This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RalphLender (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 22 May 2007 (→Issues to be mediated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:02, 22 May 2007 by RalphLender (talk | contribs) (→Issues to be mediated)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Attachment Therapy
view
edit
delete
watch
Filed: 19:12, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Involved parties
- shotwell (talk · contribs)
- Fainites (talk · contribs)
- StokerAce (talk · contribs)
- Jean Mercer (talk · contribs)
- Maypole (talk · contribs)
- Sarner (talk · contribs)
- DPeterson (talk · contribs)
- RalphLender (talk · contribs)
- JonesRD (talk · contribs)
- MarkWood (talk · contribs)
- SamDavidson (talk · contribs)
- JohnsonRon (talk · contribs)
- FatherTree (talk · contribs)
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:
- These were successful in that resolution was finally reached on a consensus statement and the cases closed. RalphLender 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very lengthy talk page discussions at Talk:Attachment Therapy, Talk:Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy.
Issues to be mediated
- Conflicts of interest and financial involvements regarding User:Mercer and User:Sarner, leaders of ACT.
- 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?
- 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?
Additional issues to be mediated
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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)
- Agree. StokerAce 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-mediators should not edit this section.
Category: