have the "right to effective treatment". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

Please revert back to version posted at 14:30, 21 October 2020‎ MusikBot II. User JavaHurricane reverted to version of the article that contains biased language, as well as an out-of-date list in the "journals" section.

Due to these continued reverts by established accounts, requesting full protection for this article. Scandevi (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to add content

Hello I added a paragraph to add additional information about awards today and it was removed. Please could you give more information about why?

It is very frustrating when things are removed without a clear reason - but when was "today"? You didn't sign your post. So no idea why it was removed. Sgerbic (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit frenzy from Feb 21, 2021

I feel like now I can take a breath - what a mess. It appears that Drvenkman9 was really upset about content on the ABAI page. At first I thought that was the vandal and tried to revert to the last clean content before Drvenkman9 got involved. But then after reading though more closely it seems that Drvenkman9 was trying to get rid of some pretty ugly content that was inserted months ago. Linking the organization to torture and using sources from ASAN. The edits were like hit-pieces on ABAI - wow just wow. Just wanted to explain my revert and to let others know to be on the alert, I think that there might be more problems coming. I've asked for temp protection at least until things calm down and are sorted out. I feel that Drvenkman9 wasn't reverting out of dis-regard of the rules, but out of frustration and not understanding how to deal with disruptive editing. Looking this page over more closely - it looks like it could use a full-rewrite. I hope there is someone interested in expanding this page correctly. Sgerbic (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the removed sources was an archived news piece from AllGov.com, written by Matt Bewig, a senior staff writer and historian. It said that ABAI gave an award to Robert A. Sherman for his successful legal defense of aversive therapy, and that ABAI "generally supports aversive therapy". Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And how much weight did that have on the entire article? How many other awards has ABAI given over the years? Are they mentioned in this article? If so why not? Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you're going in this line of inquiry.

If you're questioning whether ABAI does or does not support aversive therapy, there's confirmation in Stacy L. Carter's 2009 book The Social Validity Manual: A Guide to Subjective Evaluation of Behavior Interventions, published by Academic Press. In the chapter on ethics, pages 211–215[2] describe how ABAI wrote a position statement in support of aversive therapy whereas TASH and AAMR took stances against it. Carter says that ABAI's 1988 advocacy of the "Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment" with its specific emphasis on "the most effective treatment" is tacit promotion for their favored aversive therapy.

Similarly, Garry Martin and Joseph J. Pear wrote in the 2019 textbook Behavior Modification: What It Is and How To Do It, to say that two ethical guidelines have been published addressing any sort of behavioral therapy. In 1977, AABT wrote a series of ethical questions for behaviorists, followed by APA's paper in 1978 distilling the questions into a code of ethics for behaviorists. Martin and Pear mention ABAI's 1988 "Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment" but they direct the reader away from it. They say that AABT's and APA's ethical guidelines, based on the Golden Rule, remain the only correct ones for practitioners to follow. (ABA's guideline is pointedly against the Golden Rule and for "effective" treatment.) Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What I'm questioning is weight - to single out something that is so horrible and destructive and give it prominence in this article is what I'm challenging. It looks like someone has an agenda and is cherry picking information. And what I discovered in the above Talk discussion was that people seemed to think that the default was to leave it in the article and remove it only if there was agreement to remove, when it should be the other way around. I think this Wikipedia page needs to be fully rewritten and not trying to support an agenda. Unless ALL awards are listed that the ABAI are listed, then I don't see why we would allow one-award. Is this the only award they have ever given? Does the ABAI have a position statement about giving this award to this person? The article you linked to previously was from 2013. Think of it this way, how much weight does the Emmy's page have on giving an award to Bill Cosby? is that in the lede? Is it given a paragraph? Also we as editors do not get to do the research as you seem to be proposing that we do. We use secondary sources from notable people and organizations, editors are not the researchers.Sgerbic (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It is totally impossible to list all of the awards given out by this organization. We should only list the notable awards that are discussed by third party sources, such as the one given the Robert Sherman. And that kind of research the Binksternet is doing is perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) on the talk page. Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to talk pages (see first paragraph). Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: After your re-write, the article contains exactly one independent source (out of 11). If the sources you removed are really not viable as you claim, the how can this organization even be notable? We might as well just delete the article. Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There must be more WP:SECONDARY sources in the article. The two books I mentioned above would be perfect to counterbalance ABAI's position statements, to show that much of the behavior modification industry does not agree. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: Do you intend to continue this discussion, or should we move on without you? Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm here - just working on other things. I'll check in to see what is happening. Sgerbic (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

POV

As seen above there was a discussion about the content, which seemed to result in no resolution, just accusations of edit warring between both sides of the issue and leaving the article being devoid of anything negative about the subject even when there does appear to be reliable sources. DogsRNice (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

30 discussion

Requesting third opinion: The current article is clearly being overrun with original research and bias. There are non notable sources pushing conspiracy theories. We should either take the whole article down, or enforce proper Wikipedia requirements of a good article. This has become nothing but a hit piece that focuses on a non existent relationship 64.98.71.171 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion on the article talk page. The material you are removing from the article is sourced to apparently reliable sources. You have not presented any sources that contradict these sources, but merely made unsubstantiated claims in your edit summaries (which cannot be verified without sources). Please explain why each of the existing sources should be removed, and present your own sources, if you have any.

Also please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Claiming that other editors are part of a "group with an agenda", while presenting absolutely no evidence of such, can be considered a personal attack on other editors. I can tell you that I personally have no agenda, and until today had never even heard of ABAI nor JRC. I merely saw that you were violating Wikipedia policies by removing sourced content while presenting no contrary sources. So please retract your claim that other people editing this page have an agenda. CodeTalker (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

OK I'm unblocked; here's section-by-section why we need to remove all the content that I've removed:

The statement: "ABAI is closely connected to the Judge Rotenberg Center, a school that has been condemned by the United Nations for Torture." [no citations; I am saying this is false -- there is no verifiable source for such an assertion. As a matter of fact, even the second half about JRC being "condemned by the UN for Torture" has no source [because its likely a stretch of reality]...but I don't care as much about that, since the entire sentence should be removed as it is unsourced.

ABAI has repeatedly endorsed the methods of the JRC, including its use of hte Graduated Electronic Decelerator, a device that delivers painful electric skin shocks as punishment for hte purpose of behavior modification" is also unsourced. Sources 3 & 4 are simply opinion pieces on a self-published advocacy website - they are not professional reporters, and they have no reputation for fact-checking. [as such, they fail WP Policy on verifiability and reliable sources].

"The JRC's board of directors include Richard Malott who served as president of ABAI, Josh Pritchard who was on the ABAI executive council, and through 2018 it included Margaret Vaughan who edited the ABAI "flagship" journal The Behavior Analyst. I do see Richard on the board list; I do not see Josh or Margaret; and I fail to see the purpose of including them. It is a specious statement and amounts to Original Research and thus should be stricken.

"ABAI has honored the JRC's private attorney, Robert A. Sherman, for his legal defense of JRC's use of painful punishments on its studnets." and source 7 is an archive of "Allgov.com"; definitely not a verifiable source on ABAI's intent and/or endorsement. However - we do know exactly what ABAI intended as there are 2 peer-reviewed articles describing it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742247/pdf/behavan00061-0093.pdf & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742236/?page=1 in these articles; ABAI's council is extremely clear on their intent, and I quote: "It did know, however, that the case had generated substantial national publicity and that a number of allied professional and advocacy groups had issued public statements generally in support of the position held by the State of Massachusetts. Moreover, the Council was aware that any action it might take could, and probably would, be misinterpreted as being either an endorsement or indictment of the particular facility or its director, even though neither interpretation would have been the intention of Council. Finally, Council was aware that prominent members of the Association had lent their professional expertise to the State of Massachusetts in the matter and that the State presumably had relied on that expertise in asserting its position. Therefore, the Council could easily have rationalized a decision not to recognize the Soucys and the valiant, lonely, and expensive struggle they were waging with the help of Mr. Sherman." -- in other words, ABAI states that the award was neither an endorsement of JRC nor was it an indictment of Massachussetts. It was simply lauding a lone attorney for fighting for the right for effective treatment.

