Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


MEDIATION UPDATE: I have listed three suggested compromises at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby#Compromise offers; one on the inclusion of attachment theory in this article, one on the external links and one on Wikiquette. Please read through them and indicate if you support or oppose them (and if opposing, why).

Contents

Mediation

Hi all, I am here to try and be an impartial third party to help resolve this dispute. From what I see, the disagreement exists regarding the content in the biography and the sources used. In the space below, could each side present their own opinion on what they believe is necessary for the article. Please remember to refrain from personal attacks. Hopefully we can reach a compromise! Brisvegas 07:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A few points to consider:

  • A user's membership of any group should be irrelevant, so don't ask one another about this. At Wikipedia we strive to have a neutral point of view in our articles. Obviously, precedence is given to theories that have wider acceptance over fringe theories, which may be covered in less depth or not at all.
  • Biographical articles should be just that - articles focussing on the lives of people and their contribution to society. Their actual contribution should be covered in depth at its own article.
  • Regarding external links, here are the ones to avoid:
  1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
  2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
  3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
  4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
  5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
  6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
  7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
  8. Foreign-language sites, unless it is the official site of the subject of the article or it contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
  9. Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  10. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
  11. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

(Source: Wikipedia:External links)

With this in mind, let's begin!

A couple of questions/comments before beginning:
Has the mediator seen the (unsigned) comments added by DPeterson to the mediation request? Some are slanderous/libelous (false and defamatory).
Is there anyway to archive the talk page before this section? I get Wiki messages that the page is longer than is recommended, and scrolling through it is a real pain.
Could the Bowlby page be moved to the talk page until mediation is over? It was suggested that it is a "less drastic" than engaging in an edit war. I tried clicking "move", but was informed that I was "too new" a user to be allowed to do that.
Thanks for jumping in. I hope not to give you cause to regret doing so! Sarner 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do hope you can resolve this so that useful and related information can be left on the page. I wonder what Brisvegas thinks about and has to say about the comments Sarner continues to make. They seem off point to me. Removing the Bowlby page is just another "ploy" to avoid addressing the issue. The original page, before Sarner's reverts, might be a place to start. I wish the Mediator would inform Sarner to stay on point and avoid the negative personal comments he's previously made (see above). Thank you for your assistance, I remain hopeful. DPeterson

Responses for Mediator

From my view, the article I originally edited was mere advertising. There was a small biographical section, followed by a much longer section touting therapies for children "based" on attachment theory.

There were factual objections to the claims for these therapies, and offered material to counter those claims for balance. Those were reverted.

I realized then that the entire therapy section was inappropriate for a biographical article. So I came on the talk page with a suggestion as a compromise that the therapy section be eliminated altogether. In conjunction with that, certainly links and bibliographic references would also be eliminated as irrelevant. The compromise fell flat with the other side.

So I instead improved the section in question by adopting NPOV as much as I could and adjusting the bibliography, Wiki references, and external links. That drew the battle lines with the other side, with the article flipping between two irreconcilable worldviews, though the other side has the upper hand with the three-revert rule and their version is the one that is up most of the time. (I was reverted within two minutes.)

In a remarkable development, inter alia, the other side merged our two competing versions, which made a complete mish-mash! I see that today one of those on the other side is attempting to remove my material from their version and return to their original.

Along the way, an apparent third-party editor contributed more biographical material. Prose-wise, it wasn't very good, and it had some factual errors, but I incorporated it into my version and have been improving it slightly with each of my reverts. A couple of other editors have also made improvements that I have preserved in my version. Until recently, those improvements have been ignored by the other side and reverted along with the disputed section.

Discussion has failed. I have tried and tried to discuss on the talk page my view and objections, but have gotten nowhere. The vitriol from the other side has steadily risen, except when they have fallen totally silent, usually in response to a demand that they present evidence for their statements.

I do not see any way to reconcile the two versions. I think my present version would achieve more consensus, has better prose and more accurate information, and most importantly is most congruent with Wiki policy (particularly NPOV), than the present version by the other side. I am hoping the mediator (or any other unaligned third party) can see some way that I don't.

Sarner 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarner continues to delete accurate and useful information that a consensus of contributors seem to want to see on this page. Sarner does not seem to be an expert in this area. As previously described, he is a "zealot" with a specific agenda to push. I think his postion as Administrative Director of ACT, among other things makes that clear. Material on the use of Bowlby's theory in practice is interesting and relevant to readers.
Rudeness abounds. The mediator asks for each side to separately state their case, and I am not allowed to state mine without comments being inserted. C'mon, guys, if you want to make this point: (a) sign it; (b) put it in your own section. Why don't you instead spend your time responding to the mediator's request, and let's get on with it. Sarner 22:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again off point by being critical of irrelevant points. Why don't you just stay on topic and address the question raised by the mediator, why you think material on the practial applications of Bowlby's attachment theory does not belong here. DPeterson

We can reconcile the two versions by allowing readers to see material that is about Bowlby and how his theory has such broad applicability and utility. D Peterson

I think there is certainly room and opportunity to find a mutually agreeable solution and I am quite willing to compromise as, I suspect, others are too, although I should not speak for them. DPeterson

Mediator response to above

Perhaps it is too early to start addressing each other, since you are all heavily emotionally involved in this article. Before any more comments are made, please remember this:

  • To Sarner: Moving the article to the talk page is not a good idea. Let's work out the issues out on the talk page. Having an article is better than having no article at all. If you feel certain comments are defamatory, point them out and they shall be deleted.
  • To DPeterson: Labelling Sarner a "zealot" is not productive, and borders on personal attack. I realise both sides feel strongly about this issue, but we must realise that at the end of the day, what both sides want is a balanced and fair article that does justice to John Bowlby. Keep this in mind.
  • To everyone: Attack the contributions, not the person.
  • Regarding the section on Bowlby's theory in practice:

I went to several biographies to see what information they contained on the current applications of the theories of their originators:

    • Albert Einstein: A featured article which discusses his research but there is no section on the use of his theories on practice.
    • Wright Brothers: While it mentions their pioneering efforts in achieving flight, the article does not discuss the impact of their work on modern flight.
    • Sigmund Freud: This article on a fellow psychologist does include a rather long section on his legacy.
    • Carl Jung: The article on another psychologist does include a section on his influence on modern psychology. However, it is short and one paragraph long.

In other words, there are precedents for both sides of the argument. There should be a section on the influence of Bowlby's theory on modern psychology. However, most of the analysis of the theory should occur on the attachment theory page. Most importantly, any comments on the theory must be referenced from reputable sources, such as the American Psychological Association.

  • Regarding linkspam:

These two sites http://psychematters.com/bibliographies/bowlby.htm and http://attachment.edu.ar/bio.html seem notable enough to include in an external links section. One is maintained by Dr. Juan Carlos Garelli of the Buenos Aires History of Science and Epistemology Research Center while the other lists a bibliography of Bowler's works. In such a case, I would refrain from calling these linkspam.

Whatever eventuates from our discussions, please remember to be civil to one another. Don't call one another zealots or rude. Leave all your previous interactions with one another in the past, as difficult as it sounds. Only after this occurs, can meaningful progress be made. Good luck! Brisvegas 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


That seems reasonable to me. It seems that what is on the page now under Practice comes close to what is between the Jung and Freud bio's. However, if you think a shortened version would be a more acceptable compromise, I certainly would be willing to consider that. The use of reputable sources and materials from professional-peer reviewed journals and professional organizations (such as APA, NASW, etc.) also seems reasonable and a criteria that I've been adhering to.

DPeterson 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other, relevant comments on the mediator's talk page that I would like to add here, if that is ok...if the mediator prefers some other linkage, that's fine too. DPeterson 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I leave out the negative or personal attacks as not being relevant:
  1. Discussion of how Bowlby's theory is used in practice seems very relevant as it shows how influential he has been and remains. (Aweidman)
  2. I'd like to see Sarner leave the article alone or merely add what may be relevant material and let other reader's comments guide the growth of the material. It is my belief that material on the use of Bowlby's theory in practice and attachment theory is relevant here. Including links to other Wiki articles that are mentioned in the Bowlby article also seem relevant and appropriate. Links to outside pages that describe material are also relevant. While Sarner calls all this SPAM, I disagree as these links provide additional information to readers. (MarkWood)
  3. Leave the material in about how Bowlby's attachment theory is being used by practitioners. As a practitioner and licensed mental health professional I believe I have some knowledge and expertise to offer. I've published articles in professional peer-reviewed journals, edited a book, and use, among other methodologies, an approach that is evidence-based and has been supported by a number of prominent professionals in the field. Furthermore, there have been several publications about this approach in peer-reviewed professional journals, it has been accepted as material worthy of presentation at various professional organization annual conference, and has other support. I mention this only to point out that I am knowledgeable about this topic, subject matter, and article. ..but this may not be relevent to the direct question: Should information about how Bowlby's attachment theory is used in practice be in an article about Bowlby. To that question, I would say it is relevant (and others seem to say so too). (AWeidman)
DPeterson 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I stated on the mediation page: Leave the edits alone and allow readers to read about Bowlby's attachment theory as applied in practice today to successfully help very disturbed and damaged children DPeterson
DPeterson 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Sarner comments on mediation

1. With regard to linkspam, I am the one who included the two sites mentioned in the article. I at least do not regard them as linkspam. The spam to which I referred were initially in the bibliographic references, such as AWeidman's book, which is tangential at best to Bowlby as a subject. I still don't agree with linking to the DDP article as appropriate in this article.

2. I am omitting discussion of AWeidman's claims because it might skirt too close to the boundaries of wikiquette. In doing so, however, I am not conceding any claims made therein, and in particular that he has any special status or knowledge with respect to this article.

3. I dispute DPeterson's assertion that the links I find objectionable "successfully help very disturbed and damaged children". That unsubstantiated claim underscores my continuing argument that such links are actually advertising.

4. I have supported the compromise proposals listed on the mediation page.

Sarner 05:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I just have a few questions:
1. Which links were you precisely referring to when mentioning linkspam? I misunderstood the links you mentioned as being irrelevant - my apologies.
2. Thank you for accepting the points of compromise, but in light of the fact that I misunderstood which links were the cause of controversy I will probably need to make a new point of compromise.
Thanks for your co-operation, let's see what the others have to say. All the best, Brisvegas 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It was awfully hard to follow the arguments in the (now archived) talk page, I realize, and at least my use of wiki jargon may have been confusing to an experienced wikipedian such as yourself. Really, what my objections had been based on was my opinion that the appearance of certain references -- text in the article, references in the "see also" section, and entries in the bibliographies -- which I regarded as advertising when appearing in this article. I tried removing them, but as the edit war developed, I added some of my own as an attempt to balance. (The external links you discussed earlier were not part of either attempt, but the only ones I found on the web that discussed Bowlby at some length. I am not a Freudian -- in fact, an opponent, given the scientific consensus in psychology -- but the two did seem authoritative enough in a Freudian context to warrant reference in this article.)
Anyway, it would probably open up old wounds to mention them specifically again here. If we continue here in the spirit of your proposed compromise #1, this part of the controversy will probably resolve itself, or at the very least become a proper subset of the larger dispute.
Larry Sarner 13:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON MATERIAL

I can fully support the principels the Mediator listed and concur.

While I might prefer the original version prior to Sarner's deletions, the page as edited by DPeterson could be fine as it is brief and to the point. So, I "vote" for this version to stay.

I dispute Larry Sarner's assertion that the links he found objectionable do not "successfully help very disturbed and damaged children". The statement has been and is substantiated and is not advertising in any way. There are several articles published in professioal peer-reviewed journals about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, books on the subject, and presentations at selective national professional organizations. Therefore, it has a place along with Theraplay, Dr. Marvin's material, Dr. Dozier's, and others.

MarkWood 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Movement

I congratulate DPeterson on making some big movement toward consensus. I still have some very great concerns which prevents me from saying we are at the end. Yet, what this has done is isolate the area where our disputes still lay.

In the same spirit, I will do some "clean-up" of the article, leaving the disputed parts alone for now, just so we can put any other difficulties to rest.

I will come back later with a detailed argument of my substantive disagreements and we can focus on that.

I thank the mediator for helping us get to this point and urge him to stick around and continue to help with the future sticking points.

Larry Sarner 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Positive Changes

The article is very good. I like that it is concise and at the same time detailed. It's focus on generally recognized approaches and the distinction it makes with regard to coercive methods is good. I vote for this version. I hope that now we can agree. It appears that all sides have moved and will probably have to be satisfied with a version that does not meet either sides preferences...that may be the standard for a good compromise! I hope that no one becomes so rigid that there is no room for compromise and that it becomes, again, a matter of "my way or the highway." That is my hope.


Lieberman citation & use of quotes

She uses the term Parent-Child Psychotherapy in her writings (see, for example, Disorders of attachment in infancy. Child and Adolescent Clinics of North America, 4, 571-587 (1995) or "Infant-parent psychotherapy" in C.H. Zeanah (Ed) Handbook of infant mental health NY (2000). Others don't use quotes in describing various approaches, so not sure that quotes are appropriate here around the terms used by various authors, such as floor time or circle of security project.

Regarding the Selected Bibliography

Hi everyone. Congratulations on the substantial progress made so far. I wish all mediations could be as painless! With regards to the bibliography, I suggest that we remove the following references and instead merge them into the attachment theory article:

  • Greenspan, S. (1993) Infancy and Early Childhood. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. ISBN 0823626334.
  • Holmes, J. (2001) The Search for the Secure Base. London: Routledge. ISBN 1583911529.
  • Siegler R., DeLoache, J. & Eisenberg, N. (2003) How Children develop. New York: Worth. ISBN 1572592494.

The books mentioned above are more concerned with attachment theory itself rather than John Bowlby and his original work into the concept. Therefore, they must be moved to the attachment theory article. Should you have any objections, please say so below. Ciao, Brisvegas 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been done. Brisvegas 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I note that the pages for M. Klein, S. Freud, and J. Piaget all contain references about their work, so the reference by Holmes may actually be relevant and appropriate. This can be discussed.
However, I have another question, it's not a big deal, but as an impartial mediator aren't you supposed to collect views and propose solutions and not make unilateral changes? Your suggestions for the references have only been up here a few hours and you may want to solicite comments and ideas for several days/weeks before making changes based on concensus and some majority of thought expressed. I certainly don't check wikipedia every day, but maybe others monitor things more closely. Maybe I misunderstand your role, duties, and responsibilities? Please clarify. DPeterson 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at the date stamps of my two comments, then you'll see that the proposal was up for several days before I changed anything. Regarding your question, I am indeed trying to be impartial. If you disagree with the decision to export those links into the relevant article i.e. Attachment theory, then please tell me. However, I would be surprised if this decision were to cause controversy, since the premise of only including references relevant to the topic at hand is a well-known one, e.g. although Einstein described the formula E=mc², which is used in nuclear physics, this doesn't mean that his article should contain references to books written by others about the atom bomb and its uses. If you believe I acted against consensus, then my apologies. Remember, this action can be easily undone; should a majority of people wish those links to return, then they will be restored. I hope that addresses your concerns. Brisvegas 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
All I see is the history page noting the editing of the talk page with a June 1 date. I just thought that before making changes you'd want to get opinions for a while. I note that the pages for M. Klein, S. Freud, and J. Piaget all contain references about their work by others, so the reference by Holmes here about Bowlby's work may also be relevant and appropriate. I just think some discussion or conducting a survey and time for comment may be in order since this is not a black/white issue and there is room for divergent thoughts. Best regards, DPeterson 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Case closed?

Hello everyone! I must admit, it's been impressive to see how cultured and rational everyone has been of late, and it certainly augurs well for this article. By the way, I have read through the entire article and it actually strikes me as rather interesting - I had never even heard of Bowlby or attachment theory before taking up this case! So thanks for teaching me something.

Since the situation has calmed down considerably, I am considering closing this case. Do you all feel the article is ready for this, or would you like me to hover for a bit longer? In the future, if you are split over an issue you can always seek a third opinion from an impartial third party. Good luck, and thanks for the opportunity! All the best, Brisvegas 01:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Looked fine to me a while ago and this version is ok, although the references could be expanded; but for the sake of peace it's fine to leave as is. The article is concise and quite relevant. It does a very good job as a brief bio sketch of Bowlby and his very important work.68.66.160.228 11:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back. I was gone for a couple of weeks because of family emergencies (medical and property), but I'm ready to take on the differences I have with the current version of the article. I still have to review what has transpired while I was gone before I can propose my changes for consensus-building. In the meantime, I hope the mediator will stay with the case; I suspect the article will need him. Larry Sarner 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be away for about ten days, so I will appreciate the mediator not making any changes. I still have a question about the deleted references, but we can try to reach concensus on that when I return if there is to be any further discussion. The current version is excellent and represents a good compromise and I see no need for further mediation as the responses so far have all been favorable. While there are parts that I would prefer included that were removed, I can accept this current version without those sections as this version now stands. I beleive we are now done. Thanks for your time and attention DPeterson 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki references

I am in total accord with the mediator's changes while I was gone, and especially with his reasoning.

Similarly, I think the two references in the "see also" section (is there Wiki jargon for that?) to specific interventions, ie, DDP and Theraplay, are extraneous to Bowlby and are distracting to a reader. Moreover, they appear in the "see also" section of the Attachment Theory article, which is where an interested Bowlby reader would probably want to go first before visiting those other articles.

Therefore, I'm deleting those to complete the improvement.

I have another to make, but will wait to see how this one goes.

Larry Sarner 15:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree with the page as edited by the mediator. I agree it is fine as is.
I think the references in the "also see" section are relevant as they are mentioned in the article, so I replaced the deletions. The "also see" section of articles generally list a variety of wiki pages with some connection to the page so these belong here. This is a minor point and should not be a point of contention. DPeterson 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a minor point. I happen to think those links are advertising since they are only remotely connected to Bowlby.

Their mention elsewhere in the article have been a point of contention all along, so those mentions are not a sufficient basis for justifying their inclusion here. (Besides, they would be redundant in that case, as there are hyperlinks already included there.)

No, I don't agree "with the page as edited". I agreed with the mediator's changes and his reasoning, and I think my latest change are consonant with them.

The point of "see also" sections is to take a reader to the next logical place(s) where the reader might follow a line of inquiry, not to something two or more steps removed. A reader of the Bowlby article who could be enlightened by those articles might fruitfully follow the other links, but the ones I removed could very easily be a dead-end for most readers. On the other hand, if they actually weren't a dead-end, they could have reasonably discovered them by following the other links. This is identical to the argument made by the mediator accompany his similar changes.

I don't think your arguments refute the logic of my change. I'm going to revert your revert.

