Talk:Animal-assisted therapy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Beck as a source

Beck, Alan (1983). Between Pets and People: the Importance of Animal Companionship.. New York: Putnam. ISBN 0399127755.

It's currently used three times. Because of the age of even the most recent edition I can find, 1996, it shouldn't be used for any medical claims. It's on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books/about/Between_pets_and_people.html?id=cod2UA-W-rwC --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the claim. If superceded by newer studies, I agree with you. If not, then I think it should stand if it contains a decent summary. Furthermore, look at it closely. Purdue University Press isn't a place for slackers, and This review notes the qualifications of the authors, and Kirkus is a respected book review source. Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we could include some kind of excerpt from the book. The problem here is not so much notability (since the author does indeed seem to be an expert on this subject), but verifiability since there's no way we can confirm whether the book actually supports the claims made in the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it was an excellent book in it's day. I hope, and expect, that there's a current equivalent. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beck has to be taken with caution as he is the spoke's person of the pet food industry. He is paid to make these claims on TV and every where he can, including on his website. Lets not be naive here.--Charles danten (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are much more severe about my sources than the ones of the proponents. Mosty of my sources are primary sources from scientific journal or reliable monographies, that is university published or published by serious publishers. I do not use advocacy sources of ATT outfits that make their promotion through Wiki.--Charles danten (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive please

I'm not sure how to do this myself, but I see that this talk page is 187 KB, and is quite lengthy. I suggest some kind of archive be set up per WP:TALKCOND which suggests archiving after a talk page reaches "50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." Just my thought. Jesse V. (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary:--Charles danten (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First part

I suggest a better introduction to it, such as the one I have suggested here today should replace the present one. We only have to go back to the birth of modern zootherapy in the 60 's (Boris levinson). It could be said that pets have always been around but since Levinson's claims they have never been as popular. We can then state all the claims that are being made. Second part

To be fair, it should be allowed the same amount of space as the first part. it should be clearly stated what's wrong with the first part: - the poor quality of the references used to substantiate these claims - the mediocre quality of the studies used to substantiate these claims - the promotion by various interest groups who are often the authors of these claims - each claim should be then criticized - the toll on animals should also be spelled out as they are the innocent victims of this pseudoscience - as a conclusion it should be stated why it is also bad for people

Fair enough ?--Charles danten (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've decreased the archive age by 1 month to threads older than 1 month. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

Its a good start, but you are obviously not neutral. You have left out most of the issues involved. For instance the Friedman study has been debunked over and over again. Yet you continue condoning it by refusing to mention this in your critic. You have also left out some very important studies like the finnish study published, on PLO one of the few reliable scientific journals. Beck's review in 1984 is still as true today as it was back then. Research in this field is on-going for the last 60 years, yet there are no quantitative studies. What about Kruger's review in 2008, Allan review in 1999. The problems with this pseudosceince are the same as they always were and its not about to change unless the truth is known.

One has also to consider animals as well in this equation. We seem to think only of our own needs. Pets are on the loosing end of this fad for the ATT and the company of animals, as well as humans as there is an undeniable link between the way animals are treated and people. This is not a win win situation, at all. Pets are not truly pampered as most people presuppose. Some pets are better treated than others, whatever that means from the animal's perspective, but unless you look at the forest instead of the tree, you are blind to the true nature of pet love, a subtly perverse form of exploitation operating under the cover of good intentions and sentiments. Here are a just a few of the negative effects on animals:

• The making of pets - factory farms are just one aspect, countless animals die during production.
• The legal and illegal trade of exotic pets - countless species are subjected to a ferocious trade.
• Genetic diseases due to intensive breeding - this represents millions of dollars of veterinary care.
• Food related diseases - most of pet diseases are from iadequate diet.
• Anatomical deformities - countless breeds are disfigured for esthetic reasons.
• Animal psychotherapy, including treatment with various drugs like prozac, is at this moment the most sucessful branch of the pet industry, from a psychological point of view, dependence of this sort is deadly for animals.
• Physical conditions of captivity – most are inadequate.
• Surgical mutilations – animals in the raw are very difficult to exploit, they need to be customized for human use by declawing, spaying, tail docking, ear triming, anal gland removal and the like, with the complications these mutilations entice.
• Medical anthropomorphism - the animal medical care fallacy viewed from the animal’s cognitive perspective is a form of abuse. Who are we really pleasing by making animals sick on the one hand and treating them on the other, as if nothing was.
• Vaccination mania - annual vaccination is strictly for business reasons, most vaccins on the market are unnecessary if not outright dangerous. None of us humans get vaccinated every year of our lives with 9 sometines 12 vaccins combined.
• Finally there's the disease of euthanasia, millions of pets are abandonned and destroyed each year in pounds and what is euphemistically called shelters.

