Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy/Archive 1

message: The edits made by mercer are not constructive and may constitute vandalism.  I have put a notice on the user's talk page to inform and encourge the user to stop that behavior.  DPeterson 14:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Edits 

message: I would prefer not to see it deleted.  This is a group that is mentioned on several Wikipedia pages and so readers may want information on the group.  MarkWood 16:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Article? 

message: I have added a reference (link actually) to the website that indictes the author's intentions.  Does this meet standards, HumbleGod?  The link is: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/  which states: "Attachment Therapy on Trial:
The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker
An exposé by ACT authors, published by Praeger!
Another link states, " It sounds the alarm about the growth of pseudoscience and unvalidated practices in psychotherapy. And it is a call for action to protect the thousands of children who are not only among the most vulnerable, but also among the most likely, to receive abusive and harmful treatment at the hands of trusted adults … their caretakers — and their therapists!" and offers links to purchase the book.  (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/library/ATOT.html)
DPeterson 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your comments I've changed "agenda" to "in support of their mission."  Since the book is written by the three leaders of ACT and sold on their website, I think that is a fair and NPOV statement.  What is your opinion? DPeterson 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of POV statement by authors 

message: Sarner, you have vandalized this page with the sensless inclusion of "fact" notes.  Please stop.  Each item you have marked can be verified by a look at the website for Advocates for Children in Therapy, which is listed in the article. DPeterson 23:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In the process of several interested parties adding various facts and perspective on this article's subject, the article itself has become quite unwiedly. As a relatively uninterested editor with absolutely no position or agenda relating to this group or its focus, I've made a number of edits, which I summarize below:
# Reorganized. Typically Wikipedia articles on organizations have an introductory paragraph; a section which describes the group's focus and activities in more detail; a section on criticisms, caveats, and other possible disclaimers regarding the group, and a section on additional links/articles. I've reorganized the existing paragraphs to better reflect this standard.
# Removed over-emphasized points. When I returned to this article this evening, the lack of stated acceptance of this organization and its practices by professional health and mental-health organizations was mentioned no fewer than three times. This was overkill, and I've paired it down to the Acceptance by... section. The fact that these organizations aren't directly advocating the positions of this organization certainly merits a section, but it doesn't need to be repeated after every mention of the organization's practices.
# Moved sentences around. Different points were being made all over the place here. I've tried to group all of the sentences together in a related fashion to form more coherent paragraphs. I think I've largely succeeded, although I didn't focus much effort on the Acceptance by... section, which still looks like a horrid tug-of-war gone wrong between various editors' perspectives.
# General formatting. "Attachment therapy" is not a proper name, and doesn't need to be capitalized each time it's used. Also did some general copy-editing ("it's" to "its," removing superfluous commas, etc).
I encourage all editors to work with and build onto this new base; I sincerely feel it better utilizes Wikipedia style and content standards. -- H·G (words/works) 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your work has greatly improved the article.  It is more focused and easier to read.  Thanks for taking the time and putting in the effort. DPeterson 12:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your most recent edit is acceptable...I see your point and must agree, HG.  RalphLender 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a much cleaner presentation now.  To remind you and other readers, all those citations were originally put in because another editor, Sarner, wanted a citation or evidence for each statement made.  Your edits are fine with me and improve the article.  DPeterson 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reads better now.  Good edits, improved article.  JonesRD 11:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup / reorganization 

message: What is the relationship between this group and Quackwatch and it's owner Barrett?  JonesRD 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of ACT's material is cited and duplicated on Quackwatch.  DPeterson 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No formal relationship that I can see, although looking at the talk page for Barrett there are significant contributions by one of the leaders of ACT.  RalphLender 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Others 

message: This article reads quite well.  It is balanced and fair and factual.  MarkWood 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better. RalphLendertalk 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Reads Well 

message: This entire section seems irrelevant.  Groups like the AMA and APA have no reason to support or condemn a group that doesn't advertise any diagnosis, theory, or treatment.  To me, this looks like a misdirected backlash against criticism of attachment therapy.  Because AT actually does involve diagnosing and treating people, it is justifiably subject to medical criticism.  It matters what medical experts think about a medical theory like AT.  ACT, on the other hand, doesn't treat any patients, doesn't diagnose anybody, and doesn't claim to be able to cure anything.  Therefore they don't need the approval of medical associations. 32.97.110.142 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an advocacy group ACT has stated that they intend to influence various groups and they have made such efforts.  Therefore, to the extent that their efforts are ignored by the groups they seek to influence (such as AMA, NASW, APA, etc), the section is an accurate and NPOV statement.  ACT does not need the approval of any group, but it does seek to influence them and thereby achieve legitimacy for its positions; which it has not, in the instances cited.  DPetersontalk 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, their stated mission is to influence such groups and they have made attempts to do so, albeit unsuccessful...so they are not recognized by the groups they seek to influence.  Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, much of ACT's material on their website and the materials produced by Sarner, Rosa, and Mercer describe and advocate regarding "Attachment Therapy."  This, despite the fact that none of them are licensed mental health clinicians, have never practiced, and do not work in the field of mental health.  RalphLendertalk 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Either cite a source, or cease inserting original research. You may end up blocked for injecting personal opinions and unsourced assertions into articles. I don't think either of us want to see that happen. FCYTravis 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition by medical groups 

message: Since Stephen B. owne Quackwatch and has ACT material on his website, a link to the Wikipedia article about him is relevant, I believe.  DPetersontalk 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So... how does that make him related? Do we put Ted Turner in the See also links of every TV station that runs CNN feeds, because he owns the company that puts material on their Web sites? If you can show that any link exists between the person and ACT, other than occasionally having links to material, you can insert it. If he was on the board of ACT, that'd be a different story. I think Quackwatch is relevant. FCYTravis 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, an article about CNN should include a link to a bio about TT.  SB is a relevant link for the Also see section since Dr. B's views are similiar to and related to ACT's DPetersontalk 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You completely failed to understand my metaphor. So I'll put it more bluntly: SB is not involved with ACT so far as anyone can tell (unless you have reliable sources to cite otherwise) - but a Web site he owns runs their stories occasionally. So we link to his Web site - NOT to his person, as there's no particular relationship there except for your fishing expedition. FCYTravis 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also See links 

message: FCYTravis has 
#removed the Also see section despite other editors wishing to have it remain.  
#He has reveted the article despite reliable sources having been cited.
#Abused his admin priv. by blocking the article edited the way he wants, not in it's original form.
#Not followed Wikipedia practices, such as conducting a poll if there is a dispute.
DPetersontalk 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the edit war here is silly and unnecessary.  The original page was fine and had been through lots of editors and edits.  I think FCYTravis is abusing status.Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: #The Also see section is valid.  In reading many other articles, for example Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Psychology, Child custody the Also see section has links to articles and topics mentioned and linked in the body of the article.  There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies that support FCYTravis' deletion of the Also see section.
#The sources cited to support the comments are valid and appropriate.
#The section, Acceptance by Mental Health Profession:  Advocates for Children in Therapy is not recognized nor accepted by the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/), American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/), American Psychiatric Association (http://www.psych.org/), National Association of Social Workers (http://www.socialworkers.org/), or any other large professional organizations. Those large, well-respected professional organizations do seek input from various groups, but not from Advoctes for Children in Therapy. As such ACT is not part of the mainstream mental health professional community and its advice is not sought by these groups, although ACT does attempt to influence such groups; "ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators" [1]  Is accurate and valid.  None of the professional groups cited mention ACT, although they do use materials from other groups.  As a member of NASW, for example, I find no mention of ACT on the NASW website, although they do use materials of other groups.  The section is sourced and cited in accordance with Wikipedia standards, and so should stay, I think.  
Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Also see and other matters 

message: Rather than continue to revert and edit, I suggest that editors comment here on whether to delete the Also see section. DPetersontalk 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per DPeterson's request, I have removed the See also section that I replaced, as he seems to feel it is abuse. FCYTravis 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such request.  The See also section's replacement is supported by at least three others and the poll has only been in place a few days. I do think a week or ten days is reasonable before action is taken.  It should be replaced and added to as editors suggest. DPetersontalk 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you accused me at AMA of abusive behaviour when I added it. Either it's abusive and shouldn't be in there, or it's a well-meaning, good-faith effort at solving problems. You can't have it both ways. Rescind your accusation of abuse and I'll replace it again as an agreed-upon remedy. FCYTravis 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made no such request for you to use your admin priv and edit a protected page.  I do believe the See also section belongs here and so do other editors.  I do not think that as an admin AND A PARTY to an ongoing dispute you should be using your admin priv as you are...however, if I am wrong, I will certainly apologize for holding a mistaken belief and will change my thinking accordingly.  I really would like to resolve this dispute in an collaborative manner.  I think that is possible and would like to work to that end.  I see mediation of a path to that end. DPetersontalk 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used my admin tools in an attempt to implement consensus on this Talk page - I dropped my objection to the See also section and thus there was no reason why it should not have been added, given that all parties agreed to it being there. My placement of it was intended as a show of good faith. However, if you saw it as admin abuse, then clearly I made the wrong decision, and hence immediately reverted myself. FCYTravis 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on Also see section 

message: :Per DPeterson's request, I have removed the See also section that I replaced, as he seems to feel it is abuse. FCYTravis 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such request.  The See also section's replacement is supported by at least three others and the poll has only been in place a few days. I do think a week or ten days is reasonable before action is taken.  It should be replaced and added to as editors suggest. DPetersontalk 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you accused me at AMA of abusive behaviour when I added it. Either it's abusive and shouldn't be in there, or it's a well-meaning, good-faith effort at solving problems. You can't have it both ways. Rescind your accusation of abuse and I'll replace it again as an agreed-upon remedy. FCYTravis 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such request for you to use your admin priv and edit a protected page.  I do believe the See also section belongs here and so do other editors.  I do not think that as an admin AND A PARTY to an ongoing dispute you should be using your admin priv as you are...however, if I am wrong, I will certainly apologize for holding a mistaken belief and will change my thinking accordingly.  I really would like to resolve this dispute in an collaborative manner.  I think that is possible and would like to work to that end.  I see mediation of a path to that end. DPetersontalk 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used my admin tools in an attempt to implement consensus on this Talk page - I dropped my objection to the See also section and thus there was no reason why it should not have been added, given that all parties agreed to it being there. My placement of it was intended as a show of good faith. However, if you saw it as admin abuse, then clearly I made the wrong decision, and hence immediately reverted myself. FCYTravis 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Per WP:OR, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia prohibits original research. There have never been sourced citations for the assertions that "ACT is not part of the mainstream mental health professional community." This statement appears to be based on the assertion that ACT is not a member of the preceding groups, which are called "well-respected" - clearly inferring that, by omission, ACT is not well-respected. Again, unsourced original research and synthesis. Until published sources are presented which advance the arguments made in that paragraph, the paragraph will not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. I am agreeing to disagree on the point of the See also section, and replacing it. FCYTravis 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not, and I've said why it's not repeatedly. You have no source to claim that it is not part of the mainstream mental health community. There is nothing to say why it should matter that those various organizations "recognize or accept" ACT. There is nothing to say why it should matter that "well-respected" organizations don't mention ACT on their Web sites. The paragraph is clearly attempting to create negative connotations about the organization without proper sourcing. Is there a statement from the APA which states they do not accept ACT? Is there a position paper from the AMA which says they reject ACT's theories? Until you face these facts, there's nothing more to argue about, and the article will continue to not have these statements. Take me to ArbCom if you must, because you'll lose. FCYTravis 01:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it matters whether the groups an advocacy group seeks to influence take that advocacy group's views into consideration in its work...and in this case ample evidence has been presented to show that those groups do not use ACT's material despite ACT's efforts ipso facto they are not recognized. But, again, since the differences here are so strongly felt, I urge you to change you 'disagree' to 'agree' for mediation; as an administrator, that would be a good faith effort.  Regards DPetersontalk 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that when disputes get this difficult, mediation is the best next step and hope that all involved will particpate so that their differences can be resolved for the benefit of a good article. 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is [[WP:OR|Original research]]? 