Larry Sarner 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKI REFERENCES: An appeal to concensus building and mediation

Since you (Mr. Sarner) don't agree, mediation is in order and the page has been returned to it's original state before your unacceptable deletions and reverts. It would be in the spirit of what the mediator recommends to leave the page as is and for these issues to be discussed here. Your revert war is really not conducive to reaching concensus.

The links listed are not "advertising" as they are directly related to the use of Bowlby's work in clinical practice and directly related to the material in the article. All material listed in the article that has a wiki page could/should be listed in also see. The links are legitimate therapeutic approaches with a body of literature supporting them; similiar to other material listed in the article.

All the items listed in the "also see" section have hyperlinks elsewhere, so either all go or all belong. The point of "also see" is to direct readers to related pages. Many readers with a clinical bent will be quite interested in these wiki pages as readers will be in the other links in the also see section. All the links could reasonably be discovered by readers following other hyperlinks, so, again, by that logic, all should go.

The point of the also see section is to list related links and these are related. Rather than make unilateral changes, I'd suggest comments be collected for a while (I will be away for about ten days) and then see what concensus emerges. This article is not about anyone one person's personal views or ideas and should represent a concensus...even if you disagree with with that concensus. I do hope you are willing to work in that spirit and not simply engage in a revert war and senseless argument and deletions. DPeterson 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Boy, the problems with the above comments!

1. I don't see where the mediator ever said, "leave the page as is", and can't believe that he would think that hamstringing either party in that way.

2. I didn't start a "revert" war with my editing. I appropriately in effect said, on the discussion page, here is something that doesn't belong in the article and followed through on my point with the article. You did the first revert (undoing another editor's edits) within minutes of my change. If you believed your own comments, you should have let my edits stand and just continued the discussion on this page.

3. Your position seems to be, "I win," not consensus (please note spelling). While we argue here, your advertising links remain on the page. Please tell me, under those circumstances, what your motivation to accomodate disparate views can ever be?

4. I note that no one has put in Stanley Greenspan's page, though it is referenced in the article. Why not? I haven't put it in because it would be inconsistent with my position. "1907" is not in the "see also" section, but is referenced in the main article. I don't see that done in other articles. In fact, it seems a little silly, when the hyperlink already does the job.

5. "Editing" isn't just adding stuff, it's also deleting stuff that's inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

6. I think the links are advertising. But what I think they are doesn't matter. I proposed deleting them on the basis that they are too remotely connected to Bowlby (he never heard of DDP).

I have more, but have to go for now.

Larry Sarner 18:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The proper procedure, as described by the mediator, is to suggest edits on the discussion page, collect comments and build concensus before making changes.

2. The page should remain as is until a concensus is reached. Unilateral changes do not build concensus or show any interest in compromise.

3. The material listed is not advertising, but links to legit wiki pages about legitimate areas of interest. Continuing to defame as advertising neither makes it true, nor shows an interest in concensus building, compromise, or the proper use of mediation. Since the material is not mine, I fail to see what you mean by advertising.

4. You act as if the difference is only between you and I, yet there are other comments indicating a building concensus that the page is quite fine. I'd suggest you consider others' points of view and recognize that wiki pages can contain material that you may not agree with, but that others may find appropriate and legitimate. This page is not mean to only represent your views. The page is meant to describe releveant material; even if you, personally think it not so, others do.

DPeterson 19:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also See Links

I agree that the links are fine and should remain. I don't see any problem with the links. The pages linked may be of interest to those reading about Bowlby and should remain. In addition, the space taken up by these two See Also links is so tiny as to hardly be worth arguing over. I just don't see Mr. Larry Sarner's point...or, more accurately, I just don't agree and vote to leave the page as is...it's just fine. (User:MarkWood 21:17, June 17, 2006)

Whoa, how about a third opinion?

From what I can see, the appearance of some (or all) of these links is causing controversy:

For some articles, I can understand why they may be considered not relevant to this article for linking. For example, when I visited the theraplay article, not a single mention of Bowlby was made, indicating that perhaps this is not suitable. However, I won't change anything and I suggest that this be left alone and perhaps we can seek a third opinion (well actually fourth/fifth opinion, but it shouldn't matter :P). Please leave these links intact for now, until a fresh face provides their perspective on the matter. Deal? Brisvegas 10:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


That sounds fine to me. I beleive all the links are fine and do not detract, but if there is a concensus of opinion to remove the Theraplay link I'd accept that. Theraplay is based on attachment theory and the book by Jernberg mentions Theraplay, but the wiki page does not, so I see your point. I will be away for about a week or ten days now. Thanks for your assistance. DPeterson 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the references in the section are fine as is...however for the sake of peace and in the spirit of accomodation, I'd agree to just the deletion of the Theraplay reference so that we can finally end this dispute. with hope MarkWood 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what all the fuss is about. The section seems very good to me and appropriate. If removing Theraplay then makes it acceptable to most, I will support that and that is my vote. JonesRD 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article reads well to me and looks fine. I do not see the need for any changes, maybe more details would be interesting 66.238.217.148 13:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)



I was not familiar with Wiki's "third opinion" process until I read the article on it (thanks for the ref). It doesn't seem to fit here, since there are not precisely two editors involved (unless the others above are sock-puppets of DPeterson). It also seems to be a form of "binding arbitration" which I don't think we're ready for yet. That said, I would welcome the opinion of anyone connected with the Wiki community, but not connected with either of the sides in this dispute. To that end, I'm going to concisely state my position on this part of the dispute -- again -- in a following section so that a newcomer won't have to wade through the quagmire to discern at least my side of the issue.

And just an additional point for everyone else. Even resolving this point doesn't resolve the ongoing dispute over this article. I actually did this "minor" change to follow through on the point that the mediator had made about relevance of links. It resolved just one of the issue I have with the article as presently posted. I just wanted to say this because of the tendency by some to assert that the article in general had somehow become a settled issue when DPeterson had stopped reverting my changes in the non-contentious parts of the article. Others may think that the article is "fine the way it is", but I certainly don't.

Larry Sarner 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)



I agree with the others that the references in the also see section are fine and that does seem to be how all but one feel. I'd suggest the mediatior take that as concensus and end this...too much time on such a very tiny point. I am glad that Mr. L. Sarner has stopped reverting and changing the article. That is a step in the right direction. But I do wish he'd refrain from his attack-mode, snide allegations, and other such none productive comments. It almost seems as if more than one other disagrees with him, then those others must be "sock puppets" and he must discount those comments. Regardless, I do think things are moving in a positive direction and am glad that Larry Sarner seems to approaching this in a much more civil and appropriate manner. I appreciate that. Dr. Art 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I have never been uncivil, if by that is meant that I have engaged in personal attacks. I have attacked arguments -- though never snidely -- and I have defended my own, though very often attacks have been on me and not on my arguments (such as that above).
Also, I have not engaged in a campaign to get others into this by expressing support for my opinions. That's a useless exercise. Wikipedia is not a democracy; consensus here is not arrived at by vote. Nevertheless, it is worth stating that I know my opinion is not a lonesome one. I know there are others either watching this debate or the article who agree with my position(s) with respect to the article.
And the mediator cannot "end this", as he well knows. He can only suggest where people might reach voluntary consensus, by whatever means he can. I requested the mediation in the hopes that an uninvolved third-party might be able to intercede in what was otherwise an endless series of reverts to the detriment of Wikipedia and its readers.
We are getting down to brass tacks now, with this issue and another I'm about to raise. I do not expect that you or any of the others will ever agree with my position or that we will ever reach consensus, though I may be surprised by that. Even so, I have to try, because I want Wikipedia to succeed and its readers deserve truth and accuracy in the articles it finds here.
Larry Sarner 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that you must agree. The fact that most people here disagree with you represents a decent consensus. I see that you will be unwilling to accept anything except complete agreement with your position and that you are keeping "issues" to your self as if you are engaged in some battle (your words), which as I've said, is not helpful. Readers desereve truth and accuracy in articles posted here and that is what this article presents. It represents the writings of many people with diverse backgrounds. These third-parties have spoken and we should listen. Dr. Art 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply, see my initial comments in the "Where to go from here?" section below. Larry Sarner 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The two Wiki references really should go

The stated purpose of Wikipedia is to "create a great encyclopedia." To fulfill that purpose is to have articles that are useful: relevant, accurate, and concise. One way to make useful online articles are to use hyperlinks.

Hyperlinks in the text of an article are an unobtrusive way of allowing readers to access more about a subject mentioned in passing. A reader following such a link knows that the target of the link is about something else than the present article and can use it as a shortcut if the subject matter appears to be interesting. They are a convenience only and helps make the entire encyclopedia more usable.

However, hyperlinks in the "See Also" should fulfill an entirely different function than hyperlinks in the text. These links are, in effect, assertions by the editor(s) that significantly more about the subject of the present article can be reliably found by following these links. It is an editor's guide for the reader to truly learn more on the present topic -- not an index, and certainly not a wishlist where the editor might hope the reader would go. An excellent example of this is the Wiki article on its own style (Guide to writing better articles), where a discussion touching on a vast number of topics and lots of text hyperlinks includes but a single entry in the "See Also" section!

To include "See Also" links which are at best derivative of the subject of the present article is a serious disservice to the readers of the article. It can waste their time at best and mislead them at worst. It undermines the very purpose of the "See Also" section.

With the Bowlby article, two Wiki articles are included in the "See Also" list that are just the kind of inappropriate references discussed above. Consulting the "theraplay" and "dyadic developmental psychotherapy" articles would gain the reader no new information about John Bowlby himself and next to nothing in additional insights about John Bowlby or his importance. A reader following those links might be led to conclude that these interventions are something of which Bowlby might have approved, or are in his tradition. (This is asserted by their proponents, but it is not provably accurate.)

The fact that one of the articles (the DDP one) mentions Bowlby is too coarse a measure for whether it is appropriate. The mention of Bowlby appears to be gratuitous and may not be accurate. Moreover, the mention adds nothing to a reader's knowledge of Bowlby that warrants sending the reader there with a "See Also" link.

There is also one other, pragmatic, standard to apply: would the absence of the links deny a curious reader access to valuable information about Bowlby? I think not. If nothing else, a reader could go to the remaining links to gain any information which might be gained by visiting the omitted ones. On balance, readers are better off without the links than with them.

Though we are talking only two lines, I consider this important.

The Two Also See References Should Really Stay as the Concensus Dictates

While Larry Sarner makes some interesting points here I continue to disagree (as do a number of others (see above)). The two refrences are directly related to how Bowlby's influence has spread and is significant in fields of research, child development, and treatment. The two references are approaches based on his work and do justice to the importance of his life and work. He was always a practical man. His son, Sir Richard Bowlby, talks about how his father was always focused on treatment and helping children. The links are relevant, and Larry Sarner's objections are not substantive. So, I continue to vote for the references to remain included. A reader following those links is provided with valuable information direclty relevant to the man and his work. The material adds substantially to the man and provide useful insights into how valuable he and his work remain today. The mention of Bowlby in the articles is central and very relevant to the work. To apply Larry's "pragmatic position," "would the absence off the links deny a curious reader access to valuable information about Bowlby?" means that all Also see links can be deleted as all those other links are also avialable in the article, so that is really not a useful criteria at all. The main criteria is that a number of contributors/editors seem to feel the material relevant and so Larry Sarner should really relent and let it go. I cannot help asking why this is such a major point of contention to Larry Sarner? Dr. Art 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle Lines are Drawn

I've taken my best shot at presenting my reasons for removing the links.

With Mr Becker-Weidman's statement above, I am presuming that he has given the reasons on the other side.

I would now like to see the mediator post this controversy to the third opinion page and see if we can get another, impartial input, hopefully from an experienced Wikipedian. Not for the usual "break-the-tie" reasons, but for a chance for everyone to consider an experienced voice in the matter.

If my reasons don't really hold water, I'd like to get off this horse I'm riding. On the other hand, if they're substantive, I'd love for someone outside this controversy to point it out to the other side so there might be some movement.

Mediator?

Larry Sarner 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Battle lines? That doesn't seem to be a concensus building approach. I have not stated "the reasons on the other side" at all. I am merely beginning to describe my thoughts and ideas. I do not presume to be on one side or another and do not see this as a war or battle and so am not trying to represent anyone but myself.

We've gotten several third opinions, mine included. Why isn't that enought for Mr. Larry Sarner? There have been lots of comments. Why doesn't sarner accept these? It almost appears as if sarner is saying, or acting as if anyone who disagrees with sarner must be inside some controversy or battle. We've gotten several views on this page and it seems that if these are not to his liking, he will continue to proceed with some battle or take it to another venue in some ongoing effort to "win." This really isn't about winning, but about building concensus...even if you disagree with it; that seems like the wiki way. Dr. Art 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediator has asked for calm and put a proposal on the table, so I will refrain for now from any direct response to these personal attacks, except to request -- again -- that Mr Becker-Weidman from editing my comments on a talk page. I don't correct his (and others') spelling of consensus, and do not need his help in correctly expressing myself. Larry Sarner 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


There you go again Mr. Sarner, being demeaning and attacking. It is Dr. Becker-Weidman, not Mr. Your intentional disrespect is not condusive to reaching agreement Dr. Art 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I only "attacked" your inappropriate actions (editing my comments). I don't see how a request to act appropriately is demeaning, but perhaps you can enlighten me. Your problem with being addressed by an intentionally respectful "Mr" is something I will happily discuss with you elsewhere (such as my Wiki talk page), but I think it is irrelevant here. Larry Sarner 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There you go again Mr. Sarner. You are not addressing the main point and are deflecting. Use of an incorrect title, when you know the proper one to use is demeaning, spiteful, and attacking. Dr. Art 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The "main point" was always your improper editing of another person's comments. I never mentioned what the editing was, and the actual change was never the issue. If you want to discuss your social sensitivities, I've already suggested it be taken to another venue. I will say this, though: if I have your gender wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected in that regard. Larry Sarner 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think your comments above are not helpful for building a consensus with Dr. Becker-Weidman. I think he is right and you should respect his preference...beside being accurate that you should refer to him as Dr and not Mr. 68.66.160.228 12:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that Mr Becker-Weidman edited my comments, contrary to Wiki policy, which was the only thing I complained about at the time. He has the right to call himself anything he wants, but he doesn't have the right to put words into another people's mouth. He made matters much worse by doing that than my original (supposed) discourtesy. And you think he was right in doing that?
And who are you, BTW? This IP address has been used by both Mr Becker-Weidman and DPeterson (if different from AWeidman). Are you just one of them, trying to get another bite at the apple on this issue? It's a little tiresome dealing with all these alter egos.
13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out here, for the record, that a user named AWeidman, who appears to be Dr. Becker-Weidman, has been documented as doing something much worse. Note these two edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attachment_disorder&diff=49772427&oldid=49769904
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attachment_disorder&diff=49775201&oldid=49772493
As a result of these two edits, the entry:
*"Coercive Restraint Therapies: A Dangerous Alternative Mental Health Intervention" by Jean Mercer, PhD on *Medscape*
was changed to:
*"Coercive Restraint Therapies: A Dangerous Alternative Mental Health Intervention" by Jean Mercer, PhD, AKA Gene Lester. Mr. Lester/Mercer is a Board member of various fringe groups which are not part of the mainstream psychology or mental health community. *Medscape*
These edits were referred to by a Wikipedia moderator as "disturbing." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAWeidman&diff=50362225&oldid=42052871 By using the term "Mr." here, AWeidman appeared to imply that Jean Mercer is transsexual, transgendered, or something similar, which she is not. She is and has always been female. Furthermore, Dr. Becker-Weidman was explicitly and directly informed of this fact many months before his posting.
In addition to the gender issues, there is the accusation that she is a member of "fringe groups," which is absurd.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.183.109 (talkcontribs) (Added in 2 edits: [1] and [2])



I must agree with the above that sarner's comments are not helpful for building consensus. If Dr. Art is Dr. Becker-Weidman, then referring to him as Mr. is disrespectful and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Such behavior is provocative and nonproductive. I've yet to see sarner address this point. As I read his comments I see that he often just makes one point, his point, and avoids responding to valid criticism or suggestions. Trying to discredit others is also not productive. I think it would go along way to build consensus if he just acknowledged his mistake and moved on.

JonesRD 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No battle lines! But what this boils down to...

People, please calm down! As I see it, there are now two links causing controversy (correct me if I'm wrong):

I am assuming that reactive attachment disorder, attachment theory and attachment disorder are not causing any grief. To those who want to retain these 2 links, I'd like to point that at the Sigmund Freud article, the only links to other topics in the See also section are those directly connected with Freud. If these two practices are derivative works of Bowlby, think to yourself, "are they really necessary in a See Also section?" Sarner has already made compromises of his own, having finally agreed to a section on Bowlby's legacy being included in the article. Now I suggest that the other side make a compromise of their own, and move the two controversial links into the Legacy section. Your thoughts? Brisvegas 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are the only two links in question. Hyperlinks to those articles have appeared for some time in the "Legacy" section. However, if those links in "Legacy" were to also go away at a later time, I don't think they should then re-appear in the "See Also". Larry Sarner 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Sarner has as his goal to remove all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay, I cannot agree to that. I appreciate his being clear about his objective here. That objective is not one I share and, I suspect, is not one shared by other readers of this page Dr. Art 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually, my oft-stated goal is to make an excellent Wikipedia by making an accurate and useful article on John Bowlby. This response by Becker-Weidman is why I first referred to "battle lines". I commend the mediator for trying to propose a compromise, but it appears futile to me. I renew my earlier suggestion that the mediator solicit an impartial third-opinion, to see if we can get some movement toward consensus. Larry Sarner 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


There you go once again. Making an excellent Wikipedia article full of accurate and useful information is my only objective. Many others have chimed in to state their opinions and these are counter to Mr. Larry Sarner's goals and wishes. We have a consensus already. I'd hope that Larry Sarner would be able to accept that gracefully and not continue his "battle". Dr. Art 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


To the mediator: Part of the problem here appears to be a misunderstanding of "consensus" at Wikipedia. Would you fill in people here as to what it really means, or direct them (us) to a common source. Becker-Weidman has just expressed the same notion that others have that consensus has been reached because I'm supposedly the only one disagreeing. Somehow, I don't think that's the deal at Wikipedia. Larry Sarner 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do from here?

Two or three people (or maybe just one with several accounts) has come on here claiming, in effect, to own this article on John Bowlby.

With respect to the "See Also" section, I tried to improve it and predictably experienced resistance. Resistance is fine, but when I laid out my reasons for my position, I've gotten no rational reply to those reasons. Instead all I got was, "go away and stop bothering us". Even the mediator got more or less the same treatment when he had the temerity to suggest that maybe I had a point among my reasons and that compromise by the others was in order.

