Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

1 Improper Edits
2 Deletion of Article?
3 Question of POV statement by authors
4 Vandalism
5 Advocacy
6 Cleanup / reorganization
7 Relationship with Others
8 Article Reads Well
9 Recognition by medical groups
10 Also See links
11 RFC
12 Comments on Also see and other matters
13 Protection
- 13.1 POLL: End Protection/Revert to prev version
14 Poll on Also see section
- 14.1 Comments
15 What is Original research?
16 Something to Add Later
17 Good Beginning
18 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
19 What is the issue?
20 Citation
21 Use of ACT's information
22 Defining Attachment Therapy
23 The Position of Major Organizations on ACT
24 Defining Attachment Therapy
25 References to Well-Known Sources
26 On how to suggest changes
27 'Describes' vs. 'Defines'
28 Membership Section
29 See Also Links
30 Article Phrasing
31 Proposed Revision
32 Edits to Page and Controversary
33 'DISCUSS CHANGES HERE' Proposed edits can be suggested and then discussed there.
34 Proposal for Addition of Seven Criteria
35 Mediaton Case regarding this page
- 35.1 MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS
36 Remove article disputed neutrality tag
37 Is statement Factual and Verifiable?
38 References

[edit] Improper Edits

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)

Very true, DPeterson, it was naughty of me and I apologize for having a non-constructive response to your non-constructive contribution.. However, I have now deleted that whole section because of its complete irrelevance, which I was trying to point up by adding the names of other groups who also don't "recognize" ACT. The only circumstance where professional organizations "recognize" an advocacy group is when the group works to fund research or educational efforts-- e.g., the March of Dimes or NAMI. Your para suggested that there is some list of approved advocacy groups that serve as mouthpieces for professional organizations and that it is important to note that a group is not on that list, and this suggestion was deceptive, as you are well aware. These Wiki interchanges are certainly an education in the use of logical fallacies.12.75.168.84 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Jean Mercer

Of course, many professional groups use the work of advocacy groups in their position papers, but avoid the use of material from fringe groups, for obvious reasons. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman_talk 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Article?

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)

[edit] Question of POV statement by authors

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)

The problem with the statement as it stands is that "agenda" (as it's used here) strikes me as a weasel word to imply that there's a motive beyond the informational aspects of publishing this book. It might be better to state it exactly as you do above--"The book professes to sound the alarm about the growth of...." The subtitle ""An exposé by ACT authors, published by Praeger" doesn't really hint directly at an agenda, as far as I can see it. I'll not revert further (except to reinstate some style formats that your reversion removed), but I expect other editors might find the current wording problematic as well. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Vandalism

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) Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson 23:50, 22 July 2006 UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

While the group seems to try to influence legislation and advocate with various professional groups, I could find no mention of the group in any APSAC, APA, NASW, or AMA practice protocols or recommendations. Nor did I find any reference to them in the Special Issue of Attachment and Human Development that was devoted to issues in the diagnosis and treatment of Reactive Attachment Disorder and related topics. If I am wrong, please post your link or reference here so that, if I am in error, I can correct myself. MarkWood 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proving a negative is devilishly difficult. That is why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. State a reliable source verifying the claim that there is no mention whatever of ACT in any protocol or recommendation of any of the organizations mentioned. Moreover, cite a source verifying the claim that "mention" of a group in a protocol or recommendation constitutes recognition or acceptance by these organizations. Cite a source even to verify the claim that any of the groups mentioned "recognize" or "accept" advocacy groups as a matter of policy. Most especially, cite a reliable source that "recognition" by these groups is a requirement to be a part of the "mainstream" of the "mental health professional community" (or even what that community is). Most especially, cite a reliable source for the claim that ACT's "advice is not sought by these groups, nor intended to be so" by the organizations mentioned.

Without verifiability of the statements made, the entire section must go, and I am prepared to delete it. It can be reinstated when verification is found.

Larry Sarner 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A check of the APA and NASW and AMA and APSAC websites finds no reference to this group as one that influenced their protocols; so the statment should stand, unless Mr. Sarner can find a specific citation.RalphLender 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup / reorganization

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)

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)

Your most recent edit is acceptable...I see your point and must agree, HG. RalphLender 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There were seven different citations in the article, all going to different pages on the website. Per Wikipedia examples of citing sources and general APA style, I've reduced this to just listing the full website's address at the bottom. Any quotations will be assumed to have been found there until new sources are added. -- H·G (^words/_works) 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Reads better now. Good edits, improved article. JonesRD 11:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Others

What is the relationship between this group and Quackwatch and it's owner Barrett? JonesRD 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of ACT's material is cited and duplicated on Quackwatch. DPeterson 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Article Reads Well

This article reads quite well. It is balanced and fair and factual. MarkWood 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in good shape now: complete and comprehensive. I think it can stand as it is. DPeterson^talk 01:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Better. RalphLender^talk 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition by medical groups

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

The above previous two comments I agree with and share. RalphLender^talk 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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. RalphLender^talk 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire section contains no sources. Please cite specific reports from these organizations which express their rejection of ACT. FCYTravis 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The section has sources. The groups do not need to reject ACT. What they do is not consider any of ACT's attempts to influence their actions, which as an advocacy group ACT states is it's purpose! Those groups do take the advice of many other groups. Your request for a source that they rejct ACT is not valid as that is not what the statement says in the section. Please do not continue to merely revert. If you have something of substance to add, as an editor, plese do so. DPeterson^talk 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