The second article specifies what the award means: "Robert Sherman, we honor you for helping to establish three legal precedents that will further guarantee the right to effective treatment. These three landmark precedents are: (1) the acceptance by a court justice of routinely collected objective behavioral data as evidence in making a judicial decision; (2) the use of substitutive judgment in behavioral treatment in which a judge decides on the treatment to be used, "substituting" himself for the incapacitated client; and (3) the ordering by a court of the use of behavioral treatment procedure based upon its effect on the treated individual." Note that nowhere in this discussion is there a reference to either aversives, JRC's specific treatment approach, and/or the GED. Because that's not what the award was about. Why would we ignore the contemporary articles presented which explicitly make this point and point to blog posts of activists who clearly have an agenda?

Note that prior to Sherman, ABAI had previously awarded Marlin Schneider and concurrently awarded Leo and Claudio Soucy and *their* attorney, Robert Sherman [not JRC's]. If awards are noteable, then why are they not all listed? Again - this amounts to original research - a violation of Wikipedia policy. ABAI/SABA has made over 100 awards - why are these not listed? Either awards are noteable, or they are not. The selection here belies violation of our policy on original research. It must be removed.

The section of "Aversives" is outsized...the statement "The Association of Applied Behavior Analysis International is supportive of aversion therapy." is entirely unsourced and untrue. It must be removed.

The next sentence is a repeat about the award provided to Sherman from above, and should be removed. as is the next (repetitive and unsourced)

The final paragraph in "Aversives" is from a self-published blog by an organization that is anti-behavior analysis [not good source]. and repeats the same tropes: that ABAI endorses it. Ari Ne'eeman's book review is of similar.

Finally- ABAI publishes 6 journals (which has been stated above) yet 4 are listed, 1 of which is the wrong name.

ASAN's self-published blogs are not verifiable and/or a reliable source. Especially since they are contradicting an actual statement *by* the organization [see above by Scandevi]. Then, those edits were reverted against the WP Policy in which verifiability means folks can check information comes from a reliable source [note - ASAN's self-published blogs are not, and the vox review of books are also not].

This also violates the Sagan Standard -- as the ASAN blog posts are contradicting ABAI's printed (every year) across multiple sources specifically stating a no-endorsement policy. 64.98.71.171 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@CodeTalker I meant to tag you, so you could review 64.98.71.171 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Pritchard was a doctoral student in 2010 when he served on the ABA executive council.[3] He later joined the JRC Board of Directors. Another person connected to ABA on the JRC BoD back in 2018 included ABA member Jessica Frieder. The source URL https://www.judgerc.org/phone/board.html listed Malott, Pritchard, Vaughan and Frieder back in 2018 when it was added to this article, which means it will forever support their names, even if those names are subsequently removed from the active URL. The names are still visible in the HTML code of that URL captured by archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20180412070220/https://www.judgerc.org/phone/board.html

I don't know how you can say ABA did not welcome JRC to speak at ABA-organized events. Plenty of records of that exist, for instance this program list from 2019 which is 100% JRC. In May 2022, ABAI's event people, Amy Odum and Jonathan Tarbox, resigned from their posts because they did not want any more JRC shock treatment stuff, but ABA's BoD overruled them and created a new event team just to plan JRC-related events, so that JRC would continue to have a platform at ABA events. The preferential treatment of JRC by ABA is astounding. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You are proving my point. Wikipedia is not for original research. You’re trying to make it so. Overlapping membership is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.98.71.171 (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you misrepresent ABA's continued promotion of JRC? The connection is still very strong despite years of heavy criticism leveled at ABA. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop reverting for "whitewash" - that is not a WP policy nor does it have anything to do with the pillars. Just because it does not fit your narrative does not mean it does not fit the approach of an encyclopedia. Using a primary source to list the awards from SABA is a fine use of it - as it is (per WP sources); primary source is an acceptable primary source for information about what the organization says about itself (ie basic facts about awards fits this use). I will add those back in - as they are the appropriate use for primary source. Please use talk page instead of reverting edits. 64.98.71.171 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blinksternet - I posted on your talk page. We are supposed to be here bringing factual and verifiable information. The fact that you are questioning why I am doing so "despite" what your original research shows, is concerning. I'm asking for administrative review; as you seem to be intractable and are not discussing the itemized list I provided above. 64.98.71.171 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User at IP address 64.98.71.171 now has a 1 week ban for deletion vandalism of comprehensively and reliably sourced information, yet their final spamming of accuracy dispute templates across the page remains. Should they be removed as they appear to be added in bad faith? Whateverusernmae (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