When the mediator suggested a formal Third Opinion process, wherein an uninvolved third-party might cast a deciding vote, the other side, instead of reading the article about the formal process, thought it was really an invitation to stuff the ballot box, and now that they've stuffed it, insist that I go along.

And, of course, there has been a barrage of personal attacks on me and my "motives" throughout.

Well, I'm a big boy and can take the bullying, but I despair for Wiki's sake of ever seeing a peaceful resolution to the disputes here. (And I haven't even gotten to the substantive matters yet!) The mediator has a lot on his plate (I see from his talk page), but if he has anything more to offer on how to proceed toward genuine consensus (not the redefinition of it that Mr Becker-Weidman and the others have expressed), then I am eager to hear it, but otherwise I guess we're back on our own.

(BTW, "battle" wasn't originally my term; it was first used by DPeterson [alias Becker-Weidman?] on the mediator's talk page.)

I don't expect the other side to ever see reason or even act reasonably, but I hereby declare my intent to do my best to do so. I have additional changes to make and will post my reasons for them in advance here on the talk page, to be judged by a candid world.

Larry Sarner 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to see all your additonal changes at once. 68.66.160.228 12:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


No, that would be bad. (See comments below.) Larry Sarner 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the many others who see this as a "stone-walling" because of a hidden agenda to represent the ACT group of sarner, rosa, and mercer. MarkWood 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I must agree with the several others who have commented on this page that it would be good to see all of Larry Sarner's suggestions at once. To do otherwise only builds suspicion that Larry Sarner has a hidden agenda and is not willing to build consensus or compromise. It would be in the spirit of Wikipedia for him to state all his recommendations, since he already has these in mind. That would go a long way as a show of good faith and be in the spirit of collaboration. To do otherwise only fuels the impression that he is not willing to compromise or develop and consensus and is actually working on a specific agenda (Note that I say impression. I do not know his actual motives and hope that I am wrong...Larry Sarner can show this by doing what several others have suggested; just list all your ideas for everyone to reveiw and comment on.)

JonesRD 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Betrayal of Wiki Process

There you go again sarner! Unilateral changes while in mediation are a betrayal of the Wiki process. The mediator had asked that there be no changes to the page and you ignored the mediator's request. This is a clear violation of the Wiki process and spirit. This seems to be your mode of operation. Your bullying and wiping out reasonable and valid information is just wrong. I do hope the mediator will intervene to correct your reverts and bullying and see that you have no intention of cooperating in a collaborative process; you only seem to want to deny a voice to anyone who disagrees with your biased and fringe view. Your continued false allegations are just another ploy of a rigid bully.

Dr. Art 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes

Dearie me, it seems that some users have lapsed into their old modes of behaviour; Dr. Art/AWeidman has begun criticising (Larry) Sarner again (please remember to assume good faith, rather than accusing others of bullying or of holding a "fringe view"), while Sarner has made unilateral changes to the article which were reverted anyway (please don't make any more changes unless it is OK'ed by the others).

Ultimately, the compromise must be reached between you. Please remember that for most casual users of the Wikipedia, the inclusion or omission thereof of certain links is not likely to be such a big deal as it is for you people. Please consider whether this really is a matter of building a better encyclopedia or whether each side is simply trying to keep their pride. At least one side must budge; otherwise, this might never be resolved.

I implore each side to consider if their stance on this topic really is worth maintaining, and perhaps ultimately change their mind. I shall leave it up to you, since my meddling in the article itself could be construed as being partisan. Good luck. Brisvegas 09:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree...more later when I return.
Dr. Art 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree not to make any changes without the approval of the others, since editing is the only leverage I have. If the other side stubbornly refuses even to rationally debate the issue(s) or insists that the only argument that matters is that they have more votes than I do, then what else can someone in my position do?

I put forth my arguments, calmly and reasonably, and not once have they been addressed by the other side. They realize that they don't have to under this arrangement. They can just say no, and the article remains unchanged with their POV intact. Becker-Weidman has made it clear that he will veto my changes from now to eternity. In effect, the mediator's suggestion lets him own the article.

I'll propose this alternative to make the playing field more level. While the issue on the links is being debated, why don't we operate this way? Let the disputed links stay for two days, then eliminate them for two days, then put them back in for two days, and so on. That way it's fair to both sides, and gives us both incentive to at least debate the issues on their merits. If this process is acceptable, I am willing to stipulate that changes to the See Also section be made only by the mediator: to implement the alternation and any ultimate agreement. Is that reasonable?

Larry Sarner 13:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I can agree with the mediator's request and feel it is reasonable. I am sorry. It is difficult not to get upsed with what appears to be recalcitrance and disrespectful behavior, but I will try to do my best.

There you go again, labeling the ""other side" as stubbornly refusing to even rationally debate the issue..." is not helpful and is needlessly provocative and just not true...I would say that what you accuse me of applies to you. One could say that it seems that you have an agenda and seem unwilling to waiver from your ACT agenda and bias of this fringe group. I have put forth a number of reasonable arguments and these have not even been considered. I cannot speak for Dr. Becker-Weidman, but can say that I have no intention of vetoing sarner's changes for ever and see nothing in Dr. Becker-Weidman's comments to suggest that either. There seem to be many people disagreeing with sarner's POV, which should mean something.

I think that sarner should specify all the changes rather than going one point at a time so that we can see his goal/agenda in full. Before I am comfortable discussing any consensus and compromise, I would like to see all he feels is necessary. Although, we do seem to have a consensus here, we can certainly continue dialogue...but it should be a dialogue of all he feels necessary. DPeterson 00:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes to Legacy

I have made some punctuation changes to the second paragraph in the Legacy section:

1. Putting quotes around the proper name assigned to an intervention by its creator.

2. Changing the description of Lieberman's intervention to "parent education", which is how Lieberman describes the narrower topic (within "parent-child psychotherapy") to which I was originally directing the reader's attention.

These are not the substantive objections I have to the Legacy section. I just wanted to clean up the section a bit before we started arguing over the big issues, and I didn't want these improvements to be caught up in the cross-fire.

Larry Sarner 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes are good, but Lieberman refers to the program as "Parent-Child Psychotherapy," her term for her work. DPeterson 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a reference for this? With a conclusive reference, I would gladly acquiesce. I researched this before and have not seen her use this term (or any term) ever as a label for her work. The closest term I have ever seen is "parent education" as her area of focus, which also emphasizes where (and how) she thinks the biggest change must take place in correcting a dysfunctional family relationship. Larry Sarner 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
See Handbook of Infant Mental Health.
68.66.160.228 12:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
After a check, I discover the phrase used by Lieberman in this reference is "infant-parent psychotherapy" to describe her area of work. As indicated above, I would accept this as the description used in the Legacy section. Agreeable? Larry Sarner 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See the section several sections back on Lieberman. She uses the term Parent-Child Psychotherapy in her writings (see, for example, Disorders of attachment in infancy. Child and Adolescent Clinics of North America, 4, 571-587 (1995), so what is currently on the page can remain. The other point is that others don't use quotes in describing various approaches, so not sure that quotes are appropriate here around the terms used by various authors, such as floor time or circle of security project. DPeterson 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to be current and accurate here. If Lieberman ever used the term as you cite, she evolved it within a few years to be more precise, as reflected in the Handbook (1999). Her work is very focused on a specific developmental stage (infancy), and it is misleading as well as inaccurate to suggest using the outdated terminology. Also, the phrase is pointedly not capitalized by her, meaning she never considered it as a proper name (such as Floor Time, or Circle of Security) and it is again inaccurate to capitalize it. The Wiki article is being written for a 2006 audience; if we mention Lieberman, it should be current and accurate. Why would you want it to be anything else? Let's change it to (infant-parent psychotherapy) straightaway and move on.
I yield on the quotation marks, since capitalization makes the distinction I was after anyway (though not as obviously). I am noting your switch in position, however. Larry Sarner 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. If others agree then I'd suggest that those changes be made. DPeterson 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I hope the others are as responsive. Larry Sarner 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

changing it to infant-parent is best, I believe, as it is the most current term she uses in her publications about her work. Making that change and removing the quotation marks (") around the other terms is a good idea. If we have a majority now on this point, then the change could be made, unless someone objects...Perhaps we should wait a few days to be sure? MarkWood 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I prefer unilateral changes not to be made

Sarner, I realise the point you make that the approach I suggested effectively gives DPeterson, Dr. Art and MarkWood veto powers over your proposals. However, this is not giving them more power than they already have. Please remember that when you did try to make changes to the article which they disagreed with, they quickly reverted you anyway. Therefore, even if they could not veto your proposal, they might have reverted it anyway.

I strongly suggest that for the sake of peace, the two controversial links only appear in the text of the legacy section and not in the See Also section. It is a wiki principle that unless a topic is strongly related to an article, only passing references to it are made in the body of the article and not lumped into the "See Also" section. Quite frankly, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay are not directly enough related to Bowlby to be listed in the See Also section, but they may deserve a mention in the Legacy section, which they already do. So, even for matters of style, these two links should be removed from the See Also section as they are already linked to in the article. I will not do this myself nor do I suggest that Sarner do it, but it would be great if someone who would like to keep links to these topics in the article would make a gesture of good will and remove them from the See Also section. By making concessions, you are ultimately strengthening your own positions for the more important matters of content relating to the article. Please consider this. Brisvegas 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to consider that, speaking for myself, but only after I see all of sarner's suggestions. So, I will wait to see the sum total of sarner's proposed changes and then will comment, listen to what others have to say, and if it seems appropriate, will then accept the mediator's helpful suggestion. DPeterson 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I think it would be helpful for all to cool down and take some time for reflection. I agree with the mediator's suggestion and with DPeterson. Let's wait will Sarner has had some time to reflect and then present all the changes he feels are necessary and appropriate. At that time everyone can comment and a consensus develop. Certainly once all suggestions are on the table I would probably be quite willing to make the changes suggested by the mediator in that context and as a show of good faith as suggested by the mediator. I hope this helps.

MarkWood 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to see all the proposed changes at once.

JonesRD 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


The mediator has stated the Wiki principle pretty well, which is what I argued for the "See Also" section from the beginning. Can we come to an agreement (consensus) that the Wiki principle should be followed and implement it? (This has been hinted at as being acceptable to DPeterson.) If the Wiki principle is the basis for the decision, then it shouldn't matter what happens in the rest of the article. If the Wiki principle is not the basis for the decision, I doubt that any agreement will ever be possible, but the other side can certainly state their reasons for overriding Wiki style and maybe they can be persuasive with them.

As for the mediator's point about the imbalance of power in this situation, I acknowledge that the other side gets more reverts in toto than I do and thus can force their POV in any unmoderated edit war. I asked for mediation in the first place as a chance to expose the edit war to the wider Wiki community and initiate a Wiki dispute resolution process. I felt that mediation was a reasonable first step in that process. At any time, either side can give up on the mediation process and either move on to the next level of dispute resolution or resume the war. At the time I made my changes, I felt that mediation was failing to produce anything other than demands for my capitulation, and I was attempting to alert everyone concerned about what the failure of mediation might mean; in that limited purpose, my actions certainly seem to have been catalytic.

I hope that there is some real movement now toward genuine consensus and that the mediator can soon put a well-earned notch on his Mediation Cabal belt. We shall see.

Larry Sarner 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


It would be good to see all your changes at once. That would go a long way to showing good will and engender trust. Otherwise it does appear that you are merely working on an agenda or vendetta and are only trying to represent ACT no matter what the evidence to the contrary. So, I'd suggest stating all the changes you feel are necessary, especially since you already have those in mind and it only make you appear in a very bad light to keep those hidden, as if you have some long range agenda you are following. Dispell that notion by posting you ideas here so everyone can comment. 68.66.160.228 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


The other side now has another red herring (and resurrected another) for not dealing with my arguments, and now with the mediation in toto. My other concern(s) are not relevant to the issue on the table (the mediator's suggestion about the two links being contrary to Wiki style principles).

C'mon, people, stick to the issue. My motivations are irrelevant. Any other issue(s) I have are irrelevant. How I "appear" is irrelevant. Do Wiki principles apply to the "See Also" section or not? If not, why not? That is all that is on the table at the moment. Well, that and the issue whether or not you are engaged in mediation in good faith.

Larry Sarner 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the comments of others, and mine, are sticking to the issue. Wiki principles call for the development off consensus and the building of good articles. I must agree with the several others who have commented on this page that it would be good to see all of your suggestions at once. To do otherwise only builds suspicion that your have a hidden agenda and is not willing to build consensus or compromise (Wiki priniciples include openness and compromise and consensus. Anything that gets in the way of those is not consistent with Wiki principles). It would be in the spirit of Wikipedia for your to state all your recommendations, since you already have these in mind. That would go a long way as a show of good faith and be in the spirit of collaboration. To do otherwise only fuels the impression that your are not willing to compromise or develop and consensus and are actually working on a specific agenda (Note that I say impression. I do not know your actual motives and hope that I am wrong...Your can show this by doing what several others have suggested; just list all your ideas for everyone to reveiw and comment on.)

JonesRD 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I haven't asked for your agenda, whoever you are. This is not the venue for such discussions. Please stick to the issue at hand. The lack of good faith in the mediation process is apparent when red herrings are thrown up instead of discussing the issue. You can't build consensus on this point if you won't discuss the point. I repeat (to all on the other side), do Wiki principles apply to the "See Also" section or not? If not, why not? Larry Sarner 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


You are missing or avoiding the point Mr. Sarner. The issue at hand is making this a good article, so all items should be viewed. Your continued avoidance of the issue makes your motives and willingness to cooperate, collaborate, and build consensus suspect.

First, you should apologize to Dr. Becker-Weidman as another contributor suggested...let's just move on with this. If you'd prefer I refer to you as Sarner, Larry Sarner, Mr. Sarner, what ever, I will as that is respectful and you should do the same with all contributors, even those you may disagree with.

Why not post all your ideas? Your refusal makes it "appear" that you really are merely an advocate for ACT and are not trying to cooperate, collaborate, or build consensus. So, I suggest you just post all your ideas and lets anyone who is interested post comments and move on the getting this page to consensus. Again, why not post your ideas?

MarkWood 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


The immediately above comments contribute nothing new to the debate on the "See Also" section, so require no additional answers from me. (For my previous answers, consult my previous comments.)

I am not the one refusing to put my ideas on the table, or refusing to build consensus. I ask again, do Wiki style principles apply to the "See Also" section or not? If not, why not?

Larry Sarner 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


In order to follow Wikipedia style principles we should evaluate all the ideas and suggestions together. We see that you do not wish to do so and that does raise questions and maybe even confirm (?) that you do not wish to adhere to Wiki principles of collaboration, cooperation, and consensus building. As several people have said, putting out all your ideas whould facilitate the advancement of those principles. I'd sugges you do that, if not, why not? Isn't collaboration and the other Wiki principles what you want to rely on? Hopefully you will move this along so we can build consensus.

66.238.223.87 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Another anonymous non-contributor supporting the red herring. The word "collaboration" is not a style issue. Apparently no one in New York State has an answer to the real question on the table: do Wiki style principles apply to the "See Also" section or not? If not, why not? Larry Sarner 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


As I feared sarner is not willing to collaborate, cooperate, or develop consensus, despite a number of contributors asking that he do something very simple to move this along. The user before sarner's comments did answer his question, "In order to follow Wikipedia style principles we should evaluate all the ideas and suggestions together...As several people have said, putting out all your ideas whould facilitate the advancement of those principles. I'd sugges you do that, if not, why not? Isn't collaboration and the other Wiki principles what you want to rely on? Hopefully you will move this along so we can build consensus."

DPeterson 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon. That is obviously no answer. It is an evasion, at best. Your suggestion is hardly a style principle. If you think it really is, quote it from the Manual of Style. I remind you that the actual style principle involved here was first mentioned by the mediator (at the top of this discussion section). You have laid out preconditions, unilaterally, for you (and your side) to discuss the issue. What a mess for the poor mediator to wake up to when the sun rises Down Under!

Does the Wiki style principle mentioned by the mediator apply to the "See Also" section or not? If not, why not?

Larry Sarner 04:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


See comments below It's really up to you now. This is not about sides, "my side" or "yours," but your use of those terms could appear to suggest a certain unwillingless to cooperate and collaborate. I am not on any sides here or do I represent any specific groups or have a specific agenda. You can show the same by doing what a number of other contributors have recommended. DPeterson 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

However much I might like to "show the same", a phrase like "your use of those terms cold [sic] appreat [sic] to suggest a certain unwillingless [sic] to cooperate and collaborate" is unintelligible. Larry Sarner 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you understood...but now it is clearer. You can show a willingness to build consensus and cooperate and collaborate on the article by presenting your currently hidden list of edits and changes. DPeterson 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style

This only speaks to formatting and not to how concensus is built. The best way to move this forwad as several people have stated many times is for sarner to put forward all his ideas and suggestions. This is a legitimate way to end this dispute and his reluctance to do so only continues to foster the perception that he is not willing to compromise or collaborate or build real concensus; that he is merely acting as an agent of ACT. A number of the contributors to this page seem very informed about treatment and theory. From reading the posts several, I believe are licensed mental health professionals with advanced degrees in mental health related professions. I think their expert opinions have more weight than a lay person in the areas of their expertise.

In any event, it is up to Larry Sarner to end this deadlock by collaborating in developing this page by stating all his recommendations for everyone to comment on.

DPeterson 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A compromise

I am here on behalf of my client, Mr Weidman, to help resolve the dispute over this article. As I see it, the current controversy boils down to whether or not the links to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay should remain in the "See Also" section of the article. Before I go on to discuss the substance of this issue, I would ask Mr Sarner to desist from demanding whether Wiki principles apply to the section or not, as to do so is to detract from the main issue. Of course they do. The question is whether the other articles are sufficiently relevant to this one.

To move on to the substance of the issue, my client and I would, in the interests of obtaining agreement, like to propose a compromise. We suggest that the theraplay link should be removed, since it has lesser relevance to Bowlby, but the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy link should stay, since it mentions him by name, and indeed links to this article in its own "See Also" section. Is this acceptable to all parties? --David.Mestel 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this could be an acceptable compromise. However, I remain concerned about sarner's intentions and plans, by his lack of forthrightness, and by his apparent secreativenss. I would be comfortable with this change is sarner is able to present all his proposed changes and modifications. However, if he is willing to accept this compromise and have material about the application of Bowlby's work remain, then I am all for this and support it without reservation. DPeterson 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This "compromise" is an old proposal, which went nowhere some time ago. The reason for that is, in part, because the reference to Bowlby in the DDP article is gratuitous. In terms of information content on Bowlby, the DDP article is not substantively different from the one on Theraplay -- which has no reference to Bowlby at all. In other words, this is not a compromise (though it may have seemed to you like a reasonable "split-the-difference" proposal), but actually a demand for capitulation on my part. Since we've never really debated the merits of this dispute, much less shown the logical deficiencies of my arguments, such a demand is at the very least premature.