You are mistating the point. The groups in question do not cite ACT but do cite other groups in their work. The professional groups in question do not have to say they refuse to recognize ACT as that is not the point, the point is that they just don't recognize ACT or use it's materials. What is being stated is that the professional groups in question do not mention ACT in any of their material in support of the professional group's positions. This is despite the fact that ACT seeks to influence such groups and has clearly not been successful in it's efforts. The citations provided support this. Also see the points of other editors made previous to yours, which relate and support keeping the material in as written. Please stop reverting/deleting this section. DPeterson^talk 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also See links

Since Stephen B. owne Quackwatch and has ACT material on his website, a link to the Wikipedia article about him is relevant, I believe. DPeterson^talk 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 DPeterson^talk 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] RFC

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.

DPeterson^talk 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Comments on Also see and other matters

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)

[edit] Protection

There does appear to have been some edit warring on this page. However, it was protected by User:Freakofnature, not FCYTravis. In respecting Freakofnature's decision, I (and probably most other admins) would not change this until there has been a chance for explantion from him. If you wish it to be reverted to another version, use the correct section of WP:RFP and make a good case for it. --Robdurbar 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POLL: End Protection/Revert to prev version

'POLL' I suggest that a poll be taken regarding ending the protection of this page and using version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73600469 as the starting point. Then, I would further suggest that before any further edits are made, those edits be proposed on this talk page and subject to comment by other editors and, if necessary, a poll to determine consensus, or at least what the broadly held opinion is.Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the following material that we deleted be added back:

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 (ACT). 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]

[edit] Poll on Also see section

Rather than continue to revert and edit, I suggest that editors comment here on whether to delete the Also see section. DPeterson^talk 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'Keep Also see section'

'Support'This section is helpful for readers. It puts in one easy to find location relevant links to related articles. DPeterson^talk 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'Support'As a reader I like to have all the Wikipedia article links in one place, it is much more convenient!! RalphLender^talk 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'SUPPORT'I agree with the above. As a reader I prefer to have links easily available in one location. In additoin, as pointed out above, most Wikipedia articles' See also sections have links in the section that are also in the article, so, someone, please reinstate the See also section here. There is no good reason not to have it. It helps readers, makes related articles more available, and takes up very little space while improving the article. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

'support'I tend to read more than edit. I find the See also section very useful and prefer having the links to related Wikipedia articles there, even if linked in the body of the article because then the link is much easier to find later. Furthermore, most articles do have See also sections with links that are also in the body of the article, so I don't see why there is so much controversary on this point....only one person seems to feel that the section should not be present and that individual seems to have changed his/her mind; so once the protection is removed, someone should put that section back in. SamDavidson 13:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'agree' for the reasons cited above. MarkWood 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

'YES'See also section is very helpful for readers!!JohnsonRon 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] What is Original research?

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)

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)

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 DPeterson^talk 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)SamDavidson 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC). Oh, one more thing. I also think that the above disputed section is fine to leave in as the argument and sources cited by others seem relevant and appropriate to me. SamDavidson 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to Add Later

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)

[edit] Good Beginning

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. DPeterson^talk 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your additions look fine to me. RalphLender^talk 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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? RalphLender^talk 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. JohnsonRon 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've now provided sources for the fact that those professional groups do seek and cite input from various advocacy groups, but not ACT, although ACT states that it's mission is to influence such professional groups. DPeterson^talk 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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)

[edit] What is the issue?

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)

There you go again!!! The items you marked for fact have been deleted because they are FACTS and are cited and these are direct quotes from the Advocates for Children in Therapy website. You have violated the Three Revert Rule. Please stop! Your conduct is not appropriate for any editor and especially not for an administrator. There is no issue here, execpt what you are creating...please stop. The material on the page is perfectly fine and appropriately sourced. RalphLender^talk 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Citations are already in the article. Please stop vandalizing this article and violating the 3RR. 70.18.125.6 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Citation

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)

[edit] Use of ACT's information

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) The report mentions ACT, and does not use their material in their report in the same manner that, say the APA, has used and relied upon material from the NEA, for example. DPeterson^talk 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with that reading. SamDavidson 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Attachment Therapy

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. RalphLender^talk 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I agree with you. 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Position of Major Organizations on ACT