.171 has added a 3O request. As they are blocked and there are quite a few people here, I've declined it. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll be a third opinion; but in reading through this talk page, I only see 2 people interacting [the IP and Binksternet]. This talk page definitely suggests we need active discussion; PsyNtst (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Is this page even notable? I tried searching the news for it and Big ol' nothing burger; It seems like the activities it does are: put on conferences; make position statements; approve professional training programs; This article has an outsized focus on a very small proportion of those activities (2 awards out of hundreds; fewer than a dozen accepted presentations out of thousands; and is the focus of some activist groups/blogs. It honestly seems like this page might should just be nixed. PsyNtst (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

ABAI's influence and position papers are discussed in a bunch of textbooks on the subject of behavioral studies. I don't think the page would be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

many things are mentioned in textbooks; but they don't meet WP:NOTE. I've added some more stuff that they do; so we can look at it as a whole and see if we think its Noteable. PsyNtst (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If ABAI is notable, why are there no articles on: APBA BACB EABA CASP etc...

ASAN as Source?

I reviewed the two sources that keep coming into question - they are blog posts saying the same thing and the source which ASAN are using to assert things such as "endorsement" is the same material that explicitly states that ABAI does not endorse any of its sponsors/exhibitors. This brings its utility as a source into question. PsyNtst (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Content in wrong section (Lede)

This part is strange -- I don't know why the lede for this organization has a paragraph about a board of another organization. If kept, it should be moved to the controversy section. (although, I'm not sure it really belongs at all): "The JRC's board of directors includes Richard Malott who served as president of ABAI, and through 2018 it included Margaret Vaughan who edited the ABAI "flagship" journal The Behavior Analyst. ABAI has honored the JRC's private attorney, Robert A. Sherman, for his legal defense of family members’ rights to use data to determine and provide effective treatment." PsyNtst (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's an objection; I'm going to move it down into the controversy section; although I think that section will need a re-write to make it make sense. PsyNtst (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Moved it down. Now working on the sources and making the sentences comport with sources. PsyNtst (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Pear & Martin

This section:

The 2015 textbook Behavior Modification: What It Is and How To Do It, written by Garry Martin and Joseph J. Pear, described two published guidelines for ethical practices in behavioral therapy. In 1977, the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies wrote a series of ethical questions for behaviorists, based on the Golden Rule—treating the patient the same way as one would treat the behaviorist. This was followed in 1978 by the American Psychological Association's paper distilling these questions into a code of ethics for behaviorists. On the other hand, Martin and Pear recommend against ABAI's 1988 guideline titled "Right to Effective Behavioral Treatment" because it abandons the Golden Rule in favor of claimed "effective" treatment in which the ends justify the means."

User:Binksternet Can you quote where they argue against ABAI's 1988 guidelines? I just read the chapter 30 (pp 307-314) and cannot find anything of the sort. IF anything, it seems like they're using the 1998 article as part of their prescription of ethical behavior. PsyNtst (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's an objection; I'll remove the paragraph mentioned above as it misstates what the original source says. For those without access to the book to opine, here is the language from the source (book chapter):

"In 1978, a commission appointed by APA published a comprehensive report (Stolz & Associates, 1978) on the ethical issues involved in behavior modification. A primary conclusion of the commission was that

persons engaged in any type of psychological intervention should subscribe to and follow the ethics codes and standards of their professions. For members of APA and the Canadian Psychological Association, the

current version of the ethics code is APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010, which can be retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx). This document includes a set of

general principles that are intended to guide psychologists toward the very highest ethical ideals of the profession and a detailed set of standards to encourage ethical behavior by psychologists and their students.