Hence, a more valuable contribution, Mr Mestel, was your admission that the real "question is whether the other articles are sufficiently relevant to this one", which is more than your client, or any of his minions, have admitted thus far. Their intransigence to answering this simple question was the reason for my repeating the request. It is, indeed, at the heart of my response.

The mediator tried to point out at the onset of this go-round that the Wiki style principle in play here was that "See Also" links are expected to point to articles which have significant connection to the subject of the referring article. It is obvious on their face (and the mediator pointed this out) that the DDP and Theraplay articles do not meet this standard. It was my belief that this supported my contention that the links should go. The only thing remaining, dispute-wise, was to see if the other side had any really good reasons to override the Wiki style. I never got any answer to that, and still have received none.

I am arguing this dispute on very narrow grounds. If, as you've indicated, the Wiki style principle should be upheld, then the answer to the narrow dispute over the "See Also" links seems to be that the disputed links should go from that section. There are no wider ramifications than that: the links do not fit within the application of Wiki's style standard, therefore the links should go.

Mr Becker-Weidman has recruited you as an advocate for his side, and you have accepted. Can you state reasons, on his behalf, why the applicable Wiki style standard should not be the deciding factor in this (narrow) dispute? Or was the "compromise" all you had to offer?

Larry Sarner 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Dr. Becker-Weidman is not the only one who knows taht Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an appropriate reference for the Also See section. (again sarner's disrespect and intransigence is evident here...it is Dr. Becker-Weidman and many others have stated reasons for including the reference...sarner is more clearly admitting that he has a hidden agenda and has no interest in collaboration or compromise or in building consensus). Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is a treatment firmly grounded in Sir John Bowlby's work. It a good example of how attachment theory is used in practice and of the practical implications of Bowlby's work. Many of the articles and books about this treatment include fairly detailed accounts of Bowlby and his work. The inclusion of the reference in the Also See section is very relevant and quite to the point. sarner's refusal to even consider that shows a rigidity in his thinking and further reinforces the appearance that he is acting merely as spokesperson for his group, ACT. DPeterson 12:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More or less, you've made this point before. Even the mediator couldn't see the relevance you are pointing to. We are not debating a bibliography or links external to Wiki, but the Wiki DDP article being referenced in "See Also". As Mr Becker-Weidman's advocate even admitted, the issue is whether the Wiki articles are "sufficiently relevant" to be included. I don't think so. The mediator doesn't think so. You haven't given a single reason why you think so. Do you have any at all? Larry Sarner 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--- This is an excellent solution and would move things along well. While I think Theraplay should be referecned as an example of Bowlby and his work and how he has impacted treatment for children, I am willing to compromise and defer on this so that this controversary can be put to rest. MarkWood 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


The "compromise" is a non-starter with me for the reasons given above. However, in the same spirit as it is proposed (and accepted) by the other side, I will make a counter-offer: delete DDP from the See Also section and leave "Theraplay". In terms of logic and Wiki style principles, one is as irrelevant as the other. But if the Wiki style principles must be compromised, I choose to do it with Theraplay over DDP; it's been around longer. Larry Sarner 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems to bear out the impressions of others that you appear to have some vendetta against DDP. I would hope that is not true and that you can remain open-minded and flexiable. I have looked at the ACT page since several others have mentioned that and do note your leadership of that group and it's stance on several issues, but I hope that you can separate that out and be open to consensus building. JonesRD 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution offered is very good and I can certainly accept that. It is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia principles of consensus building, among various other principles. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay is very closely related to Bowlby. The treatment is based on his work and, if you read the materials on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay, has more information about Bowlby and his theory that does Theraplay. So, I support the idea and hope that this will now put an end to the conflict. JonesRD 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I have to say, Mr Sarner, that I agree with JonesRD's comment that your previous proposal demonstrates you vendetta agains DDP, and is not acceptable (due to the far greater relevance of DDP to Bowlby) to my client, or, we believe, to any reasonable person. Ultimately, Mr Sarner has to accept community consensus, and I am therefore proposing to gauge it on this compromise. I therefore propose the following motion:

The John Bowlby article shall contain in its "See Also" section wikilinks to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy but not to Theraplay. Any alterations contrary to this made by any party without first obtaining consensus should be treated as vandalism and appropriate action taken. --David.Mestel 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Support:

  1. I support this. I remain concenred about Mr. Sarner's undisclosed agenda. DPeterson 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Been watching this, and other pages a while. I want to see this end and I agree with the proposal SamDavidson 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. JonesRD 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Finally we can have and end to this. I appreciate the advocate's adherence to Wikipedia process and procedures so that we can move along.
  4. I agree with this action. Thank you. MarkWood 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. I support the proposal. Dr. Art 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. I completely agree with this proposal. Mr. Sarner's attacks are making a mockery of this page and the idea behind Wikipedia. --Wallyj 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) User's only edit. Does not count
I disagree, based on Wallyj's comments below. Many users only read Wikipedia and often do not comment until they feel strongly about an issue. Furthermore, the person who edited wallyj's comment with strike-out did not sign a name. So I'd say the comment DOES COUNT DPeterson 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
7. I concur. RalphLender 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
8. I think it would be fine to leave both links in place, but leaving only the link in the Also See section on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy would be ok too.
9. I agree. RalphLender 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. This is neither reasonable, a compromise, nor represents any "community consensus". It results in an unjustified departure from Wiki style. From the above, the proposal is actually an attempt to assert ownership over the Bowlby article. If implemented unilaterally, it should be treated as vandalism itself. I may complain about the advocate to Wiki administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry Sarner

In what sense is it not a compromise? There were two wikilinks under dispute, this involves removing one. Neither is it an attempt to assert ownership over the article. It is simply an attempt to make clear the consensus of three editors against one in support of this compromise. Your claim that it's vandalism is laughable. --David.Mestel 16:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If A and B have a dispute with C, A and B have to split the difference with C, not with each other, to have a compromise; this proposal doesn't split any difference with me. My proposal to do the same thing, with the articles reversed was attacked as no compromise; if those attacks hold water, then this doesn't either. The mediator (you do know that this is in mediation, don't you?) has said that any further unilateral changes in the article without the agreement of the others here is a bad-faith transgression of mediation; I've honored that, but now you've come in for the other side and declared that you're going to impose a solution unilaterally. Sounds like vandalism to me -- and I'm not joking. Of course this is a strong-arm attempt to assert ownership over this article on behalf of your client; what else could it be when you try to bully the other side?
Interesting that you've started a debate in the vote section. Is that the way advocates are supposed to behave?
I apologize for my unintentional oversight of not having signed my earlier entry. I trust no one was misled by the error. Larry Sarner 10:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

2. As the author of a book on the concept of emotional attachment, as well as a number of articles examining treatments that purport to be related to Bowlby's theory, I am concerned about a compromise here-- more especially this one. We seem to be taking the Humpty Dumpty approach to argument, in which "glory" means "a nice knock-down argument" and the meaning is established by commercial transactions. No vote can determine whether two concepts are related; we need a rationale or warrant to do that, and no one has presented one. Therefore I reject the compromise. I would also like to say that I object to trying to solve a dispute by wrangling and strategy rather than by substantive discussion. This approach is all very well in politics, but in science the idea is to put forward matters of observable fact and use all the data available to craft the best possible conclusion.This is especially necessary when we are dealing with conclusions that can seriously affect children and families. In the present case, I don't see that anyone has tried to show parallels between specifics of Bowlby's theory and specifics of DDP, Theraplay, or anything else. Surely it's up to the writers who wish to make those parallels to provide a rationale for doing so, and, if they cannot provide one, to withdraw the link. I'd like to see someone present their reasoning about the disputed links in the format of claim (the proposed inclusion),ground (aspects of Bowlby's theory and of the linked material), and warrant (the reasoning that leads from the ground to the claim). The present "compromise" approach omits ground and warrant and amounts to Mr. Punch whacking someone with the stick of the repeated claim (sorry, I must be influenced by all the puppet references).I don't know whether the mediator can reject or earmark nonsubstantive statements, but that might be a way to force contributors to to limit themselves to useful material. Jean Mercer 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All the details are described in 'Creating Capacity For Attachment. Furthermore, in that work, there is provided a rich and broad evidence base for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and its theoretical basis. The material clearsly shows the parallels between specifics of Bowlby's theory and the specifics of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Not being a clinician or licensed mental health professional, you might not be aware of that. I suggest you read that reference and all the of the supporting citations before making comments. DPeterson 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
ACT seems to fail to follow a scientific approach and we should avoid having "commercial" or fringe groups control Wiki pages, don't you agree? DPeterson 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that persons with commercial interests should not be involved. Jean Mercer

Glad you agree. This would exclude all the leaders of ACT, who have published a book together and have a commercial interest in seeing their book sell. DPeterson 14:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is Mr Becker-Weidman (and people who share his IP address), who is up to his eyeballs in real commercial interest in all this. Larry Sarner 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

3. D Peterson, I vote against this proposal. As a clinical psychologist, I can find no substantial connection between Bowlby and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy that warrants a direct link between the two articles. Randy Pennington, PsyD Ranpenn 13:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 'Another DOES NOT COUNT VOTE' This person has no history of edits or participation, except this one...' 'DPeterson 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)'

Since Lary Sarner and Jean Mercer have a shared financial interest (they wrote at least one book together and are both leaders of ACT), should their "votes" count as one or as two? JonesRD 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If this "vote" wasn't a moot point, it might be worth discussing (somewhere else), along with the same question posed to all those mostly anonymous editors on the other side who haven't disclosed their financial interests. Larry Sarner 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding the relevant issue is significant. It would be good to address this. By not, readers can only reach the conclusion that your shared financial interest in the book and as leaders of ACT is true and valid. DPeterson 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Neutral:

Do not use sock puppets

Clearly, User:JonesRD and User:Wallyj are sock puppets, since their only edits have been in relation to this dispute. Never use sock puppets to inflate your ranks, as this will lessen the credibility of the side you ostensibly support. Puppet masters are generally not treated lightly on Wikipedia, so please be careful. If anyone is using sock puppets, then cease and desist. Brisvegas 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that mercer is a sock puppet since the addition attributed to that name was not properly signed in? Perhaps that comment should be deleted or properly attributed. MarkWood 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet and am now wondering about your neutrality in this matter. I am a long time user of Wikipedia. I use it to get information and frequently browse pages. The fact that I have not been called on to comment before this silly controversary initiated by sarner should not negate the legitimacy of my thoughts. I speak for myself and no one else. JonesRD 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm outraged to be labeled a SOCK PUPPET! I am a graduate student in clinical psychology. I frequently use Wikipedia, especially the pages about attachement, to find the most current information and discussion topics. Just because this is the first time I decided to get involved should not discount my opinions or imply that I am some kind of puppet.Wallyj 22:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for pointing this out.

The other side has been rife with sock puppets from the beginning. There is history evidence on this and other pages that DPeterson, formerly PPeterson, has the same IP address as AWeidman. AWeidman has used the same dial-up IP Class B/C as was used to sign comments supporting AWeidman comments. I predict that if an administrator went in and looked at the IP addresses used for the creation/sign-ins of nearly every user supporting the other side, there would be a striking correspondence.

I contend this has always been a debate between me and AWeidman, and the "votes" here have been a sham. They have always been 1-1. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AWeidman has been trying to stuff the ballot box from almost the beginning as if it was. He doesn't debate the issues, just has stalking horses (if not sock puppets) sign on and demand that I go along with his position because I'm supposedly the odd one out.

These sham users also permit him to talk about him in the third person so that he can make points that would be too gauche for him to say about himself.

And finally, there is the cover the sham users provide against the three-revert rule, giving AWeidman more reverts than I so that in an edit war he can keep his version up most of the time against any attempts on my part to improve it.

Larry Sarner 10:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Discounting others just because they disagree with you seems to be one of your standard tactics. I disagree with sarner and so am included in the "debate," althought he clearly is not interested in a free exchange of ideas and the development of consensus or collaboration.

DPeterson 12:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


And just as clearly, AWeidman (and aliases/stalking horses) doesn't give any ideas to freely exchange. Just red herrings. Larry Sarner 15:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, sarner resorts to attacks, indirection, and avoids the issue. You represent a fringe minority view as a leader of ACT and your ideas are just not accepted by the mainstream and majority of contributors. Your use of red herrings is getting tiresome. DPeterson 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I think it is time to end this fruitless argument and move on. Sarner clearly only has one interest and that is the removal of all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay, which is his agenda as a leader of ACT, as others have pointed out. He is not contributing to the benefit of Wikipedia or this page in any way. His attacks and unwillingness to compromise or collaborate to build consensus are not helpful or in the spirit of Wikipedia.

JonesRD 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Messrs. JonesRD and Wallyj. You see, the reason I came to this conclusion is by looking at your contributions to Wikipedia: Special:Contributions/wallyj and Special:Contributions/JonesRD. Both of your first ever contributions to Wikipedia have involved this dispute, and most of the subsequent edits have done so as well. If I am wrong then I apologise, but you must admit that this does seem extremely suspicious. Please understand my situation. I am trying to deal with a very difficult dispute and my job is not made any easier by a sudden influx of new users who wish to add their two cents to this topic, although any positive contributions are welcome. I am NOT seeking to point fingers at anyone; all I wish to achieve is to warn users just in case they are not playing by the rules. As an aside, I will be away for the next week and won't be on Wikipedia for that time. For now, the best solution is to leave the article as it exists. Brisvegas 01:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As mediator, there is really little I can do to resolve your dispute. I have made suggesitons that have been ignored, with each side keen to maintain their own positions. This dispute will not be resolved through mediation if there is no spirit of compromise. Good luck. I will check back later to see if I can offer any more assistance.

I am a long-time user of Wikipedia, as a browser and reader. It is only recently that I felt compelled to register and contribute to this discussion. I began to feel increasingly strongly that the page was being held hostage by one zealot and this motivated my talk. I now see how easy it is to build a page, when there is the spirit of collaboration and cooperation, and am an active contributor. So, yes, you are wrong and am am offended by being called a "sock puppet." You aare wrong, and I accept your apology.
JonesRD 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, "This dispute will not be resolved through mediation if there is no spirit of compromise," and sarner has shown that he does not wish to compromise or collaborate in any way. There is a proposal for compromise and the vast majority of contributors support it, so I would welcome seeing that put into place so that this fruitless argument and stonewalling by one zealot can be ended and this all put to rest.

I do think that the comments of the others are cogent and valid. I can understand why this elongated and protracted disucssion can brought in browers (wallyj and Jonesrd) and has motivated them to contribute. It is time to move on and not continue to allow one zealot with an agenda of a fringe group (ACT) to runin a good page or dilute good information and valid knowledge.

DPeterson 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DPeterson 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a clinical psychologist who has been watching this process from the sidelines for quite some time. I must say that I agree with Mr. Sarner and Dr. Jean Mercer with the views they have expressed. Professional courtesy is extended when professionals provide COMPLETE and ACCURATE citations. I believe Mr. Sarner's request for complete and accurate citations was and is a reasonable request that should be honored by those making "evidence based" or "empirical support" claims. I would like to offer a suggestion that might prove stimulating and informative. I would welcome a response from the developer of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Daniel Hughes, Ph.D., to respond to the following questions about his therapeutic approach that I've taken from the following book:

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense. Thomson Wadsworth; Canada. pp. 26-27.

1. Is Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy theory testable?

2. Has Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy been tested using valid and reliable procedures and with positive results?

3. Has the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy theory/approach been subjected to peer review? If so provide citations that are complete and accurate.

4. What is the known or potential error rate of the scientific theory (DDP) or technique?

5. What standards, controlling the techniques's operation, maximize it's validity?

6. Has the theory been generally accepted as valid in the relevant scientific community? (Relevant scientific community would consist of those academicians in the college or university setting.)


Ranpenn

I wonder about the validity of this "Contributor" who is not signed in and has no history. This sounds like questions previously raised by another and answered by reference to the book 'Creating Capacity for Attachment', its reference list of peer-reviwed publications, and other citations. DPeterson 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Questioning the validity of a contributor? Is there a single "contributor" here who did not start on this page, or a related one?
Of course, the book cited is not a reliable one. You could, of course, quote from the book and answer the fellow's questions, but that of course might require an index. Does the book have an index?
Larry Sarner 08:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Action

Sarner, if you feel that JonesRD and Wallyj are probable sockpuppets of Dr. Becker-Weidman, your are welcome to request a checkuser on them. Otherwise, please withdraw your allegations. Brisvegas, please do not make these allegations, as they compromise your neutrality as a mediator. If you do so again, my client and I will be forced to carefully consider our position as to whether we are prepared to deal with you as a mediator.

In response to your earlier comment, we are not trying to seize control of the article, but simply to point out that you cannot indefinitely hold the article to ransom by refusing to compromise except for your absurd suggestion (since you have presented no reasons why theraplay is more relevant to the article than DDP). We are splitting the difference with you - we think that both should be linked, you think that neither should be. We propose that one is.

In further response to Brisvegas, I am unclear about what you mean with regard to a lack of a spirit of compromise, since I have already proposed a compromise on behalf of my client. However, as a gesture of good faith towards this mediation (the usefulness of which I am begginning to doubt), I will refrain from implementing this until you return from Wikibreak. --David.Mestel 13:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. It is reasonable and in the spirit of compromise and collaboration. Thank you. JonesRD 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding peer-review support for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay

See full citations at the end of this section Dr. Art 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been several challengeable assertions made about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay. Support for inclusion of DDP in Bowlby's article has been justified by some discussants on the other side by claiming, without sources, that DDP and Theraplay are "evidence-based". I'd like to see the sources for this claim. One certainly can't find reference to any in the PsychInfo index, which is where one would expect it to be if it appears in peer-reviewed literature (as also claimed).

If sources for these claims can't be cited, I suggest these references need to be removed. I suggest a week for the sources to be cited, then the references will be removed if none are forthcoming in that time. They can always be put back in whenever someone comes up with the sources, and the sources check out.

