Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Talk archives

1. Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 1 This archive contains discussions up to July 2006 and covering that month.

Time For Civility/Self-Promotion is against Wiki policy

The focus of the talk page should be on material in the article, not on persons or personal attacks. If an editor is engaged in self-promotional actions (as may be the case as described above) then that should be brought to the attention of an administrator for action. JonesRD 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. WP:CIVIL is not optional. JPotter 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All such self-promotional references should be removed. SamDavidson 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DPeterson 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

can you just add on to this?

Well, as an adoptive parent conned by attachment therapy, I like the article. Something needs to be done to stop the spead of these attachment therapist claiming 100% success. I had the horrifing experience of dragging my family though a group pretty much using the re-birthing process. Do any of these groups ever have success? All I see ever helping these kids tends to be the meds. they get put on.

Something in the blurb really should address the fact that there are many cons out there taking advantage of very desperate parents trying to help their adoptive kids.

PLEASE DON"T DELETE THE Attachment therapy article... I wished I'd had it to read before what all we went through. Our city even pays for adoptive families to go their. All therapy consists of is parents being held down on air mats to do that deep breathing stuff. It was very hurtful to our family. This was since 2002. These programs are all over the country. It really is a big scam. Lots of kids are getting hurt.

I think that the above comments may not meet Wikipedia standards in that they include what appear to be personal attacks. I'd suggest removing the comments. What do others think? I'd leave a comment on the individual's talk page, but that person is an anon user with no prior posts. DPeterson 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as individual's names are not mentioned, actually claims about/against individuals that are not verified, opinions belong on talk pages. But I agree, personal attacks do not belong here and are not consistent with the Wikipedia policy of civility. JonesRD 11:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason for changes to edits

1. The links to other articles are consistent with the [[Wikipdedia: Manuel of Style], "The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article. The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page." and does not meet the criteria for "over-linking."

2. The Also see section also belongs. The purpose of that section is to provide a convenient location for the reader to find relevant and related links without having to search the entire article.

3. The statement, "A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies." is accurate. The citation would be the ACT webpage. ACT clearly states that there is no place for "Attachment Therapy" in treatment. (note they use the term "Attachment Therapy" and not Attachment therapy or attachment therapy, so their defination is specific to that term.

4. The statement, "label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as Attachment Therapy and attempt to discredit those therapies." is supported, for example, by ACT's criticism of EMDR, affective attunement, Theraplay, therapeutic parenting, developmental attachment therapy, dyadic developmental therapy, dyadic developmental psychotherapy, which are not coercive restraint therapies and, some of which, have a clear evidence base.

However, at this point it would be best to involve others in this discussion and see what other editors think about this. DPeterson^talk 13:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You have continually failed to provide any source for the assertion that they "label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as Attachment Therapy and attempt to discredit those therapies." They, in fact, specifically state that there are "conventional therapies" used to treat such disorders, and provide clear differentiations they believe exist between Attachment Therapy and acceptable practices - such as the use of force, coercion, threats, fear and denial of child's concerns.[1] FCYTravis 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'PLEASE VOICE YOUR VOTE BELOW ON WHETHER TO KEEP OR DELETE THE FOLLOWING:"A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies." (See point 3 above). Be sure to sign your name.

'For Keeping Language in point 3'

1. It is the language of ACT and what is stated on their website. DPeterson^talk 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. I added a quote and link to provide verification for this statement. The current version is excellent. In addition, I strongly object to the continued deletion of the Also see section without comment or reason. It is a valid section and must remain. JonesRD_talk 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. the language is NPOV, fair and accurate. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. The statement, "label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as Attachment Therapy and attempt to discredit those therapies." is supported, for example, by ACT's criticism ( http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/overview.html) of EMDR, affective attunement, Theraplay, therapeutic parenting, developmental attachment therapy, dyadic developmental therapy, dyadic developmental psychotherapy, which are not coercive restraint therapies and, some of which, have a clear evidence base. DPeterson^talk 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. 'Agree'RalphLender^talk 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. 'agree'the quote is well documented and has appropriate citations. SamDavidson 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'Against Keeping Language in point 3'

'Neutral about either one'