The immorality of making pets out of animals opens the door to every conceivable form of abuse.--Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was I kept out of the discussion? Until proven otherwise, it seems to me you have a clear agenda: protect the status quo. --Charles danten (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

While you note some legitimate animal abuse concerns, do any of your comments above have any DIRECT relevance with this particular article as opposed to being a general rant against pet ownership? Please see WP:FRINGE, Charles, as it appears that is your view. Are you saying that we need to undo millennia of animal domestication? Let all the cats and dogs run feral? Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please not I have posted many arguments above in the other talk pages.--70.52.7.10 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Now here is my answer to your latest claims above. Please read carefully as there are a lot of preconceived ideas in your comments which do not coincide with my objectives. You are talking through your hat. I'm sorry to say.

Domestication is not a finality. Animals are being domesticated every day with the very same techniques that were used at its beginning. It is an ongoing process. If you stopped controlling them for a while, your nicely civilized and subdued pets would revert back to some of their less-welcome natural habits before you knew it. This is not to say, however, that they could survive on their own. Some rare ones do, but because they are so denatured, most cannot. So it would be absurd to set them free on principle, and this is not at all what I am advocating. Also, this would cause insurmountable environmental problems for our own species. However, if individually, once our pet dies for instance, we chose to stop buying into it, domestication would cease to exist. It’s a simple question of supply and demand. My solution is not political. Its about understanding what the issues are.

That being said, my issue is not with domestication but with consumerism, how we use just about anything we can get our hands on, including war, to create wealth and jobs. My hope is that some people will avoid this fad once they see things for what they are. The world will be a better place for it.--Charles danten (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

People are never told the truth. A legend has been built around the incredible almost magical healing powers of animals and every one has fallen for it. « 68 000 repetitions makes a truth » said Aldous Huxley. This attitude is wrong and it should be clearly stated. There is an injustice here that needs to be righted. Animals are not just chattel to be used as merchandise for the benefit of a few. And people neither. This attitude is also affecting people who are encouraged to use quick fixes to their problems. Come on, Americans are not that type of person. They are usually the first ones to fight against injustice, the first ones to put their lives on the line, in order to defend the truth. My country France was freed by Americans and I always held them in high esteem, please, don't make me change my mind with your baloney arguments. What is wrong with you? You seem so dulled hearted and so totally biased and incapable of stepping out of the box. This is completely unamerican. You can't be american. --Charles danten (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of this to the article and the fringe position against pet ownership has no due weight for this article, talk pages are not forums, see WP:NOTFORUM. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

This is not a fringe position. Many people think this way now. Even so, being a majority is not an argument. A majority of Germans in nazi Germany also thought it was great to assassinate six millions jews. And those on the fringe, were also assassinated for opposing it, just like you are trying to assassinate me symbolically. Do I think you are a nazi ? Of course not. I'm just making a point.

Also, things should be discussed thoroughly before closing an argument. This is vital in any democracy. We are not Talibans! You are trying to shut me up with the forum argument which is a non argument--Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The effects on animals has to be included in this equation as it is falsely claimed that animals benefit just as much as humans. In fact, this is one of the main promotional claims of this industry: American veterinarian Marty Becker, for one, summed up the vital role he believes animals play in people’s lives at a symposium on animal wellness: “Most important, veterinary medicine is embracing the bond as a vital force for not just happy, healthy pets…but happy, healthy people as well.”4

Consumerism depends a lot on the perception that this is a win win situation, as people would feel bad if they knew what the toll on animals is. As you know, Americans are animal lovers. This is why it's kept out of view. You mentioned the effects on dolphins, thats an improvement, but with the tip of your tongue only. The other effects on nature and other more familiar species should also be included just like in the french version of zootherapy on Wikipedia which is much more balanced than the english version. Both sides have as much space allocated to defend their point of point. You just give a mere paragraph to the criticism section which is not fair, at all. --Charles danten (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary:--Charles danten (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We only need to include what reliable sources include, nothing else. Reliable sources define the WP:DUE weight for content. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First part

I suggest a better introduction to it, such as the one I have suggested above should replace the present one. We only have to go back to the birth of modern zootherapy in the 60 's (Boris levinson). It could be sstated that pets have always been around but since Levinson's claims they have never been as popular. We can then state all the claims that are being made.

The generic term zootherapy, which include ATT, simply having a pet at home, and animals as such, as it is commonly thought that animals benefit as much as people, see above comment, should be the header, because the pet industry uses the claims of ATT to promote pets. So having a pet at home is part of this.--Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Second part

To be fair, the criticism should be allowed the same amount of space as the first part.

