Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy

This page is related to disputes on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. I was asked to list my proposals in a clean environment. shotwell 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the disputes on the Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles...unless those have been resolved, as they seem to have been. SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Shotwell's point of view

I propose that the following changes be made:

Attribute assertions regarding efficacy to Hughes and Becker-Weidman (and whoever else has made these assertions in a reliable source)
Attribute assertions regarding evidential basis to Becker-Weidman and Hughes (and whoever else has made them)
Attribute assertions concerning compliance with therapeutic guidelines to Becker-Weidman. (Has Hughes made this assertion?)
Add criticism of the Becker-Weidman study (found here).
Change "grounded in the works of Bowlby" -- either attribute the claim to Hughes and Becker-Weidman, or change it to "motivated by the works of Bowlby". I think that "motivated by..." sounds better, but this is a matter of taste.

Basis for changes

We should attribute contentious claims per WP:NPOV.
The Child Maltreatment reply to Becker-Weidman concludes:

“

Of course, no study is without limitations; however, the fact remains that a single study with these sorts of major limitations, although

a first step, is far short of the criteria that must be met before designating a treatment as evidence based. In general, we believe that designating a treatment as evidence based is a job for an independent treatment review panel (e.g., American Psychological Association, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office for Victims of Crime Task Force, Cochrane Collaborative, etc.) applying accepted and established scientific review criteria. None has listed DDP as meeting accepted criteria. Thus, it is our opinion that practitioners should not characterize or advertise DDP as an evidence-based practice at this time.

”

No independent source has verified that DDP is compliant with therapeutic guidelines. We can't state this as encyclopedic fact and therefore must attribute the claims to whoever said them.
The Becker-Weidman study is the only peer-reviewed study concerning DDP. The article explains this study at length without offering some counter balance. Some slight criticism of the study can be found in the Child Maltreatment link above.
"Grounded in the works of Bowlby" would imply that DDP is theoretically sound. This phrasing is not neutral. It'd be better to note that the two developers of DDP were strongly influenced by Bowlby's theory.

I have a few comments to these "basis for changes."

There are two peer reviewed pubs and this clearly supports the statement that there is an evidence-based for the treatment. Evidence means some verifiable material or facts and material from a peer-reviewed publication clearly meets that standard: it is verifiable, factual, and has been determined by blind independent review to be accurate and appropriate for distribution in the professional literature. The statement is veriable and true. As stated below, there is not requirement that one can only say "evidence-based" if there is an independent treatment review panel...however, blinded peer peer reivew probably exceeds that criteria in that it is a blind review.
There is material supporting that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards of various professional organizations. For example, the Child Maltreatment letter by the authors of the position paper describe the approach as not being coercive.
The treatment is based on Attachment theory and is, therefore, grounded in Attachment theory.

SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By attributing the claims to whoever made them, we can keep the claims in the article without flatly endorsing DDP. shotwell 01:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will want to see all of Shotwell's proposed changes to both pages before commenting...but 'I think that his suggestion that RalphLender's wording below is acceptable is a good step'...now let's just see the rest of your ideas all spelled out so we can discuss these two remaining pages in a comprehensive fashion.JohnsonRon 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson's point of view

I see you point now and continue to disagree for the reasons extensively outlined on the talk pages, which include, but are not limited to the following points:

Well, there actually are two peer-reviewed studies regarding DDP, which supports the statements as written in the article.
There are several sources that support the statement that Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy mets verious guidelines.
The work is grounded in the works of Bowlby since that is the theory base for the treatment.

DPeterson^talk 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think it will be most useful for you to suggest specific language regarding what you want deleted, changed, or added. I see you points (which are the same you'd desribed on the talk pages) and continue to disagree for the reasons extensively outlined on the talk pages, which include, but are not limited to the following points:

Well, there actually are two peer-reviewed studies regarding DDP, which supports the statements as written in the article.
There are several sources that support the statement that Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy mets verious guidelines.
The work is grounded in the works of Bowlby since that is the theory base for the treatment.

DPeterson^talk 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored your comments to help keep this page clean, I hope that is ok. If you'd prefer for your comments to stay where you wrote them, then I won't make a fuss about it. Change the page however you want.