message: I dont know much about wikipedia and dont want too get in the middle of the fight going on above, but once things have been resolved and the page can be edited maybe someone could add a reference to the statement of members of ACT before the House Ways and Means Committee on these issues: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=1342.  Thanks. StokerAce 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to Add Later 

message: Good beginning on working on a compromise.  I added the other professional groups that are related.  Let's see if we can develop something that reflects a broad consensus.  DPetersontalk 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your additions look fine to me.  RalphLendertalk 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What do others think of adding: 
The American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/), American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/), American Psychiatric Association (http://www.psych.org/), National Association of Social Workers (http://www.socialworkers.org/), nor any other large professional organization has taken a public position regarding ACT. Those large, well-respected professional organizations do seek input from various groups, but not from Advoctes for Children in Therapy, although ACT does attempt to influence such groups; "ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators" [1]" 
I think this is a very NPOV statement, true, factual, and sourced...What do others think? RalphLendertalk 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above.  JohnsonRon 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links in the text are a Wikipedia no-no unless they're referencing a specific source - because they aren't, I've removed them. The groups are already "Wikilinked" to their articles. If we can find something specific on the organization Web sites to source, we'd include each specific deeplink as a citation links. The "they seek input from various groups" phrase is yet again an attempt to negatively insinuate something, without any source or relevancy. I've removed it. Unless we have a source that claims that none of these groups take any sort of input from ACT, it stays out. FCYTravis 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Beginning 

message: What this whole mess boils down to is one simple thing: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I had never heard of this organization before I stumbled across this mess. I don't know what it does. But it was clear to me that the article had been substantially written by someone who had an axe to grind against the organization - and that is not acceptable. Our highest calling on Wikipedia is to be neutral and unbiased, reporting only verifiable facts and only in a manner which neither supports nor attacks the organization.
From our Verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It may very well be true that ACT is a fringe loony bin. It may very well be true that everyone ignores them. Conversely, it may very well be true that they are right about everything they say and that you are all wrong. I don't know, and I can't know - and frankly, I don't care.
What I do know is that we do not have any verifiable and reliable sources which state any opinions about the organization. Thus, we cannot, repeat, cannot state any opinions about the organization. We cannot make any insinuations about what the organization does or who might or might not listen to it. We can report only the verifiable facts that the organization exists, that they make XYZ claims and that XYZ organizations don't take any position on what they say. That's what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] 

message: What I don't understand at all is the issue at stake here. Do they oppose a treatment that is generally considered safe and effective? Then let's talk about that specific issue, and mention who defends that treatment as safe and effective. Is there a controversial treatment where we can cite ACT opponents who say the specific thing at issue is safe, and why, and thus juxtapose their positions on the issue? Let's find sources and information rather than innuendo. If you are all professionals in the field, it should not be difficult for you to come up with this stuff. FCYTravis 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a response to what I'm asking. This article needs citations, because we need citations on everything. FCYTravis 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no vandalism and there have been no 3RR violations. I would suggest that you register an account with Wikipedia so that your IP identity is protected and so that your voice is heard as that of a Wikipedian and not a random anonymous user. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the issue? 

message: We cannot simply cite the home page of an association. We must have a specific document, file or link on that site. Telling visitors that the claim can be verified at "ama.org" does not suffice. Either that, or we can use a reference to a dead-tree document. FCYTravis 22:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: For what its worth, the Report of the APSAC Task Force on
Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems cites to ACT's work.  (http://www.attachmentparenting.org/taskforcepaper.pdf -- see p. 84 of the report, which is page 9 of the linked document.)  APSAC is the American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (http://apsac.fmhi.usf.edu/). StokerAce 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with that reading. SamDavidson 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ACT's information 

message: I checked the Bergin & Garfield text and you are correct, there is no mention of "Attachment Therapy" or attachment therapy.  This is "the" standard text, as any graduate student in psychology, or social work, or any of the other related mental health fields would know.  So, the term is ambigious and lacking in specificity.  Good citation. RalphLendertalk 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disagreement over what attachment therapy is or isn't really belongs in the Attachment Therapy article itself, not this article. FCYTravis 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, so the statement that there is disagreement, with appropriate citations, belongs here and readers can then go to the other article if they want more information and details. DPetersontalk 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, exactly. What's there now is perfect - I'd add any additional info to the Attachment Therapy article. FCYTravis 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you. 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very reasonable Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Attachment Therapy 

message: Why does the "Opposition to Attachment Therapy" section talk about the definition of attachment therapy? There is already an article about it in wikipedia. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is the primary (in fact exclusive) focus of this group; "Attachment Therapy/"DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but seeing as how there is already an article about Attachment Therapy, it seems appropriate to simply include a link. Any discussions about whether or not the term is well-defined belong (and deserve to be) in that article. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easier for the reader to have the two sentances there...makes for a more complete article here and the link there. DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I know nothing about any of this, I am qualified to say that it didn't help me in the slightest. To put it in a different context, imagine an article about some barely known baseball team that talks about the rules of baseball. Clearly that would be redundant because there is already an article about baseball. Moreover, the claims about baseball would have less visibility and hence, they wouldn't recieve the same amount of scrutiny. Finally, this article is making a slightly controversial claim about the definition of Attachment Therapy. Clearly someone thinks it is well-defined because they have an entire organization about it. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it is verifiable that the def. is controversial and there is no agreed upon def as there are for other terms in psychology and forms of psychotherapy.  Giving a summary and then the lead into the main article is fairly stanndard in Wikipedia and, again, here represents a compromise and consensus. DPetersontalk 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that the definition is controversial and this is partially why I don't think a disussion of the definition belongs here. I would agree that it is typical for a wikipedia article to give a summary about the subject of the article and then lead into the article. In this case, the article is giving a summary about the subject of a different article. Seeing as how this article is about ACT, I think it should stick to that particular topic as much as possible. Can you please address these particular issues? shotwell 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the group uses this term and since the group is really a one issue group (it's mission is to oppose "Attachment Therapy"), a definition and brief description of the issue belongs here with the details to be found on the related article. DPetersontalk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Attachment Therapy 

