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.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Archives
/Archive 1

1 Leaders of ACT not Licensed
- 1.1 POLL REGARDING LICENSURE/LACK OF LICENSURE OF ACT LEADERS
2 Deletions
3 Proposed deletion
- 3.1 This is a dispute that is being carried over from the Attachment Therapy article and pending RfC
4 Proposed Deletion II
5 Definition

[edit] Leaders of ACT not Licensed

The leaders of ACT are not licensed mental health providers. See, for example, http://www.kidscomefirst.info/vita99.pdf I have listed other references in the article. Furthermore, the leaders, while listing all their various backgrounds and credentials on the ACT site, make no mention of being licensed to diagnose or treat mental health conditions or of having any experience practicing psychotherapy. DPeterson^talk 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your citations. You are correct that they do not hold themselves out to be mental health professionals on their website or anywhere else, including their bio's on their book jackets. SamDavidson 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is almost humorous. Providing links and prompting the reader to search state databases doesn't count as a secondary source. If anything, that constitutes original research. You're very clearly trying to discredit ACT. See WP:BLP if you have any confusion about making unsourced statements concerning living people. Cheers, shotwell 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they are not licensed...the resume of mercer clearly shows no licensure. The webpage for ACT clearly shows no licenses for any of the leaders. This is a verifiable fact. Please stop removing this material. There is a clear consensus among editors to keep this in. But, if you doubt that, hold a poll or engage in another acceptable form of dispute resolution and consensus building, not edit waring. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While I enjoy discovering new and exciting ways to violate NPOV, this is simply too much. shotwell 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, their bios on their book do not mention licensure...this is an important fact that would be listed on a CV, website, and book bio. Furthermore, this issue has been extensively discussed and resolved before, Shotwell. See:

But, if you still feel strongly, holding a poll would be an approprite dispute resolution step...as was recommended previously. DPeterson^talk 13:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they are not licensed...that is very evident. However, everyone should assume good faith here. No one has ownership of this page. If there is a changed consensus regarding this statement the let it emerge. However, facts are facts and there is clearly evidence attributable to many reliable sources to support this. But, maybe the best approach now would be to begin with a poll and avoid an edit war as was created last time this issue was resolved. To what end I will begin a poll below. JohnsonRon 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POLL REGARDING LICENSURE/LACK OF LICENSURE OF ACT LEADERS

Please briefly state your support for keeping the current statement or for deleting it.

[edit] 'KEEP STATEMENT THAT LEADERS ARE NOT LICENSED'

There is abundant reliable and verifiable citations to support the statement of fact that the leaders of ACT are not licensed mental health providers. Therefore, the statment should remain. It's inclusion is consistent with Wikipedia policies. JohnsonRon 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
KEEP The citations clearly meet the Wikipedia standards and policy and the material is very relevant to this article. RalphLender^talk 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keepstatement. As described above, and below, this is a factual statement that is attributable to several reliable sources. Furthermore, its inclusion is relevant since their professional status, training, education, and professional membership bears on the credibililty of this advocacy group's positions. One line stating a fact in the NPOV manner that it is stated is not only relevant and appropriate, it is cearly consistent with Wikipedia policies regarding editing and the inclusion of material in articles. DPeterson^talk 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
'Keep I agree with the previous discussion that they are clearly not licensed; ample evidence has been presented, which is verifiable. This fact is relevant. MarkWood 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'DELETE STATEMENT THAT LEADERS ARE NOT LICENSED'

[edit] 'Comments Regarding Licensing Issue'

With regard to the poll going on above, just to add my two cents, I have no idea whether the ACT members are licensed, or whether this is "verifiable" under Wikipedia's rules. They certainly don't claim to be licensed, as far as I can see. But proving a negative is notoriously difficult.

Regardless, though, as I have said to DPeterson already, this statement that they are not licensed seems like it discredits ACT unfairly. What I think would be useful would be to get some neutral third parties (long-standing Wikipedia users who have not been involved with this page before) to comment on this issue. When I have time, I may try to look into how this is done. PsychPHD 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for those who have not seen my excahge with DPeterson, the reason I think the "none are licensed mental health providers" statement should come out is that it makes it sound like they are not experts in the field. In fact, they seem to have written extensively about the subject, as shown in the links. PsychPHD 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not being licensed and having no clinical experinece severely limits their ability to fully and accuractely comment on the subject...except as interested advocates/lay-persons. They have written extensively on their advocacy web-site...none of their "publications" are scientific research studies...the materials are opinion pieces; editoial type writings...which are certainly appropriate for an advocacy group. Regardless, they are not licensed and so this factual statement has a place in an article about the group...it is led by individuals who are very interested and concerned about the subject their small group represents and they are not licensed mental health professionals. DPeterson^talk 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Now show me a secondary source that says they are not licensed. There are several issues with what you're doing.