Notorious Cases

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to add information about some cases like the Cassandra Killpack death [2] to this entry? Possibly in a "Criticisms" section? I'm afraid I don't have the time to add something like this myself right now, but I was surprised that there wasn't something like it here already. -- HiEv 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That case would fit better in the article on Child Abuse in the section there on notable cases. The reference you cite describes parent inflicted child abuse. DPeterson^talk 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it could fit in several sections, but in this case the abuse and death was due to an attempt to follow Attachment Therapy practices[3]. The point would be to make people reading the article aware of the potential dangers of Attachment Therapy in the course of a fuller understanding of the subject matter. Any article should give a good complete overview of the subject, and that means including both the supporting arguments and the criticism, if there are any good ones. I think that "death" is a pretty important fact that potential users should be aware of and could help prevent further deaths, so I believe that adding this kind of information would improve the article. -- HiEv 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While your conclusion may be true, the newspaper articles don't clearly support your conclusion that in this instance the parents were acting as you say (following "attachment therapy"). In fact they had no professional working with them or advising them. DPeterson^talk 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a "low priority article"!

As a childhood victim of so-called "attachment therapy," I, too, beg you not to remove this article. People need to know what they're getting into when they subject their children to this horrible, insane business. Y'all don't want to know some of the stuff that was done to <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">me by a particular psychiatrist in the 70's who had adopted these quack beliefs, in the name of forcing my behavior to conform to expected norms. I was thrown to the ground with huge adults sitting on my back (I fainted once because I could not breathe), I had my hair pulled, was forced to sit in isolation for long periods of time, was berated over matters that were completely opaque to me, was repeatedly forced to witness punishments of other children...all the while, as I found out as an adult, my little sister was being threatened with the same (although she was allowed to imagine that I was suffering even worse punishments than I really was) if she did not behave herself; she spent her childhood terribly frightened that the punishments visited upon me might be inflicted upon her as well. One day I remember I was made to pretend to drive an invisible shopping cart around an invisible grocery store, and kept being "held" in punishment for "running into" invisible items, and this in front of an entire therapy group of children and their parents. Another day I was forced to witness a lengthy hair-pulling episode--the therapist was pulling a little girl's hair because she had had a fight with her father in the lobby and he apparently had yelled out a loud curse word which she was being forced to repeat in front of the group but would not because she was embarrassed, and she was crying and crying and crying (a few years later, I heard this little girl had gotten pregnant and run away from home).

I am not kidding. Although some of the particular practices that were inflicted upon me and the other children in my "therapy" group may have changed in the intervening decades, the overall philosophy of breaking the child's "bad behavior" (I would say "breaking the child," really) by the application of weird, horrendous, often irrational aversives is still the same, and yes, sometimes it kills, as I have heard (and I wonder how many children have committed suicide years later as a result of this treatment, which can be devastating to the self-esteem as it was to mine?). This is "attachment therapy." It is quackery and child abuse, pure and simple, and it is horrifying. It teaches the child all about power and who has it (adults, who can use it any way they want) and who doesn't (children, who must conform, succumb, and submit), it teaches children that the world is all about the necessity for absolute conformity to irrational authority, it teaches cruel treatment, it teaches about evil, and I don't think it teaches any children to love their parents any better!

I think a neutral point of view specifying the current state of research into this matter and citing various authorities about its nature and consequences should be sufficient to awaken confused parents to what they're getting into. This is not a "low priority article"! And thanks to Dr. Mercer. Songflower 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

songflower,

i have seen just a little of this 'attachment therapy' and was completely shocked. how this can be happening in this day is beyond me. and the money these people make doing this. i think that is the problem

""it teaches children that the world is all about the necessity for absolute conformity to irrational authority""

how well put! exactly!

email me. i am trying to change some things about this

raspor 13:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Raspor, I would email you but do not know how to access your email address...pls. advise? ThanksSongflower 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raspor

just go there and click the email use button. or go to your control box and allow me to mail you.