It should be clearly stated what's wrong with the first part as I have already done:

1 - the poor quality of the references used to substantiate these claims

2 - the mediocre quality of the studies used to substantiate these claims (no real fact oriented scientific studies)

3 - the involvement of various interest groups who are often the authors of these claims (just look at the references, how you that biased?)

4 - each claim should then be criticized thoroughly like I have done. We can find more references if you'd like but its not the number that counts as much as the quality of the references as well as the quality of the publishers. PLO for ex is the now the most credible reference on the marketplace. Many journals are now used by corporations to promote their products. In fact this is the main way to do it now. Peer reviewed article no longer means anything. Anthrozoos for instance is a front for Waltham-Mars. Although they do publish credible studies like the dolphin ones its good for their credibility as dolphins are really minor in this business. It makes them look as if they care.

5 - the toll on animals should also be spelled out as they are the innocent victims of this pseudoscience (I have plenty of reliable references for this)

6 - as a conclusion it should be stated why it is also bad for people, the placebo effect should be spelled out in this section but the long term effects on people as well.--Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is an issue with poor quality sources make suggestions for replacements, general statements about bad sources are unlikely to be productive. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have given many reliable sources, I don't use internet publicity or sources from interest groups. Why don't you go back and look at the references I have given as well as the sections I have written. I am not going to start this all other. I have no more time to spend on this. Sorry. --Charles danten (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You have given large walls of text, if you want people to take your suggestions seriously you need to make suggestions and additions to the article step by step. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The credentials of the editors involved in this discussion should be specified: several of them seem to have no idea of how science works. I'm not being rude, but this is not a populist exercise, although every one is welcome. A lot of time is waisted argumenting on non arguments, see Montanabw's comments and others. Only people who have some background in science should be involved in a complex scientific topic such as this one. --Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to all editors. This topic isn't particularly complex either. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am not neutral, no one I know is, but I substantiate my claims, I don't just state an opinion out of thin air like several editors are doing, most notably Montanabw. I base my assertions on hard facts and quality references, primary ones as well as monographies from serious editors. I don't go to war based on lies. I'm not in this for money or some other weird reason. I'm not so sure about Montanabw and IRWolfie. Are these persons involved in any way with this industry ? Who are they ? This should not be an anonymous discussion. I have given my identity, why don't you also ? And how can we verify who you are ? Unless they show their cards, they should be expelled from the discussion and reprimanded severely for not following the rules of wikipedia. --Charles danten (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, so far it's been insinuated that I am both Anti-AAT and Pro-AAT, I'm a Don't really think about-AAT. I owned a gold fish once called fluffy, does that make me pro or anti? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was a veterinarian for 18 years. I sold my clinic and left the profession once I found out the truth. You all know my blog Zootherapy - Le mythe de l'animal-roi. I'm an author and free lance journalist who writes extensively about this topic, but I don't make a living doing this. I'm a professional biomedical translater from english to french. I have much experience with science and related topics. My experience as well as my research of the scientific literature in the field of zootherapy has led me to change my mind completely about this very dangerous and destructive pseudotherapy. My purpose is to help people see the truth behind appearances in order to help them make the right choices. How else can they do what's right ?

Authoritarianism is not an argument. Zootherapy and ATT is wrong morally. There's no two ways about it. Its like smoking or being pregnant you cannot have it both ways. You're a smoker or you're not, you're pregnant or you're not. Some things inn life are like that whether you like it or not.--Charles danten (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning for article content should be based on reliable sources, not personal experience, if you are editing the article with an axe to grind it is unlikely to be a positive experience for anybody, nor the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Look whose talking! What reliable sources have you given ? All you do is come up with all kinds of non arguments that just hinder the discussion, just like the one you have just given. I dont think you should be part of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC) The American Skeptic Association published one of my articles that you can see here : Zootherapy debunked What do you mean I have no facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you decide to stick to your guns, it should be stated clearly above the article, that the sources and editors are unreliable, the viewpoints unbalanced.

Fair enough ?--Charles danten (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW: could I be warned when someone posts an argument? Thanks

Done. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles, you can watchlist this page like everyone else who cares. No one has to babysit you and tell you when more material is posted, though nothing stops anyone from doing so if they want to. From your posts above, it is clear that you have an extreme POV and it falls well within WP:FRINGE to the extent that I somehow confused your posts with Wolfie's, I apologize to Wolfie. Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit to page

Hello Everyone! My name is Liz McHone and I added the subsection "Nursing Homes" to this page. I go to Ball State University and as a part of my PSYSC 491 class, we had to do a research paper on a type of therapy, then contribute to the Wikipedia page with some of the information we found. I hope you find this information helpful to the article and I look forward to any feedback you may have.