Larry Sarner 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the book you will see that it provides an abundant evidence base for the therapy. RalphLender 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


there is also the article cited in 'Child and Adolescent Social Work', which is a professional peer reviewed journal...also see my comments below RalphLender 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please give a full citation so it can be located: author(s), title, date, volume, and page numbers.
The book mentioned below has been brought up before and is not part of the evidence corpus. It was not peer reviewed in the canonical sense and so does not qualify as an acceptable source for evidence.
Larry Sarner 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The book provides ample evidence for the effectivenss of the therapy and many articles in peer reviewed professional publications as evidence for the efficacy of this reputable approach. It provides the full citation you want. But, in any event, this is a side issue and not to the point. I support leaving both references in and so do the vast majority of contributors. 'RalphLender 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)'

You are correct. DPeterson 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The approach is only reputable if there is evidence in the scientific (peer-reviewed) corpus for its safety and efficacy. The book, since it wasn't peer-reviewed, doesn't count. Articles in peer-reviewed do count. Give us a citation for some, such as the one you mentioned.

If the book "provides the full citation you want" as you say, then you can simply go to the book and provide it for us here. Better yet, if you have the article yourself, you can give us the citation directly.

I hardly think that evidence is a "side issue". Besides, you (and the others) keep asserting that acceptable peer-reviewed evidence exists and that it supports your position. What's wrong with at least providing the citation for it, so I can check it out. Heaven knows, it might convince me!

Larry Sarner 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'Creating Capacity For Attachment' is a sufficient reference. It has everything sarner needs. RalphLender 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that nothing will be enough for Mr. Sarner as other's have suggested, but at least I've listed something above that answers his question in full. 'RalphLender 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)'

No, you haven't. I asked for the author(s), title, date, volume, and page numbers of the article you cited in Child and Adolescent Social Work; you didn't give it. I asked for a citation to any other report of research in peer-reviewed journals; you haven't given any. You claim you know of some. All I'm asking is that you tell me what they are, so I can check them out myself. Larry Sarner 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RalphLender seems correct in his assessment. Nothing is enough! If the book provides all the references and data requested, then go there and get your information and data and evidence base. I think that's quite reasonable. JonesRD 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I asked for peer-reviewed support for DDP (and Theraplay). I've already told everyone what is "enough": give me a citation for a peer-reviewed report of evidence and I will go and look it up. It's a little enough thing to ask. Someone who isn't making things up should be able to provide it. It's the only reasonable thing to do. If you don't do it, it's probably because you can't. As the title of this discussion section suggests, if there is not zero peer-reviewed support for these two interventions, then it needs to be named. Larry Sarner 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RalphLender and JonesRD. Your points are cogent, clear and on point. The previous comment would seem to add support to JonesRD's point that nothing will be enough. I think the material pressented is clear. Somehow I was able to find the book, 'Creating Capacity For Attachment,' the article in peer-reviewed journalChild & Adolescent Social Work, as have others, and the excellent article in the peer reviewed publication 'New Directions.'MarkWood 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you found these items, and chose to chime in on this subject, why don't you give the citations? You also have claimed in the past to be a graduate student in the field, so you should be able to cite something correctly and completely. So what is the citation for the CASWJ article? What is the citation for the NDCAR article(s)? Larry Sarner 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from provocation and try to keep a NPVO. The citations, while irrelevant to the point that consensus has been reached, have already been provided and others seem to have had no problem. DPeterson 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


1. NPOV (not NPVO) is required of articles, not talk pages. (Otherwise, how could anyone discuss them.)

2. Asking for information is a "provocation"? Oh, c'mon.

3. Asking for a citation is completely relevant to the point of this discussion. The notion that "consensus" has been reached is irrelevant and inaccurate. How can anyone participate in a consensus if no one will let the others in on the secret information.

4. At least one other does have a problem with the lack of citations.

5. Lack of a citation to a reliable source is sufficient for removal of a statement from an article ( verifiability).

6. I appreciate your restraint from personal attack, as requested. Hope it continues.

7. Changing the title of this discussion section (which I titled in the first place) is vandalism. Please stop.

Larry Sarner 00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is important to build consensus and collaboration...isn't that what you want? So many seem to think that you don't...state that you are willing to compromise and accept other POV in addition to your own to show that you are not only after one POV as an advocate for ACT. There are no others, except an unsigned note. Citation already provided. Others seem to feel that nothing will every satisfy and so it is silly to continue to dialogue as there is no interest in a true dialogue and collaboration. Prove otherwise. DPeterson 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Please correct your vandalism of the title of this section. NPOV is the end-product in the article, not the discussion.

Still no citation provided for the NDCAR and CASWJ articles. No other citations, either, to research on DDP published in peer-reviewed journals. The burden of proof under Wiki verifiability policy is not being met.

I'm the one not getting any dialogue here. The article presently claims that DDP (and Theraplay) is an evidence-based treatment. I've asked the people who put in that statement to cite a reliable source for that claim. I was told early on that an article in CASWJ was reliable. I asked for the full citation (date, volume, pages, author, title) for that article. My request for that citation has been repeatedly refused. Oh, well, there are still four days to come up with the citation. When someone does, then maybe there can be something to "dialogue" about.

Larry Sarner 06:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you didn't correct the vandalism, so I have. Larry Sarner 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Child and Adolescent Social Work The full citation is: Becker-Weidman, A., (2006). Treatment for children with trauma-attachment disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal on line edition and 13-1, April 2006 in print.

The other reference is 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' edited by Stanley M. Sturt, 2006, Nova Science. (Also a professional peer-reviewed publication as is CASWJ. 'Dr. Art 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)'

Evidence Base ... Leave Page As Is

If you read the citations in the article you can find an evidence base...for example, read the book, Creating Capacity for Attachment. As a reader of this and many other pages I cannot support your suggestion. It certainly is not consistent with the mediator's ideas or the compromise on the table. I strongly recommend that Larry Sarner accept the consensus and that exists and let's move on to other subjects and issues. RalphLender 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not evidence. The "citations" in the article are just links to other Wiki articles, and there are no proper citations therein, either in the articles or in the discussion pages. Are you really suggesting that possible misinformation be retained so that you can move on to other subjects? Larry Sarner 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are creating a 'red herring.' Consensus is clear on including both therapies...or at least as a consession to sarner, only Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. The fact that this treatment has strong evidence for its components and dimensions and that sarner continues to nit pick this and is now trying to make this the issue is merely a diversion and off point. The citation is a good one and includes all the data you need. It's time to move on and accept the clear consensus. 'RalphLender 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)'

Nonsense. Now I'm beginning to think you're making it all up. Anyone who says, "there's all the evidence you need in such-and-such article," then refuses to say how to identify the article has something to hide. Wouldn't it be much easier to produce the citation than stonewalling it? It's a very simple and reasonable request. Larry Sarner 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd not bother arguing these points, as you say, they are off point, RalphLender. I've read the book Creating Capcity for Attachment and it certainly does have lots of relevant citations of articles from professional peer-reviewed journals that provide lots of support for the effectiveness of this treatment. BTW, have you seen the most recent publication in 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research?' 'DPeterson 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)'

Yes, DPeterson, I've read 'New Developments' and found the entire issue of interest, especially the material on Dyadic Devvelopmental Psychotherapy, which, I assume, you were referring to. RalphLender 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Another article without a citation! Care to tell the rest of us where we can find this "especially interesting" material? Larry Sarner 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And why, "DPeterson" wouldn't you argue the point(s)...because evidence is "off point"? An interesting position for a Wikipedia contributor to take. Besides, there is no argument yet. I've only asked, thus far, for acceptable sources to be cited. So some book has "lots of relevant citations" of just what I've asked for? Great, it makes it easy for you to reproduce some of them here so we can see what it is you're talking about. Larry Sarner 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, DPeterson, you are right advising not bothering arguing these points as it never goes anywhere..only leads to more hostility and pointless argument and off-point material. 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' is a peer reviewed publication published by Nova Science. But I will at least make one last effort here by giving the details sarner wants...but I'd guess you are right and nothing will make a difference to him...certainly hasn't so far. RalphLender 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now you cite an unnamed article or articles in New Developments in Child Abuse Research. How 'bout a real citation so I can be let in on this fantastic source? Just tell me author, date, volume, and pages. Should be simple to do.

I don't see what is the problem? I picked up Creating Capacity for Attachment and see many references and citations that provide good evidence for this approach. It is a good resource for such references. All one needs to do is take a look. There is obviously a 'strong' base of support. I got a copy of the 'New Developments' at our U library...you are right, it is a good reference with excellent peer-reviewed studies. thanks for the tip SamDavidson 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the problem? Hmmm. You see "many references and citations" giving evidence for DDP? But you can't relay even one to this page here? Larry Sarner 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SamDavidson. The book, 'Creating Capacity For Attachment' has been given as a reference...but as others accurately predicted, nothing is 'enough' and I'd guess nothing will ever be enough. 'New Developments ...' sounds interesting. Thanks for the reference. I will look it up and get a copy from my local library...maybe buy it if it looks good. JonesRD 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I just tried to find this great, "peer-reviewed" book in Colorado. It is not in the collection of any university or college library in Colorado or Wyoming. Indeed, it is not even in any public library in Colorado or Wyoming. Wow!! Some source. Not only not "peer-reviewed", but not even important enough to be carried by a real library that might be used by professionals or researchers in a state where attachment therapy started!

As for New Developments in Child Abuse Research, what issue and article reports research on DDP? Or does someone have to read every issue cover-to-cover to find what you're talking about?

Larry Sarner 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that peer review is not the same as the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? The fact that an article is in a journal said to be peer-reviewed does not exempt the rest of us from examining the work and evaluating the appropriateness of the conclusions. Peer review can mean anything from an editor "peering" at the article to a well-organized effort to have suitable reviewers help the author to improve a paper. I can say from personal experience that an article I published in CASWJ could not have been seriously peer-reviewed, as the turnaround time was too short and I received no requests for revisions; whether this was also Becker-Weidman's experience, I can't tell. But, be that as it may, there are questions that any reader should ask about a paper before accepting its conclusions. An important question about Becker-Weidman's published work is whether it meets TREND criteria (Transparent Reporting in Evaluation of Nonrandomized Designs). TREND guidelines require authors to report on issues such as the circumstances that placed participants in the comparison group. In a study like Becker-Weidfman's, TREND would also require suitable statistical analysis, such as ANOVA rather than multiple Student's t tests, which multiply the probability of finding one or more significant differences. High-quality peer-reviewed journals are now asking reviewers to use the TREND guidelines in making recommendations about submitted papers. These are substantive issues that should be addressed by anyone who wants to claim the Becker-Weidman CASWJ article as presenting an evidentiary basis for DDP. Jean Mercer

I agree with RalphLender and JonesRD. Their points are cogent, clear and on point. The previous comments would seem to add support to JonesRD's point that nothing will be enough. I think the material pressented is clear. Somehow I was able to find the book, 'Creating Capacity For Attachment,' the article in peer-reviewed journalChild & Adolescent Social Work, as have others, and the excellent article in current issue of the peer reviewed publication 'New Directions...' In any event, there is clear 'consensus' to end this silly and pointless debate and that is what should happen. MarkWood 21:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I had no difficulty securing a copy of the the book, the article, or the 'New Directions'publication. The 'New Directions' peer reviewed publication has several excellent articles, including one on another outcome study of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. DPeterson 22:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
But you can't tell anyone what the citation is? Let me remind you and the others, in Wikipedia the burden of proof is with the person making the claim (WP:V). "Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." (WP:V) I have made a reasonable request to know the source of the claim. If no one is able to give it, the claims must go. This is firm Wiki policy. Please conform to policy. Also, stop with the personal attacks; they are also against Wiki policy. Larry Sarner 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Another excellent reference that you might want to take a look at that also relates to the various components of 'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay' is 'Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy with Trauma Survivors' by Susan Johnson, 2002, NY: Guilford Press. Guilford peer-reviews all its professional publications...I'd not known that. You might also want to take a look at the works of Peter Fonagy, which is another source of support and some excellent clinically related material. 68.66.160.228 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)DPeterson 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no. How can DDP be Johnson's "Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy"? You said you knew of peer-reviewed evidence for DDP in several peer-reviewed journals. That's what you need to cite now. Johnson's book may indeed be reliable (though it probably cites research reports in journals, which would be more appropriate to cite instead), but only about "Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy", not DDP. Plus, you didn't even give page references to where she mentions DDP in the book. And next, "the works of Peter Fonagy"?!? References, citations, titles, page numbers, please, to DDP. This amateurism is a waste of everyone's time. Larry Sarner 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See, there he goes again with personal attachks and raising irrelvant issues. The references are irrelevant to the fact that consensus has been reached and he apparently will not accept that. See 'Creating Capacity For Attachment' for all the evidence necessary and as a source to provide all the answers to all these unncessary questions. Dr. Johnson's work is excellent support of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as they are both based on the same principles, methods, and techniques. As other's have amply pointed out, it appears that nothing will satisfy him. DPeterson 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


"It appears that nothing will satisfy him" is a personal attack. Attack (or "attachks" [sic]) my arguments, not me.

I've already pointed out what will "satisfy" me. I am still awaiting a verifiable citation to peer-reviewed reports of research supporting DDP as claimed exists in the article and by others here. Not "Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy", not Fonagy's works, not Newton's Theory of Gravity, but DDP. Claiming that my very reasonable request is "irrelvant" [sic] is not an answer, but an evasion. Evading the Wiki policy requirement for verifiable information is treading on thin ice. Larry Sarner 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation already provided. Continued insistance that it has not could lead one to believe that nothing will satisfy int his regard. All the previously cited works provide professional peer-reviewed evidence based support as Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy uses the same principles, methods, techniques, and approaches...Again, see the references cited, for example, 'Creating Capacity For Attachment' DPeterson 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See comments in immediately preceding section. Still waiting for citations to reliable sources about research on DDP. (Oh, and by the way, Theraplay, too.) Creating Capacity For Attachment may have such references as a shortcut, but no one who has the book will cite what they are. Four days to go. Larry Sarner 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it "New Developments..." or "New Directions..."? In either case, year, volume, and page numbers would be appreciated. I do not find either title in my search. There is, of course, the tried-and-true publication "New Directions in Child Development Research", which has periodically done a lot of articles on attachment-related issues, but I assume you would have said that if you meant it.Really, refusing to provide information cannot be taken as evidence of good faith. Jean Mercer 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' 2006DPeterson 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Still can't find the year, volume, and page numbers? Larry Sarner 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Child and Adolescent Social Work The full citation is: Becker-Weidman, A., (2006). Treatment for children with trauma-attachment disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal on line edition and 13-1, April 2006 in print.

The other reference is 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' edited by Stanley M. Sturt, 2006, Nova Science. (Also a professional peer-reviewed publication as is CASWJ. 'Dr. Art 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)'

I resign

Hi everyone. As of today, I will dissociate myself from this case. In part, this is due to personal factors which currently preclude me from investing the time and effort that a mediation case requires, and also due to the lack of progress made in this dispute, despite my attempts at compromise. I did invest a lot of time, effort and energy in this case, and it pains me that sticky points have not yet been sorted out, although I remain hopeful. I thank everyone involved for what has generally been a civil and open dicussion, and I sincerely hope that a compromise can be achieved. Good luck everyone and perhaps I will encounter you later on my wiki-travels. Cheers, Brisvegas 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A summary?

Brisvegas has requested that someone else from WP:MEDCAB looks at this dispute, but I admit I'm a bit overwhelmed about what's going on... could someone sum up in maybe one or two sentences what specific bit of content in this article here is being disputed? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Many contributors feel that the Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy references remain in the also see section. One, or maybe two others (both members of the same group, ACT, do not want those references to remain. A compromise was proposed by a Wikipedia administrator --David.Mestel-- in which Theraplay would be deleted and Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray would remain. Seven contributors supported this. I appreciate your intervention. DPeterson 02:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is a rather inadequate description. The "See Also" section is just the current dispute that's raging. The "compromise" was not proposed by a Wiki administrator, but an advocate and it's only been accepted by the side for whom the advocate represents. As part of a general concern, which also encompasses the "See Also" dispute, I have asked for a citation to a reliable source for claims about Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy; my request has not been honored, though the other side claims that it has.

Alright, then. I will state what I have observed so far, then from looking over the current information. One interesting note (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the only editor involved in this dispute who has edited an article outside of John Bowlby and related articles is David.Mestel. Now, I don't mean to be rude or to insult anyone in any way, but a la WP:AUTO, I am just asking you all to recognize that if you are involved with an the disputed references, it is very possible that you have a subconscious bias towards one way. With that in mind, I feel that the best thing to do to get this forward would be to make decisions based solely on policy and third opinions. Would anyone object to getting unrelated people to toss in their opinions about this dispute? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed to articles outside of John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. It also appears that at least two others have as well. That being said, I think getting others to state their opinions would certainly be helpful and could not hurt. DPeterson 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
DPeterson's contribution record does not show any contributions outside related articles to attachment, and he came on board in the middle of this dispute, both just like all the others have, except for me (and only recently). The mediator had it sized up exactly right. Just wanted to set the record straight about that. Larry Sarner 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of disputes simmering on the back-burners. We haven't gotten much progress on the ones that are front and center at the moment, so the others haven't been able to come to the fore. I'm eager to "make decisions based solely on policy". I would very much welcome third opinions that are attempting to apply Wiki policy to each dispute we have here. I've wondered what other possible basis there could be for reasonable resolution. Thank you. Larry Sarner 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the issues is that sarner, along with mercer, is a leader of a fringe group, ACT, and appears to have a specific agenda. Repeated attempts to have sarner state all the issues and suggested changes and recommendations have fallen on deaf ears...in fact he has directly refused to state his intentions and his specific changes. Given this adamant refusal to compromise, build or accept consensus, or collaborate, it is very difficult to see how his dispute can be resolved without outside intervention. As I said, I have contributed beyond John Bowlby and Attachment Theory...if the net is cast more broadly to include treatment or child treatment, then it is true...but sarner has only contributed to an even narrow range of pages and topics, so does he propose to eliminate himself too? That would not make any sense. Regardless, getting others involved and having an outside group settle this would be good. DPeterson 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not an admin - just a fairly experienced user. Re the mediator's suggestion, I don't think that a third opinion would be appropriate here, since the dispute is not just between two parties, but Mr Sarner is entirely free to file an article RfC if he so wishes. --David.Mestel 16:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas, this is an ill-formed request with two problems. I had corrected them in a simple way earlier, but DPeterson reverted it, so I guess everything, even the statement of the dispute, involves a hassle. So here goes:

This is not "the dispute", this is "a dispute". It shouldn't be said that this issue is the only outstanding one. I haven't gotten to the others because we've gotten so tangled up on this one. Perhaps, if we can set an approach here on this one as to how to settle disputes here, it could move the other things right along.

Next, the two positions in this dispute are: one side (which includes me) wants to delete the Theraplay and DDP links from the See Also section. The other side wants to keep at least one, and the preferred one is DDP.