Why does the article go out of its way to point out that major organizations take input from other advocacy groups? This is well-known and I don't understand the purpose of stating it. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does not go out of its way to point this out. Since ACT states in it's mission that it's purpose is to impact major organizations and it has not been able to do so, this is salient...Other wording, "This group's input has not been recognized or accepted by APA, AMA...." was not accepted by other editors. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article gives six citations about how these major organizations take input from other advocacy groups and gives no citation or reference about how they do not have an official position on ATC. I understand that such a reference would be nearly impossible to find. However, these major organizations don't have position statements on many other advocacy groups and I don't see how it is notable in itself. Is the intent is to explain that this organization isn't effective? I am unsure if wikipedia is the place to decide whether or not an organization is effective in achieving its stated goals. shotwell 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the history of the article you will see that those citations were required by Administrator FCYTravis. The statement that those groups do not use material from ACT and have not responded to ACT's advocacy were removed because of the Administrator's comments and statements regarding Wikipedia policy. Since ACT's purpose is to lobby those groups and those groups do have material related to ACT's area of advocacy, but do not use ACT's material, only material of others, hence the statement as it is. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the citations are needed if the statement there. I get the feeling that the article is trying to convey that this is a fringe group with limited influence. Once again, a very superficial reading of their website makes this clear, as does their list of activities in the article. Obviously we cannot come out and say "this group is ineffective", but I can understand the desire to try and convey this message. However, wikipedia is not the place to build arguments that have not already been built. Moreover, none of us can say if these major organizations have taken input from this group and such a statement is nearly impossible to cite (unless you could find some reference from the group itself). If the ultimate purpose of this wording is to convey that ACT is ineffective, then I do not believe it belongs in the article. I say that the best option would be to list their mission statement, their activities, and further note that they do not keep membership statistics. This, along with their website, will speak for itself. In its present state, this article is using the facts to make subtle suggestions to the reader. Finally, a good portion of those citations are simply the organizations' websites. I don't think that this constitutes a citation, but I'm not an expert on wikipedia citation rules. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually we can say whether or not AMA, APA, NASW, etc have taken input for this group...they have not. These groups state when they use material/advocacy from other groups and there is no mention of ACT. The statement as it reads is a verifiable statement of fact. If you read the previous section you will see this issue has been discussed and agreement reached. DPeterson^talk 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't see it in the citations and I am having difficulty verifying it. Could you please point in the right direction? Also, could you please address my concern about whether or not this portion of the article is subtly building an argument about the "fringe status" of this organization? shotwell 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You read it the same way I did - clearly it's trying to subtly build that argument. My feeling is that this article will eventually end up before ArbCom, when someone with more patience than I takes it there. FCYTravis 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the last few references each of those lead to a citing of an advocacy group, such as the NEA at the APA site. No I don't read it the way you do. It depends on what you mean by "fringe group." If you mean a group with few members that is not recognized by any large well respected or "main stream" group (such as AMA, NEA, Democratic or Republican Party, etc) then this might qualify as such. But the facts stated are sourced appropriately and adequately. DPeterson^talk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that FCYTravis meant that I (shotwell) see it the way he does. Moreover, can you please provide me with direct sources which can verify the claim: "ACT is not recognized by any major organization, although other advocacy groups are." The reader shouldn't have to click around the linked sites to find such the source. shotwell 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read this exchange with interest. This is very informative and helpful. I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. I follow the links (especially the last in the set) and they clearly show that those well-respected professional organizations and membership groups do take material from various advocacy groups...no mention of ACT. I think the links are very clear and direct...especially the last few in that long list.Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the links are just to the organizations' websites. I don't think that qualifies as a source, but I'm not familiar with the citation guidelines. Moreover, a lack of references about ACT does not constitute proof for whether or not the major organizations have taken input from them. As it stands now, the claim is not referenced by the sources. The argument being built appears to be unique to wikipedia and this is a clear violation of widely accepted wikipedia guidelines. Finally, because this argument discredits ACT, I strongly insist on a clear, credible, and strong citation. Can anyone provide me with such a source? If such a source cannot be provided, then that statement needs to removed immediately. shotwell 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at all the links you will see several that provide data you want. For example, one of the links is to the APA site and shows that group using material from NEA. There is no evidence that any of the groups cited have taken advice and input form ACT, despite that being ACT's stated mission. Nor are there any references to such use of ACT material on ACT's website, where you'd expect to see it. The links show that those major well respected professional groups do accept input from various advocacy groups; just not ACT.Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are an academic, right? Would you ever include a source like that in an academic paper? That is, would your source to a claim in an academic paper ever be, "Go poke around at these sites and you'll see that it is true."? Of course not. The provided citations are no good when it comes to backing up the claim made in this article. Moreover, the claim made in this article appears to be made exclusively limited to this article. The only way that this article can claim this group doesn't consult with the APA is if a credible source has already made such a statement. Finally, I'll restate that this particular claim serves to discredit ACT. As such, someone needs to find a credible source that makes this claim, otherwise it cannot stay in the article. I am pretty sure that WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are all backing me up here. shotwell 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the source adequate. I see where those groups cite information they use from various advocacy groups, such as the reference above to the APA using NEA materials. Is shotwell affiliated with ACT? Is that the problem/issue here? SamDavidson 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the links are just to the organization's website. How does a link to an organization's website count as a secondary source? Moreover, none of the sources support the claim "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". Now, it may very well be true that none of us are able to find a reference to ACT on those websites, but that doesn't prove anything except that we cannot find a position statement. Whether or not something is true, it must have a reliable source if we want to claim it in a wikipedia article. Now, can someone please tell me why I'm wrong without just telling me I'm wrong? shotwell 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

the sources seem quite adequate to me. They verifiy that those groups do not use ACT material (none in present and they do not mention ACT) but they do use material from other advocacy groups and acknowledge that. ACT seeks to influence those groups and has not done so. See the citations. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the sources and I don't feel that they meet the guidelines. What I'd really like is for someone to give me a satisfying argument about why I'm wrong or come up with what I consider to be a good source. I don't think that this argument is really productive and I believe we need some outside help in order for this to come to a conclusion. I am done arguing here. shotwell 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The links clearly show that those groups take advocacy comments and ideas from other advocacy groups and nowhere is ACT mentioned. Therefore, these are good sources...the actual webpages of the professional groups in question listing their reliance on other group's information. Again, no where on their sites is ACT mentioned. So, the sources directly support the statement and are consistent with Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability and sources and "truth". MarkWood 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I said I was done, but I am compelled to say this: While your opinion is valuable to me, simply telling me what I've already been told countless times ("the links clearly show...") won't have an effect on me. I will list out my objections here so that they are easy to refute:

We can't cite claims by pointing the reader at some websites where the reader must then click around the website to infer that the claim is true. These are not secondary, reliable, and verifiable sources per WP:V.
The only place that this claim exists is on wikipedia. Right at the top of WP:V it says that articles "must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". WP:OR further states that something is considered orginial research if " it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument".
The statement is irrelevant and only serves to discredit ACT; as such it needs especially good sources.

Finally, WP:V states that "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." The burden of proof lies on those wishing to insert a claim into an article; not on the person who wants to remove or challenge it. I'm going to go ahead and remove the statement seeing as how my concerns have not been clearly addressed. shotwell 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the views shotwell has expressed. I just wanted to add that there is no indication that ACT has tried to influence any of the listed organizations. From what I can gather, ACT seems to focus on legislation and court cases rather than on these groups. I don't think it makes sense to state that these groups do not use ACT's information without evidence that ACT has lobbied them in any way. StokerAce 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

'I agree' with the view of MarkWood and others...all of whom have substantial experience as editors of Wikipedia and of this subject and the various related subjects. They are knowledgeable and represent, as I read their views, a NPOV, wanting to state facts with relevant sources and citations. ACT makes clear that as an advocacy group they seek to influence professional orgs...for example, see the letter on their site by Mercer to ATTACh. Therefore, it makes sense to include the facts that large professional organizations do not use ACT materials. ACT states that their mission is to impact such groups...but show no evidence of success. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the APSAC/APA report about Attachment Therapy mentions ACT and references an essay by ACT; so you are patently wrong about whether or not their information is used. I would not object to the inclusion of information about the position of major organizations on ACT if it were properly sourced. As it stands now, the burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the statement in. Please read up on WP:V, WP:OR, etc... before reverting my changes. Please address my specific concerns without simply telling me I'm wrong. Finally, I would like to point out that ACT is a vocal critic of your research, therapeutic methods, and an organization to which you are strongly affiliated. You have traded barbs with them in the past (as shown here, here, and here). As such, I think that it would be proper for you to excuse yourself from editing the article any further. I am going to revert back to my changes, although I'm sure that one of the many self-designated "Attachment Therapy experts" will revert them back. Either address my concerns or find a proper source. I think we can all agree that it would be ridiculous for this article to end up in arbcom. shotwell 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The information is 'fully sourced' and is verifiable. The burden of proof is on those who wish to make a change since the article in it's current state represents a carefully built consensus among divergent opinions. If you wish to change that 'DO NOT' just make a change, put it below for comment and consensus building. Also, please assume good faith and do not engage in edit wars or personal attacks. MarkWood 13:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. Moreover, WP:V is quite clear. shotwell 19:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

'In any event'please make your suggestions for changes to sections (noting what you want to add and/or delete) in the last section of this talk page ('DISCUSS CHANGES HERE') so any interested and neurtral party can comment and help improve the ideas and we can reach consensus. MarkWood 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE JonesRD_talk 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it the same way and agree. SamDavidson 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Attachment Therapy

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)

Because this is the primary (in fact exclusive) focus of this group; "Attachment Therapy/"DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Easier for the reader to have the two sentances there...makes for a more complete article here and the link there. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Well-Known Sources

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

The references support the statement, which is what one expects in an encyclopedia article. DPeterson^talk 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can you cite your sources for the statement, "I have found many references to "Attachment Therapy" in the literature...." As a professional in the field, I can say it is an ill-defined term with no commonly agreed upon meaning in the same way that there is a commonly agreed upon meaning in the field for such terms as Cognitive Behvioral Therapy or EMDR, or Psychoanalysis, etc. I think that since you have a different point of view, it may be appropriate for you to mark this article as in dispute...but I am not really all that familiar with Wikipedia policy on such markings. If I get a moment (HA!) I may look it up...but for now, I think your marking it as you have is probably a good idea, especially if it will help people work things out on this page and not in the article. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's too difficult to compare the two versions. What I've suggested below is that you list each section of this article here that you want edited and put in a spcific proposal highlighting what is new and what is deleted. I cannot follow your changes on that other page. MarkWood 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On how to suggest changes

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)

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)

See my comments below...better to put suggested edits to this page on this talk page for discussion, editinig and comment. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

What I'd like to see is specific suggestions....What new wording do you want with the deleted words and new words made clear. That way those of us interested can make specific comments, suggestions and proposals. In other words, State, in section xxxx It'd keep what is there and add the following, "xxxxxxx" and I'd delete the line "XXXXX" MarkWood 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Describes' vs. 'Defines'

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)

ACT Defines the term in their material, they don't describe the term. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, ACT is defining not describing...that is the quote and so we must use their wording.DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. shotwell 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disagree. The quote is their definition of "Attachment Therapy." "ACT defines Attachement Therapy as..." their definition. What is there is fine and should stay.SamDavidson 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