message: Why is it noteworthy that Attachment Therapy is not defined in the two mentioned books? Presenting information in this way does not seem NPOV to me.  shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no agreed upon def. of "Attachment Therapy."  These two books are very well known and respected and would be instantly identified by anyone in the mental health field. DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was unaware of the importance of these books. Note that wikipedia articles should not be written to experts. I really believe that this information belongs in the Attachment Therapy article. However, should it be placed there, it would be good to try and explain the importance of that information in such a way that can be understood by mere laymen such as myself. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book references belong here to support the statement (citation).  Citations and references for statements are important.  Again, FCYTravis required lots and lots of citations and bases for statements.  DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the citations are important. Once again, this issue would be totally avoided if the relevant information was in the AT article. Furthermore, it appears as if the article is making another argument for whether or not AT is well-defined. Wikipedia articles shouldn't generally do this. It would be better if you could find some expert opinion that said exactly what the article is leading the reader to believe.  shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references support the statement, which is what one expects in an encyclopedia article.  DPetersontalk 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the references support the statement "there is no generally recognized definition". The references support the statement, "this practice is not defined in these two texts". shotwell 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these two texts are the "bibles" or sites for generally recognized definitions.  Furthermore, the term, "Attachment Therapy" is not found eleswhere and when cited in lit is mentioned as an ill-defined term. DPetersontalk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned as an ill-defined term in the literature? Can you please point me to the source? This would clearly be much better than what is currently in the article. shotwell 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have found many references to "Attachment Therapy" in the literature and none of them mention that it is ill-defined. Moreover, I found yet another organization interested in this topic:  http://www.attach.org/. Because of this, and my other issue about the word 'defines', I feel it is approrpriate to mark this article as having disputed neutrality until we can flesh out these details. shotwell 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A simple search on pubmed, medline, et al. all pull up references. I performed another search today at my university and pulled up several more. A quick google search (web and scholar) brought up even more. Here is one:  Does Attachment Therapy Work?  Results of Two Preliminary Studies, Second Edition.  Published by Association for Teaching and Training in the Attachment of Children available from The Attachment Center Press. Here is another: Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems.  Child Maltreatment, 11 (1), 2006, pp 76-89.  I can provide many more examples upon request. The phrase "Attachment Therapy" in these sources would suggest that experts in the field can say "Attachment Therapy" and be generally understood. It may seem odd why I'm pressing this so hard. My concern stems from the fact that one way to discredit an organization is to make it seem as if they are fighting against something which doesn't even exist. shotwell 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As both documents show, there is no generally agreed upon meaning to the term "Attachment Therapy."  The APSAC report states this pretty clearly and when you compare the definition of this vague term in various souces, you see big differences.  ACT does have a clear difinition of "Attachment Therapy," but that is different than APSAC or the other you cite.  Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the term is well-defined enough to use in an article title. That suggests to me that it is well-defined enough to just provide a link to the attachment therapy article   and let any debate about its definition take place there. Now, I would not object to saying something like "Although the notion Attachment Therapy is considered to be ambiguous by some, ACT uses these seven criteria..."  shotwell 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have changed the proposed revision to reflect the fact that there is no commonly agreed upon definition of AT. shotwell 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Well-Known Sources 

message: It would be much better to put the revisions here section by secton.  I really don't like the page you have set up.  It would be better for you to start with this article and then propose specific revisions here. SamDavidson 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to do that on your own. As for specific revisions to the current article, I have already stated what I want changed and I am arguing about it here. Furthermore, I would never do a straight replacement of the current article unless there was a consensus to do so because I firmly believe that we're all supposed to work together. The proposed revision was only intended to be a helpful way for all of us to work together on improving this article without igniting an edit war. shotwell 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aren't we discussing specific sections here on this talk page? I've given up on the 'proposed revision' being a useful idea. shotwell 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On how to suggest changes 

message: It seems like the word 'describes' would be better than 'define' when it comes to the ACT's definition of Attachment Therapy. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ACT Defines the term in their material, they don't describe the term. DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. It should be noted that I'm a pedant by training. The current wording just doesn't sound right to me, if that makes sense. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ACT is defining not describing...that is the quote and so we must use their wording.DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Upon reading the literature on their site, I cannot find where ACT defines Attachment Therapy as it says in the article. In fact, the quote in this article is from  here. In that article, they use the quote to describe what Attachment Therapy is like. shotwell 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the link is from the ACT website and leads you to that article, which is their article.  I read the quote in the article as coming directly from the ACT material.Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the article makes a claim about their stated definition of "Attachment Therapy" and it seems appropriate that such a claim would be sourced by their own writings. The current source provided in the article does not support the claim it is intended to support. Moreover, I found a list of seven criteria that ACT uses to define Attachment Therapy. As it stands now, this wikipedia article is just blatantly wrong about ACT's definition of Attachment Therapy. shotwell 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you are incorrect.  It is their definition and their article that the link goes to.  Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision of the article states: "The ACT defines Attachment Therapy as "the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." That quote is taken from Attachment Therapy: Child Abuse by Another Name and is found under the heading "What Attachment Therapy is Like". Describing Attachment Therapy is clearly not the same as defining attachment therapy. If I said, "Foobar2000 is terrible", I am not defining Foobar2000. They list seven criteria in the very same article, stating "For our purposes, we have identified several distinguishing characteristics, any one of which qualifies a practice to be called Attachment Therapy". It would seem much more informative to include this and I stand by my assertion that the current article revision is blatantly wrong. shotwell 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, here is the exact quote from their page: What Attachment Therapy is Like
Attachment Therapy (AT) is the imposition of boundary violations — most often coercive restraint — and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time. Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor. These are known as “holding” and “compression” therapies, respectively, though many other names have been employed for them over the years. Sometimes a child is immobilized inside a blanket or sheet, which is often called either a “mummy,” “burrito,” or “angel” wrap.
 You might infer that they define it that way, but your inference doesn't count here. Now, without simply stating "no, I think you are wrong", can someone please explain to me why this is a definition? shotwell 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know that you think this. Perhaps you could address what I've said? That would be quite helpful in resolving this matter. 
shotwell 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How can anyone possibly say this? They are describing what it would be like to undergo Attachment Therapy, the full quote above makes this obvious . They go on further to state that, yes the definition is ambiguous, but that they use seven criteria to distinguish exactly what it is they're advocating against. The current revision of the article is patently absurd. Moreover, it leads to the reader to believe that ACT is solely opposed to holding therapy, when it would appear that they are opposed to any sort of coercive therapies used specifically to treat "Attachment Disorder". Once again, simply stating "no, you are wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal in any sense of the word and it is not going to resolve this issue in my mind. shotwell 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to be a part of the "I agree" club, but I can't. Their own words (which I have provided above) clearly indicate that they are simply describing AT. In the same document they go on to explain that they use seven criteria to characterize AT. You are making an inference and the source does not support this inference. shotwell 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Describes' vs. 'Defines' 