Could the mediator refactor his request along these lines, please?

Larry Sarner 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be so much easier to reach consensus by compromise and collaboration 'if sarner listed all his ideas.' However he has been steadfast in his refusal to do that. I would say there are actually three options. The one that sarner wants: removal of all, Leaving both references in place as the page had before sarner got involved, and the compromise offered, to only list Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. DPeterson 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is a fourth outcome, too. That is to only list Theraplay. The reaction to that outcome, when suggested before, revealed that the list-only-DDP is a sham as a "compromise". The real dispute over the See Also has just two real positions to choose from, which I think I fairly stated above. I think I can state the arguments supporting my position pretty succinctly and cogently when the mediator refactors his request. JonesRD's inputs to the existing choices exposes the flaws in the present request. Larry Sarner 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

YOur fourth option was never raised, but if you want to see that as an outcome, why don't you propose it and see if there is as much consensus for that proposal as for the 'Proposed Compromise.'DPeterson 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I raised it. I didn't support it, but I raised it -- to point out that there wasn't any good reason to choose DDP over Theraplay in the compromise and that the choice was made for other reasons than were being put forward. I was attempting to expose the sham of the "compromise". That was achieved when the comment shot back that the very idea was "absurd". Larry Sarner 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr Sarner, we prefer DDP to remain for the compromise because it is clearly more relevant to Bowlby. --David.Mestel 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Master Mestel, "clearly" is an unsupportable claim. Anyway, both are clearly irrelevant to a Bowlby encyclopedic article, just DDP is more so. Larry Sarner 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized something about the article. It appears that Theraplay and Dyadic developmental psychotherapy are already mentioned in the article, and then very shortly thereafter they are mentioned again. I looked over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, which states that 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. These two links are already mentioned several sentences above the see also section, as is attachment theory and attachment disorder. So, as a new compromise, based on Wikipedia:Guide to layout, since all of those contents are already mentioned directly above the see also section how would you feel if the see also section was trimmed down to only containing Reactive attachment disorder? Cowman109Talk 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the See Also section is also a quick way for the reader to discover significant things that the subject is connected with, and to give a brief idea of where to go from here if they wish to investigate the subject further. We would therefore restate our current compromise offer. --David.Mestel 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As a frequent reader, much less frequent editor, I agree with the previous point. When reading an article I look the the also see section as a quick reference point for links to related articles. This way I don't have to jump to a link as I am reading and get distracted...or have to search through an article to find the link. It is much more convenient, for me, to have links in that also see section and it does not add any real clutter to the page, so it would not be a distraction. JohnsonRon 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it would be best to trim it down to Attachment theory, but it was my compromise proposal that the five existing references be trimmed down to the three, though I felt only one (Attachment theory) was fully justifiable under Wiki style guidelines. However, you actually have just returned to Brivegas's proposal. I actually have no problem with it (though the others do), except for the notion that it is based on the idea that the appearance of these links obviates the need for them in the See Also. The problem for me is that the appearance of these links in the Legacy section is not a settled matter and if, after discussion, they left the Legacy section, they shouldn't re-appear in the See Also.
This addresses a fundamental point I have, in that the inclusion of these links in See Also should be decided as a matter of style, policy, and logic. So far, it has been debated as a matter to be decided by who has more votes on a given day.
Larry Sarner 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the comment that readers prefer all the links in the Also See Section is a valid one and supports the idea of leaving all the links there as they currently are. So, since each of those links is related to Bowlby and his work and his legacy, the way the page reads ought to stay as it is. The consensus is clear. Wikipedia works on developing consensus and it appears we really have that. The reasonsing of the various contribuors is consistent with Wikipedia style, policy, and logic. DPeterson 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning for each side of the dispute

Alright, then. The <current> dispute involves the inclusion of Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in the See also section. Just to make things clear, starting now, put all your accusations of eachother having an agenda behind you and instead focus on the issue. I have a firm stance on WP:IAR and WP:RPA, and if any further comments arise that don't serve a purpose in improving this article by focusing on just that - the article, then I will edit them out (it is a wiki after all). Follow Wikiquette at all times. I am going to see if I can get some other people to look at this case through a RFC. Just in the interest of bringing up any future users up to speed, could someone briefly explain the reasoning for each side of the argument? I don't want an essay, seriously :) Just a short, short summary. If it is an essay, I will try to refactor it to make it more reader-friendly. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the large block of discussion above this for readability. As I stated earlier, if there are accusations of someone doing something they shouldn't have, don't leave it here as that only makes the situation more tense, and instead leave me a note on my talk page (or e-mail to be private). I have also included the two other options for this dispute that were not listed earlier. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why to include both:
  1. Reason...These are both based on his work and are a direct result of his work developing Attachment theory. It may be appropriate to list in this Also See section various other methods based on his work, Circle of Security, DIR, Floor Time, etc. etc. Further more, listing two or three or four words here hardly detracts from the article and will allow readers to explore other links by finding those related links in one convenient place. JonesRD 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reason...It is easier for readers to find links in the Also See section than to have to root around in the article or to jump to other pages in the middle rather than have one convenient location for all links, which is the purpose of the Also See Section. DPeterson 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

'JonesRD 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)'There seemed to be a broad consensus to keep all references in the Also See section but for the sake of compromise and collaboration, for some to be deleted to appease one contributor. The compromise was offered primarily to appease that one. Keeping both references, or, again, for the sake of compromised and to appease one contributor, keep Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy but remove Theraplay would be a further compromise. Both articles are directly related to Bowlby and his work. The articles demonstrate that his work remains vital and active, especially among licensed mental health practitioners. Both, but especially Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are strongly rooted in the work of Bowlby. They show how Bowlby is a giant in the field of clinical mental health practice, psychology, and related disciplines.

  1. Many, most(?) pages have cross-references and links in the Also See section to related pages. This helps readers see relationships and threads that flow directly from the reference page.
  2. The links are closely related to Bowlby. Bowlby and his work directly led to the Development of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay of which I am less familiar. The two treatments are based on Bowlby's life's work and are excellent examples of how his work remain current and vital and contemporary.
  3. Many people would like to see how the man and his work are alive today and used practically and directly to help. How Bowlby's work has led to the development of practical applications and treatment is of interest to readers of Bowlby and his life.
  4. A direct link facilitates information gathering and shows the important links among closely related topics.
  5. Point 4 below argues for the inclusion of additional, not fewer, Also See links and references. I concur with that.
  6. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy has a direct link to Bowlby and his life's work. In all the published materials about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (Books, several professional peer-reviewed journal articles), Bowlby is prominanlty quoted and used as a source and resource. the work is closely based on Bowlby's work and tightly linked to his theory and the practical application of his theory to helping others.

JonesRD 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the above points by JonesRD. In addition,

  1. Many readers will want to be able to easily pursue links and not have to either search the article to find links or jump to other pages before they have completed the article.
  2. The references are all related to Bowlby as the treatments approaches directly flow from Bowlby's work.
  3. The references show how relevant Bowlbly's work remains and that he is a major figure in psychology and child welfare. Therefore, current applications of his writing are relevent.
  4. We are only talking about less than fifty letter in total, two lines.

'Dr. Art 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)'

  1. Reason...See above. However for the sake of ending this discussion, this may be an acceptable compromise. One "wild card" is what other changes Larry Sarner is proposing and how that may affect the article. JonesRD 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reason...See Above. Only for the sake of compromise. DPeterson 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(Larry Sarner 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)) When the counter-offer (misnomered "the compromise") was made to delete just one of the disputed two links, and that the deleted one be Theraplay, there was no basis for distinguishment between the two links so as to choose Theraplay for deletion over the other. However:

  1. It was argued by the first mediator that there was no mention of Bowlby in the Theraplay article, but a mention was subsequently added by someone supporting the counter-offer. The added mention paralleled the mention in the other disputed article when the first suggested the approach found in the counter-offer, eliminating that possible distinguishment (and illustrating the superficiality of the counter-offer).
  2. Theraplay is contemporaneous to Bowlby's development of attachment theory and had more opportunity to be directly informed by Bowlby himself.
  3. Both links were originally added by someone with a more direct financial interest in the other one than Theraplay. Eliminating the other one instead of Theraplay would serve Wiki's policy against spam.
  4. A "compromise" between parties is one where both parties actually give up something for the sake of agreement. The direct financial interest of the proposing party is actually served by removing the Theraplay link and especially keeping the other. (Big surprise, since his advocate proposed the "compromise".) If the approach was truly a "compromise", Theraplay would be retained and the other deleted.
'Dr. Art 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)'I find the reasoning above to be faulty.
  1. The accusation of financial interests is made without any support...If it is relevant, then I suppose Larry Sarner's financial interests and links to a "fringe" group Advocates for Children In Therapy and other interests would be relevant, perhaps.
  2. The accusation of financial interests is baseless and false...to say that all those who disagree with Larry Sarner and support leaving both links in place or at least one have financial interests is untrue and beside the point.
  3. Given the above logic, it would probably be best to just leave both links in place and add other related links as well. Dr. Art 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Why to delete both

Larry Sarner: There were reasonable objections to four of the five cross-references in the See Also section (to all but the Attachment theory article). It was felt that it could be a reasonable compromise to delete two of the four (DDP and Theraplay) -- those with the least (in fact, negligible) relationship to John Bowlby the man. The principal reasons for choosing these two in particular are:

  1. Wiki style suggests that cross-references are more for those who want to follow a thread of curiosity. As explained in #2 below, the subject matter of these articles is too remote from Bowlby to warrant a direct link. Moreover, the articles themselves have only passing references to Bowlby and do not throw any additional light on Bowlby (the man) that would warrant sending a reader curious about Bowlby directly to these particular articles.
  2. It is reasonable and natural to expect that curiosity might lead a reader to Attachment Theory and maybe (though less likely) to the Attachment Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder articles. If, arguendo, a reader might eventually be interested in DDP or Theraplay, it wouldn't be the case they would jump directly to those subjects or articles, but more probably should explore at least the Attachment Theory article beforehand. That article would give a context that could lead the reader to decide whether these are articles that might interest them. A direct link in the Bowlby article short-circuits that very desirable information-gathering and decision process.
  3. Additionally from the reasons given in #1 and #2 above, too many readers might be taken to articles (DDP and Theraplay) that would not actually interest them. Disrupted attachments, according to the DSM and child-development experts, are extremely uncommon. For reasons given in #4 below, the vast majority of readers interested in Bowlby's biography would have almost no interest in attachment pathology; the few who do would be best served by first going to Attachment theory (see discussion in #2) and follow any links found there. For the rest, it would be a service not to send them down a dead-end (for them).
  4. Focusing the cross-references so heavily on the pathology in an article on Bowlby is the tail wagging the dog. The Legacy section needs needs to be rewritten to give a better balance to Bowlby's true contributions to psychology and child development, which were not so much in the area of treatment of pathology but on a scientific understanding of normal infant/child attachment and emotional development. When such a rewrite is accomplished, the DDP and Theraplay links will appear even more obviously extraneous and misdirecting than they are now.
  5. It is not reliably established, especially through Wiki verifiability, that DDP and Theraplay have any direct relationship to Bowlby or his work, much less truly follow his theoretical principles and understanding. Including the links implies that such is actually the case, or worse, that Bowlby had something to do with them. That is a disservice to all readers of the Bowlby article (whether or not they visit the other articles), not to mention to the memory and achievements of Bowlby himself.
"It was felt" by you, Mr Sarner. That was not the consensus.--David Mestel(Talk) 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Very True. I believe one of the other contributors/editors also makes this point above. Dr. Art 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I will gladly discuss this with you, and consider improving my statement of these reasons, if you will move these added comments to another section for discussion, where they should have been made in the first place. Larry Sarner 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

References

The reference to the Child and Adolescent Social Work article was posted by Dr. Jean Sarner and so should be know to her associate and colleague, Larry Sarner. See Attachment Therapy. The full citation is: Becker-Weidman, A., (2006). Treatment for children with trauma-attachment disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal on line edition and 13-1, April 2006 in print.

The other reference is 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' edited by Stanley M. Sturt, 2006, Nova Science. (Also a professional peer-reviewed publication as is CASWJ.

I hope this clears up any confusion and can end the dialogue on this point. Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D.

Dr. Art 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

An "in-print" (or rather "in press") article is not a reliable source. It has to be published and referenceable where others can get a hold of it. The errors in the abstract of the online version shows that it is obviously a pre-publication version and can't count. (By the way, not even the TOC for the April issue of CASWJ has been revealed, so we just have your word for it that it is appearing at all.)
The New Developments book is so new that no libraries yet have it, but a look at the TOC online, as well as the article title, it looks like it is a review article, not a report of original research.
So, if you are hanging your hat on this references, well, the best that can be said is that jury is still out and DDP is still not been subjected to the judgment of the scientific community.
We can revisit this when the CASJW article is actually published. Until then, we cannot say that DDP is evidence-based (much less, that is accepted by the scientific community). Of course, you may have other "evidence", but you have yet to cite any.
Larry Sarner 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


As a licensed mental health professional, the article in considered published and in final form. What is on the web is identical with the print version. The 'New Developments in Child Abuse Research' is in my library. The article is not a review but a report of original research. In addition, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on sound clinical principles with an extensive history of proven effectiveness...So, as Dr. Becker-Weidman has stated, "I hope this clears up any confusion and can end the dialogue on this point." DPeterson 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As an author who has published in real peer-reviewed literature (medical and legal), I can say definitively that an article is not considered published until it is published. How can you say that what is on the web is identical with the print version when there is no print version? Moreover, given the errors in the abstract, it would be quite embarrassing for self-respecting editors to publish something in that condition.
Congratulations to your local library (I'm guessing you didn't mean your personal library) for being so quick on the uptake (and able to afford such a pricy volume), since the publisher (an upscale Author mill?) has barely released it (and maybe actually hasn't yet). Perhaps ILL can get it for us out here in the boonies. In the meantime, would you deign to answer a simple question about it? Since you've said that you've read both it and the putative CASWJ article, does the former piece report on the same research reported in the latter?
You still haven't justified a statement like DDP has "an extensive history of proven effectiveness". Justification would require extensive publishing about it over time in the peer-reviewed mental-health literature. Neither you nor any of the others have pointed to any, and a search of the authoritative PsychLit index shows that you won't be able to.
Obviously, Mr Becker-Weidman's poor citations has only added to the smoke surrounding the matter.
Larry Sarner 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There being two publications directly comparing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy to control groups in professioal peer-reviewed publications as well as the fact that the various methods and dimensions of this treatment have extensive histories of research behind them allow it to be stated taht this is an effective evidence-basesd treatment accepted by the professional community of licensed mental health professionals. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply, please see my comments above. Your statements are not based on reliable sources that you can and do cite. Moreover, your statement about professional acceptance is a self-serving exaggeration (or at least an unsupportable conclusion). As the APSAC report itself makes clear, DDP employs methods and dimensions that are 'condemned' by the professional community. Larry Sarner 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My reading of the APSAC reports indicates that you are misreading and misrepresenting the report. RalphLender 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd better read it again, then. Those two little words "age regression" are going to be the crux of any critique of the theory behind DDP. But folks, may I point out that the topic here is supposed to be John Bowlby? There's a separate page about attachment theory, where implications could be explored, and indeed would have to be, as the study of attachment has gone quite a bit beyond Bowlby's basic ideas.Jean Mercer 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"age-regression" is another term with ambig. meaning. If it means making seeking past lives or forcing children against their will to engage in behavior that is shaming...that is unacceptable. If it means treating a child at the child's developmental age, not chronological age, then it is standard acceptable clinical practice as any licensed mental health clinician would know. RalphLender 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The report, of course, used the term as DDP was using it, since in its wording condemning age-regression it used DDP as an example of what it was condemning. Even Mr Becker-Weidman had to admit here earlier that that was the case. Larry Sarner 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We, of course, are still waiting for a citation of a published reliable source for any of the claims that Mr Becker-Weidman has just made. A search of the PsychLit index suggests strongly that those claims are baseless. Larry Sarner 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources have been provided. Nova Science Press is a peer reviewed publication, as is CASWJ. And, of course, the treatment is based on many sound clinical principles with years of extensive outcome research supporting it. I will ask you here to please stop spreading false information. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy does not use "age regression" as a treatment approach. Nor do I believe

Dr. Becker-Weidman made any such comment that Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy advoctes the forcing of children or teens to engage in activities that are not age-appropriate. Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray does advocate using reliable and valid measures, such as the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II to assess a child's developmental age and treating the child accordingly, which is sound clinical practice. (See APA and/or NASW code of ethics or any basic counseling or treatment text, also Creating Capacity for Attachment, 2005). RalphLender

Debate on Also See section over now?

I assume since Larry Sarner has been banned from editing this page that the debate about the Also See section has ended and the section can stand as is, or with the addition of links as other contributors/editors see fit. JohnsonRon 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Obviously I haven't been banned. We're still under the "gentleman's agreement" not to change the page unilaterally while we're in mediation. Saying I've been banned is a calumny that you should retract immediately. Larry Sarner 17:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that JohnsonRon is correct. On your talk page there is the following statement which is not a "gentleman's agreement," but a ban:

Dear Larry: Thank you for your message. I apologise that you disagree with my decision. My duty as a Wikipedia administrator is, in part, to prevent contentious editing from occurring on articles; consequently, I have the authority to implement blocks and, in terms of general community precedent, specific bans - although, it is true, only article bans passed by the Arbitration Committee are binding as per policy, the alternate approach would have been to block you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing, which I could well have done (and have the specific authority to do) but thought it more reasonable merely to remove you from the Barrett article. I have done the same with OKO (talk • contribs) who is engaging in similar behaviour, as both your accounts show a specific fixation towards editing the Stephen Barrett article (in your case, that article and John Bowlby); Arbitration Committee precedent is that users who engage in disruptive, fixated editing on an article may be banned from editing that article (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, for instance). I have no interest in the dispute on the Stephen Barrett talk page, and pass no judgement over whether Levine2112's edits are either POV or NPOV as I have not looked into the user's contributions. I aver that my actions are not that of a terrorist, but an individual whose duty it is to ensure the mechanisms of Wikipedia are kept free of disruption. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarner" JonesRD 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, could you all please read what I've said above? Thanks. Cowman109Talk

Thank you, JonesRD, for cross-posting the above statement from my talk page. It was so helpful. The wording specifically says I am banned from editing the Steve Barrett article and only that article. You must know from reading it that it means I am not banned from editing this article. I found your action helps me to better assess what commentary is factually reliable. Larry Sarner 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "(in your case, that article and John Bowlby)" RalphLender

Sarner is not banned from editing this article (see User_talk:JonesRD. However, Sarner, could you please respond to the proposal I made earlier? I'll move it down here for readability. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. I want you all to take a step back and take a deep breath. We are arguing over links in the see also section. Looking at all this evidence, each link in the see also section has some relation to John Bowlby. There are many articles with many more links in the see also section of articles. I think some of us are interpreting it in the wrong way as a 'disservice' to John Bowlby, but the see also section is just a simple section to assist readers who want to, well, see more. :) I think some of us are wrongly interpreting the see also section as some sort of attack on John Bowlby, but it is not that at all. So, basically, the see also section is still very short and there is no need to trim it down further (which seems to be one of the main reasonings: that it's too long). I say this as a third party who is looking at this only from the standpoint of an uninvolved. It seems that the compromise offers are there solely for the point of compromise and there is no straightforward Wikipedia policy I can find that gives reasoning to remove them. Some readers will likely be interested in seeing what works have followed John Bowlby's work, and until the see also section becomes unreasonably long I don't think it is necessary to have this much of a dispute. Also, remember that if you are involved in some way to John Bowlby, remember you may be subconsciously biased in some way per WP:AUTO, so it is important to remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia and not to protect or harm one's image or legacy. So, how does that sound? Cowman109Talk 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite reasonable. That seems to capture the consensus of the majority of other editors. Thank you. DPeterson 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. That would be perfectly acceptable to me and my client. --David Mestel(Talk) 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be an acceptable resolution. RalphLender 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of connection for DDP and Theraplay

It is quite embarrassing for Wikipedia that Hughes and Jernberg are listed along with the likes of Lieberman, Greenspan, Dozier, Marvin, Schechter, and Osofsky. A search of PsychInfo, the index to psych literature, the latter 5 have dozens of publications (esp. research articles) to their credit, while Hughes has three non-research publications and Jernberg has none of any sort.