It is the definition on their site and the words they use. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think he did. The link is to their definition of this term...which does have no commonly agreed upon meaning. MarkWood 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

'I have to agree' that the link shows is to their def of the term. I see it clearly. They define "Attachment Therapy" as the article states. This is fact and is now sourced and cited in accord with Wikipedia standards. What is infered from their own statement is not the issue at all. The issue is that this is their statement...in their own words as is a verifiable fact!! Now, if you propose to add a statement that 'adds' to this and expands it, that would be great...propose the specific language here for comment and suggestions and consensus....I for one would very much like to see more information added and an expanded article and you'd have my support on such an addition, after I've seen it and had an opportunity to think about it. The rebuttal is that the link and source and citation speaks for itself and is verifiable. But, please, do write up some additional material here and lets work togther on expanding this article. OK?Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

No, they are defining "Attachment Therapy." Those are their own words and that is the strongest verified source or citation. The definition should stay. Now, if you propose to expand this section by adding their "seven" criteria, that could be a useful addition, depending on how you word it. Put your suggested addition and wording in the section below for comment by others and consensus building. MarkWood 13:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership Section

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Why bother. It is a separate data point and a separate subject or sub-subject for the article. DPeterson^talk 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think a separate membership section is valid. It helps readers understand the scope of this group. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

It tells me the reader that they don't post membersip information as most other groups do. I find it very helpful as a reader!!SamDavidson 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'd have to agree with editor SamDavidson on this point. I think is a different order or type of information and a separate section is fine. I'd ask you, what is your problem with it? Why such a big issue for you? It seems fine as it is. But including the information in another section could be fine...I really don't care about where it is so long as this fact is present in the article Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I prefer a separate section...but if you want to make a specific proposal in a new section...or here...about where to put the information and what it would look like (quote the revised section here with the proposed change, I'd be open to looking at it and considering it. MarkWood 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links

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)

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).DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Bah, I see now -- nevermind. shotwell 05:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'd agree with one of the other editors that I do find it most helpful and useful when the See also section has all the links to other articles. It makes the reading and further research much easier and more pleasurable. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think those added links are fine. While only vaguely related, it is only a line or two and does not distract or confuse the reader. MarkWood 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Phrasing

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)

ACT uses the term Define, etc. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misreading some of the material here. This article has been the product of some quite conflicual dialogue and so represents a very good consensus among very divergent opinions. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

No, I'd not undo anything. I think your reformating is very good...makes the material more readable....If I had an objection, I'd just state it here for further discussion. Regards.DPeterson^talk 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Revision

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)

I slightly changed the proposed revision. In particular, I added the fact that ACT uses seven criteria to distinguish AT from other forms of therapy. I then changed further references to AT to reflect that ACT is using their own definition. Perhaps this is more neutral?

It seems like the issue with this article (and other Attachment Therapy related articles) may be that some people who specialize in valid treatment techniques for actual disorders feel they are being labelled as quacks because their specialization deals with Attachment. They take issue with the phrase 'Attachment Therapy' because it is too broadly applied and its usage often has the effect of lumping legitimate research with pseudo-scientific research. I find that this is a common thing in the sciences. That is, legitimate researchers get categorized with pseudo-scientific researchers through broad generalizations of whatever theory is at issue. Often, the mere existence of some pseudo-scientific theory can kill all research in a related (legitimate) area due to misconceptions by universities, funding agencies, politicians, and the public. Thus, several editors here are trying to prevent wikipedia from making broad generalizations about what is labelled as Attachment Therapy because such generalizations are potentially dishonest and harmful? Is this what is going on? I have absolutely no knowledge of psychology aside from what I've seen in Woody Allen movies.

Let's assume the above is true. Then yeah, we should edit these articles in such a way that allows readers to separate the cruft from the science. The only way to do this is to simply present verified facts and give each fact whatever importance it deserves. Readers must be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Generally, facts speak for themselves and presenting information in a way that makes subtle arguments can often lead the reader to infer a contradictory conclusion. Readers don't like to be fed subtle arguments. I think that this, and other Attachment Therapy articles would benefit from more attention by experts in these fields. shotwell 13:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I don't find the proposed revision acceptable and suspect others won't as well. It leaves too many facts out. While some editors may not like the sources cited or agree with the links and evidence, it is still valid. Perhaps a better solution would be to either cite the alternative view with facts and citations. Alternatively, it might be better to propose specific edits here for each section and then see if there is concensus for making those edits...or through dialogue and discussion, reach consensus. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

This is a controversial article...as the edit history shows and the talk page shows, some leaders of ACT and their colleagues had strong objections to material here. I suspect that there are very strong feelings involved and that it is best to proceed slowly and cautiously. Following that tack, I'd suggest beginning with suggestions here for edits and proposed substitutions and allowing plenty of time for dialogue and consensus building. I think in this way we will get a better article. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I consider the revised article to be a vast improvement in comparison to the original. Unlike the original this revised version states the facts and is void of opinion and bias. Anne11 23:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You should propose sepecific changes here to sections; section by section. I don't find the proposed revised article acceptable...it leaves out way to much important and verified information. I realize that the ACT group and it's leaders disagee and that is why they advocated for the deletion of this page. I suppose supporters of ACT might accept and want a watered down version...but that would eliminate too many facts. SamDavidson 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Exactly, your poistion on ACT is irrelevant. Producing a good article is what everyone should strive for. I find that the article is neutral in tone and has many more citations and sources than comparable articles...perhaps because it is so controversial. The citations clearly show that APA, APA, AMA, NASW don't use ACT information but do use other groups' information. I find the citations and sources relevant, clear and compelling. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed revision and prefer to read sections proposing edits to sections of the article on the talk page. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 22:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

