Talk:Tranquility Bay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know this is Wikipedia, and we're supposed to maintain NPOV, but this place has to be stopped. Please, anyone who is able, protest and work against this place in any way you can. 86.134.217.24


Contents

[edit] Insanity

I believe that this facility, along with the many other facilities that run programs of this nature must be shut down. We, as a country, should make it ILLEGAL or very difficult to send your child to another country for treatment. I spent a year and a half at a GOOD program for youth with social and emotional issues that provided therapy and a safe refuge, it infuriates me that the basic dignity I was provided with is stripped from others.

Hey buddy, parents have the right to send their children wherever they want. If a parent feels that their child would benefit from being sent to Tranquility Bay, they should be able to. Creating a whole new level of federal bureaucracy so that the government can poke its nose into what parents do with their own children (who owe their very EXISTENCE to their parents) is never good. 68.69.194.125 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that child abuse is legal in the USA? It's legal to beat up, rape or kill your children, or whatever it is that you want to do to them? That's what you're essentially saying. Well, you're probably insane so I guess it doesn't matter anyway.
No. You are never right to abuse your children. They dont belong to you , you are only the guardian. There are paedophile parents who believe there children will "benifit" from sexual abuse. This is in analogy to this. From the evidence at hand of torture, systematic abuse, suicide, and violence, its really important this place be shut down. Sign the petition by the Coalition against instititutionalised child abuse at http://www.caica.org/. There is a REASON this companys facilitys have been raided and shut down around the world. If you have children there, get them the hell out and get them professional psychiatric help NOW. 58.7.0.146 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

I reccomend it be shut down, and the program be described truthfully to parents, who, if they agree to send their child there, will have failed the test and be EXCECUTED, or, at the very least, lifetime commitment to a mental institution, because they are sub-human.

I hold the same opinion myself as well - I think that there could be references in the main text of the article to organizations which are opposed to such practise. If anyone has any idea, please edit the article. -elynnia-
The executed thing sounds nice. But what's the punishment for child abuse if it happens at home? I think it's imprisonment. 68.166.66.189 22:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Abuse on the level of this facility would be impossible for parents to achieve at home. CameoAppearance 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it disgusting that you would approve if innocent people died because they don't share your spoiled liberal worldview. Parents should be able to do what they want with their children if they feel the child will be better off in the long run. Correcting a child's misbehavior is not a crime, nor has it ever been. Discipline camps have been run for years, and millions of children the world over have been for the better because of it. I won't even get into the disturbing connotations that the word 'sub-human' has. 68.69.194.125 04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So again you're suggesting that parents have the legal right to do anything they want to their children. This is obviously not the case in the US or in any developed country, but I'm sure it's all real in your private fantasy world.
WTC? I'm as conservative as hell regarding this. Thats why I believe in protecting children. Child abuse has traditionally ALWAYS been wrong. Kids are dying because of this place. The execution comments a bit silly, but its in no way liberal (hint: liberals are opposed to the death penalty). But the damage this place appears to cause is on par with child sexual abuse. Its certainly a matter for law enforcement intervention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.0.146 (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Some people need to understand how much others feel those behind this school are responsible for the abuse, and death of students. Maybe they are swinging it that way because. a) It truely is the fact of the matter and the truth. b) They were harmed by the school. c) They lost a loved one from the school. or d) they just irrationally hate the place, But how can it be irrational when proof is required to post? Remember, you cant be netural if the place really is a torturous place. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OverLordd (talk • contribs) .

[edit] This article is POV

In the interest of maintaining NPOV, I would like for this article to have testimony from those who run Tranquility Bay or those who support it. This article is very one sided. 68.69.194.125 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