DDP and Theraplay are in reality pop psychology interventions with no significant empirical support, so they should be removed from the article. Also, unlike the others they do not have any academic pedigree connecting them even to Attachment Theory, much less to Bowlby himself. That's another reason to remove them.

Larry Sarner 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

These two approaches are based in the works of John Bowlby. They not "pop" psychology. Each have several publications and are reputable therapuetic treatment approaches. Each have a variety of articles and books clearly linking the approaches to Attachment Theory and John Bowlby. They should stay...however, if you feel a poll would be useful to see what the consensus is, that would be a reasonable approach to follow before begining to edit the page...last time you were here you did create quite a problem and, if I read the history right, were asked to stop editing this page for a while. so, lets proceed reasonably and slowly and try to build consensus this time, ok. SamDavidson 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to justify that statement that these two approaches are based on Bowlby. Of course they are pop psychology. There are no publications in the psychology literature on either one. The others in the list are quite well supported in the scientific corpus of psychological literature. If you want to build "consensus" about following Wiki policy, fine, but the two should not be in the list until it can be established that they come up to the standards by which the others are listed. Larry Sarner 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the citations and verifiable sources mentioned, you will see the references to Bowlby. Reference list includes ample references in the professional psychology literature to both approaches. Not being familiar with the field, you may not have noticed that. As an advoate and leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy I understand your bias and perspective. I urge you to leave this page alone as your edits have resulted in problems in the past. However, if you wish to make a change, I'd suggest you being a poll to see if others share your unique view. DPetersontalk 01:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No citations have been given for Theraplay. One of the citations previously given for DDP is unreliable and the other is unverifiable. Neither support the inclusion of DDP or Theraplay in a list of "evidence-based" therapy (as the NIMH defines it) or "mainstream" therapy. By Wiki policy (not uniquely my view), such unverified claims must not be in the article until someone cites a reliable and verifiable source that shows they can be included. Larry Sarner 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The See also section provide links to relevant Wikipedia articles. I see that you have a history of problems with this article and began a revert war previously and were "banned" for a while for editing this page. Please don't start again. JohnsonRon 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations and Sarner's previous disruptive edits

Well, I will add a citation for Theraplay in the reference section. The citations I see for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are reliable and clearly meet the Wikipedia criteria for verifiable as they are in professional peer-reviewed journals. These are verified entries and should remain. However, if you wish, you might seek mediation, since you are alone. I also notice that your initiated a similiar fight a while ago here and on other pages and were eventually banned for a period of time...or at least asked to stop editing as you were disruptive. Please don't start that again. SamDavidson 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see there already is a link in the Also see section, so nothing additional is needed here. SamDavidson 17:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The disruptions were all on the other side. The citations for DDP do not establish either it is "mainstream" or "evidence-based". I was not banned here. I am not alone, just don't have a lot of sock- or meat-puppets set up. The link in the See Also is advertising. If you add a citation for Theraplay, have it address the question as to whether it is "mainstream" and "evidence-based". Good luck. Larry Sarner 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You were previously banned from editing this page because of your disruptive editing and behavior. I know that you say you "voluntarily" agreed to take a break, but the fact remains that you were sanctioned on this page for your Uncivil behavior and for being disruptive. Please do not sart that again. If you want a change, propose it in a section and see what develops...or ask for mediation or some other Wikipedia standard for resolving disputes such as a poll, etc.. You seem to be the only one on these pages with a problem with this material. This issue was hashed out with your months ago...why start being disruptive again? JohnsonRon 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the ad hominem. I'm editing this for accuracy. The issue I'm raising was not hashed out previously. Truth isn't decided by a poll. I've stated my reasons for the minor edits I've made. The items are properly deleted. The only disruption is re-inserting without citation from reliable and verifiable sources; so far none have been forthcoming. You can request mediation if you want, but the disputed part of the article should remain as I edited it until that mediation is over. Larry Sarner 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact, not an ad hominem statement. A consensus occured and you were banned from continuing to make destructive changes...at least that's how I read the talk page here and the related Admin pages. The material is on this page, so it is up to you to explain why it should be deleted and to see if you can convince others to agree with you (building consensus it is called); not bully other editors by contining to unilaterally make changes that are unsupported and acting in a disruptive and provocative manner. Wikipedia is built on consensus, not bully actions or brute force. So, in the interestes of building consensus, why don't you suggest what you want and see if anyone agrees with you and try to build consensus...or if you don't like that dispute resolution process, try a poll, or if you don't like that dispute resolution process, try mediation, as that would also be an appropriate step.JohnsonRon 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


I disagree completely with your historical revisionism -- here and in the article. I have already given my reasons and asked for verification from acceptable sources for inclusion of the disputed entries in the list. No one has responded in the least with citations supporting the inclusions. Without those supporting citations, they should be removed per Wiki policy. Why go further when this elementary level has not been met? Larry Sarner 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being bully by deleting material. this issue was discussed and resolved previously. Your reasons for raising this issue again continue to result in no support as they did the last time you started an edit/revert war and were sanctioned. Try to follow Wikkipedia policy regarding resolving disputes by considering: taking a poll, engaging in mediation, arbitration, etc. Merely starting an edit and revert war, as you did on the this page, which cause you to be sanctioned, is not constructive. The two treatment modalities are relevant as are the others listed as examples of Bowlby's theory in practice and are his legacy. Citations are there for all the listed treatments. Please stop being a bully here...that is what got you sanctioned last time you did this. Instead, follow Wikipedia dispute resolution policy. JohnsonRon 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarner Has begun to Violate Wikipedia practices as he did previously on this article

Sarner has begin to bully other editors on this page as he did in the past and was sanctioned for. It would be good if other editors would become involved. He has refused to engage in Wikipedia dispute resolution practices, as he refused in the past (see this talk page above for history and the related admin pages where he has sanctioned (asked to not edit this page). I have asked him to Please stop being bully by deleting material, but he refuses. The issue he is raising is the same one he was involved in last time and was sanctioned for. In the spirit of dispute resolution, I invite others to comment here on this as a first step in dispute resolution. JohnsonRon 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And these are on the page...just go to the relevant Wikipedia articles. To repeat the previous editors comments regarding your bullying and continued (from several months ago) destructive editing practices that were sanctioned:
Sarner has begin to bully other editors on this page as he did in the past and was sanctioned for. It would be good if other editors would become involved. He has refused to engage in Wikipedia dispute resolution practices, as he refused in the past (see this talk page above for history and the related admin pages where he has sanctioned (asked to not edit this page). I have asked him to Please stop being bully by deleting material, but he refuses. The issue he is raising is the same one he was involved in last time and was sanctioned for. In the spirit of dispute resolution, I invite others to comment here on this as a first step in dispute resolution.
DPetersontalk 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to get a verifiable and reliable citation for the claims that DDP and Theraplay are "mainstream" and "evidence-based". All I've gotten in response are personal attacks and insistence on conducting polls. The way to reach "consensus" is to follow Wiki policy. Either there are citations to establish the claims or the entries must be considered vanity mentions. All other responses are non sequiturs. Vanity mentions should not be permitted to remain in the article, per Wiki policy. It is not disruptive to Wiki to insist upon policy being followed. Larry Sarner 06:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is nothing in the previous comments that addresses the "mainstream" or other issues. Nor is there anything in the immediately preceding comments. I wouldn't want to engage in a senseless revert war. Nor do I want to be a "bully" by deleting material that properly belongs in the article. Nor do I engage in name-calling or historical revisionism. I'm just a simple editor who is a belief in the soundness of Wiki policy and a good-faith desire to improve this article. Therefore, let me try something else to achieve what I think is needed here. I am putting in a {{Fact}} tag for the two questionable therapies. I would remind everyone that there are Wiki rules about the proper removal of such tags. There are also standards for reliability and [[WP:V|verifiability] of the citations required to satisfy the rules, and for the sources cited actually addressing the principal claim at issue, namely that these are "reliably tested techniques which were not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development" done by "established researchers or academics". If no satisfactory citations are brought after a reasonable period of time, I will feel justified and empowered to remove the two therapies in question. Larry Sarner 05:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles are the sources you are seeking for those two treatments just like they are the sources for the other treatments mentioned in the section. You were banned from this page once....please assume good faith and try to build consensus or engage in appropriate Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. The Wikipedia articles cited and the references on those pages meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable. You may disagree and not like what you read, but the material is still appropriate as it is relevent as many other editors also seem to feel. RalphLendertalk 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be a source for information in other articles. Reliable Sources Each has to stand on its own. Moreover, the information I am have requested is not in those articles. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have compromised and used the {{Fact}} tag to give both sides a chance to discuss the issue here. If you have no intention of discussing the disagreement here, but just reverting my edits wholesale, then I am forced to assume that you have no answer for my request -- which doesn't surprise me. (By the way, why do you and the others keep using links like "good faith" and "verifiable" which lead to Wiki articles that have nothing to do with the price of tea in China? Larry Sarner 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Each article cites verifiable and reliable sources. DPetersontalk 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

'WARNINGS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON YOUR TALK PAGE' Please stop vandalizing this page by your acts of reverting to versions that do not represent consensus. As you have been urged to do, please follow Wikipedia practices and procedures regarding disputes and stop trying to bully everyone. This is what got you blocked from the Bowlby article in the past. DPetersontalk 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that the same type of actions by Sarner are occuring again here...the actions that led to his being blocked at one point from editing this page. I encourage Sarner to follow dispute resolution procedures and consider the suggestion of other editors to build consensus here.MarkWood 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view and a suggestion

I came to this page through Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. First, I ask everyone to stop referring to the current edit war as vandalism or bullying. Inflammatory words tend to turn up the heat on a disagreement. This is a content dispute. I don't have enough specialized knowledge of the field to know whether this is a reasonable content dispute, but a new guideline called Wikipedia:Disruptive editing might apply here. I suggest you open a request for comment on the article and each side summarize the dispute in a section for visitors. Best wishes, Durova 01:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for the reference to Disruptive Editing. I also found Tendentious Editing had great application here. Larry Sarner 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do hope you carefully read both documents and consider adhering to those and to the Wikipedia procedures for dispute resolution. MarkWood 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As I indicated above, I have studied both. I am sanguine about my own actions since resuming editing after taking a prolonged break. They appear to me to be consistent with the dispute resolution process outlined there and in Dispute Resolution. They certainly aren't "vandalism". Larry Sarner 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

May I comment further? I was one of the core editors who wrote the WP:DE guideline in order to streamline resolution of certain types of content disputes. A key step in doing that is to find a consensus of impartial editors - and the easiest way to sound uninvolved editors for their opinions is WP:RFC. Regards, Durova 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. As I read this talk page and the others where similiar disputes have occurred, that is all the various editors want...just adhere to the procedure for dispute resolution and try to build agreement. RalphLendertalk 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The key, of course, is to get some impartial editors to opine on the content of this and other pages and do away with this talk about "vandalism" on the part of anyone who disagrees with the other side. There has been a history, here and elsewhere, of new editors (no Wiki history) popping up and echoing the other side in order to establish a phony "consensus", in effect just voting rather than discussing. We could use some experienced, uninvolved editors here to keep an eye toward dispute resolution that is congruent with Wiki's interests (and policy). Larry Sarner 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith That will go along way to building consensus. You were previously blocked for provocative uncivil behavior...let's try to avoid that this time (same topic that caused the problem last time). RalphLendertalk 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry, even when referred to in a roundabout manner, are a serious matter. From my reading of the page history the old disputes happened several months ago. It's better to treat such matters as water under the bridge and (if some new question crops up) request a checkuser. Durova 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the behavior that resulted in Sarner's being blocked here previously. I hope you can keep this dialogue civil. I've been on the other end of Sarner's uncivil remarks and really do not appreciate it, but I can assume good faith and would like to see Sarner agree to participate in our dispute resolution procedures. JonesRDtalk 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether these people are all the same person or not, they show no independence of opinion or editing activity, and seem to have come on to Wiki for the express purpose of engaging on this or related articles. I was above just expressing the hope that some other editors, with some impartiality and real history of Wiki editing on other topics, might get involved. I would ask editor Durova if, in her review of this talk page if my discussions here lately have been uncivil. I have really tried to stick to the issue(s). Larry Sarner 22:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarner's use of a Sockpuppet -- finding of vandalism

Regarding Sarner's use of a sockpuppet, the finding was The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation was a finding of vandalism: "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner RalphLendertalk 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is inaccurate and wholly inappropriate. The RFCU was declined and there was no endorsement of the vandalism allegations. WP:RFCU would not make that conclusion. Most have you have repeated this accusation across several pages, despite the fact that I've pointed out the error. It constitutes a personal attack and it is highly counter-productive. shotwell 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The finding was, "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" RalphLendertalk 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
However, if you think it inaccurate to state that the finding of, "please list diffs of vandalism" means a finding of vanaldism, what do you believe that means? It is not a personal attack...I am stating what was found and what I believe it means...if you think it means something else, please exaplain/correct me; that would be fine. I do know that Mr. Sarner has a history of problem behavior on this article and elsewhere. If I've mis-interpreted the finding, I will stand corrected. RalphLendertalk 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Since this does not concern Bowlby, I will reply on your talk page. shotwell 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MAKE SUGGESTED EDITS HERE FOR CONSENSUS

I urge you to make proposed changes here for community discussion rather than continuing to revert and change what represented a broad consensus. This way you can detail what you propose to add, delete, and change and other editors can comment and we can build another consensus. JonesRDtalk 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's one approach, but it sounds an awful lot like having to clear changes ahead of time, or "de facto" (non-administrator) protection. Wiki is supposed to be an open encyclopedia. No one person or group has ownership of an article. I've seen it said on Wiki, "If you don't want what you write mercilessly edited, don't write it here". How about this approach, instead: If anyone disputes something that has been added by another editor, put a [dubious ] tag next to it, open up a section on this talk page and discuss it. The [dubious ] tag stays up until a genuine consensus (or other dispute resolution) is reached. I think the template for such a tag was created just for situations like this. Larry Sarner 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See, there you go again, Sarner, creating needless conflict and stiffling attempts to build consensus. The page represented a consensus developed in the past, after you were blocked for a while. To build another consensus, you should participate in a colloaborative effort to build consensus and not continue to be uncivil and rever other's changes and ignore the consensus on this page. Your edits have been "mercilessly edited" because no one agrees with you. However, I am willing to engage with you in a reasoned dialogue focused on building agreement. Changes not accepted are reverted because you are pushing a very limited and unaccepted view. But, I think we can find agreement if you will follow Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution. DPetersontalk 23:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it that's a no to my suggestion (which was, I think, exactly in line with Wiki practices, guidelines, and policy -- why else would Wiki create such templates). Sigh. Larry Sarner 00:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

'I urge you to make proposed changes' here for community discussion rather than continuing to revert and change what represented a broad consensus. This way you can detail what you propose to add, delete, and change and other editors can comment and we can build another consensus. 'Please stop being contentious' and creating conflict rather than building coneensus through collaboration as I keep trying to do. DPetersontalk 00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo the above: As recommended by several other editors, you have been asked to stop reverting from the consensus version to your own. Since you've rejected taking a poll and various other Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures; let me suggest another option. Instead of merely reverting to your version and deleting material that others find acceptable, how about if you just 'ADD' what you think would improve the article first, get a consensus on that and then begin discussions about what you think should be chnaged or delted and build consensus for that?RalphLendertalk 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of sincerity in your making this "option". I did exactly what you suggested over an hour before you posted this. I even summarized it as "restoring meat-axed edits". [3] And it was you who reverted those edits! I've given you 24 hours and more to catch yourself and voluntarily back off your edit, but you haven't. "R.D. Jones" had reverted similar edits in the past. So, I'll go back to an earlier attempt -- put in my additions, also add very proper {Dubious} tag in good faith, and see what you and the others from Buffalo decide to do to my good-faith efforts at editing on Wikipedia. Larry Sarner 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sarner, this is the type of behavior (uncivil and in violation of wikipedia assume good faith) that led to your previoulsy being blocked on this page. Please follow RalphLender's suggestions. They are good and will lead to consensus, if you will be collaborative and cooperative instead of continually reverting and engaging in behavior that increases the problems. Please adhere to Wikipedia dispute resolution policies. JonesRDtalk 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious assertions

Two "therapies" have been listed in this article that I tagged as disputed to be in a list of "approaches us[ing] reliably tested and reviewed techniques which were not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development" and have been developed by established researchers and academics. These are: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy" (DDP) and "Theraplay".

The DDP article itself is under heavy dispute and until it is resolved there, it should not be listed here without a Dispute tag.

Theraplay is Pop psychology with absolutely no scientific evidentiary basis, and so also should not be included. For now, I've just tagged it to give an opportunity to others to provide that scientific evidentiary basis from reliable and verifiable sources.