One, I highly doubt that you took the time to check the registration databases of all 50 states for multiple sorts of licenses. Even if you did, I am not confident in your ability to properly interpret the results of such a search. The fact that it isn't mentioned on Mercer's CV means nothing. If being licensed is as common as you proclaim, perhaps Mercer did not feel it necessary to pad an academic CV with such trivial information. You are conducting original research. Secondly, you are overstating the importance of being licensed. Such things are an exercise in paperwork. As far as I can tell from your citations to state databases, Mark Chaffin does not appear to be licensed in Oklahoma. Shall we go about discrediting Chaffin's work with this information? Perhaps I'm searching in the wrong place, with the wrong name, or for the wrong license. If I am, this underscores the importance of using a good secondary source for claims like this. If Chaffin is not licensed, this demonstrates that it's not so important for a researcher to be licensed. Hence, you would be presenting this information on dubious grounds with the intent of discrediting ACT. If the article had POV issues before, we're over the top now. Most importantly, Mercer is a living person. If it turns out that Mercer is actually licensed and we claim otherwise, this could be damaging to Mercer's career. Seeing as how you don't have a reliable secondary source, this is a WP:BLP issue. Now, I will not participate in your inane polls and I haven't the time for this sort of tedious and circular debate. If we can't agree, we will need to move forward with the dispute resolution process. (Lastly, please don't break up my comment with your reply, as some of you have the tendency to do... please reply after my signature.) Cheers, shotwell 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that they are not licensed...their bios make no mention of this very salient point RalphLender^talk 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone licensed would list it on their CV. Furthermore, Mercer isn't licened in NJ, which is where Mercer lives. RalphLender^talk 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Being licensed is critical. Once cannot practice without a license. Would you see an unlicensed physician? In fact it would be illegal to practice without a license. Dr. Chaffin is licensed in his home state. You are misrepresenting the point here. It is not to discredit their work that their not being licensed is stated. It is merely a statement of fact and should be stated as such. What it means to you is your own personal interpretation. RalphLender^talk 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about ACT and the status of it's three leaders is important facutal information. The reliable sources are resumes, databases, and their own biographies as they published them. RalphLender^talk 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The poll seems like a valid dispute resolution process...what else do you suggest? You've already once filed something else previosuly and failed as mentioned above by another....RalphLender^talk 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized your comments to make it clear where my comments began and ended. Typically one should reply after the signature on the comment to which you are replying. Doing otherwise "orphans" each paragraph and makes it confusing to determine who wrote the paragraphs. I know that in most internet forums, it'd be normal to quote my points and provide a rebuttal on each point. I guess mediawiki is rather lousy for extended discussions.

I think we are having a fundamental disagreement concerning the nature of policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. It is possible that I am being too strict concerning the interpretation of the guidelines. At any rate, my guess is that we have a very low chance of resolving this on our own. I am extrapolating from past experience here. Straw polls are typically used to determine whether or not consensus exists. In this situation, we have a large number of accounts who have unfailingly supported each other since their creation. These accounts have a well-established pattern of near identical behavior, perspective, knowledge, and interests. Therefore, the straw poll is unnecessary because the results appear to be predetermined. shotwell 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to read comments when it is clear who wrote them and have the comments grouped together.