message: Why is there an entire section of the article devoted to membership? Looking over the ACT website, I can't find any mention of how to join or even contribute money. Moreover, a very superficial reading of the website suggests that this organization's membership is limited to its founders. I think that a 'membership' section in this article is misleading. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can be a member by sending in $$$.  The fact that the group has as it's only members the three leaders is very relevant information. DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question was the result of me not researching hard enough. I now see how to join the organization. I do not, however, see the point of having an entire section heading that only contains "They don't keep membership statistics". shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on membership is important for readers.  It helps one evaluate the reach and scope of the group.  Most mainstream advocacy groups publish their membership stats (see ACLU, AMA, etc)DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to stating that the organization doesn't keep membership records. I just don't see why it takes up an entire section. It seems to be putting a large emphasis on such a trivial fact. This information could easily be worked into the activities section. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be in a different category than the inforduction, See also, or other sections.  I suppose it could be worked into the activities section.  However, maybe there is more data out there for someone to uncover and put in a secton about membership. DPetersontalk 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then until we find further information about their membership, would anyone object to working this information into the article in such a way that does not take up an entire section for one sentence? shotwell 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother.  It is a separate data point and a separate subject or sub-subject for the article.  DPetersontalk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind bothering as long as there is an agreement amongst those who are interested in this article. shotwell 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How does stating that they don't share membership stats on their website help anyone understand the scope of this group? shotwell 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why give it an entire section? It places undue importance on the fact. I'm having difficulty finding another article about an organization that has an entire section about membership. What will we do if they post their membership information? Have an entire section with one sentence saying, "They have three members."? That would obviously be ridiculous and the current layout is equally ridiculous. shotwell 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't a big issue for me and it doesn't sound like it is for you. I am happy that we agree about this. Lets discuss how we can include the information without giving it an entire section. shotwell 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership Section 

message: Why are there "See Also" links to wikipedia articles that were already linked to? Moreover, why is the "quackwatch" article linked here? Are the two organizations related? The placement of this link here makes an implication about the "quack" status of Attachment Therapy. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having links in the See also section makes it easier for readers.  This is a common convention in many Wikipedia articles (See for example, France or Detroit or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The France and Detroit articles are quite long, so it makes sense. I don't really object that hard to the see also links in this article, my main concern is the placement of the quackwatch article amongst the links. Why is that link relevant to ACT? shotwell 05:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, I see now -- nevermind. shotwell 05:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from the Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout: "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." I think this makes it clear as to why anyone would object to something as innocuous as a See Also section. shotwell 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, most articles have See also sections and use that as a one spot location for related links and articles.  It makes it much easier for the reader.  Most articles do repeat links in the Also see section.  Given how small and short it is, it really is not a problem and enhances the reader's experience.  DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, like I said, I am not really to opposed to the idea. However, the quote above from the  guide to layout suggests that the section shouldn't be there. I'll drop my objection though. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not pushing it anymore. I do wonder why the article omits some "see also" links that would be actually be helpful, such as Attachment disorder. shotwell 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose because Advocates for Children in Therapy talks primarily (only?) about "Attachment Therapy," but if they also do discuss Attachment Disorder then a link may be in order.  I'd certainly not object to it's addition...but other's might if it is not seen as directly relevant. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of their criteria for Attachment Therapy is that it be used for the treatment of Attachment Disorder. They make a rather large fuss about the fact that Attachment Disorder isn't a real disorder. They also mention "Reactive Attachment Disorder" as being something that they don't have a problem with. shotwell 23:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you saying that those articles should also be in the Also see section?  If so, that is fine with me.  Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll add them if nobody else objects within the next day. I don't want to ignite an edit war. shotwell 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Links 

message: I think this article has quite a few weasel words: defines, notes, refers, etc... All of these phrasings are adding a subtle (or not so subtle) POV feel to the article. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ACT uses the term Define, etc. DPetersontalk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct that I may be misreading the article, that is why I posted here on the talk page. Thank-you for taking the time to give me thoughful answers. I hope you don't mind that I slightly reformatted the above discussion so that it is easier to keep track of. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely on target.  The point of the Talk page is to have dialogues about aspects of an article than may not be understood or about which there may be disagreement.  In that manner, consensus is reached and articles improve, and editor's knowledgeg and expertise increases.  I've learned a lot following various talk page discussions.  I've learned a lot from FCYTravi's discussions and interventions on this page, for example.  I became an advocate recently because of a very positive experience using an advocate.  I believe this is how Wikipedia has grown over the years.  regards. DPetersontalk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have once again slightly reformated our discussion so it is easier to track. Please undo any changes I've made if they are not to your liking. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Phrasing 

message: I have written what I think would be an ideal compromise for this article: User:Shotwell/Proposed ACT. Aside from my poor prose, what objections are there to this version of the article? shotwell 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your proposal is a good one, as it steers clear of the controversy involved.  Until someone finds an objective way to present the disputed points, I agree it's best to keep them out. StokerAce 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What facts does it leave out? shotwell 23:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't plan on replacing the current revision with that proposed revision. That page is just a place to merge the  results of these discussions somewhere without igniting an edit war.  shotwell 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I don't support ACT one way or the other. I'd just like to see a neutral article that contains verifiable statements. This could be a discussion about Pokemon for all I care. We have guidliens like WP:OR and WP:V for a reason. It may be perfectly true that they don't work with organizations like the APA, but we cannot take anyone's word on it without a citation stating exactly that. Secondly, what verifiable facts are missing? shotwell 20:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. It would be much more helpful if any of you could tell me what you don't like. In particular, what facts does it leave out? I'm not going to push my proposal any further, but I want to know what the objections are so that I can better understand your point of view. shotwell 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Revision 

message: Ok, put your proposal for an addition here so editors can review it and comment.  DPetersontalk 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the wikipedia editing procedure. Nobody owns this article. shotwell 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you may misunderstand the editing policy and procedures of Wikipedia.  You are correct that no one owns an article or any part of one.  However, it is common practice to suggest changes and edits on the talk page to build consensus.  In that regard, DPeterson's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and one you should follow.  My only question is, why would you not do just that?  Seems like that would really move things along productively here.  JonesRDtalk 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very much like to see Shotwell's proposal for addition here.  I think more factual material would add to the article.  SamDavidson 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not the seven criteria are added, I strongly insist that we change the passage about their definition. As I've shown above, it is not their definition. Moreover, this part of the article is just confusing. I would ideally propose replacing it and the confusing phrasing about the ambiguity surrounding the definition of AT with, "Although the definition of Attachment Therapy has no commonly agreed upon definition, ACT uses seven criteria to distinguish Attachment Therapy from other forms of psychotherapy." This is concise, easy to read, and verified. We'd reference the two claims in that sentence with the APSAC task-force report and ACT's own work. The APSAC task-force report states that the definition is ambiguous and that reference is the most authoritative reference in any of these AT articles. If that phrasing is not suitable, then I'd like to hear another idea that 1.) doesn't make the faulty claim about their definition of AT, and 2.) Says that they use seven criteria to distinguish AT. I'm neutral about whether or not those criteria are listed, so long as we don't misrepresent ACT and don't just copy/paste from their website. shotwell 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like we may find compromise on this single point. I really appreciate that we're working together on it. Here is an idea, why not change my proposed revision to suit your tastes? Anyone is allowed to edit that "article" despite it being in my userspace (anyone can generally edit anything here!) If one of us doesn't like the changes in the proposed article, then he can just revert. I don't think we'd find ourselves having an edit war over a temporary, unstable, and proposed revision of this article. Even if we did, I don't think it'd matter. If anyone does edit it, I'd recommend leaving the tag on top so that nobody confuses it for a real wikipedia article. User:Shotwell/Proposed ACT shotwell 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I see that the link goes to a page titled, "Advocates for Children in Therapy," so I would like to see their definition stay....but adding their seven criteria would be good...what wording do you propose?  Maybe you could begin another section and write out what you suggest? JohnsonRon 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Addition of Seven Criteria 

message: It appears that the dispute has been resolved and the mediation case can be closed with the result being the article as is.  That is a fine resolution that appears to represent consensus. JonesRDtalk 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine for the mediation to be ended so long as that means that I don't have to argue this same issue for a third time!  RalphLendertalk 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good outcome of the mediation process. MarkWood 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

message: I think the dispute has largely died down and we can now remove the tag on the article's page.  OK?RalphLendertalk 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is this sentence: "Professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work, although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups."  If you take that out, I'm happy with removing the tag.  But if it stays in, I still dispute the neutrality of the article. StokerAce 17:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the tag should stay for the same reason StokerAce has given above. Mediation does seem to have stopped. If the medcab case stays stale for a few more days, perhaps we'll request a new mediator? shotwell 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is true.  The links (the last few) clearly go to pages that show how these groups do take input from a variety of advocacy groups...but ACT cannot take credit for any influence of these groups. JonesRDtalk 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the tag can go...however, letting it stay on another week or two, to allow more comment, would be ok too.DPetersontalk 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove article disputed neutrality tag 

message: The edited statement, is: <Blockquote>'While ACT seeks to influence various groups',professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work 'and have not used it,' although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups. (bold added to highlight addition). </Blockquote>
It seems to be true that ACT seeks to influce various groups since they state that in their mission statement.  It also seems true that the groups mentioned have not used input from ACT; however, I can see that this last element ("and have not used it"), while factually correct, may be best left out as we don't have specific evidence that ACT actually attempted this...so maybe only the first addition, "While ACT seeks to influence various groups," would be best to add if most others agree. 
DPetersontalk 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statement is fine...but if only adding the first part is less contentious, then that is fine with me.  I will add that now, if that's ok? MarkWood 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In reading it again, I think a better word to use than "influence" would be to use their own word, "mobilize."  The intent is clearly the same, but I think using their own words is a more NPOV and less subject to interpretation. MarkWood 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is statement Factual and Verifiable? 

message: Ok, the first thing I want to say about references: the "name" property of a <ref ...> tag is supposed to be a unique ID, so that if you want to add another instance of the same reference later in the article, you can just write . If you give the same name to several <ref>, it doesn't work as intended.
So that's a technical thing, I fixed it, no problem. So to the serious issue. You can't say a thing like "APA has not taken position on ACT's work", and then include as a reference a link to the APA website. Seriously. That's silly. I'd remove these "references" in a heartbeat, but I understand there's been some edit warring going on and I don't want to be a part of that. I don't feel like reading this whole talk page right now, but let me just say what I assume many has said before: please remove this bit. It clearly is trying to say "ACT is a silly little organisation". Well, let me decide that. Don't insult the reader. I'd love to hear what some reliable source has to say about them, but what somebody hasn't said is pretty irrelevant. /skagedal... 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for cleaning up the references.  The advocacy group states as it's mission to inffluence various groups, such as APA, AMA, NASW, etc...but clearly has not been able to do so, although those groups do accept advocacy input from many other groups.  The citations merely verify that and do suggest that ACT is not part of any "main-stream" advocacy effort. DPetersontalk 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I added that line about Connell and Watkins to clarify the ACT quote.  The quote calls the two individuals "therapists," but they were not licensed in Colorado and so cannot be called that...the line then directs the reader to the relevant article for further details.RalphLendertalk 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connell & Watkiins 

message: # There is abundant reliable and verifiable citations to support the statement of fact that the leaders of ACT are not licensed mental health providers.  Therefore, the statment should remain.  It's inclusion is consistent with Wikipedia policies. JohnsonRon 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''KEEP STATEMENT THAT LEADERS ARE NOT LICENSED''''