What important and verified information have been eliminated? I feel the revised version serves to inform and is unbiased. Anne11 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I Revisions should be stated here. The suggested completed rewrite to the article I find unacceptable. It eliminates too much. What should occur is that proposed section edits should be made here section by section and then all interested editors can comment on those changes and a consensus reached. MarkWood 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Page and Controversary

I see we are getting a lot of replies from new accounts/editors. Given the conflictual history of this page I think we need to be very careful about how we proceed and what, if any changes, are made. In the past there have been a number of accusations of sock/meat puppetry and we need to proceed carefully.MarkWood 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see proposed edits to sections of this article presented here so I can review those ideas and be able to put in my thoughts before edits are made to the article itself since this has such a long history of dispute. I also think that editors with experience in this area should be encouraged to participate since they are most knowledgeable and in a good position to understand all the various ramificatios off issues. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

looking at some related pages, I noticed these cites:

*"Coercive Restraint Therapies: A Dangerous Alternative Mental Health Intervention" by Jean Mercer, PhD, on *Medscape*

*"Reader's Response to 'Coercive Restraint Therapies" by Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., *Medscape*

*"Author's Response to 'Reader's Response'" by Jean Mercer, PhD, on *Medscape*

out of curiosity and for the sake full disclosure, are you the same Dr. Becker-Weidman who had this exchange with Jean Mercer (one of ACT's founders, according to the ACT page)? it appears that there is some disagreement between the two of you on these issues. could you offer any explanation of what the disagreement is? StokerAce 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant and not in accord with the Wikipeida policy of Assume Good Faith. Just as it is irrelvant what is your background and connection to ACT and it's leaders or where your IP address says you are writing from. As wikipedia editors, we assume good faith and let facts speak along with verifiable sources...not personal attacks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

whoa, whoa, i wasn't accusing you of bad faith. i just happened to notice it on the other pages and thought i'd ask. StokerAce 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm really reluctant to get into this discussion too much because of the strong feelings on both sides. but I do think it is relevant, nonetheless. If you have had professional disagreements with Jean Mercer, it could compromise your objectivity on a page about her organization. just my 2 cents. StokerAce 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Assume Good Faith does not require that people assume good faith where there is clear evidence of possible bad faith. It's clear now that you have a direct personal interest in this article and are directly interested in discrediting them. Dr. Becker-Weidman, all your contributions to this page must now be examined in that light. The same would be true if Mr. Mercer was involved in editing these pages - his contributions would be scrutinized for potential pro-ACT bias. FCYTravis 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that Dr. Becker-Weidman is acting in bad faith without evidence of that is a direct violation of Wikipedia's Assume good faith expectation and calls into question your motives, edits and actions. Dr. Becker-Weidman has shown no evidence of any "anti-ACT" bias in his comments. Assuming he is acting in bad faith is no acceptable. As an Administrator, your implicit accusations without evidence is really sets a poor example for us lesser editors. MarkWood 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just explained to you that having a personal animus and conflict with an ACT founder is prima facie evidence of potential bad faith. FCYTravis 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any animus or conflict here or there. Professional disagreements are common among and do not represent either actual or "potential" bad faith...Assuming that is really an act of bad faith and not consistent with Wikipedia policy of assume good faith; as an administrator you should know that. DPeterson^talk 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting wierd. I now see that user MarkWood once wrote on another page: "ACT is a fringe group, not respected or even taken into account by any groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Bowlby/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=54512566 Is there some "vast anti-ACT conspiracy" going on? aren't there some neutral people out there who can write about this topic? It really seems like the whole page was set up just to discredit ACT. I wish I understood what the issues were. What is it ACT does that is upsetting these people so much? StokerAce 20:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the page was created by DPeterson (here it is in the original: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=65117165) who has also referred to ACT as a "fringe" group: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-05-21_John_Bowlby&diff=61294566&oldid=60110817 What is going on here????? At this point, perhaps the whole page should be scrapped and be re-done by someone who hasn't accused ACT of being "fringe". StokerAce 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC) You are sounding just like an advocate for ACT or like one of their leaders. Since you have no edit history I can find, other than on this page, I am wondering if you are actually a sock puppet or meat puppet as the term is used in Wikipedia? DPeterson^talk 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow...lots of conflict here again. The page has gone through lots of edits by various editors with various points of view and now represents an agreed upon statement. As a neutral observer and editor I beleive my edits and points are very NPOV here as are those of several others. However, as others have said, please do put your suggestions in that last section on this page for comment and consensus building. I look forward to seeing your specific suggestions. DPeterson^talk 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't represent an agreed upon "statement" because I don't agree with it. Moreover, I have already listed my objections and they've all been debated ad nauseam (literally!). However, I will list my main concerns for the sake of clarity.

The statement "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." is not supported by the given references. It serves to discredit this organization and requires verifiable sources. As it lacks such sources, it doesn't belong in the article.
The statement "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"..." is blatantly wrong and needs to be changed.