Well, I think a poll is a good idea to see what is the consensus here. How large is the dispute and how broad is the disagreement. If it really is limited to one or two disgruntled editors, I do think that makes a difference in how the dispute regarding the importance of the fact is managed. Wikipedia works as an enterprise by creating articles based on the consensus of interested editors who work within the scope of accepted policies and practice. Those policies and practice include not allowing articles to be held hostage to one editors POV and following policies, practice, and dispute resolution methods. What other alternatives do you suggest be followed here? DPeterson^talk 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. RalphLender^talk 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, furthermore, with a BA, Sarner cannot be licensed as a psychologist, social worker, or psychiatrist or mental health provider in any state in the U.S. and ditto for Linda Rosa with as an RN (two year degree). DPeterson^talk 01:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am primarily concerned with the claim as it concerns Mercer. I have filed an RfC, we shall see if it attracts any attention. shotwell 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking the New Jersey licensing Boards websites (for Psychololgy, Social Work, etc) shows no license for Jean Mercer...She'd be licensed in NJ if she was licensed. Her field is not clinical psychology and her resume does not list licensure or a clinical psychology degree or the required internship necessary to be licensed. Mr. Sarner has a BA in math, and is also not on any licensing lists in CO, nor is Linda Rosa licensed as a social worker, psychologists, or mental health provider in CO. She has an RN, which is not a licensed mental health degree. RalphLender^talk 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're speculating and using that speculation to conduct original research (the database search). Perhaps your speculations are correct and perhaps you're quite handy with the licensure databases. Nonetheless, we can't take your word as encyclopedic fact. The only purpose of this information is to discredit ACT. The article was already unbalanced. Let's see if anyone responds to the RfC. shotwell 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also checked with public records, which are verifiable sources (Resume's pubished on the web, bio's published by book publishers, and the licensing Boards published lists) and would have to agree with the facts as presented above regarding licensure. Certainly it is easy to provide the direct citations. The purpose of the facts are to present facts that accurately present material...not to discredit. DPeterson^talk 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other references:

[[3]] DPeterson^talk 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[[4]]
[[5]]
[[6]]
[[7]].

DPeterson^talk 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...Since it is clear they are not licensed this should be put in the article as fact. MarkWood 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The material confirms no license from verifiable sources and the facts, or information, is relevant. SamDavidson 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me please to where JeanMercer has ever claimed to have such a licence? Fainites 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we just simply say: "The group's website makes no claim that AFC is a licensed mental health provider"?--Daveswagon 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Dave,ACT itself has never claimed to be a mental health provider. Its an advocacy group. The argument here is over whether it is appropriate or POV to describe its 3 main proponents simply as 'not licensed mental health providers' and then provide cites of various licensing boards to show they're not on the list, when, as far as I can ascertain, none of them claim to be licensed mental health providers. IMHO it not so subtly implies they're sort of conmen or something. Fainites 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is clear they are not licensed mental health providers from their books and Mercer admitted that in another post here. It is highly relevant in that if they are commenting on mental health issues and mental health treatment, their licensing, or lack of expertise thereof, is important. It is a factual statement that is relevant to the import of their material. DPeterson^talk 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then by that reasoning if someone with a PHd in Psychology does research and is peer reviewed and is not licensed he should not be taken seriously. Puh-leez... And I certain do know several 'licensed' mental health professionals who should not be talking to children let alone giving 'therapy' to them. And this is the opinion of the State Board also who has said that 10% of the licensees should not be practicing. FatherTree 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that they are not licensed. In fact, they could not be licensed even if they wanted to try to be becuase their degrees and training don't qualify them. The lack of a license is a notable fact...what readers make of it is for the reader. DPeterson^talk 12:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not notable. A biochemist who researches new medicines does not need a 'license' to prescribe to be a reliable source on the subject. In fact most practioners are not very good researchers. Are you Becker? FatherTree 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The facts actually do meet the Wikipedia policy regarding notability...If you disagree, can you show me the sepecific section of that policy that leads to the conclusion that their lack of licensure is not a notable fact? RalphLender^talk 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to prove a negative. Why dont you show we where the specific section that shows it is. I think the burden of proof is on you. FatherTree 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the policy in full that defines what is notable and this fits. I see nothing in it that would result in a conclusion that this material isn't notable. RalphLender^talk 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"can you show me the sepecific section of that policy that leads to the conclusion" this is what you asked me to do. why cant you put the same amount of responsibility on yourself? FatherTree 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother arguing this anymore FatherTree. Nobody in their right mind would think it appropriate to describe these professional people who've never claimed to be licensed simply as not licensed. As for the suggestion that only licensed mental health providers have the knowledge and expertise to comment on these matters - it defies comment. And to think there's not only one person who thinks these things but 6! Fainites 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

"although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups."

Please cite a source which applies this fact to ACT somehow. As it stands, it should be excluded per WP:OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."