message: :"although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups."
Please cite a source which applies this fact to ACT somehow. As it stands, it should be excluded per WP:OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."
:"none of whom are licensed mental health providers."
None of your sources state this. Links which don't claim anything to the contrary do not prove the statement. It's OR that fails the exceptionally high standards set for information about living persons. -Jillium 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest and makes her comments and materials highly suspect, not objective, and the financial conflict of interest, which is not disclosed in Mercer's publications raises other questions and concerns. DPetersontalk 21:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: The part in the intro stating that certain groups "have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials" seems biased.  Why would they take positions on ACT's work or use ACT's materials?  Has ACT asked them to?  If there is no evidence that ACT has asked them to, the statements make no sense. StokerAce 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed extensively above (please read talk page for details), the statement is verifiable and sourced.  Those groups are of interest to ACT and have taken positions of subjects of interest to ACT and they use material from other advocacy groups, not the three-person group of Sarner, Mercer, and Rosa.  Please do not bring your dispute with the Attachment Therapy article here now...this is a tactic your group has used in the past and it is just not productive.  RalphLendertalk 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But why would they take positions on ACT's work or use ACT's materials if ACT has not asked them to?  It's just an illogical thing to say.  It makes it sound like they disapprove of ACT, when that is not the case (at least, there is no evidence it is the case).  These groups have not "taken a position" on DDP, either.  Should we include a statement to that effect on the DDP page?  In my view, that would not be appropriate either. StokerAce 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the Teamsters taken a position on ACT? Or the World Wildlife Fund? Better stick them in too. Fainites 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is 'this group' and who exactly are you accusing of having a financial stake, and in what? Bearing in mind that on other pages, such as the RfC on DPeterson you have accused me of being part of 'this group', and indeed, falsly, a single issue account. Also bearing in mind sarner has not been active since November 2006. Fainites 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is described in the RfC and associated talk page.  My comment above defines who has the financial stake, which is in ACT and the books it publishes and promotes.  JonesRDtalk 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your edit doesn't read like that. I think you shoiuld be careful with the allegations you fling around. Fainites 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to repeat myself from other pages, but ACT has never published any print material. The publisher of Attachment Therapy On Trial is Praeger, a small academic publishing house that provides excellent editing services of the kind that are conspicuously missing from printer-ready houses' books.Jean Mercer 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense.  Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used.  In fact, we welcome him.  Wikipedia is open to everyone.  The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed.  Let's stay focused on that.   StokerAce 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not nonsense.  In fact, ethical standards of the APA would require reporting such conflict of interests.  And, it is against Wikipedia standards and practice to self-promote as Mercer is doing. DPetersontalk 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things). StokerAce 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is off the point, which is that Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's.  I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point.  The table is very informative. MarkWood 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why that group (your table) continues to bring up the same issues again and again and again.  SamDavidson 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the articles are POV and erroneous. Bad info is going out to the public and kids are being given improper treatment at tremendous cost to the taxpayers and society in general. Of those profiting from these bogus therapies are more concerned with earning a fast buck and do not care about children. FatherTree 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case any passing uninvolved editor reads this and wonders who is this JeanMercer who is being so savagely attacked here and who is described in this article as not a 'licenced mental health provider', she appears from her CV  to be a Professor of Psychology of some 25 years standing, dealing mostly with child development issues. Fainites 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has no background in attachment and clinical practice or work with adopted and foster children.  She has conducted no research in this field.  She teaches at a small college without a graduate program in any mental health profession.  She is a leader of the advocacy group ACT and this group promotes her books and works and thus has a vested financial interest in the dispute.    DPetersontalk 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well at least she tells us what her credentials are. Where is your CV? FatherTree 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would a Professor practice in a clinic? Also, ACT describe her as the President of their Board of professional advisors. Not their 'leader'. Fainites 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Dr. Siegel at UCLA does, Dr. O'Connor does, Dr. Marvin at U of VA does, etc. DPetersontalk 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they can't if they want to; but the fact that many don't is no basis on which to portray them as some kind of unqualified conmen. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that your characterisation of Prof. Mercer in this article is in any way appropriate, either in fairness, for encyclopaedic purposes, as a matter of fact or as a matter of common sense. Fainites 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a simple resolution: why don't people read what I wrote, and see if they can refute it (I mean logically, not by repeating a hundred times "is not"). No, I am not a clinician, nor a licensee. If you'll read some of Scott Lilienfeld's material, you'll know that my training enables me to examine research design and conclusions a great deal better than most clinicians can. For example, I know not to use multiple t-tests, which is more than I can say for some whose work has been cited here. Ideally, clinicians and researchers coooperate, the clinicians having extended experience of a small number of clients, the researchers using less information from each of many individuals. The advantage of the latter is that there can be probabilistic conclusions that deal with the extreme variability of human beings, avoiding the distortions that can occur when you use small numbers. The advantage of the former is the possibility of viewing the connections that make a person, rather than unrelated measurements. But, be all that as it may, let me see you try to argue against my statements about the research on DDP. None of you have ever offered any counterargument.Jean Mercer 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why editors keep raising Dr. Becker-Weidman...he is not an editor here.  The facts are the following regarding Mercer:
# Mercer has done no research in this area.
# Mercer has no clinical background
# Mercer is at a small college that does not have a graduate clinical program in any mental health field
# Mercer has only recently become interested in this area.
# Mercer is a leader of ACT, which promites her book and materials and so
# Mercer has a vested intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.
RalphLendertalk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, Wiki only requires articles be verifiable...it is not the place here to decide what materials should and should not be included if the material meets those standards. RalphLendertalk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely also relevent, authoritative, notable and credible and above all accurately represented in the article. By the way, how do you know Dr Becker-Weidman isn't editing these pages? Fainites 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again, chaning the subject.  The issues regarding Mercer and Sarner's conflicts of interest are very real and substantive.  