McHone90 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liz, if you can find a URL to link to an abstract (or better yet, full text) of the articles you cited, that would be good to add! Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw! I will definitely be looking into that. Good idea!!! McHone90 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do preliminary findings from a 2005 pilot study without supporting sources belong in this article?

Seems like it would violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, MEDRS, and to a lesser degree WP:NOT without supporting sources indicating it is worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to specific sections or quotations from those guidelines to support your view? As far as I can see, the study is noted with appropriate weighting as to its pilot or preliminary status, thus providing the reader with enough info to make an informed decision as to its relevance. I found a link to the article here and added it to the article. Appears to have been cited in other works and published in a respected journal. I'd say we just had poor formatting by the editor who added it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a primary source. See OR, MEDRS, and NPOV on the how we prefer secondary or tertiary sources over primary sources.

It's a pilot study, and one old enough that a subsequent study would be published, and that other research would cite it. See MEDRS on how we prefer recent reviews and the like over individual studies, let alone pilot studies and preliminary findings.

There are no sources demonstrating it is worth noting. See NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE on how we determine what is and is not noteworthy.

Seems like cherry-picked, preliminary work that's completely unworthy of mention. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You fail to cite anything specific from the above policies and I see nothing in them that excludes this significant study, which was cited three times since, most recently in 2012 or 2013. A pilot study is not WP:OR if it's published in peer-reviewed literature, which it is. I see no NPOV problem, as it simply balances the article and provides information. I see no specific quote or link in MEDRS that says this isn't suitable for what it's being used for. And really, WP:UNDUE hardly applies to one sentence. I'm not going to spend weeks of my life arguing about this, it's simply one more bit of data. Seems to me that unless someone debunked the study, it should stay. Even if it was debunked, then the debunking study should also be added to provide needed background. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a significant study that I can see.

"A pilot study is not WP:OR" Howso?

"as it simply balances the article" Howso?

"WP:UNDUE hardly applies to one sentence." Howso?

"which was cited three times since" Now we're talking. Where? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To the above, in order:

• That's simply your opinion, which differs from what is simply my opinion. Impasse. Point me to a guideline on wiki that defines what a "significant study" is, and how everything must be a "significant study" to be used. Otherwise, let's drop this argument. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• WP:OR (which you keep failing to cite with pinpoint cites or quotes) states, right in the lede: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Here we have a reliable, published source. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Other parts of the article downplay the usefulness of AAT. This is probably not a relevant thread of discussion, either. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " Here we have one sentence about one study. Seems sufficiently relevant and not excessive, and relevant to the overall topic. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Read the link above, (and now the citation to the study in the article) which I shall again link HERE, where it says "Cited by 3 PubMed Central articles" ... I'm disappointed you didn't read that when I posted it above or notice the edit where I found the PubMed abstract of the study. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

We're discussing what is and is not a significant study, and the relevant policies/guidelines. If that's not clear, or anything else for that matter, please indicate so and we can go into more details.

WP:OR:

WP:STICKTOSOURCE:"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." See especially WP:THIRDPARTY for elaboration.

WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." See especially WP:USINGPRIMARY for elaboration.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, "Seems sufficiently relevant and not excessive, and relevant to the overall topic." Howso?

I hope it's clear that the OR and NPOV/UNDUE issues overlap. If not we can look at OR, NPOV, THIRDPARTY, and USINGPRIMARY in more detail.

So because the research is cited in three other papers, it should be used? Why?