i am very involved in this and i want to stop it. i have seen enough of this and i have seen very little

your phrase about 'irrational authortiy' was right on

raspor 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hurry Songflower email me

i am working with a reporter in a major newspaper on this

we could really use your input

thanks

Prevalence

It seems to me that there should be a section on the prevalence of this treatment. From what I can tell, it is unusual at this point in time. Now that the Ameerican Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, APSAC, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Chilren, American Academy of Child Psychiatry, etc. all have practice protocals prohibiting "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article, none of the members of those groups and professions can use such techniques and remain members. Obviously, unlicensed persons can do what they want and there are cases of malpractice in all professions, but beyond that, it does seem that the prevalence of "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article is probably very very low. Unless there is some strong objections, I will add such a section. RalphLender^talk 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable verifiable source for this statement? DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they were licensed individuals or members of any professional organization...but if you can point me to a reliable source that states that they were licensed mental health professionals in the state of Ohio, we'd all like to see that. DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, that is very helpful. It appears that Thompson is not a licensed therapist and that Parshall is not facing any charges. DPeterson^talk 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

https://license.ohio.gov/Lookup/SearchDetail.asp?ContactIdnt=3600351&DivisionIdnt=97&Type=L i think is see what happened raspor 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, neither one is facing disciplinary action per your links. JohnsonRon 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The links you provide only show no disciplinary actions being taken...perhaps you could provide a link to a news paper article indicating that both, or either one, have been indicted...Of course, being indicted is not the same as a guilty verdict. In the U.S. everyone is innocent unless and until 'proven' guilty. DPeterson^talk 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good citation...it does appear that both are licensed therapists...but neither one has any action pending against them with the licensing board, based on your link. However, it is important to remember that all professions experience a tiny amount malpractice, which seems to be the case hereRalphLender^talk 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The section looks good that you added, Ralph. Furthermore, your points are excellent...there are probably very very few people practicing "AT" as defined in this article.

"Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. There is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor. Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."[4]

Few, if any licensed individuals or members of the professional organizaitons listed use these practices...to do so would result in their loosing their license and loosing memberhip in their professional organization.

DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I think I will add a note about malpractice to the section. RalphLender^talk 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say there are about 700 attachment therapists in the US. do you consider that a high number. and in Ohio about 70% of the funds set aside for post adoptive services go to attachment therapists. its big biz and big bucks here raspor 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You will need to provide reliable sources that adhere to the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable for each of those statements. And, don't forget that in defiing "Attachment Therapy" you should use the def. used in this article. So, can you provide reliable and verifiable citations for the following:

1. 700 attachment therapists in the US.
2. in Ohio 70% off the funds set aside for post adoptive services go to attachment therapists.

RalphLender^talk 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont think i have time for that. but what i wanted to find out if you think 700 is a lot. i have talked to several ohio counties about this. they push attachment therapy aggressively and like i said most of the post adoption funds go to these therapists. its a very big biz here raspor 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Without there being reliable and verifiable citations provided, the statements and questions do not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article and its development. Original research is not valid for inclusion RalphLender^talk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article." is there a verifiable citation for this? raspor 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the basis for that statement would be that a member of any of the cited professional organizations which have practice parameters or papers opposed to the use of such coercive methods cannot be a member of that organization, that several states have outlawed the use of "rebirthing," and that the practices would be malpractice. JohnsonRon 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

so you are logically determining the fact? i thought we had to quotes sources. am i wrong about that. few states have outlawed it. it is very common here in ohio. raspor 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

cites needed

"Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, APSAC, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry.

To the best of my knowledge the above organizations do not prohibit attachment therapy. Many State Boards actually certify it.

need cites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.232.53 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC). There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association,[does not prohibit AT ] National Association of Social Workers 3, [ this reference is to the utah social workder board. the national does not prohibit ]American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC0 4, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry, and the American Psychiatric Association. 5.[ this one is correct Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. [ AT is rarely prohibited. most state boards actually approve continuing ed courses in it ] Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions

[ millions of tax dollars are spent on AT ] 68.109.232.53 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the American Psychology Association and the Natl Social Workers Org do not take a stance on AT. And AT is approved and encouraged by most States. Yes 'rebirthing' has been outlawed in Utah but everything else is still OK.

69.211.150.60 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

both those groups have position papers on the subject RalphLender^talk 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again the American Psychological Association does not take stances on types of therapies. And your reference is for the Utah Social Workers not the National. If you say there are very few give a cite. You cannot use personal research. 69.211.150.60 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cites have been added that these various national professional organizations have positions against coercive interventions. RalphLender^talk 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine to me as it is with all the citations added to support the stmts. As described in this article, AT is rare thing.In this article, AT is:

"Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor."