RalphLendertalk 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you say it is wrong for Mercer to edit but not wrong for Becker to edit. How is that fair? FatherTree 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ralph, I've answered your point and expressed my views on the issue of COI here and on the talkpage. Its an issue within mediation already. Now I'm asking a fresh question that arises from a statement you made above. Suppose you answer it? Fainites 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My status as a pitiful upstart is thoroughly established here, so there should be no problem about responding to my request for counterargument. Think of it as teaching the ignorant and preventing me from spreading misinformation. But it can't involve the Snark approach: "what i tell you three times is true" (or am I thinking of the voice of the turtle?).72.73.208.80 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not three times surely. More like three hundred. Does that make it 'Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way dowm'? Fainites 13:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments do not suggest that you have any genuine interest in mediation at all. RalphLendertalk 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just filling in time whilst waiting for you to answer my question Ralph. Fainites 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sarcastic comments do raise serious concerns regarding your sincerity regarding the RfM. DPetersontalk 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread speaks for itself Fainites 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: This is a carry-over of a dispute, the full details of which can be read in the RfC and associated talk page [].  These very same issues were previously raised by this group, some of whom are leaders of ACT User:Sarner & User:Mercer and do have a financial stake in their position, resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  [] JonesRDtalk 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is 'this group' and who exactly are you accusing of having a financial stake, and in what? Bearing in mind that on other pages, such as the RfC on DPeterson you have accused me of being part of 'this group', and indeed, falsly, a single issue account. Also bearing in mind sarner has not been active since November 2006. Fainites 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is described in the RfC and associated talk page.  My comment above defines who has the financial stake, which is in ACT and the books it publishes and promotes.  JonesRDtalk 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your edit doesn't read like that. I think you shoiuld be careful with the allegations you fling around. Fainites 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to repeat myself from other pages, but ACT has never published any print material. The publisher of Attachment Therapy On Trial is Praeger, a small academic publishing house that provides excellent editing services of the kind that are conspicuously missing from printer-ready houses' books.Jean Mercer 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense.  Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used.  In fact, we welcome him.  Wikipedia is open to everyone.  The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed.  Let's stay focused on that.   StokerAce 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not nonsense.  In fact, ethical standards of the APA would require reporting such conflict of interests.  And, it is against Wikipedia standards and practice to self-promote as Mercer is doing. DPetersontalk 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things). StokerAce 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is off the point, which is that Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's.  I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point.  The table is very informative. MarkWood 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why that group (your table) continues to bring up the same issues again and again and again.  SamDavidson 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the articles are POV and erroneous. Bad info is going out to the public and kids are being given improper treatment at tremendous cost to the taxpayers and society in general. Of those profiting from these bogus therapies are more concerned with earning a fast buck and do not care about children. FatherTree 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case any passing uninvolved editor reads this and wonders who is this JeanMercer who is being so savagely attacked here and who is described in this article as not a 'licenced mental health provider', she appears from her CV  to be a Professor of Psychology of some 25 years standing, dealing mostly with child development issues. Fainites 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She has no background in attachment and clinical practice or work with adopted and foster children.  She has conducted no research in this field.  She teaches at a small college without a graduate program in any mental health profession.  She is a leader of the advocacy group ACT and this group promotes her books and works and thus has a vested financial interest in the dispute.    DPetersontalk 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well at least she tells us what her credentials are. Where is your CV? FatherTree 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would a Professor practice in a clinic? Also, ACT describe her as the President of their Board of professional advisors. Not their 'leader'. Fainites 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Dr. Siegel at UCLA does, Dr. O'Connor does, Dr. Marvin at U of VA does, etc. DPetersontalk 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they can't if they want to; but the fact that many don't is no basis on which to portray them as some kind of unqualified conmen. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that your characterisation of Prof. Mercer in this article is in any way appropriate, either in fairness, for encyclopaedic purposes, as a matter of fact or as a matter of common sense. Fainites 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a simple resolution: why don't people read what I wrote, and see if they can refute it (I mean logically, not by repeating a hundred times "is not"). No, I am not a clinician, nor a licensee. If you'll read some of Scott Lilienfeld's material, you'll know that my training enables me to examine research design and conclusions a great deal better than most clinicians can. For example, I know not to use multiple t-tests, which is more than I can say for some whose work has been cited here. Ideally, clinicians and researchers coooperate, the clinicians having extended experience of a small number of clients, the researchers using less information from each of many individuals. The advantage of the latter is that there can be probabilistic conclusions that deal with the extreme variability of human beings, avoiding the distortions that can occur when you use small numbers. The advantage of the former is the possibility of viewing the connections that make a person, rather than unrelated measurements. But, be all that as it may, let me see you try to argue against my statements about the research on DDP. None of you have ever offered any counterargument.Jean Mercer 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why editors keep raising Dr. Becker-Weidman...he is not an editor here.  The facts are the following regarding Mercer:
# Mercer has done no research in this area.
# Mercer has no clinical background
# Mercer is at a small college that does not have a graduate clinical program in any mental health field
# Mercer has only recently become interested in this area.
# Mercer is a leader of ACT, which promites her book and materials and so
# Mercer has a vested intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.
RalphLendertalk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, Wiki only requires articles be verifiable...it is not the place here to decide what materials should and should not be included if the material meets those standards. RalphLendertalk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely also relevent, authoritative, notable and credible and above all accurately represented in the article. By the way, how do you know Dr Becker-Weidman isn't editing these pages? Fainites 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again, chaning the subject.  The issues regarding Mercer and Sarner's conflicts of interest are very real and substantive.  RalphLendertalk 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you say it is wrong for Mercer to edit but not wrong for Becker to edit. How is that fair? FatherTree 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ralph, I've answered your point and expressed my views on the issue of COI here and on the talkpage. Its an issue within mediation already. Now I'm asking a fresh question that arises from a statement you made above. Suppose you answer it? Fainites 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My status as a pitiful upstart is thoroughly established here, so there should be no problem about responding to my request for counterargument. Think of it as teaching the ignorant and preventing me from spreading misinformation. But it can't involve the Snark approach: "what i tell you three times is true" (or am I thinking of the voice of the turtle?).72.73.208.80 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not three times surely. More like three hundred. Does that make it 'Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way dowm'? Fainites 13:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments do not suggest that you have any genuine interest in mediation at all. RalphLendertalk 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just filling in time whilst waiting for you to answer my question Ralph. Fainites 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sarcastic comments do raise serious concerns regarding your sincerity regarding the RfM. DPetersontalk 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread speaks for itself Fainites 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a dispute that is being carried over from the [[Attachment Therapy]] article and pending RfC