I dispute the factual accuracy of the article, I dispute that the sources back up the claims, and I dispute the NPOV status of this article. shotwell 05:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article represents a slowly built 'consensus, that developed over a reasonable amount to time...just read the edit history and the talk page that preceeds all your edits...many of these issues have been carefully considered.

The references and sources for the statement, "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." clearly meet the Wikipedia Template:Verifiable standard and are quite clear...just follow the links and you, as several others have commented and found, will see.
The definition of "Attachment Therapy," is a direct quote from the ACT website...and from their book as well.
Just because you "dispute" a claim does not make it true. You have provided no Template:Verifiable evidence to the contrary while a number of others have provided Template:Verifiable evidence in support.
In the interests of consensus building...rather than merely stating what you don't like and deleting material without agreement, I'd suggest you make a specific suggestion in the last section set up for that purpose: put there what you propose indicating what you want added, deleted, and changed, and then other editors can comment. DPeterson^talk 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE with DPeterson on this matter in this regard. JonesRD_talk 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'DISCUSS CHANGES HERE' Proposed edits can be suggested and then discussed there.

Since there is so much disagreement here. I suggest the page be left alone and all proposed changes be listed here paragraph by paragraph with the suggested additons and deletions noted for discussion and consensus building. 'NO CHANGES' should be made withour consensus. At this point the article represents a previously achieved consensus among differing points of view. Therefore, if a differenct consensus exists, it must be reflected and built here. MarkWood 13:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I clearly listed my points above. shotwell 05:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'NO' you have not listed here a specific suggestion: what wording do you want, what will it replace, what are you proposing to have changed, added, and deleted, and then allow other editors to comment and build consensus. I suggest you take some time to consider this and cool off so that we can have a more rational and dispassionate, and productive, dialogue to build agreement DPeterson^talk 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite relaxed actually. Although it is clearly listed above, I'll restate myself for the last time.

The statement "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." is not supported by the given references. It serves to discredit this organization and requires verifiable sources. As it lacks such sources, it doesn't belong in the article.
The statement "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"..." is blatantly wrong and needs to be changed.

I thus propose that the first statement be totally removed. I further propose that the second statement be removed and replaced by "ACT uses seven criteria criteria to distinguish AT" (or something along those lines). shotwell 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of shotwell's points. To elaborate on the first point, a citation to these organization's web sites does not prove that they "have not taken positions on ACT's work." The assumption seems to be that if something is not on their web site, it doesn't exist, which simply isn't true. To make a statement that they "have not taken a position," you would need to find a source that says "we have not taken a position." Furthermore, why does it matter if they have taken a position on ACT's work? There must be hundreds of advocacy groups out their that they have not "taken a position" on. They can't keep track of all of these groups and "take a position" on each one. So, I can't see the relevance of the fact that they have or have not taken a position on this particular group. StokerAce 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments of a Template:Sock puppet or Template:Meat puppet (above by StokerAce) are suspect or at least of very limited value. JonesRD_talk 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT AGREE with Shotwell's proposal. I think it is not based in fact and that the current material is factual, well-referenced and meets the Wikipedia standard as Template:Verifiable. However, if Shotwell has another proposal, let us see it and editors can comment. Maybe Shotwell would like to propose adding material about these seven criteria? I'd be very interested in seeing a specific proposal here. Please put your wording below. I think I might support such an addition...I will need to see your specific proposal and wording for that addition. More would be better. JonesRD_talk 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Shotwell's proposal, 'I Disagree' for the following reasons:

The statements are verifiable and referenced adequately. This has repeatedly been shown in several of the sections above. I don't see why the issue keeps being raised by this person when it is so clear and has been addressed above.
The definition is ACT's and, again, this issue has been fully discussed previously. If Shotwell would like to propose ADDINGthe seven points, that would be a good addition. Please do so here. I'd really like to see that. More data here would be better. SamDavidson 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When my students use the word 'clear' it is usually because they are making an error. The validity of the citations is only argued ad nauseum above; that does not constitute an argument. Per WP:V, the statement about ACT's affiliation with groups like the APA is not verified. And yeah, I propose adding their seven criteria and removing the false assertion in this article about their definition. I've don't that several times. I would not be adverse to adding the seven criteria and then saying, "they say it is like the physical....". We don't need more data, we need some outside help. shotwell 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The statements regarding AMA, NASW, etc. are verifiable and cited per Wikipedia policy. No, you've never made a specific proposal...show us here what you want to add, change and delete...all you've done is say "I will propose a change." So, put the specific language below and identify what you suggest adding, changing, etc. That would be most helpful. DPeterson^talk 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look above. (And as I've stated elsewhere, argument by repetition isn't going to change my mind.) shotwell 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Addition of Seven Criteria

Ok, put your proposal for an addition here so editors can review it and comment. DPeterson^talk 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the wikipedia editing procedure. Nobody owns this article. shotwell 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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. JonesRD_talk 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I like your suggested edit, 'Althought the definition of attachment therapy has no commonly agreed upon definition, ACT uses seven criteria to distinguish attachment therapy from other forms of psychotherapy.' What then would you write for the seven criteria? I'd like to see that part proposed here. However, I also think that their definition as quoted should also remain as this is their quote from their website...or a link from their website to this definition; so in either case, it is their definition. Now, if you want to suggest other edits here that would be much appreciated by me as a reader and sometime editor. I could then put my two cents in here and, I hope, contribute to building a consensus. JohnsonRon 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Mediaton Case regarding this page

A mediation case regarding this page has been opened. I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If anyone has anything to the page, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you very much for giving us a helping hand. There are two very specific points that we're unable to compromise on.