I think we're having a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of the word 'grounded'. I understand what you're saying, and I'll think about it today.
All of those sources that assert compliance are by Becker-Weidman and Hughes. Maybe someone else will say this in the future, but no independent source has said this yet. DDP excludes many (or even all) of things covered by the APSAC task-force and the developers are acutely aware of the task-force guidelines (they seem to be, at least). I think that you're trying to get this message across, and I don't disagree with that. I think it'd be better to say "Becker-Weidman and Hughes say DDP satisfies guidelines x, y, and z. DDP has always excluded physically coercive methods. Such methods are disallowed by the APSAC guidelines." (Poor prose, but I think you get my point).
The second study was an extension of the first by the same author, yes? Moreover, that Child Maltreatment letter said that independent review boards are needed in to label treatments as evidence based. If we just attribute the statements (Becker-Weidman did two studies which concluded...."), then the information can stay and I wouldn't have any issue. I personally think that attributing those statements would sound much better anyhow. (People know that anyone can edit wikipedia, they're more likely to trust the information if they know who is saying it.)
I'll provide some specific examples in the very near future to make this more clear. Perhaps it would be helpful if I completely rewrote the page here? I don't like the idea of one editor completely rewriting an article, so I wouldn't mean for it to be copy/pasted into the current revision. But perhaps it would make my suggestions more clear?

shotwell 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would all be more helpful somewhere where it has greater visibility. RalphLender, SamDavidson, etc.. have no idea this page exists. We could go around spamming talk pages and the mediation page, but it'd be better to just move this. I didn't really intend for it to turn into the beginnings of mediation. It doesn't seem appropriate to have something like this in my userspace if I'm a party to the mediation. There are two advocates and a mediator involved, perhaps one of them could move this discussion to an appropriate place (or at least tell me where to move it?) Would it be appropriate to archive the DDP talk page and move this there? What about archiving the medcab page? If someone moved it to wherever it is more appropriate, I'd request speedy deletion here. shotwell 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the right place to put my comments? I have a few thoughts:

I agree that it would be most helpful to see all your specific suggestions in one place; the specific language you want included and/or the particular sections you want deleted.
Grounded means (per Webster), "the bottom of a body...a cause...to provide a reason or justification for.." So, in that sense, the basis of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is Attachment theory...that is the theoretical basis for the treatment, and, so, it is grounded in Attachment theory.
Two studies in two separate peer-reviewed publications provide ample support for the statement that the treatment has an evidence base. There is no "law" or "requirement" that an "independent review board" certify something as evidence based. In fact, peer-review represents an independent blinded review, which, of course, the Child Maltreatment letter was not.

How about, '"Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment, as indicated by the results of two peer reviewed studies in professional publications"'

Rewriting the page would be fine, so long as you clearly indicate by bolding, or some other easily identifiable means, what you have added, deleted, and changed.

How about, '"Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay complies with the standards of various professional organizations. For example, Dr. Hughes states, (put here quotes from articles). Dr. Becker-Weidman has stated, (put here the analysis he did that is quoted on one of the talk pages by an editor.)"'Of course, this would make the article much longer by several paragraphs, but if this would satisfy you, I suppose I could go along with that.

This can stay here or, better, be put on the Mediation page for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy, since all the pages' questions need to be resolved in one place.

RalphLender^talk 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will want to see all of Shotwell's proposed changes to both pages before commenting...but 'I think that his suggestion above (if I've read Shotwell's comments correctly) that RalphLender's wording below is acceptable is a good step'...now let's just see the rest of your (Shotwell) ideas all spelled out so we can discuss these two remaining pages in a comprehensive fashion.JohnsonRon 20:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles

It appears that you do not have a problem with those pages...yes? If so, maybe the Mediator can do something to indicate that the result of mediation is that those pages stay as written. RalphLender^talk 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great...two down and two to go. My reading of the pages is that there are no pending issues on these two pages.SamDavidson 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful. JohnsonRon 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that there are "no issues" with Newmaker, but I believe that everything can be resolved collaboratively. We've all agreed that the some portion of the removed information can be replaced if additional sources are found. shotwell 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of town Tired of this dispute

~~I'll be going out of town from the 9th-13th. Although I'll have my laptop, I will probably not be frequenting wikipedia that often. shotwell 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've decided that this dispute is taking up far too much of my "wikipedia time". The debate has become tedious. I think we can all agree that this is not enjoyable. For me, I'm interested in relaxing when I edit wikipedia. I have failed to attract outside opinions concerning these entries and it doesn't seem likely that I will do so in the near future. This subject is completely outside of my expertise. Moreover, this dispute has become disruptive to wikipedia and I don't think the issues are severe enough to warrant such disruption. (i.e. There are apparently three advocates and a cabalist involved. There have been sock-puppet allegations and RFCU's from both sides, we've written on the admin noticeboard, made requests for page protection, made 3RR accusations, accusations of vandalism, etc...). This dispute is not worthy of such disruption. If we were talking about something that is actually dangerous, libelous, damaging to wikipedia, etc., then I'd keep to the debate.

I'm just going to withdraw from this dispute for an indefinite period of time -- probably forever unless someone else takes these issues up again (outside of the usual crowd). I hope to edit with you all collaboratively in the future on an article that is totally unrelated to attachment-based therapy (Have you noticed how little coverage there is on Africa related topics? *hint hint*). I've come to like you guys, so hopefully we'll have some wiki-contact in the future.