"none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

None of your sources state this. Links which don't claim anything to the contrary do not prove the statement. It's OR that fails the exceptionally high standards set for information about living persons. -Jillium 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation are there...links to websites showing that the groups seek and use input from other advocacy groups, such as the NEA. The citations listed to their bios and resumes show no licensure as do the links to licensing boards...they must be licensed in state of residence and they are not. I suggest you read the talk page as you will see that this issue has been extensively discussed by many editors and a consensus reached. SamDavidson 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at Mercers CV. She seems to be a Professor of Psychology with a string of articles in peer-reviewed journals, some of which relate to this topic. She is also ;'Consulting editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2002-' and also a reader on a journal. Does this mean she is one of the peers who reviews? Or is it in fact one up from that? If all this is the case and she is basically a research/academic Professor in the field, why on earth should she have a licence? And it what possible way does not having a licence disqualify her from writing peer reviewed publications or supporting or running ACT? I'm sorry if I'm repeating old arguments here, but I really don't get this. Fainites 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm referring here to your characterisation of Professor Mercer in this article merely as someone who's not a licenced mental health provider. It makes her sound like a conwoman or something. Has she ever been accused if providing unlicenced Mental Health? Should we in fact go on and say she doesn't have an HMV licence perhaps, or a 'licence to kill'? The point I'm trying to make is, why should she have a practise licence if she's an academic? Fainites 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest and makes her comments and materials highly suspect, not objective, and the financial conflict of interest, which is not disclosed in Mercer's publications raises other questions and concerns. DPeterson^talk 21:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Give the needle a shove DP and take a break. Fainites 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

The part in the intro stating that certain groups "have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials" seems biased. Why would they take positions on ACT's work or use ACT's materials? Has ACT asked them to? If there is no evidence that ACT has asked them to, the statements make no sense. StokerAce 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As discussed extensively above (please read talk page for details), the statement is verifiable and sourced. Those groups are of interest to ACT and have taken positions of subjects of interest to ACT and they use material from other advocacy groups, not the three-person group of Sarner, Mercer, and Rosa. Please do not bring your dispute with the Attachment Therapy article here now...this is a tactic your group has used in the past and it is just not productive. RalphLender^talk 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But why would they take positions on ACT's work or use ACT's materials if ACT has not asked them to? It's just an illogical thing to say. It makes it sound like they disapprove of ACT, when that is not the case (at least, there is no evidence it is the case). These groups have not "taken a position" on DDP, either. Should we include a statement to that effect on the DDP page? In my view, that would not be appropriate either. StokerAce 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the Teamsters taken a position on ACT? Or the World Wildlife Fund? Better stick them in too. Fainites 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a dispute that is being carried over from the Attachment Therapy article and pending RfC

This is a carry-over of a dispute, the full details of which can be read in the RfC and associated talk page [[8]]. These very same issues were previously raised by this group, some of whom are leaders of ACT User:Sarner & User:Mercer and do have a financial stake in their position, resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]] JonesRD_talk 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is 'this group' and who exactly are you accusing of having a financial stake, and in what? Bearing in mind that on other pages, such as the RfC on DPeterson you have accused me of being part of 'this group', and indeed, falsly, a single issue account. Also bearing in mind sarner has not been active since November 2006. Fainites 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The group is described in the RfC and associated talk page. My comment above defines who has the financial stake, which is in ACT and the books it publishes and promotes. JonesRD_talk 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well your edit doesn't read like that. I think you shoiuld be careful with the allegations you fling around. Fainites 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself from other pages, but ACT has never published any print material. The publisher of Attachment Therapy On Trial is Praeger, a small academic publishing house that provides excellent editing services of the kind that are conspicuously missing from printer-ready houses' books.Jean Mercer 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense. Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used. In fact, we welcome him. Wikipedia is open to everyone. The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed. Let's stay focused on that. StokerAce 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not nonsense. In fact, ethical standards of the APA would require reporting such conflict of interests. And, it is against Wikipedia standards and practice to self-promote as Mercer is doing. DPeterson^talk 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things). StokerAce 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is off the point, which is that Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPeterson^talk 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's. I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I direct readers to [[13]] to see a table detailing the limited range of edits of most of the members of this group. The issues have repeatedly been raised, mediated, and resolved, only to be reraised again by the same group. JonesRD_talk 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. The table is very informative. MarkWood 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why that group (your table) continues to bring up the same issues again and again and again. SamDavidson 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the articles are POV and erroneous. Bad info is going out to the public and kids are being given improper treatment at tremendous cost to the taxpayers and society in general. Of those profiting from these bogus therapies are more concerned with earning a fast buck and do not care about children. FatherTree 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In case any passing uninvolved editor reads this and wonders who is this JeanMercer who is being so savagely attacked here and who is described in this article as not a 'licenced mental health provider', she appears from her CV [14] to be a Professor of Psychology of some 25 years standing, dealing mostly with child development issues. Fainites 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