So do we need to explain in MEDRS what a pilot study is? What preliminary results are? And why both should be avoided? And why better studies should be emphasized? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• FOC is what we are discussing. You keep changing the topic and when I provide you evidence that one of your arguments isn't working, you start throwing out more capital letter guidelines without focusing on the content. We have a study that shows health benefits of AAT. It passes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and the source is published in a reliable third party journal, so it also really is not WP:Primary in the sense you seem to be worried about. I also see nothing in your links above that says it is inadequately "significant". Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please WP:FOC. It might be helpful to refactor your comments removing all personal remarks. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• STICKTOSOURCE makes my case: We have a reliable, neutral, third-party source that published the article. End of story. You fail to give examples of how the new source article is actually problematic other than an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• WP:PRIMARY doesn't prohibit pilot studies, it's just that the whole article shouldn't rely on them - "a lesser extent" is what this is. Again. One study about one possible benefit, and one sentence. Hardly an abuse of the process. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Its one sentence. One sentence relevant to the topic is not WP:UNDUE. What is UNDUE in your view? Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Don't get sarcastic and lecture me about policy, that's a personal attack, condescending, and uncalled for. We've both been around here long enough to know the game. You and I simply disagree on how THIS article's material fits within various guidelines and polices and how they should be interpreted. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Three other studies go to support the relevance and significance of this one. In this field, we may not find two dozen; it's an emerging field. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have no interest in a drama fest at MEDRS. We explained in this article that the study is a pilot study, that's all that needs to be said, we could wikilink it if you wish. We could even add a phrase like "the other three studies did/did not support these preliminary findings..." if that would end this dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be around a lot this weekend. I guess I'm just curious if you have any proposals for compromise in order to keep this material in the article, or if your only position is to remove it, regardless of any evidence or argument I can present to you. I have already gone out and found a better footnote source and have presented it here and edited the page to put it in (but you apparently have not read it or assessed it). If we are simply going to continue to beat our heads against the wall and not find any compormise or middle ground, let's just say so and then decide if the dispute is worth taking up to some drama board for a further waste of time. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it's MEDRS that is most relevant here. The rest are just more general policies/etc all relevant to the concern: that we're using an old pilot study reporting preliminary findings with no supporting sources.

To be crystal clear, I don't believe information from such sources belong without supporting sources, and we have none.

The only solution I see, other than removing it, is to find new sources to support it. Perhaps one of the three papers that cite it have some commentary on it? It would at least be helpful to know why they cite it. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm gone for the day and won't be on-wiki much this weekend, so how about you go take a look and see what you find? And 2005 isn't "old" in my book, it's less than a decade out. Studies take time. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The three citations are:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23170993

  Article here:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01522.x/full

  Cited twice. Worth looking into context. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  Always cited with another study. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22866043

  Briefly summarizes study, not citing it again. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18405352

  One of seven references for the statement, "Previous studies of AAT with companion animals have documented that human-animal interaction may decrease stress levels" but not used again. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me. This is a new field, and I have no problem with article text that states the type of studies so that readers can evaluate the weight of the evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not for me. These citations do not demonstrate that the study is notable. However, in my research on this, it appears that there are more papers that cite it. If someone wants to track them down and investigate, go ahead. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's adequate for me, so if we are at an impasse of two opinions, let's just shake hands and let it be. I don't have the time for this particular corner of wikidrama. Unless you can cite me to the chapter and verse in the guidelines that say what precisely constitutes a "notable" study and why that is a drop dead requirement for every single citation, I'd say it's good enough to stay until such a time that someone wants to get serous about GA or something here. We are talking about a sentence here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I find the repeated straying away from WP:FOC to be less than helpful.

I think it's worth taking the time to learn what sources are appropriate and why. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not making sense, Ronz. I know damn well what sources are appropriate and I think these are fine. You don't think they are, but I think that's not because of their quality but because you disagree with their conclusions. So please, observe FOC yourself, and don't hide behind apparent neutrality and MEDRS when you are POV pushing to over deleting a single sentence. That's just silly. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the information. If there's rationale to keep it, it is lost amidst all the disruption here. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ronz, there is no "disruption here," just disagreement with some of your reasoning. There's just the two of us debating, though I really have no idea what point you are trying to make any more, either. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If it deserves any mention at all, we should follow the citations discussed above, and only use it with other studies. I think something along the lines of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18405352 would be best, just list it as one of many references for a general statement. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That article is about farm animals, though the statement "The benefits of Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) for humans with mental disorders have been well-documented using cats and dogs" is worth noting. You certainly could add that statement and I would not object. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad that you agree with the approach to resolving this.

The statement in the study is, "Previous studies of AAT with companion animals have documented that human-animal interaction may decrease stress levels" with seven references including the pilot study. A similar statement, similarly sourced should work then? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Go ahead and put in some language with a source and let's see how it works in the context of that part of the article. My take on an article like this is that the best approach is to improve sourcing of what is in there, as a "tag-and-delete" approach often winds up making a basically helpful article that is reasonably accurate into a stub. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Berget 2008

The link we've been discussing is:

• Berget B., Ekeberg O., Braastad B. O. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy with farm animals for persons with psychiatric disorders: effects on self-efficacy, coping ability and quality of life, a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health 4, 9 Available at: http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/4/1/9. doi: 10.1186/1745-0179-4-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Here are the sources from it:

1. Anderson WP, Reid CM, Jennings GL. Pet ownership and cardiovascular disease. The Medical Journal of Australia. 1992;157:298–301. [PubMed]
2. Barker SB, Kniseley JS, Mccain NL, Best AM. Measuring stress and immune response in healthcare professionals following interaction with a therapy dog: A pilot study. Psychological Reports. 2005;96:713–729. doi: 10.2466/PR0.96.3.713-729. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Friedmann E. In: Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice. Fine A, editor. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. The Animal-Human Bond: Health and wellness; pp. 41–58.
4. Fritz CL, Farve TB, Kass PH, Hart LA. Association with companion animals and the expression of noncognitive symptoms in Alzheimer's patients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1995;183(7):459–463. [PubMed]
5. Odendaal JSJ. Animal-assisted therapy – magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2000;49:275–280. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00183-5. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
6. Odendaal JSJ, Meintjes RA. Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behavior between humans and dogs. The Veterinary Journal. 2003;165:296–301. doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Wilson CC. The pet as an anxiolytic intervention. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1991;179(8):482–489. [PubMed]

Looks like there are a lot of older studies. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. So do you have proposed language for the article text? Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how busy I am, how about we start with something along the lines of the quote "Previous studies of AAT with companion animals have documented that human-animal interaction may decrease stress levels"? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto here, You want to pop that in with the citaiton, or shall I? Montanabw^(talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. Glad we're making progress. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Certification section moved here for discussion

I'm moving this here from the "Certification" section as it seems like dubious advertising. Is there really only one US-based organization that can certify therapists?

Text moved from article

In order to become Animal-Assisted Therapy certified, a pet owner must go through Pet Partners, formerly Delta Society, a nonprofit organization that emphasizes the use of animals in therapy to help people live healthier and happier lifestyles. There is a simple four step process that Pet Partners offers to become a registered Pet Partners Team. The first step is on online or in classroom course where the pet handler, or owner, is trained to guide the animal in therapy sessions. They are also trained on what signs to look for in the patients to make sure they are comfortable and at ease. The next step is a screening of the health of the animal for any diseases or issues that may inhibit the animal from being useful in therapy. The animal needs to be approved by a professional veterinarian before moving on to the next step. The third step includes a test that checks the skills and ability of the animal and handler to react in therapy sessions. The last step is the submission of the Registration Application. Once approved, the animal and their owner are certified to assist in therapy in hospitals, retirement homes, and other places.

References

Discussion

Agree; the world of certification is inconsistent and often consists of "pay us five grand and we'll send you a purty certificate." Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes and reverts

I prefer the 14:16, 28 December 2015 version [1]. More comments to follow. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A more helpful approach would be to look at individual sources and discuss strengths and weaknesses. There is research on the efficacy of AAT, but I find it discouraging to take the time to dig because everything I present is summarily dismissed if it doesn't bolster the anti-AAT viewpoint. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Better to follow the WP:PAGs. Don't use primary sources for biomedical claims, instead use good secondary ones. They will sift and assess the the "research" in an expert manner. Is is not our job to pretend to be a secondary publication, we need to be operating at the tertiary level. The invocation of an "anti-AAT viewpoint" is unhelpful; we reflect what the best sources say without fear or favour. Alexbrn (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

History section

Curious why the entire history section was removed. Some of the material looks adequately sourced for a history overview (hard to find MEDRS from the era of Freud) and I think it would be useful to restore some of it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, so far as I can see. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for medical efficacy

MontanaBW has restored[2] medical content sourced to unreliable (non-WP:MEDRS) sources (primary sources, "www.childfamilytherapyofdenver.com", etc.). This is not good - our health information must be reliably-sourced and up-to-date. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is acceptable to put the statements within their proper contest; we need to teach the controversy. An actual medical claim requires MEDRS, I agree. However, it is whitewashing to simply remove preliminary studies and such. While I do think many of the sources should be improved upon, I think it better to tag the problematic ones and make a good-faith attempt to locate better material, while in the meantime explaining the context. These cutting-edge therapies are only beginning to have complete peer-reviewed studies, and even some of those can be problematic (I'll spare you my gripe about industry-funded "studies" for now...). I'd rather collaborate on article improvement than edit-war over things, so let's look at what can be updated. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"we need to teach the controversy" "it is whitewashing to simply remove preliminary studies and such" Do you seriously mean this? --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@MontanaBW: Primary medical sources are unreliable and should not be used for treatment claims. It is not "whitewashing" to remove unreliably-sourced information, it's our basic duty to keep potentially bogus health information out of WP. It's putting it back that is problematic. Since this is an obvious case I shall remove the iffy material again. There is some secondary literature, but finding reliable stuff is harder (there is e.g. something in Frontiers Psychology which is unfortunately tainted by that journal's poor reputation). It goes without saying that the overall aim is article improvement. Alexbrn (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's in how its phrased; there is a difference between "bogus" and "not yet established by peer-reviewed literature". Preliminary studies are useful, they just can't have exaggerated claims. The reality is that there are appropriate studies out there, and the work here is to find the proper material. I support article improvement; I oppose going in and removing material that can be sourced. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary studies are not useful because they are unreliable. That is why WP:MEDRS says we should not use them for biomedical claims. Yes, there are papers out there which are appropriate, and they seem to converge on the view that these therapies and a poorly-evidenced, expensive, scam. And Wikipedia seems to be being used as a promotional platform for them, which is a disgrace. Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now, though, you are cherry-picking only the negative stuff. I don't have the time, interest or energy to work on five articles at once, so I'll focus on the equine stuff, but I suggest that you take an honest look at the material that supports this form of therapy because it is not particularly expensive (insurance companies allow psychotherapists to bill for it at standard rate akin to those for play therapy) and it's not a scam, though I am sure there are some scammers out there. Psychotherapy itself was once cutting-edge and is now mainstream. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I searched very thoroughly, and have added a gold standard source (the first ever to touch this article) - and you are reverting it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You made a lot of changes; which one is your "gold standard?" Please also note that I have been trying to incorporate BOTH your new edits and the old material. While I don't really have an issue with tagging uncited material or questioning the quality of some of the sources, you are just removing them without explaining why they are problematic; you seem to simply be removing things you disagree with and inserting material that supports only the opposite POV, without looking to see if some of the material with problem sources can be re-sourced to better info. I am quite concerned that you are not engaging in a truly neutral analysis or a thorough research review, but simply cherry-picking negative material. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)r

We can find evidence by searching for secondary sources (reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, etc.) in this topic area. One "gold standard" source which I inserted (and you deleted) is PMID 23892336 - a review article in a MEDLINE-indexed journal. Why you're worried about deleting obviously poor sources for health claims (primary sources, commercial web sites), while you yourself then delete really good secondary sources, is a puzzle. It is also a puzzle why the addition of well-sourced material "concerns" you when the unsupported health assertions this article formerly made are apparently of no concern. What we need to do here is ensure this article accurately mirrors the state of knowledge on this topic as found in the best sources: that is NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy about review articles

Please be careful not (as in this edit to refer to review articles as "one study" when they have reviewed multiple studies. Also take care not to attribute statements that are not in doubt, to make it seem like they are merely a POV rather than a settled view in RS: see WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be appropriate to simply do a rephrase of the rephrase, not to do a wholesale revert of all edits. this is more NPOV. A meta-analysis is not a "settled" view; even your own edit suggested that there is a need for more longitudinal study and better-designed studies. Here, the therapy has not been "disproven," it has simply not had enough of the right kind of study. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Therapies are not "disproven": that is to misunderstand how evidence-based-medicine works. Papers nearly always say "more research is needed" - it's a term of art which does not translate honestly into lay text, which is why MOSMED says we should avoid it. If something has no good evidence for its use, it isn't considered an effective (or reputable) therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here, I know about scientific evidence, but a phrase such as "no good evidence" is an amateurish-sounding conclusion and is overbroad... say what the studies themselves say ... insufficient evidence, inadequate research design, no longitudinal studies, etc... whatever. Stick to the sources and avoid WP:SYNTH. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Terminology in presenting medical research

I restored some medical terminology that was removed. "Weak" is most definitely not an editorializing term. Presenting conclusions with the caveats of "one meta-analysis" and "one study was critical of the concept" misrepresents the research.

I'm guessing that this, and similar, edits are being made because of misunderstandings about the basic terminology used within medical research and how we present such research in Wikipedia. Is the terminology too technical? I was looking forward to discussing sources as suggested [3]. Should we discuss terminology first? --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the dog/depression review, the problem with the evidence is that it's of poor quality and there's very little of it. I think "weak" is a pithy & fair way of reflecting that. (Note also this review is not the greatest source, but is usable by virtue of a CRD critical abstract existing, which I've cited). Alexbrn (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that "editorializing" is best avoided, I suggest staying very close to the sources. "Insufficient evidence" is fine, "weak" is just an opinion. It is SYNTH to draw too many conclusions here. Also, if there are multiple meta-analyses, then say so, the point is being fair and representing the range of research, not just cherry-picking from abstracts. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not editorializing, as jps says. And it's not just "insufficient" evidence, it a very small amount of poor evidence (="weak"). Your preferred "currently insufficient" is classic POV wording we see being attempted all the time that implies we just need to wait, and it'll all come good. Avoid. Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we just quote the studies. You are drawing conclusions based on a very cursory review of the literature. There are, basically, problems with a lot of the existing research in terms of design, but that's not the same as saying the while thing is disproven. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

a very cursory review ← what are you trying to achieve by writing that? It's not true. We're not saying "the while thing is disproven", we're starting to reflect what high-quality sources say, something these article sorely need, and which you have been obstructing somewhat. We should be paraphrasing, not quoting studies - particularly since the language in medical texts does not translate honestly into lay language if used verbatim. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am actually trying for true neutrality, not an editorial tone. Don't over-summarize the research. Seriously, when you are reverting back to you own version, typos and all, that is evidence of a knee-jerk response. I am trying to find some middle ground here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Make an edit that does nothing but fix the typos then. No one will dispute that. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animal-assisted therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120112025717/http://dolphinassistedtherapy.com:80/ to http://www.dolphinassistedtherapy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Special Ed Classrooms