One sided. Yes, it is. Sorry about that. It's just kind of hard to take a neutral view of a facility in which children are routinely abused to "cure" them of supposed misdeeds which are often not even against the law. We try, but it's like trying to write an unbiased portrait of Hitler. What nice things are you supposed to say? 86.134.217.24 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
See Godwin's Law. The facility exists to fill a need; this is not evil or cruel. Some parents wish to send their children here because they believe they have no other choice; the child may misbehave, steal things, etc. Comparing an unbiased article about this topic to a portrait of Hitler is childish and shows a simplistic worldview. It is obvious that the editors here have an extreme bias against this institution, yet somehow it is acceptable for certain articles to be POV but others aren't. 68.69.194.125 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes biases are justified. The line between "corporal punishment" and "deliberate harm on institutional level" got crossed somewhere around when parents get denied the right to see their children if they visit uninvited, or when kids are forced to lie on concrete floors for hours on end. Biased? Yep. Wrong? I don't think so. What are you, some kind of apologist for Tranquility Bay? User:Stiletto Null 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the criticism section is longer than the main article. That is NOT NPOV. 68.69.194.125 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the way Wikipedia articles are laid out; there is no 'main article' within any Wikipedia article. There's a section at the top that summarises the rest, followed by more sections (and subsections of those sections, in longer articles) that go into detail. CameoAppearance orate 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so divided. My wikipedia mind tells me to make the article nuetral, but my soul tells me to make it even more one sided. Damn. Cookn4evar 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say "Criticism" should be changed to "Alleged Abuse" or something to that effect.--Foot Dragoon 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a prime case of WP:IAR. A NPOV article is not possible. 62.197.170.207 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, as I understand the term, refers to describing events in a neutral manner rather than displaying a bias towards any side of an issue. In other words,if you can objectively prove that Very Bad Things happened at Tranquility Bay (impossible at this point in time, although evidence would seem to suggest that they did), you're free to describe those Things. If there's controversy over whether the Very Bad Things actually happened or not, say so in the article. Conversely, if new evidence comes to light that decisively proves that the Very Bad Things never really happened, the article should still mention that at one point people thought they had. CameoAppearance orate 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to stop

I've seen how this page is going back and forth between that IP address and some users, and I attempted to make it a NPOV, including information from both sides equally, but it was reverted back to an extremely one-sided article. Now I honestly have no opinion either way, if parents wish to send their children there, thats their own choice, I personally wouldn't send my child to any kind of boarding school, whether there are allegations against it or not. CameoAppearance, you seem to obviously be against this school, as you have a right to be, but I feel that you're abusing Wikipedia by not offering a NPOV article, and constantly reverting to an extremely biased one. Deathoftherescue 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am indeed against this school (in the sense that I'd like to see it shut down, but I'm not going to actively campaign in favour of such), I'm not purposefully pushing an agenda; even if it wasn't clearly against Wikipedia policies, an encyclopedia isn't the place for such things. With regards to my reversion, I've upheld it mainly because the IPs' preferred revision removed any mention of it being any more than a "treatment center" for disobedient children, and the main difference between that and yours was that it gave a brief, general mention of the facility having been criticised, added a "Praise" section as well (which is not a generally accepted practice on Wikipedia) and included two links to non-WWASPS pages.
I haven't gone over the exact wording of the Criticism section yet (although this is probably where the problem lies), but I believe that having a detailed description of the allegations is both a better idea and more in line with other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects than simply stating that it "has recieved harsh criticisms and allegations of child abuse" and "There are also groups against Tranquility Bay and the entire World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools in general" (which sounds more like an attempt to allude to a conspiracy against them than a statement of the fact that anti-WWASPS groups exist, although this could simply be my interpretation). CameoAppearance orate 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't care if the criticism section stays intact, so long as there are views from the other side as well, if this can be accomplished, I'll be satisfied. I'm just interested in having a true NPOV, because it seems pretty biased to me. I'm not trying to get into a battle with anyone, as I said, I'm not for or against either side. But if someone could create a version that includes positive information and still appeals to everyone else (as to not have it reverted immediately by someone), I think we would all be happy, and it would finally obtain a true NPOV. Deathoftherescue 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to have it be a NPOV, leaving the criticism section intact, and adding a WWASP rebuttal section.Deathoftherescue 16:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, so long as both the negative and positive information can be attributed to a reliable source/sources (I personally would prefer that any information supporting a positive POV be sourced to a third party not affiliated with WWASPS, but that's basically just because of my distrust of the organisation rather than any real discrediting in the public eye). If nothing else, though, I'd prefer that you describe the WWASPS rebuttal rather than copying quotes (particularly the many from former students and parents) and other text directly from wwaspsrebuttal.com; aside from the fact that it's preferred that editors not put exact text from sources into the article, I don't know the copyright status of that site.
Just for clarification's sake, "NPOV" (as I understand it, I could be wrong) refers to describing events in an unbiased fashion rather than striving to provide equal coverage of views that are in opposition to each other; though I'm pretty sure most articles with a Criticism or Controversy section include a "rebuttal" subsection as well, the point is that editors don't have to make sure the articles give equal time, so to speak, to critics' and advocates' views. CameoAppearance orate 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
so you're ok with the fact that the criticism relies heavily on direct quotes from articles and testimonials, but when the rebuttal section does this, you complain about it? this is getting ridiculous. It seems no matter what anyone does, someone else will not agree and revert it. If this is how things are, I don't think I'll be using wikipedia as often as I have been, as I can't see it as a credible source. And my understanding of NPOV is that there is an unbiased, equal share of both sides to a story or argument. Providing only negative information on a subject and not specifically stating that you agree with it is not neutral or unbiased. While the editor may be unbiased, the article is not. Deathoftherescue 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't lift nearly the entire text from the WWASPS' rebuttal site; I admit that the Criticism section could use some trimming of its many quotes as well, but I haven't had the time to do so. As for NPOV, you might want to see this section of the FAQ, although, insofar as it applies to this article, it's common practice to have a Criticism/Controversy section with a Rebuttal subsection anyways. Personally, I think both of us would benefit from looking over the policy page just to get a better grasp on the way it's meant to be interpreted. CameoAppearance orate 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that you mention we should both look it over, as I was thinking the exact same thing. I agree with you in that both sections need to be trimmed down, as they both are lengthy and tedious to read. Deathoftherescue 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWASP IPs

