Ralph, I'd be glad to help you with your request for advocacy. Here are my preferences, but please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns.
I think that's plenty. If it were up to me, I would rewrite the "Legacy" section so that it clearly attributed comments to sources, something like the following:
Do you want to try to write something up that cites to specific pages of a couple articles? If you want, I can create a subpage here for where we can develop a draft. Thanks, TheronJ 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
These approaches used tested techniques which were not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development. In addition, nearly all mainstream approaches for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment attachment disorder use attachment theory.' RalphLender talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It now appears that Sarner has disengage and User:shotwell and User:StokerAce have taken up the dispute on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article (regarding many of the articles referenced statements), Candace Newmaker regarding unsourced unverified statements, Advocates for Children in Therapy. What is the best way to address these related concerns. It appears to be part of a concerted and organized attack on these as related pages. User StokerAce only became active when Sarner disengaged over the summer and his address is in the same city as Sarner...Shotwell is clearly his own person, but does write and use the same arguments and strategies as Sarner. So, how can we address this...the issue is most heated in the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article. Thanks. RalphLender talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ralph, I've looked over John Bowlby and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and my initial thought is that you and Shotwell may be able to reach some common ground, and that your compromise may even improve the articles. Here are my thoughts on the policies that apply.
My general suggestions to try to resolve the disputes is:
Attribution: In general, if we attribute the claims about DDS to specific authorities, (1) the claims will be more difficult to dispute; and (2) the article will be more helpful to readers. For example, if instead of: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of Bowlby", we write "According to its developer, Daniel Hughes, and others, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of John Bowlby [cite to Hughes and Becker-Weidman]", then (1) the statement will be less controversial, and (2) the ball is in Shotwell's court to come up with verifiable, reliable information countering that.
Do you think that's likely to be helpful? If so, I'll try to work with you, Shotwell, and the other editors at the DDS page to apply the WP principles above. Thanks, TheronJ 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point, if there is no serious scientific dispute about the statements in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, then there's no requirement that the statements be attributed. The relevant policies and guidelines are, IMHO:
One note, however, is that it's probably not that important how many editors are critical of DDT, unless they can support their criticism by use of verifiable, reliable sources. (On the other hand, even one editor should probably be heard if she has reliable sources for her criticism).
IMHO, if you're confident that the DDP article as it's phrased now is a fair representation of the literature and authorities, we should probably move the ball into Shotwell's court, and ask if he/she has any specific authorities that challenge the statement. If so, we can consider whether there's a way to incorporate those authorities into an appropriate place in the article. If not, we'll have that much more support for any future dispute resolution, including an arbitration case if necessary.
I think I understand things well enough to advocate for you at this point -- Is it ok with you if I appear in some of the mediations and talk pages as your advocate and ask Shotwell & Sarner to explain their sources and policy arguments? Thanks, TheronJ 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ralph, I'd be glad to help you with your request for advocacy. Here are my preferences, but please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns.
I think that's plenty. If it were up to me, I would rewrite the "Legacy" section so that it clearly attributed comments to sources, something like the following:
Do you want to try to write something up that cites to specific pages of a couple articles? If you want, I can create a subpage here for where we can develop a draft. Thanks, TheronJ 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
These approaches used tested techniques which were not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development. In addition, nearly all mainstream approaches for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment attachment disorder use attachment theory.' RalphLender talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It now appears that Sarner has disengage and User:shotwell and User:StokerAce have taken up the dispute on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article (regarding many of the articles referenced statements), Candace Newmaker regarding unsourced unverified statements, Advocates for Children in Therapy. What is the best way to address these related concerns. It appears to be part of a concerted and organized attack on these as related pages. User StokerAce only became active when Sarner disengaged over the summer and his address is in the same city as Sarner...Shotwell is clearly his own person, but does write and use the same arguments and strategies as Sarner. So, how can we address this...the issue is most heated in the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article. Thanks. RalphLender talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ralph, I've looked over John Bowlby and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and my initial thought is that you and Shotwell may be able to reach some common ground, and that your compromise may even improve the articles. Here are my thoughts on the policies that apply.
My general suggestions to try to resolve the disputes is:
Attribution: In general, if we attribute the claims about DDS to specific authorities, (1) the claims will be more difficult to dispute; and (2) the article will be more helpful to readers. For example, if instead of: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of Bowlby", we write "According to its developer, Daniel Hughes, and others, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of John Bowlby [cite to Hughes and Becker-Weidman]", then (1) the statement will be less controversial, and (2) the ball is in Shotwell's court to come up with verifiable, reliable information countering that.
Do you think that's likely to be helpful? If so, I'll try to work with you, Shotwell, and the other editors at the DDS page to apply the WP principles above. Thanks, TheronJ 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point, if there is no serious scientific dispute about the statements in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, then there's no requirement that the statements be attributed. The relevant policies and guidelines are, IMHO:
One note, however, is that it's probably not that important how many editors are critical of DDT, unless they can support their criticism by use of verifiable, reliable sources. (On the other hand, even one editor should probably be heard if she has reliable sources for her criticism).
IMHO, if you're confident that the DDP article as it's phrased now is a fair representation of the literature and authorities, we should probably move the ball into Shotwell's court, and ask if he/she has any specific authorities that challenge the statement. If so, we can consider whether there's a way to incorporate those authorities into an appropriate place in the article. If not, we'll have that much more support for any future dispute resolution, including an arbitration case if necessary.
I think I understand things well enough to advocate for you at this point -- Is it ok with you if I appear in some of the mediations and talk pages as your advocate and ask Shotwell & Sarner to explain their sources and policy arguments? Thanks, TheronJ 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)