Talk:Psychiatric service dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) There seems to be a war going on between two groups with this article. I was the original writer of it and it started out as one paragraph to give the basic definition of a psychiatric service dog. As more people found the page, the article grew and changed, and I've been editing it as needed for grammar, spelling, and organization. Now, however, I am seeing that people are fighting over the proper definition of a service dog and what they have to do in order to qualify as a service dog. State facts. State what the law says. Do NOT write down YOUR interpretation of the law. That is for a court of law to decide should someone go to court over a service dog issue.

There have been several reverts/edits on this page. It appears that there are two very different POVs involved here. Can we agree on a final edit, or do we need to bring in a wikipedia mediator? Ideally we can resolve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.15.78 (talk • contribs) 07:29, January 31, 2007 (UTC).

I can see no way either of you involved in that edit war saw it helping the article in any way. It is obvious that "winning" was the only goal here, and to that point, both of you have violated the three-revert rule, marred the edit history with ugly comments, and made me wonder at what reasoning was involved in making an article that totally repeats several paragraphs. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What ugly comments were made? Please let me know, because I never added anything to the text other than information on the topic.

I was unaware of the three-revert rule before this morning, and I sincerely apologize for violating it.

As for winning being the only goal - I felt that the back and forth reverting was going nowhere, which is why I left a note for the other contributor to look at the talk page and then asked if we could agree on a final edit. It seems like there are two POVs (remaining neutral on this topic is difficult) but I think both POVs can be represented fairly in an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.15.235 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly User:PSDS who was making the edit summary comments in the history. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it.

Allow me to clarify my perspective on the editing issue. First and foremost, when federal law is quoted, it needs to be quoted ACCURATELY. Second, there are many different tasks and functions that are utilized by a large community of PSD handlers. To express one's opinion about someone else's task list is NOT appropriate for this article. All relevent tasks and functions have the right to be represented in this article. Third, removing a link to someone else's organization simply because you don't like the organization is inappropriate. There is room for everyone to have a link to their respective webpages. More than anything else, we need to reflect information ACCURATELY. Opinion, conjecture, or misrepresenting yourself as an attorney or a federal judge is intellectually dishonest. ACCURACY is what everyone should strive for. Sincerely, Dr. Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog therapeutic model since 1997.

New Entry: Yet again ERRONEOUS INFORMATION has been re-posted to this page. You are confusing a DOJ Business Brief with the Code of Federal Regulations, which I quoted numerous time and which you removed numerous times. Obviously, you are not an educated person and know nothing about the law. A business brief is an informal publication. Federal law is found in the Code of Federal Regulations and it states, "...do work or perform tasks..." Go ahead and bask in your ignorance. I've heard about all the people you abuse on your listserv and the false information that you propagate. I'm done with both you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSDS (talk • contribs) 07:24, February 1, 2007 (UTC).

There is no "false" information in this article that I am aware of. Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to deal with psychiatric service dogs around the world, and not just in America. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't re-posted what you call "erroneous information" to the page. The most recent edit was done by Sarraduin. Also, I don't have a listserv. You're confusing me with someone else. Also, I think it's unnecessary to resort to being insulting.