Several of the ips involved in editing the WWASP pages.. are

a) anonymous ips

b) located in utah, where the company has registered

c) have made hundreds of edits to WWASP related pages

d) have made 0 edits to any other wikipedia pages.; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.160.150 (talk • contribs)

You're right; I've noticed that myself. Of course, if they were editing according to WP guidelines and policies, that wouldn't be a problem; however, they keep doing things like editing out every single piece of criticism and not responding to their talk pages, and it's really getting on my nerves. CameoAppearance orate 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe these people have no interest in wikipedia. Maybe they simply want to defend themselves against some accusations. Doesn't that make sense? Dwjack 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwjack (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] News Media

The "WWASP and the News Media" section appears to be completely unsourced and offers information that is either non-neutral or only barely relevant. The "Gallup says people don't trust the news media" looks like some kind of NPOV threadbare defense of Tranquility Bay. If someone doesn't clean it up, I'm going to excise it.--Halloween jack 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UT The very first section has a part that claims WWASPS is said to have a 97 percent satisfaction rate - This is simply not true - That is a number WWASPS made up out of nowhere - That number should be nowhere except on WWASPS' own page if they so choose - Also, the 4000 letters is deceiving - They ask the parents to write approval letters during the very emotional seminars they put on - After they drain the parents of all emotions, the parents feel relieved and write a short letter thanking them - Many parents recant those later on - But wwasps still uses them - Also, look on wwasps rebuttal site - If you venture to the section that alleges to have all the pictures of the parents and the letters - Look at the pictures - They are all taken at the same place - Right outside a seminar - This is deceptive - --The above comment was added at 02:35, 5 February 2007 by 67.40.11.244

[edit] Propaganda from Tranquility Bay

I just removed the following sentence from the first paragraph of the article: "Despite its reputation, Tranquility Bay is said to boast a 97% parent satisfaction rate, and the facility claims that they have received "over 4000 letters of reference or appreciation in past three years alone." Yes, it was cited. But did anyone bother to check the source??? My god. Just look at it http://www.wwaspsrebuttal.com/. As far as I can tell, this site is likely run by the company itself! As others have mentioned, I think the company is "updating" the article frequently to stuff it with their own lies.

I fully support the non-biased point of view that Wikipedia needs to maintain, but damn, it is hard to control myself on this issue. It's like trying to remain objective on a company that kills babies for fun. As a result, for the time being I will not be writing and/or adding anything to the article (other than REMOVING that BS statistic). When will this evil company be taken down (by a court)??? Markatl84 07:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out a documentary made on the program here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hO_W4VsWQ6w . Markatl84 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? Are you serious?

section for Critisism: 2080 words

section for Rebuttal: 31 words Dwjack 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I found the rebuttal even more damning than the original criticism. The criticism basically said "these guys are child abusers" and the rebuttal was "No, we're demented and really sadistic child abusers, and here's proof!" Ah well, if that's what they think maintains NPOV, then I suppose everyone's happy. Does this really belong on the Tranquility Bay page, though? Eugenitor 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Propaganda

This article looks like an advertisement. In fact, I think I've seen these same lines in some of the TB literature. I'm going to remove some of the more offensive things myself.

Yeah so I ended up taking out the entire second paragraph because I couldn't come up with a way to make it more factual/less biased. Sorry about that.

The above unsigned comments are from IP 202.33.24.132, added earlier today. I restored the second paragraph. It is at least as neutral (perhaps more so) than the material retained in the first paragraph, and it includes information from a published article. --orlady 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like any information about child torture is being systematically removed from this article. Right now after reading the page the random reader would not have a clue about why this facility is so strongly opposed by some people. It is just "toughest of the WWASP schools" and "dedicated to helping". How decently said! Not a single word about beating children by staff, laying face-down on the floor for hours, etc. -- Viliam Bur 81.89.55.4 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually - laying face first on a floor for weeks and months - not hours. And if you move - you get beat.