She has no background in attachment and clinical practice or work with adopted and foster children. She has conducted no research in this field. She teaches at a small college without a graduate program in any mental health profession. She is a leader of the advocacy group ACT and this group promotes her books and works and thus has a vested financial interest in the dispute. DPeterson^talk 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least she tells us what her credentials are. Where is your CV? FatherTree 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, Dr. Siegel at UCLA does, Dr. O'Connor does, Dr. Marvin at U of VA does, etc. DPeterson^talk 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I don't see why editors keep raising Dr. Becker-Weidman...he is not an editor here. The facts are the following regarding Mercer:

Mercer has done no research in this area.
Mercer has no clinical background
Mercer is at a small college that does not have a graduate clinical program in any mental health field
Mercer has only recently become interested in this area.
Mercer is a leader of ACT, which promites her book and materials and so
Mercer has a vested intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.

RalphLender^talk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Wiki only requires articles be verifiable...it is not the place here to decide what materials should and should not be included if the material meets those standards. RalphLender^talk 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely also relevent, authoritative, notable and credible and above all accurately represented in the article. By the way, how do you know Dr Becker-Weidman isn't editing these pages? Fainites 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, chaning the subject. The issues regarding Mercer and Sarner's conflicts of interest are very real and substantive. RalphLender^talk 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you say it is wrong for Mercer to edit but not wrong for Becker to edit. How is that fair? FatherTree 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph, I've answered your point and expressed my views on the issue of COI here and on the talkpage. Its an issue within mediation already. Now I'm asking a fresh question that arises from a statement you made above. Suppose you answer it? Fainites 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My status as a pitiful upstart is thoroughly established here, so there should be no problem about responding to my request for counterargument. Think of it as teaching the ignorant and preventing me from spreading misinformation. But it can't involve the Snark approach: "what i tell you three times is true" (or am I thinking of the voice of the turtle?).72.73.208.80 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Jean Mercer 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not three times surely. More like three hundred. Does that make it 'Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way dowm'? Fainites 13:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments do not suggest that you have any genuine interest in mediation at all. RalphLender^talk 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just filling in time whilst waiting for you to answer my question Ralph. Fainites 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcastic comments do raise serious concerns regarding your sincerity regarding the RfM. DPeterson^talk 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The thread speaks for itself Fainites 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion II

Now that the DPeterson socks have been lost in the dryer (so to speak), I'm going to try this one again. The part in the intro stating that certain groups "have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials" seems biased. First of all, there is no reason for them to have taken positions on ACT's work, given that ACT has not asked them to (at leat, there is no evidence that ACT has asked them to). Second, I see nothing to suggest their view differs from ACT's view. Thus, I propose deleting this part. Any objections? StokerAce 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As an advocacy group with a mission to influence legislation and professional groups, it is relevent the extent to which they have been successful in influencing directly other groups. The fact that various professional groups do accept input from many advocacy groups, but not ACT, is relevant. For example, APSAC and it's large Task Force did not include any ACT members, despite the fact that the material and topic is central to their mission. I think that is important information for the general reader. DPeterson^talk 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that "various professional groups do accept input from many advocacy groups, but not ACT." Links to the websites of these organizations are not evidence of this. Unless there is actual evidence that these groups do not accept input from ACT, the statment is unsupported. As for APSAC, if an ACT member tried to get on the task force but was rejected, that would be one thing. But as far as I know, that was not the case. Furthermore, ACT seems to have had good success in lobbying legislatures and assisting attachment therapy prosecutions, and has been influential in this way. StokerAce 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that ACT was on the task force, whether because they requested and were refused or because they were not invited, speaks for itself. The various national org websites clearly show that those nat. groups do advocacy and use lots of material from other groups....but on issues dear to ACT's mission, there is no inclusion of ACT or it's material. DPeterson^talk 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does speak for itself. It probably says that ACT was too busy with its mission to be on the task force. As for the web site, putting aside whether the website actually supports your view, absence of mention on a website would not mean that the organization "does not accept input from ACT". StokerAce 23:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence any of those groups accept input from ACT. Certain the APSAC omission is huge. That was central to their mission and objectives. Their omission is glaring and makes the point here. DPeterson^talk 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In response, (1) there is no evidence that they don't accept input from ACT, and (2) there is no evidence that APSAC was central to their mission and objecitves, and (3) the APSAC report does cite to ACT.