I do not believe that the sentence "The ACT defines Attachment Therapy as "the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hour..." is true. Specifically, I do not think that this is their definition. Mostly everyone else involved with this article thinks that it is true, yet I do not understand their reasoning. The quoted text is being taken from Attachment Therapy: Child Abuse by Another Name. It can be found under the heading "What Attachment Therapy is Like".
I do not believe the 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..." is properly sourced. The in-line citations point to the websites of these organizations. Those who disagree with me say that our inability to find a mention of ACT on those websites (despite the fact that these websites mention other organizations) shows that the claim is true. Hence, this is essentially a dispute about what constitutes a proper reference on wikipedia.

Some of the smaller points of contention (raised by me) have been.

The claims that Attachment therapy is ill-defined (I think that should just go in the Attachment therapy article, while many disagree).
The See Also links that have already been linked to previously in the article (just a manual of style issue)
The part about membership statistics (I think it is being given undue weight)

I am generally willing to just ignore the smaller points because they don't seem that important. I'd just like to see some resolution on the larger issues.

shotwell 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I view this differently.

The definition of attachment therapy by ACT is a direct link from their website to the other site and are their exact words. Therefore, it meets the Wikipedia standard of a verifiable fact. If you go to: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/ and then hit the third or fourth button at the bottom of their webpage you get to this definition.
Various large professional groups, such as the AMA, APA, APA, NASW, etc. have used material from other advocacy groups (the links are to their websites and also to pages of those sites showing where those groups used materials and accepted influence from various advocacy groups. ACT's purpose is to influence various groups, including those large professional groups (see the ACT mission), but have not been successful in that regard...there is no verifiable evidence that they have been successful.
There are many conflicting definitions of the term "attachment therapy." It is not part of the DSM IV, the AMA's CPT code book, or various other texts. If you search the web you will find various definitions for this term. Therefore statement that it is ill defined seems accurate.
The Also see section, as MANY other editors have noted, is a convenient place to put links for the reader so that the reader can easily find those links. There is no reason to not make it easier for the reader to find related articles.
Again, it is a fact that they do not publish membership stats...as a reader, that is of interest...if Shotwell prefers that that fact be included in another section and not it's own, that would be acceptable to me.

Glad to see that this is being discussed and that the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is being followed. RalphLender^talk 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RalphLender's assessment. JonesRD_talk 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the 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", I have two comments. First, there is no indication that ACT has tried to influence any of the listed organizations. Thus, I don't think it makes sense to state that these groups do not use ACT's information without evidence that ACT has lobbied them in any way. Second, how do we know they don't use ACT's information? The sources offered in support are just the organizations' web sites. They may very well use this information in materials that are not online. StokerAce 18:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See the ACT talk page for a detailed description of this and specific responses and answers to these questions...already provided. RalphLender^talk 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

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. JonesRD_talk 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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! RalphLender^talk 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good outcome of the mediation process. MarkWood 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove article disputed neutrality tag

I think the dispute has largely died down and we can now remove the tag on the article's page. OK?RalphLender^talk 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is ample verification for the sentence in question. I am not sure how long one or two individuals can hold hostage an article in this fashion. I believe the tag should be removed.MarkWood 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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. JonesRD_talk 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tag can go...however, letting it stay on another week or two, to allow more comment, would be ok too.DPeterson^talk 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is statement Factual and Verifiable?

The edited statement, is:

'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).

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. DPeterson^talk 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] References

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 <ref name="same_id" />. 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)

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. DPeterson^talk 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/v/Talk%7EAdvocates_for_Children_in_Therapy_3c4d.html"

Categories: Start-Class psychology articles | Low-importance psychology articles

Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Improper Edits

[edit] Deletion of Article?

[edit] Question of POV statement by authors

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Advocacy

[edit] Cleanup / reorganization

[edit] Relationship with Others

[edit] Article Reads Well

[edit] Recognition by medical groups

[edit] Also See links

[edit] RFC

[edit] Comments on Also see and other matters

[edit] Protection

[edit] POLL: End Protection/Revert to prev version

[edit] Poll on Also see section

[edit] Comments

[edit] What is Original research?

[edit] Something to Add Later

[edit] Good Beginning

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

[edit] What is the issue?

[edit] Citation

[edit] Use of ACT's information

[edit] Defining Attachment Therapy

[edit] The Position of Major Organizations on ACT

[edit] Defining Attachment Therapy

[edit] References to Well-Known Sources

[edit] On how to suggest changes

[edit] 'Describes' vs. 'Defines'

[edit] Membership Section

[edit] See Also Links

[edit] Article Phrasing

[edit] Proposed Revision

[edit] Edits to Page and Controversary

[edit] 'DISCUSS CHANGES HERE' Proposed edits can be suggested and then discussed there.

[edit] Proposal for Addition of Seven Criteria

[edit] Mediaton Case regarding this page

[edit] MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

[edit] Remove article disputed neutrality tag

[edit] Is statement Factual and Verifiable?

[edit] References

Views

Navigation

Search