Larry Sarner 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed and all editors with the exception of Sarner, have found the material adequate and appropriate. He raised this issue in the past and, just as now, was told that he should stop as the material is very salient. JohnsonRon 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all, just about six. The information is an unneeded advert for very obscure therapies. Neither has a solid evidential basis as we are discussing on the DDP article. I'll place an npov tag on that section until the dispute is resolved because DDP and theraplay are being given undue weight. Please do not remove the tag unless the dipute is settled. Such tags are a way to prevent edit wars. shotwell 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The information is identical to the information about other treatments derived from Bowlby's work. There is a clear evidential basis here...you and your colleague, Sarner, just don't agree. He was previouly blocked here for his conduct on this very same issue!! There really is not dispute...just one argumentative, or two acting as one, editor. But, in the interests of consensus, I will start a new section with a poll about your tag. SamDavidson 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, editors should try to document the claim that there is "a clear evidential basis here". Of course I don't agree...since the documentation has never been presented. That's the reason for the "dubious" tags, which some editor(s) keep violating guidelines by removing. I've also added a "citation-needed" for the claim that Richard Bowlby is continuing his father's work. Some editor should give a reliable and verifiable source for this claim. To my knowledge, he is neither trained, degreed, or published in this area. Larry Sarner 06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is one citation supporting the statement that Richard Bowlby is continuing his father's work: http://www.attachmentnetwork.org/news.html Shall I add that? If it will not increase disagreement, I will add this. Please advise. DPetersontalk 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will credit you with an attempt. The videotape doesn't meet Wiki's requirements for reliable since the tape is self-published. Also, the webpage you cite is just advertising for the tape and doesn't specifically address the concerns that Bowlby is neither trained, degreed, or published in this area. Do you have something better in that regard? Larry Sarner 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are too many to list...just do a Google search on his name...but a few examples?

  1. http://www.playtherapy.org/conferences/canmore05FullProgram.htm
  2. http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/nyac/0_bowlby_ainsworth_dinner/Dinner_rb.html
  3. http://www.attachmentparenting.org/confrichardbowlby.pdf
  4. http://www.attachmentparenting.org/artnews04.shtml

And many many more examples of him carrying on his father's work... RalphLendertalk 19:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, these don't seem to do it, either. In fact, they seem to be disproving the case. The first two of the above links are just other adverts, though the second mentions that his actual profession is a "medical photographer" and he is spending his time exploring ways to make his father's insights "more available". The biographical information in the third link says Sir Richard "gives introductory talks on attachment and draws on personal insights into how his father assembled the research information in developing Attachment theory," which is not exactly "carrying on his father's work..."; indeed, additional comments say he is spending his retirement "studying" his father's work. This is echoed in the fourth link which announces his joining a board of directors, which announcement doesn't give one single example of a personal achievement of his own. If this is the best that can be done, I think it's pretty much established that the present statement about Sir Richard is erroneous, or at best misleading. Perhaps an editor who feels compelled to have a comment about the son's involvement can come up with a better description of the son's true role. I would do it, but it would get reverted I'm sure if I made any statement other than the untruthful "carrying on his father's work". Larry Sarner 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the claim regards a living person, there needs to be an especially reliable source. Self-published web materials don't count. shotwell 21:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, the citations above are not sel-published and so meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiable and reliable source. RalphLendertalk 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Engage in Constructive action consistent with Wikipedia Policy

As previously recommended, merely reverting and deleting material you don't like is not constructive. It would be better to add material and make suggestions here for what you feel should be deleted or changed so that agreement can be achieved. DPetersontalk 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been deleting any material. You and the others have. If you were sincere in these statements, you would stop your deletions of the tags and produce the citations needed to verify the dubious material you have included. Larry Sarner 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

'POLL ON KEEPING OR DELTING POV TAG IN LEGACY SECTION

While this issue has been argued and settled previously, it has been raised again by Sarner and Shotwell. Please put your comments here for this poll about keeping or deletingg the POV Tag in the legacy section.

'KEEP POV TAG'

  1. _

'DELETE POV TAG'

  1. 'Yes' The issue has been discussed and is not a POV issue. The material is relevant since Bowlby's legacy is how his work is being used by variious professionals.
  2. Yes. Shotwell did the same thing on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay page. The only POV I see here is his and Sarner's POV. The listing in the Legacy section cearly meet the Wikipedia policy and standard for NPOV
  3. The tag is not appropriate. This is not a POV issue. In fact, the statements are NPOV and all the treatments listed are done in a similiar manner. MarkWood 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. DPetersontalk 18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

'OTHER COMMENTS'

  1. _

VIOLATION OF 3RR RULE

Sarner has violated the 3RR. A notice has been placed on his page and with the appropriate administrative section. RalphLendertalk 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The final finding was "No Violation". [4] Larry Sarner 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In a related matter: The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation was a finding of vandalism: "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner RalphLendertalk 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of dispute regarding Legacy Section

It appears that the dispute regarding this section is over (see Mediation page for discussion) and the section is accepted as is. JohnsonRon 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy In addtion the previous mediation page came to the same conclusion JohnsonRon 20:40, 8 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! RalphLendertalk 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 remains as is and the legacy section stays as written. That is a fine resolution that appears to represent consensus. JonesRDtalk 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, this is fine with meMarkWood 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly question perhaps

Hi:

I was wondering whether this might help improve the biography section by closing the circle in the biography section, but did he ever meet up with his nanny again later in life?

AG

Addendum

This editor put the following in the article. I think it belongs here. If I am wrong, please replace it. I also left a note on the editor's talk page.

Addendum

It would be quite wrong for a biography of Professor Bowlby not to mention the theory of 'maternal deprivation' for which he received great publicity after the Second World War. This theory was that small children would be 'damaged' by separation from their mothers. At the time this theory was controversial with colleagues but proved popular with the public especially returning servicemen who needed jobs, in the factories and in the fields, taken up by women.

Subsequent research proved that children were not damaged in the way described by Bowlby. Nevertheless there is still great confusion regarding his contribution to child psychiatry and his work is regularly quoted in the press to support mothers staying at home with their children.

Those reading this biography should note that it was only later that biographers have 'air brushed' out the reference to 'maternal deprivation' and substituted the 'attachment theory'. In reality Professor Bowlby was only one of a number of academics working in this field. It was for the theory of 'maternal deprivation' that he made his initial reputation.

89.243.149.206 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

JonesRDtalk 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 89.243.141.101 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the discussion when I made the addendum.

Please let me say in answer to the mediators suggestions that any article on Bowlby would be inaccurate if it did not mention the theory of 'maternal deprivation'. This theory has had a tremendous impact on our thinking about child care and it would be negligent of Wikipedia to ignore it altogether. The fact that, if the mediator believes, the theory is contentious or 'wrong' given subsequent studies should be explained. Nevertheless 'maternal deprivation' must be mentioned in any biography, worth its salt, about John Bowlby.

(I am the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and I have produced a video clip on 'Bonding - the attachment theory' on YouTube).

Kingsley Miller 89.243.141.101 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting that what you wrote read more like a talk page comment than an addition to the article. If you want to edit the article, with citations, you are certainly welcome to do so. Also, you might want to register so you have a user name. DPetersontalk 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson,

Thank you for your kind comment which is greatly appreciated. Would you join me in my assertion to the EDITOR that any biography of John Bowlby is next to worthless if it omits any reference to the phrase 'maternal deprivation'?

Anybody reading such a biography would expect to see such a reference and ask themself why it has not been included?

My addendum is only a suggestion but I believe something MUST be included.

Kingsley Miller

(PS; I have just completed my video clip called 'The work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed' which I have uploaded to YouTube.)89.242.153.102 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Further;re 'maternal deprivation'

I see DPeterson was quick to amend my entry to the John Bowlby Biography but not so quick to support my question on this talk page.

The omission of the phrase 'maternal deprivation' from Bowlby's biography is negligent. As I mentioned above it suggests an unjustified bias.

I have consulted DPeterson's USER PAGE and see he lists as one of his interests as 'Sir John Bowlby'. But Bowlby was never made a member of the peerage. He was plain Dr. or Professor Bowlby.Moving the ADDENDUM from the original biography and then not replying to the above question suggests he has an interest in seeing Bowlby's biography air brushed in exactly the way described in my original entry.

The biography needs to be amended to include the phrase 'maternal deprivation'. In the absence of a clearer explanation I shall return the original ADDENDUM to be changed as appropriate.

Kingsley Miller kip 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Title "Sir"

John Bowlby was never knighted by his sovereign. Neither did he succeed to his father's baronetcy, where the title "Sir" attaches. As a result, it is improper to prefix "Sir" to his name. Larry Sarner 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good observation. It is his son, Richard who has the title. DPetersontalk 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maternal Deprivation

Use of the phrase 'maternal deprivation'kip 09:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am using the above entries to make the substantive point regarding my original point in the proposed ADDENDUM.

Why do neither of the people above comment on the substantive issue regarding 'maternal deprivation'?

Because it is easy to check the validity of the fact about his eligibility regarding his peerage. It is not so easy to understand the point about 'maternal deprivation'.

(The following is also intended to help any MEDIATOR or EDITOR make his mind up regarding the substantive issue).

From what I can see about the interventions DPeterson is one of those who believe Bowlby found a link between the relationship between mother and children. Because he can see this with his own eyes he believes Bowlby was a great man to put his ideas on paper in the 'attachment theory'.

But this is to rewrite history. Bowlby did indeed think there was something unique about a mothers relationship with her children which influenced UK government social policy after WW2. The implications of this research is still with us today in the way society treats mothers as opposed to fathers.

It took a greater man than Bowlby to come along and stop the roller coaster. His name is Professor Sir Michael Rutter. He wrote 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' in which he explains that fathers bond in exactly the same way as mothers with their children and thus can fulfill the role of primary care giver.

Why is Rutter greater than Bowlby?

Bowlby went with the flow. He went along with what his eyes told him and arrived at the theory of 'maternal deprivation'.

Rutter went against the flow. Machiavelli's 'The Prince' states that 'It is the hardest thing in the World to go against the status quo'. This is what Rutter achieved in his seminal work 'Maternal deprivation Reassessed'.

Why have I taken the trouble to write this?

Firstly, because I have now seen the page on 'Attachment Theory'. This is really an apology for Bowlby's theory of 'maternal deprivation' and even includes a photo of mother and child.

Secondly, because I believe the entries about Bowlby and this theory do not tell the truth. They are inaccurate in a way which is misleading and dangerous.

Thirdly, I respect the work of Wikipedia.

Kingsley Millerkip 09:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It might just be because he lived in a society that took it for granted that the care of babies/small children was womens work. Indeed women had to struggle to be allowed to do anything else. A man left with babies on his hands on those days who didn't get a female to care for them would have been considered very odd indeed and also to be not doing the right thing by his babies. Bowlby would have struggled in the 50's to find a large enough sample of male primary carers of infants. That would not now be the case. Theories of maternal deprivation were very useful for the government just after the war as it justified their closure of nurseries, forcing women out of work ion oder to create jobs for returning troops.Fainites 12:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that Kingsley Miller write up a new section for this article (and maybe the one on Attachment theory as well) entitled "Maternal Deprivation" and insert it. You should use an "encyclopedic" style in your article writing (sometimes called "neutral point of view", but that term is abused by a lot of editors in Wikipedia). You should cite the sources, per WP:RS. But I recommend, in order to preserve the article's readability, you do the actual justifications/citations here on this talk page instead of in the article itself. I, for one, am very interested in seeing what you come up with! Larry Sarner 13:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry,

I am extremely grateful for your interjection on this point as well as the previous. You are quite right in what you say about the page on the 'attachment theory'. Instead of standing alone, as it should do, it reads more like a justification for Bowlby's mistake - for that is what 'maternal deprivation' was. As far as child development is concerned these pages from Wikipedia are extremely important and it seems to me that they are based on the politically correct rather than the facts.

Anyway I am a great believer in Wikipedia and sometime ago I even tried to e-mail the editors to say what a good job they do. So you will understand how it hurts me to see this section so out of kilter with the rest of the encyclopaedia.

The history of events were thus;

1.Bowlby did good work about the damaging effect of institutionalized care on children after WW2. 2.The World Health Organization asked him to do a report, I guess, expecting him to follow the same lines. 3.Instead he wrote 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' 1951 4.This caused an academic backlash (seriously) because none of his peers agreed with him and the WHO published another document with these criticisms. 5.The rest of his career was spent justifying his mistake. 6.Firstly by examining his methodology hence the interest in psychoanalysis. 7.Secondly by diffusing the theory of 'maternal deprivation' into the attachment theory. The thrust of his reputation came from 'maternal deprivation' and by changing this to 'attachment theory' he has confused many members of the general public. I am not joking but professionals still refer to 'maternal deprivation' as if it is proven

I have tried to give you more of the background. The page on Michael Rutter will also need to be changed - He is Professor Sir Michael Rutter. As previously mentioned he took apart the theory of 'maternal deprivation' in his book 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'. His ability to think outside the box has made him an internationally recognized authority on most aspects of 'children's welfare'.

I would like to have a bash at writing these pages again in the style suggested by Larry. In the meantime Wikipedia has made a terrible error in seeming to condone the work of Bowlby and by association his theory. If the EDITOR or MEDIATOR wish to contact me they can do so via my e-mail address. But the comments on these pages cannot go unanswered and I have now completed a second video clip on YouTube called, 'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby' which you may also find via my website www.evenToddlersNeedFathers.com. Any comments are appreciated.

Once again thank you to Larry

kip kip 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, kip, the way to do it is to just go at it and write the section. There is no one who is "the" editor for the article, and there is no mediation pending on either this article or Attachment theory. So it's open for just anyone to write what they will. You don't need anyone's permission, but as someone who has the scars to prove it, there are people around who may feel they own the article and may fight with you over anything said that they don't like. That's why you need to make sure that you can be back up what you write with sources conforming to Wikipedia's standards for reliable source material. You can write it and post it here on the talk page for comment, but following Wiki's leadership's notions about bold editing, I happen to think it's better just to wade in and post your changes directly to the article, then let things go from there. Good luck! Larry Sarner 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you try attachment theory Kip more than this one which is supposed to be a biography. More room there for discussion about the pro's and con's of attachment theory/provenance thereof/criticism of etc. Fainites 23:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Just seen Sarners already suggested that. Fainites 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't made exactly that suggestion, but I endorse it. This is supposed to be a biography, and maybe we can someday get it back to that. See you over on attachment theory, kip. Larry Sarner 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All,

Can I thank everybody for their kind interest. As you can see I have now posted 2 video clips on YouTube about the work of John Bowlby. I am going to do further research into the above topics so I do not have any set time frame but I very much appreciate the advice I have been given,

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller kip 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave the ADDENDUM on 'Maternal Deprivation' alone!

All,

I have looked at the page again and reinserted the ADDENDUM in the light of the above comments.

I note that JonesRD has previously removed the ADDENDUM for 'undue weight'. But this is because he believes the page belongs to him. Bowlby made his reputation from the theory of 'maternal deprivation'. This did not provide the 'lead' for other theorists at the time but was roundly condemned by his peers. In fact it created an academic backlash and the World Health Organisation published another report to counter his own. This Wikipedia biography provides an idealised account of his work which should not be allowed to stand. Bowlby is not remembered primarily for his contribution to psychoanalysis and he did not invent the 'attachment theory'.

He is remembered for saying that small children love their mothers. But I could tell you that and I would not expect a page on Wikipidea for saying so.

Leave the ADDENDUM alone unless you want to reply to these criticisms first!

Kingsley Miller kip 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the "addendum" because it is not in encyclopedia format. It is more of a talk page comment. Personal research or WP:OR and signining additions is not the format. In addition, citations or sources will need to be cited to support your comments, many of which read like opinions. To move them out of the realm of opinions, you need a secondary source. DPetersontalk 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kip, articles not should make self-references; this is why your addendum has been moved to the talk page. Imagine reading a Britannica article and finding a similar addendum at the end. There is nothing wrong with writing about maternal deprivation so long as it is written in the tone one would expect of an encyclopedia. Maybe the Manual of Style would be helpful to you. If you need a hand, leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, shotwell 06:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All,

Just want to say what a fine bunch you all are!

I think my particular way forward is to write a NEW page on 'maternal deprivation' and to completely update the existing page on Prof Sir Michael Rutter.

I appreciate the comments and I will be coming back to you for more advice.

Many thanks,

kip kip 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bowlby's Nemisis

ALL

Just to let those interested know I made a start on updating PSM Rutter's biography only to find that it had been changed again.

I guess to some people PSM Rutter is the nemisis of Dr Bowlby because of his seminal work 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'. In the interests of others who wish to know more about chilkd psychology I would ask those more capable than me to protect the little work I have done in revising PSM Rutter's biography to make it more readable and more accurate.

Many thanks,

kip 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's misleading to represent Bowlby as having suffered unusual separations or neglect by caregivers. Within the context of his social class, his experiences were normative. I've altered the Background material to clarify this a bit.Jean Mercer 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten.Fainites barley 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom.[5] Fainites barley 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson. Fainites barley 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethology and evolutionary concepts

At this moment, the article fails to acknowledge the highly important contributions of ethologists such as Niko Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz to the development of attachment theory, nor does it deal fully with Bowlby's interest in evolution, including his biography of Charles Darwin. Jean Mercer 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, attachment theory is primarily an evolutionary theory. Fainites barley 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


I have added a paragraph on the influence of ethology on Bowlby's thinking, based on research at Leiden University. I have also added a reference to an (in press) paper on the scientific influence of Harry Harlow.Frakn (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Attachment Rewritten

I have criticised this page in the past and returned to find it amended for the better.

I gave up because of the odds against me and I am glad to see I am not the only person with reservations.

I understand the 'Attachment' page is being rewritten which is a good thing.

However I would like it noted that the attachment theory was NOT invented by Dr Bowlby.

He was responsible for the theory of Maternal Deprivation which he expounded in 1951.

As you will see from the page I have created this theory drew a great deal of criticism.

There was no easy progression from this theory to the attachment theory.

Because of the criticism he received he was forced to go away and rethink his ideas.

It was not until late in the 1960's that we get his next serious work which was about attachment BUT he did not invent this theory. He turned to it. This explains the gap in his publications from 1953 to 1969.

He could see that he had made a MISTAKE and had to come back with something else. It is to his eterenal discredit or his pride that he never admitted his mistake!

It is very easy to see the consequences of his MISTAKE by looking at some of the comments about his work on the www.

Many people still believe maternal deprivation and the attachment theory are the same.

If it would help I can provide a list of the significant errors made by Bowlby's theory of MD taken from, Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect.

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


All,

Got to say this page is much more balanced than when I originally joined.

Credit to 'editors'.

Kingsley Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.200.13 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)