Here's what the issue comes down to. You added the following text to the article: "While ACT seeks to "mobilize" 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, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials; although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups." As noted, it is not relevant whether these groups "have taken positions" on ACT's works. Regardless of that, their views are, in fact, very similar to ACT's. Finally, there is no evidence that these groups do not use ACT's materials, and even if they did not it would be meaningless because there is no evidence ACT tried to lobby them.

Unless you can back your statements up with evidence that any of these groups have said negative things about ACT, the statements simply can't stay in (any more than a statement that "the American Medical Association has not specifally approved DDP" could). StokerAce 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It perhaps would be well to remember that this article was created by User:DPeterson in the first place, and he put in this claim of ineffectiveness at the very beginning. However, both at the beginning and now, it is disingenuous to claim on the one hand that this is an organization worth having an article about, and on the other claim that it is ineffectual or non-influential (hence non-notable in Wiki terms). Such sophistry suggests that the purpose of the article was always to be a vehicle to attack ACT. Either these claims should go, or the article should. Since as has been pointed out by others, there is no evidence to back up the claims, the more parsimonious course would be to delete the claims. Larry Sarner 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is clearly stated and referenced with evidence that those groups solicit and use evidence of advocacy groups...but not ACT. And, of course, the APSAC omission of any and all ACT material is most telling. Therefore the statement should stay. If there is real disagreement, maybe you will want to file a RfC to get wider comment...or follow some other Wikipedia approved dispute resolution process. RalphLender^talk 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? shotwell 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps I'll wait for the current arbitration process to finish. Editing might be easier at that point. StokerAce 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no APSAC "omission". Their Task Force's report references materials (evidence) by ACT. In the end, they even agreed with most of it. So if that's "most telling", the argument falls to the ground. Until there is evidence that the other groups mentioned have not solicited ACT for input, it can't be stated as a fact. Just one substantiated weblink, email, or real-world reference would do. After all these months, failure to come up with any at this juncture is constructively an admission that the claim is a fabrication. Larry Sarner 22:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do they cite you or your partners Mercer or Rosa? DPeterson^talk 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On page 84, they say "Although the exact number of child deaths related to the controversial treatment or parenting techniques is uncertain, six or more have been alleged by some attachment therapy critics (Advocates for Children in Therapy, n.d; Mercer, Sarner, & Rosa, 2003) and are noted in the policy statement by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2003)." Now, I've shown you mine, you show me yours. Your failure to do so is an admission that your claim is a fabrication. Larry Sarner 06:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is in the links and is clear. However, this is not a content dispute and should be addressed as such. DPeterson^talk 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Where do they cite you or your partners Mercer or Rosa? DPeterson^talk 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion from outside on 3 topics:

1/ Introductions summarize their subjects neutrally to give an overview of a field to a casual reader, and let them check what it covers. They are not a place to try to fit the specific viewpoint one wants others to have. The sections being argued over seems to be fairly unsuited to an introduction, and putting "these guys have no credentials [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE] [CITE]" in two or more places in the intro does seems to suggest a risk of breaching NPOV.

DPeterson, there is a strict NPOV approach to articles. You are very aware of it. So far you have tried to ignore it. That's not okay, and NPOV is non-negotiable. May I suggest one way might be, to seek advice and maybe some kind of coaching, to better edit with a visibly neutral viewpoint? As this kind of inclusion is ... visibly non-neutral. (And more so in the context of what's gone before.) Over to you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

2/ Also I think there's been enough of the "the evidence is clear" or "the evidence has been given" or "the evidence is clearly stated" and similar comments. I think that if evidence is asked for, the specific links or papers should be given, clearly, unambiguously and without games or prevarication, and if necessary, multiple times. That will help everyone and avoid stress on this article. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

