Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy

Attachment Therapy

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Stale, as no member of this Committee has decided to take this case in over a month. This follows a discussion between many of the active Committee members on the private mailing list, in which the end consensus was to close this request. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to accepted cases#Post-acceptance for further information.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 19:12, May 22 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Articles involved

Attachment Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Advocates for Children in Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Several old Mediation Cabal cases:-
Very lengthy talk page discussions at Talk:Attachment Therapy, Talk:Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy.

Issues to be mediated

What degree of prominence should we give to the views of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy on Attachment Therapy?
Is it appropriate to say (in Advocates for Children in Therapy) that certain groups "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"?
Should we say that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) is "grounded in the works of Bowlby" without attributing this assertion to the researcher who made it?
How should we negotiate the ambiguity of the definition of "attachment therapy"?
Should the Advocates for Children in Therapy article say the leaders are unlicensed mental health practitioners when there is no evidence that they are licensed?
Is it appropriate to claim there are 'very few' practitioners of attachment therapy on the basis of a list of organisations that have made position statements against it?
Should we write that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay are "effective and evidence based" without attributing these assertion to the researchers who have made them?
How should we handle the question of whether or not DDP satisfies various practice guidelines?
How should we present the conclusions of the recent Craven and Lee paper?
How should we present the conclusions of the reply to letters by Chaffin et al.?
There are several articles, not listed above, that contain some of the assertions named above about DDP (John Bowlby, Adoption, etc..). Which of these articles should mention DDP and what should they say with respect to efficacy and evidence-base?
Should the various levels of evidentiary basis be defined briefly or at least alluded to, rather than taking the outmoded line that material is either evidence-based, or not?

Additional issues to be mediated

Is it appropriate to alter a quotation from one source by a few words for the purpose of either attaching another source to it, or to alter the meaning of the quotation?
Should the use of direct quotations, other citations, and references (e.g. in press publications) follow the criteria of print publications, for example APA style?
How much weight should be given to the Chaffin Task Force article?
How much weight should be given to the book by Prior which is not an empirical study?
Possible occurrences of citing oneself.
Possible occurances of citing oneself and Conflict of interest.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. shotwell 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. StokerAce 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Jean Mercer 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Fainites 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree FatherTree 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Larry Sarner 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. RalphLender^talk 13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreeMarkWood 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree JohnsonRon 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree DPeterson^talk 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree JonesRD_talk 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AgreeSamDavidson 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accepted

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.