User talk:Jean Mercer: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Jean Mercer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Aplomado ^talk 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

The article you created appears to have some problems conforming with Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR. See this article's talk page for more information on what I mean and try to improve the article so it doesn't get targeted for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has turned it into a redirect page. To repost my comment from the talk page, the problem with what you're doing is that you're saying Source A says this (which is acceptable), Source B says this (which is acceptable), so therefore I come to Conclusion C (not acceptable). If you have a source that can back up your conclusion in the same way you backed up your premises, then this would be acceptable. You can't cite yourself, I'm afraid, unless you have a published work to that effect. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Also, as DPeterson noted, "attachment therapy" has already been addressed at "Attachment disorder." Is there a reason why we need a seperate article? Aplomado ^talk 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

Responding to your question on my talk page, I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine would be a good place to ask for some assistance with "Attachment Therapy." Aplomado ^talk 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested help from that group.Jean Mercer 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment therapy etc

Sadly, there are no Wikipedia psychiatrists (appart from one who's got enough trouble on his hands with alcoholism), and I'm not personally aware of any loose psychologists. I have seen the AFD and surrounding discussion, and I really doubt I can personally be of much use there. The relevant articles look like a job for psychologists, and I get the impression Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology may be your answer. Good luck. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Warning

Self-serving references cannot be included are are not a NPOV. Citing your own book is not NPOV and represents a conflict of interest as well as a financial conflict since you and your group (Advocates for Children in Therapy) get support form those publications. You have already been warned once about this.RalphLender 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Advocates For Children in Therapy , are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

EBT and Bowlby

In response to your comment on my talk page: I appreicate your taking the time to comment. I am quite familiar with EBT and the various criteria. The citation you mention is one of several and the criteria is one of severa. You might want to become familiar with the full range of approaches. Good luck. SamDavidson 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AT

Hi. Am I right in thinking you are one of the group called ACT? I am a little puzzled by the inclusion of some therapies on your site as AT 'by another name'. In particular, Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I think it is important for the AT site to clearly set out what is and what isn't AT 'by another name' for the sake of parents looking for information. You seem to have given up editing the site a while ago, but perhaps you could point me in the direction of relevent information on this. Fainites 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello-- are you referring to the ACT web site or to material on this site? If you mean this site, I've discussed the situation in a "media watch" article soon to be published in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. If you mean the ACT site, you might want to send your comments directly to the site. If you would like more information on the point you raise, you may want to look at an article co-authored by Monica Pignotti and myself that will appear in May {sorry, that will be July)in the journal Research on Social Work. This article examines the nature of holding therapy and DDP and refutes the earlier claims of Craven & Lee that these interventions have a sound evidentiary basis.

If you are doing some reading about interventions of this type, don't forget to investigate their adjuvant use of restrictive milieu therapies. This aspect of the treatment may actually be more significant than specific intervention techniques that go by various names.

Please keep in mind, also, that the age of the child is a very important issue, and that treatments should be developmentally appropriate. "Age regression" is not an effective or acceptable approach. Parents should be sure to avoid practitioners who claim that Reactive Attachment Disorder is common, or who refer to Attachment Disorder as a separate entity, or who claim that children who are not as affectionate as parents would like will necessarily grow up to be serial killers.

Good luck in your search for information.

Sorry, I forgot to add my name-- Jean MercerJean Mercer 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.Fainites 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

Jean, I will be filing for formal mediation concerning these attachment therapy articles. Please see Talk:Attachment_Therapy#Formal_Mediation and indicate whether or not you'd like to participate. Also list any issues that you find salient. I think it would be important for you to participate because you are an expert. shotwell 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had just been looking at the list, which seems to me very appropriate. I would like to participate but don't have additions to the list at this point-- I do think some "unpacking" of the questions touching on evidence-based practice may be necessary, as this is an issue that seems to be subject to attempts at proof by assertion. As I've said before, I consider this and similar articles to be of high sensitivity because of use by the general public. Just to let you know, I'll be out of contact June 1-12, but will be paying attention before and after that period. Thanks for your involvement in this. Jean Mercer 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jean. I think you are right. I also think we need to distinguish between valid and unvalidated treatments. Somewhere though, we do need to make sure that all relevant views are heard regardless of how wierd. I'll have to admit, I'm still floundering with some of the concepts. I may need your help later on. Maypole 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it gets easier if you use a levels of evidence approach rather than chocolate or vanilla absolutes. But there are also a lot of details that ned to be looked at in any research report, including common statistical errors (choice of test)and above all the confounding of variables in the design. At this point, I don't think there is any classification system that pays attention to these things-- certainly the one used by Craven & Lee does not. I have an article submitted to a journal that goes through a long list of issues that need consideration. I don't think we're nearly ready to go to a checklist,as people have been wanting to do. Even if we could, mental health research is always going to provide probabilistic conclusions, which is why somw writers on this subject demand at least two, independently-done, reports supporting an intervention. Incidentally, even using Craven & Lee's method should not yield a satisfactory classification for DDP, because there is no manual (necessary for this method), and the connection with accepted theory is extremely weak. Anyway, there's a whole lot more to this question than just searching for the tag that says EBP-- that's why I said the question needed to be unpacked.72.73.193.82 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC) rats-- thought I signed in. Jean mercer

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not very familiar with arbitration, but if you want your statement to carry any significant weight, you might consider providing a few diff's to back up your claims.

I'm not suggesting that you need 1000 diffs to prove your statements, but conversely, it's unlikely that the arbitrators will be inclined to do the digging for you.

Peace.Lsi john 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't quite finished. J.Jean Mercer 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

for diff's you type: [http://the.URL.com description here] and you get description here which hides the lengthy http url. Peace.Lsi john 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hot dog, it works! Thank you, Lsi john.Jean Mercer 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It actually helps everyone all the way around. The easier it is to read for the arbcom committee, the less time they have to spend on it. And the better they understand what you're trying to say without wanting to skip it. ;) Peace.Lsi john 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with arbcom. However, from what I gather, it's about making your case (in a limited way).. but its more about providing 'proof' to help the committee reach a decision. In the context of court, there are the opening statements (which was what happened first), and now there is evidence. So, I suspect its important to be as concise as possible, (tossing out sentence structure and grammar when possible) and making clear statements about the misconduct with 'evidence' diffs to back up the statements. Peace.Lsi john 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Reactive

Interesting point. Why call it 'reactive' and where does it fit with attachment disorder. Some authors use the terms interchangeably as if there is no attachment disorder outside RAD. Fainites ^barley 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy closed

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

COPY Dear Fanities and Jim,

Just to say I am very pleased with my pages on;-

°Professor Sir Michael Rutter °Maternal deprivation °Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents

I should just like to thank you for your help and to say, despite the considerable improvement, the new page on attachment still needs sorting. Nevertheless many thanks.

kipKingsleyMiller 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're so right! Sorry, i've been doing other work.Jean Mercer 12:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IRS required forms?

I notice that in your description you make no mention of your being a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy and I was wondering why not since it is such a major component of your professional career (promotes your books and articles and positions and views and such)?

Oh, also, on another subject, I'd asked you for a copy of your group's IRS form 990 and have not yet received a copy. Many organizations actually post theirs on their website. 69.204.15.239 I'd not heard back from you so I thought I'd ask here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWeidman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about forgetting to sign in before editing. I notice that your group, [Advocates for Children in Therapy] does not post it's 990 on it's website like many other groups do. I've still not heard an answer to my request for your group's 990, as a leader of the group I'd think you'd have that at your fingertips. If you can mail or e=mail me a copy...or post it, that would be great. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)