3/ Last, one of the questions above seems to be missing the point. There's some debate on significance of "APSAC and it's large Task Force" including or not including "any ACT members". The concern here that nobody's mentioned is WP:OR. OR covers new synthesis, and there is a risk that lacking any direct evidence of how and where they influence, the reliability of links used for deduction, and how and why the taskforce was as it was, then any statements drawing conclusions on all of this might need checking. If they have loads of influence, or no influence, someone credible will probably have said so. Be careful what's fact, and what's assumption, since obviously OR and assumption are not okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I especially agree to FT2's point #3 about OR. The entire article is WP:OR. There are no secondary references to ACT at all, much less reliable ones. That said, doing a little OR on the talk page in order to settle disputes seems reasonable, if for no other reason than uncovering some reliable secondary sources, or challenging their reliability. The Task Force composition was always a straw man, proving absolutely nothing either way -- for instance, MarkRonSamRDPeterson have no way of knowing, much less showing, what the nature of ACT's involvement with the formation of the APSAC Task Force; thus his/their claim is not just an unwarranted assumption, but an unjustifiable personal attack. Larry Sarner 06:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that they were allowed to write an open letter, published in Child Maltreat in response to APSAC, and that APSAC replied in the their November 06 addendum in Child Maltreat relevent? I don't think any old person can do that. Fainites ^barley 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted a more accurate and properly sourced definition of attachment therapy. I've also changed 'defines' to 'describes' and added a link to the ACT page where they list the 7 characteristics of AT. I've also removed the rather distracting "scare quotes" and capitals. Forgot an edit summary - sorry. Fainites ^barley 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the intro should include an old CV of JeanMercers and a link to Lary Sarners book? Fainites ^barley 20:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means presenting the facts...in this case the facts are that APSAC and no other prof. group use ACT's material, the three ACT people are not licensed MH pros, so the material is relevant so the reader understands the group's reach and has a basis to form an opinion. DPeterson^talk 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, DP... NPOV does not just mean "presenting the facts". In fact, someone who just "presents the facts" but does nothing more, can and often is pushing a POV. Read the policy, and when you understand that NPOV is a policy about balance and neutrality and not a policy about presenting the facts, then continue this debate. I am not inclined to argue clear and well-known policy if you do not put the effort in the read it and understand the matter. Simply arguing that X is a fact without considering the selectivity, neutrality, balance, and contexting of that fact, is about as far from NPOV as one can get and still meet WP:V. I'm not sure that after this amount of time, and other apparent and claimed actions (sock puppetry, bad faith editing, POV warfare, gaming, vandalism, and other matters under discussion presently by arbcom), that refusal to understand that point should reasonably be given a good faith assumption. It is likely that the view may slide away from "he is trying but doesn't understand" to "he has a vested interest in not understanding and stonewalling". I ask with utmost good wishes that you please instead, now read policy carefully, under all your puppets, and then consider whether "it is a fact so I can say it" meets all the dictats of WP:NPOVNPOV. It isn't reasonable or fair to other editors, nor appropriate for the good quality of Wikipedia, that this continued misreferencing of policy continues unchecked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see why StokerAce says we might aswell wait for the outcome of ArbCom. Being found to have been running 4 sockpuppets (who enforced a fake 'concensus') doesn't seem to have stopped the personal attacks, constant reverts, POV, OR and irritating and pointless lists.Fainites ^barley 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor the ignoring of requests to provide sources. Fainites ^barley 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats interesting. I removed the reinserted statement about them 'not being licensed health professionals' with a request to DPeterson to stop his vendetta. .He has just reinserted it with a request that I stop my 'vendetta to protect ACT'. This would seem to indicate an acknowledgement that his edits on this point harm ACT. Fainites ^barley 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Its also 3RR DP if anybody can be bothered to complain given that it's all at Arbcom already. Fainites ^barley 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats the source please for "Articles and reports from ACT also often appear on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch". Their article seems to be by someone called Shannon Bridget Maloney.Fainites ^barley 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting perfectly good material. It might be considered an act of vandalism. The material is releveant and verifiable. Consider following wiki dispute resolution processess instead of merely reverting DPeterson^talk 00:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, there is a dispute going on right now at ArbCom relating to your behaviour in these matters. StokerAce 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

no response to request for a source so I shall delete the offending setence. Also the tedious and pointless re-insertion of books which don't describe AT.Fainites ^barley 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I have put in ACT's defining characteristics. This may seem rather detailed for such a small topic, but it may resolve any arguments about what ACT do or do not say attachment therapy is.Fainites ^barley 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)