DPeterson^talk 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this debate with some interest. Can I just say that I don't see why proponents of respectable therapies to deal with attachment disorders need to be quite so defensive about 'Attachment Therapy'. The issues seem quite simple. If 'Attachment Therapy' as described in this article exists then it clearly warrants a straightforward informative article. At the moment the article reads as if it's drafted by people afraid that mud might stick to any therapy designed to address attachment disorders. Clearly it is important to point out that governmental and professional organisations outlaw such techniques, but if in fact some local government bodies or regulated bodies are sanctioning such techniques that's equally important.Fainites 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence I can find that any governmental body or rregulated bodies are sanctioning the techniques described in this article. DPeterson^talk 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that practitioners of this 'Attachment Therapy' are getting in under the wire as it were and actually being used by official bodies such as adoption agencies out of ignorance? Somebody must be funding the practice. It's unlikely to be private clients only, surely.Fainites 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that meets Wikipedia standards of being verifiable or attributable to a reliable source that I can see. DPeterson^talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that ACT is a pressure group and therefore likely to be a little excitable, but is all the information at [5] completely wrong? 'Attachment Therapy' wouldn't be the first pseudoscientific therapy to worm it's way in, despite the general stand taken against it.Fainites 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody from ACT explain why Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are named on the ACT site as Attachment Therapy by another name, and why for example EMDR (on which extensive research has been done) and NLP are named in a sort of 'guilt by association' list and derided as quackery on the same page? If it is alleged DDP and Theraplay are Attachment Therapy by another name, where is the evidence ? If there is none, this article should make it clear.Fainites 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ACT is an advocacy group with a specific agenda and so may be extreme in its statements. Unlike an encyclopedia article, they do not need to cite sources or use reliable information. They seem to tar any treatment that is used for those who have experienced a history of trauma and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or disorders of attachment with the same brush. There is no evidence that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, NLP, or EMDR are "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article. If you'd like to take a stab at clarifying that, please do so below in the section marked for that purpose. I am only suggesting you do it here to avoid an edit war with those who may disagree since you can see there is a long and extensive history of conflict around this article. I'd be glad to work with you on this.DPeterson^talk 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The list including EMDR etc is a sort of 'guilt by association' list (to completely different therapies) that hardly seems worth bothering with. I am however, more interested in their list of "Attachment Therapy' by another name. Would I be right in thinking that the 'link' with DDP is Hughes. What's the supposed link for Theraplay? I'm sorry if this has all been gone over before. I just think that it's equally important that desperate parents don't either accidently walk into 'Attachment Therapy' or miss valid therapies because they're wrongly listed as AT. I'll give it some thought.Fainites 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it important to address all misconceptions (EMDR, Theraplay, etc.). The link may just be that any treatment that proports to be useful for treating disorders of attachment is defined as "Attachment Therapy" by this group. But who really knows what is their thinking!DPeterson^talk 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they're saying that these therapies are all 'Attachment Therapy' masquarading under different names. That's quite a big thing to say. If they're wrong on any of the therapies in the list it is quite undermining of their credentials. If however, they are right on all of them, that is equally important. It's quite a big piece of research. I must say, however, including EMDR (which is evidence based in parts) and Feldenkrais (which makes no scientific claims), just because they're in 'Quackwatch' (a dubious enterprise), does not inspire confidence. Fainites 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at Hughes site, he makes it very clear that he did previously advocate some techniques which might come within the description of AT, but now does not, and indeed has developed a therapy that specifically excludes these techniques. If ACT are naming DDP as AT by another name, should this page not deal more specifically with this issue? Are there therapists still following the old, pre-DPP Hughes methods? As for Theraplay, I can't find anything that suggests any link to AT type techniques or beliefs.Fainites 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, there is no relationship between "AT"(as defined in this article) and Theraplay or Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy or EMDR or other mainstream evidence-based treatments. ACT really seems to be a fringe group. None of its leaders are licensed mental health professionals. Clearly Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay and EMDR, etc as described in the relevant peer-reviewed publications and texts are not AT as defined in this article...I do think the article states that too in the treatment characteristics section...so that's already addressed in the article. RalphLender^talk 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that the article seems to be more of an attack on ACT and a defense of eg DPP than an article about Attachment Therapy. If I were a parent and had read about Candace Newmaker or Foster Cline and then read this article, I'd be puzzled. If I then went to the ACT site for more info, I'd see a list of therapies described as AT 'by another name' which includes DPP and Theraplay, and a list of 'adjunct' therapies alongside, like EMDR and Feldenkrais. This is all next to links with stories about starved and bullied children! I don't think this article is doing it's job which is to inform, on the basis of verified and credible evidence. If 'Attachment Therapy' as described by ACT exists, it should be described in this article, with evidence, as it is a serious matter even if it is 'fringe'. The article should also clarify what it is not given the allegations by ACT. I appreciate that the article states that ACT tar all sorts of therapies by association, but at the moment the article gives the feeling that because AT is not mainstream, we'd like to all pretend it doesn't really exist.Fainites 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article reads as, "an attack on ACT and a defense of eg DDP than an article about Attachment Therapy." Why are you focusing on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when it is mentioned with equal weight with several other mainstream evidence-based approaches? Specifically those other approahces mentioned equally are: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993). I think the article does a decent job of trying to describe and define an ambigious term with no clear definations. It also does a good job, by using material from professional peer-reviewed publications, of describing how those previously mentioned approahces are not AT. Finally, the article does a pretty good job of describing AT and does so in a manner that it is clear what are the distinctions between AT and Parent-Child Psychotherapy, Floor Time, Theraplay, Circle of Security, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, etc. But, if you have specific ideas for additions to this article please make those below in the section created for that so that other editors can comment and a consensus can be built. DPeterson^talk 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I did say 'eg DDP', not 'just' DDP! I will give amendments some thought and post them below.Fainites 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just wasn't understanding why you were focusing on that, as opposed, to say, Theraplay, Circle of Security, etc. Just wondering is all. Will look forward to seeing your thoughts on additions below. Thanks for taking the time to work on this...I know you have other interests beyond this article. DPeterson^talk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been giving this matter some thought, and with all due respect to the current editors I think this article needs refocussing. It is apparent that 'Attachment Therapy' whether it is spelt with one capital, two or none, in the sense of coercive restraint therapies as described in the article is a significant problem. If it wasn't, why would all the main professional bodies and a number of states outlaw it, however it is described? Why would Chaffin be commissioned to write his report? I would propose de-emphasising ACT and attempting to focus the article on it's subject in broader terms. I would agree with the current editors that ACT are not justified in including in their 'lists of shame' various therapies, including EMDR, Feldenkrais, Theraplay and DDP. Also some items on their list, such as 'attachment disorder therapy' are far to vague and general. This does need to be made clear, but should not be the focus of this article. Fainites 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding material could be quite useful. I don't think the article is emphasising ACT; ACT had a lot of material about this subject. I think the article makes clear that EMDR, etc are not Attachment Therapy as defined in this article and does so quite well. I would certainly support adding material to this article to expand it further. I hope you will put your suggestions in the section below so that we can build on it. RalphLender^talk 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of rearranging the existing article first, then adding more material. Fainites 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, so why don't you either describe what you are thinking of doing...or just put your proposed changes in the section below and then other interested editors can comment. That would be the best approach. RalphLender^talk 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support that approach. Let's have suggested changes made in the next section and then those interested can improve the material and then it can be added to the article. This is a great way to build agreement. SamDavidson 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)``