In 1988, in its journal The Behavior Analyst, ABA published a statement of clients’ rights (Van Houten et al., 1988) to direct both the ethical and appropriate application of behavioral treatment.

In 1998 the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) was formed to identify and advance the “competent and ethical practice of behavior analysis” (Shook & Favell, 2008, p. 47). In 2001 the BACB produced a set of Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts. Minor revisions to these guidelines were made in 2004 and 2010. Bailey and Burch (2011) provide an excellent discussion of

the BACB Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts including practical advice, illustrated with numerous examples, on how to adhere to the guidelines. An important point that they make

is that at the base of all ethics is the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated or treat others as you would want people significant to you to be treated under similar circumstances. The following

discussion points for the ethical application of behavior modification are based on the reports by Stolz and Associates (1978) and Van Houten and colleagues (1988), and the 2010 revision of the

BACB Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts." PsyNtst (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

ok - that one has been removed PsyNtst (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sherman -- not notable

I'm going to adjust this to be in line with the source; but I think we should remove this sentence in its entirety: "In 1987, it gave the lawyer, Robert Sherman, the Humanitarian Award for the Right to Effective Treatment for winning a case that guaranteed the Judge Rotenberg Center the right to continue using aversives on its students."

This amounts to OR as nobody has said anything/reported on it as a source. Rather - a Wikipedian had to go find it and put it in the article themselves...becoming a research endeavor rather than reporting on others' thoughts. It fails notability for this reason, imo. PsyNtst (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

K- I deleted it and the reference to the other award, since only 2 of the hundreds of awardees are named. I don't think its appropriate to list all the awardees, but if we should, I can begin aggregating and putting that in. Let me know thoughts on thisPsyNtst (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're now quite a few edits into this page, i'm not sure why you've removed the actual explanation of what this award was for, which is clearly outlined in the source: "In private practice at a small Boston firm during the 1980s, Sherman took on and won a pro bono case that remains controversial to this day. His clients were parents of severely mentally disabled teens who were students at the Behavior Research Institute (now the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center), which made extensive use of “aversive therapy,” including electric shock and withholding of food, in its treatment and in responding to bad behavior. The parents, however, were suing the state of Massachusetts for ordering the school to cease the use of aversive methods, arguing that their children had a right to “effective treatment,” even it offended the sensibilities of lawmakers."

Is there a reason for this? You replaced it with the vague euphemism "Right to effective behavioral treatment" which obviously doesn't quite express what the legal case was about.

Likewise your argument that ABAI *say* they don't endorse JRC doesn't seem relevant when they de facto do in allowing them to fund and present at their conference every single year, and often make the keynote speech, again according to sources already on this page. If the subject of a wikipedia article says they don't do something that they clearly do, i don't understand how you feel that supersedes existing sources?

Its also fairly easy to explain why Sherman and the case are notable: they clearly demonstrate ABAI's support for JRC and aversion therapy, a fact that you have also removed from the article. Whateverusernmae (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm reading this article again and just want to be clear here, you've left the paragraph about Sherman in the Controversy section of the article, but removed any specific wording as to why its controversial. Is there any reason why? Whateverusernmae (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

you're right - it really isn't a controversial thing; I've removed per your advice. PsyNtst (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

yes - you answered it in your own question. The lawyer represented parents (which is what I put in the article) not the organization (BRI/JRC); regardless, that does not make this award more or less notable than the other hundreds of awards. Either we need to list all awards, or should probably just remove any awards. Or perhaps list awards that are given to people who have their own wikipedia article (thus deemed notable).

Your discussion about ABAI/JRC is orginal research. per the guideline nobody cares what *you* (generic editor, not you, specifically) believe; an encyclopedia's job is to report on notable things. We delegated this part to controversy, even though I'm not certain that is even notable. You must stop the original research. The blog posts by the activist aren't considered verifiable sources, either. So - this whole endeavour seems to be a house of cards that falls when examined closely. Please follow WP guidelines. PsyNtst (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How to gain consent, avoid OR, and keep NPoV

@Whateverusernmae, you seem to be doing wholesale reversions without engaging in discussion and seeking consensus. Please stop that, and use this talk page to gain consensus. PsyNtst (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)