Removed from the article. I'm unfamiliar with these sources, and concerned about their quality. Putting that aside, much of this should not be in Wikipedia's voice, especially when summarizing findings from individual studies. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Children, especially those with special needs, have a unique way of connecting to a classroom AAT dog. They view the dog as a nonjudgmental friend that they can open up about their feelings, emotions, and experiences without the attached fear of rejection that many times special needs kids are subjected to in the school environment. This strong bond contributes to the many benefits a child experiences with an AAT dog present in the classroom. Overall, these therapy dogs offer support to children that suffer from social, physical, psychological, and emotional problems.An AAT dog contributes to a wide variety of benefits to a variation of special needs children. These special needs children could have anywhere from ADHD to severe emotional problems to autism at any age group. Benefits include the improvement of attitudes towards school, the companionship, the ability to remain in control of their emotions and behaviors, the interactions and relationships with other students, the overall educational benefits, etc. In addition, the presence of an AAT dog helps reduce stress during an otherwise stressful situation. They give the children a break from these everyday anxieties present in a child’s life, especially those with specific disabilities, that cause extra setbacks in learning and socializing in the classroom. Stress and anxiety can often come from having to read aloud in class or having an upcoming presentation or test and can be reduced by having an AAT dog there for support and to hold. Altogether, AAT dogs promote a warm and safe environment for special needs children in the classroom.The presence of an AAT dog can also increase the communication between a teacher and a student with disabilities which causes a better learning environment and an overall benefit with the student academically and socially. Having an AAT pet in the classroom gives the opportunity for children who are normally shy, socially unresponsive, withdrawn, and having heightened anxiety to positively benefit from the pet’s presence. The dog’s presence can also teach them lessons about being responsible, respectful, and empathetic to others through chores related to the dog including feeding, brushing, etc.. In general, students become more attentive, responsive, and cooperative when there is an AAT dog present in the classroom.

References

Of immediate concern is that the first link I clicked seemed to be a link to a document available only via login, and was working because the session data was stored in the URL. This looks like an IPR concern. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal-assisted therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325033002/http://www.eagala.org:80/Information/What_Is_EAP_EAL to http://www.eagala.org/Information/What_Is_EAP_EAL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Animal Therapy and Fair Housing

I plan to contribute to the animal- assisted therapy article by talking about the fair housing laws and regulations is association with animal assistance. This will go in to what is protected and not protect under the fair housing acts having to do with living at a residential property. Popem211 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying Uses, Disorders Effective in, & Adding Citations

Hi everyone! I will be editing this article as I collect more information from verified journal reviews. I plan to add more information about the multi-uses of animal-assisted therapy that are not described in the article but are discussed in the literature. I will add a section about the science behind the effect of animals on humans in general and in times of sickness and/or healing. I will also tidy up the article by editing sentences that do not have proper citations.Shannonballard (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

During my edits within the PTSD section, I found some concerning plagiarism from the Effectiveness of Psychiatric Service Dogs in the Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among Veterans that was directly copied and pasted from the literature review, still containing the APA citation within parentheses at the end of the sentence, such as (Johnson et al., 2016). The sentence was "the release of neurochemicals resulting from human and animal encounters in a variety of contexts (Johnson et al., 2002)" and the only thing changed between the published paper and sentence on this page was the year of the citation, which was changed to 2016 I believe. I removed this and am cutting down extra material within this topic to make it more concise and adding hyperlinks that are necessary, such as on the word neurotransmitters, phenethylamine, serotonin, and give a quick phrase to generally explain their role in the scientific and biological support for the efficacy of AAT and moving this information into the general biological section since that would apply to all AAT, not solely in people with PTSD.Shannonballard (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of the "Dogtor"?

There has been significant coverage of the Dogtor (not to be confused with the ESA certification website, thedogtor.net) but seemingly around one event. I don't know if this makes sense to include in the dog therapy section, as it is a somewhat unique situation. If desired, perhaps someone with more experience can work this in appropriately. DrGvago (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kunnenr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)