Cheers! (Jacob) shotwell 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the mediation should be closed and the pages left as they are? If that is the case, then I certainly will support that. If you are merely "withdrawing," but the dispute is unsettled, then I think the mediator needs to facilitate the reaching of a conclusion so the issue can be put to rest. (Enjoy your time off. I also generally view Wikipedia as a place to relax, browse, read, edit in a collaborative manner.)DPeterson^talk 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are not settled in my mind, but not they don't seem as severe as I had previously thought. Maybe it is just because we've debated the same points so often. I am thus withdrawing from the debate and don't plan on editing these articles unless someone vandalizes them. If some other editor brings these issues up in the future, maybe I'll contribute to the debate -- but I'll do nothing more than contribute on the talk page. shotwell 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't really answer your question. Yes, I'm suggesting that mediation be closed. I'm not saying the pages should be left as they are, but I'm not going to concern myself with them any longer. shotwell 23:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to close the mediation case and end this dispute now. Much of it was a rehash of a long prior disute with Sarner and ACT and the outcome now is the pretty much the same as the outcome of that dispute, that the pages are acceptable as written, after a few minor alterations. JonesRD_talk 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this page?

It was probably a mistake to create this page here and it seems silly that we'd have this page lingering around forever. The comments above probably need to be preserved, so does anyone have a suggestion? Should we copy/paste this into the DDP talk page? The medcab case? My talk page? Advice from one of the advocates would be greatly appreciated. shotwell 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the comments here are also on the Mediation page and so you could either just leave this page here or delete it....I have no preference. Since the statements and points are elsewhere, there would be no harm in deleting the page if that is what you want.

I've moved it to the medcab discussion page. shotwell 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth sould I put the following? To whom should it be addressed?? Should I just simply p**s off somewhere else if I don't like what I find here?? I am a researcher. I am not an academic. I am simply seraching for knowledge. This article on DDP is a problem for me. Wikipedia seems to be some sort of a club. I am a sort of member, I can "sign-in", but I haven't a clue as to how to affect anything here. It is a sort of intellectual anarchy it seems. I was concerned by the article on DDP because it was so obfuscatory, in stark contrast to other articles around the theme I am researching. For instance, it does not begin with a clear definition of DDP but with a description based upon a series of conceptual classifications. Because it had the flavour of a marketing or proselytising piece rather than of an erudite piece of work seeking to provided clear and concise information, I looked further. Wading through the talk page I found that my fears, aroused simply through the stylistic characteristics of the piece and the lack of clarity of the information in it, was in fact being fiercely debated by others. The arguments posted seemed clear and seemed to remain unaddressed. Perhaps it should be called the Argument page? I saw there had been a mediation and that the matter was resolved. But when I looked for the mediation it bore no resemblance to any mediation work I have been part of (I have worked as a professional mediator in construction, neighbourhood, environmental and commercial mediations) and I canot understand why the term applies here. The following extract from the pages seems to sum the position up clearly regarding DDP. For me it casts a sharp, long, dark shadow over the future standing of Wikipedia and therefroe of all other Wiki projects: "Thus far, it (DDP) has been an essentially commercial therapy which is marketed directly to consumers (the term "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy" appears to be trademarked, for example). DDP is not taught at any accredited institutions or endorsed by any major professional organization."''' Massive questions are raised by this article, and these seem to me to be entirely unresolved despite the intense noise and heat it has generated here. For starters: why does the article not begin with: "DDP began as a commercially marketed therapy by blahblah Inc. It is based upon the concepts of blh and blah and uses blah blah to blah blah"???? Simple and to the point I hope you will agree. Obviously the blanks need to be filled in by someone who knows what they're talking about. Over to you guys . . . Is the article marketing or information? 82.27.186.218 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not germane to this page. ACT is an advocacy group. It's leaders are not mental health professionals and not licensed. Therefore, their evaluation of therapy is quite suspect, given their agenda. Furthermore, DDP appears to have a number of well done empirical studies demonstrating the effectiveness of this treatment in professional peer-reviewed publications. Finally, that article is written in a NPOV...your suggestion is quite POV and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article JonesRD_talk 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird place this is! Thanks for "replying". My comments are here because the DDP entry directed me here because of something that was referred to as a "mediation". If that is wrong then please direct your resouces to addressing that. I can't see any way to! With regard to your point regarding POV (I take it that POV means PointOfView??) everything apart from data is interpretation and even data is not directly accessible. It requires interpretation to be visible. In addition I cannot see that my suggestion regarding the "header" of the DDP page is any less "objective" than any other comment regarding Encyclopedia entries. It attempts to show a way in which a simple first order definition of DDA would be an improvement over a second-order definition. By first-order I mean one which directly describes only or primarily the key attributes of the subject. By second-order I mean descriptions which refer only or primarily to other descriptions. An example of the first would be "An apple is a fruit" and of the second would be "An apple is a commodity used in the Bank of England's inflation index"! 82.27.186.218 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]