Hooray! Fainites 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Additions to Article to clarify difference between Attachment Therapy and other Methodologies

'Pls add your suggestions below'

Proposed amendments to article

(I have in fact substantially rewritten the article. I haven't added a ref section here. Everything cited is reffed. The main cites are Chaffin, Speltz, Prior and Glaser and ACT. We could also include actual refs to Zaslow/ K=Cline/Hughes etc if necessary)

This is a great start. I added references and a see also list, among other edits to add material and make some suggestions. I removed some material that may appear to be too POV and/or that are without referecnes to support the statements. DPeterson^talk 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately I don't see how anybody else can comment on it as you've removed great chunks of it and then added back in most of the existing article!! Talk pages should not be refactored. We could put it onto a seperate page so as not to make the talk page too long. For now, I've replaced the proposed new article and left your amended version below it so that we can keep playing with it.

On content, I think adding holding and rebirthing in the first sentence confuses the issue. Holding and rebirthing are terms used as similiar terms to "Attachment Therapy." DPeterson^talk 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC) It's 'attachment therapy' that's the ambiguous term. (and all it's meanings, inlcluding rebirthing, etc. DPeterson^talk 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) I would have thought 'holding therapy' was pretty non-ambiguous. Also although Quackwatch/ACT are, in my opinion somewhat cavalier in their inclusion on various lists they don't actually list any of the verifiably mainstream attachment treatments. As far as I can see the controversy relates mostly to Theraplay and DDP and there is plenty of information on that controversy. (I don't see that there is a a controversay regarding those treatments...ACT and Quackwatch seem to go after all treatments for children who have experienced RADDPeterson^talk 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) I think therefore we need to rephrase this bit. My intention was to take this article away from the ACT wars so that it gives a fair and balanced description of it's subject.

Do you have any references for the list of therapies in your version of the article that state they are all effective and evidence based? (Yes, see the reference listDPeterson^talk 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) The trouble is, some of them don't have specific names. Chaffin etc avoid naming specific therapies but instead describes what the characteristic of appropriuate therapies. Perhaps we should just quote him on that. On references, could you please be specific about which bits you've removed as being 'unreferenced' or 'POV'? Do you have the dates of when various organisations and states beefed up their codes to outlaw this sort of thing? Fainites 09:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just had an idea! We could comment on your amendments in italics in the text. I'll give it a try. Fainites 09:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the see also and refs as they just make the talk page longer and any way it's not a proper ref list for this article. We can easily do that when we amend the article. The refs I've used are the English version of Chaffin at [[6]], 'Speltz, Matthew L.(2002). Description, History and Critique of Corrective Attachment Therapy. The APSAC Advisor, 14 (3) 4-8. and 'Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders. Theory, Evidence and Practice. Vivien Prior and Danya Glaser. The Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit. (2006) Pub. Jessica Kingsley. Heres the Amazon link. [[7]] Fainites 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and comment on your version below. Italics is a good ideaDPeterson^talk 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

'proposal by Fanities for new article PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS VERSION'

(Added capsDPeterson^talk 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy” "holding therapy," rebirthing therapy, these terms are synonyms for attachment therapy when one looks at the web and such sites as the ACT, etc. sitesDPeterson^talk 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(We should not be basing this article around ACT. The report by Chaffin et al contains alot of serious players in this field and was specifically commissioned to address this whole area. Clearly they should be the lead authority, not ACT!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Actually, that is not the case. The article is about coercion in treatment and attachment therapy not "Attachment Therapy." ACT has the clearest definations of this construct and deserves a central place. I actually like the other editors suggestion of maybe just having a very brief article that defines the construct using a few sources. DPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (attachment therapy redirects here. This article isn't about just Attachment Therapy with capital letters just because ACT use capital letters! It's about the whole phenomenon. One of the features of this type of therapy as explained by Chaffin is the proliferation of names.Fainites 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC))Therefore, using all the various names it goes by, such as rebirthing, etc. is relevant, and the ambiguity of the term should be clearly stated throughout the article so readers don't get the misimpression that it is a discrete phenomenon DPeterson^talk 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. A number (who else?Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) ACT and QuackWatchDPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all (hardly nearly allFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Actually they do seem to label nearly all DPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. (Added some details here and bring the controversary into the intro so the reader can see that at the beginning DPeterson^talk 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (which controversy? I don't think this article should revolve around disagreements with ACT as it has in the past. That can be done on the ACT page. ACT are not the prime authority for this subjectFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (There is substantial disagreements on what this ambig. term means...it's sort of like an inkblotDPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) . ( yes but we ought to tackle this by giving the clearest global definition which is Chaffin et al, not ACT) Fainites 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) Actually, I think ACT has the clearest definition...but as I suggested below, we could put Chaffin's material first and then the ACT material section. Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? DPeterson^talk 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, that would be great.JonesRD_talk 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) OK. Thats fineFainites 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Attachment Therapy came to the attention of professional bodies and the wider public following a series of prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children allegedly at the hands of 'attachment therapists' or parents following their instructions, the most well known case being that of Candace Newmaker. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing (it is rebirthing that has been outlawedDPeterson^talk 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(Haven't other practices been outlawed? Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Such as? If you can find evidence of such, by all means put in it with the source. DPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)such practices but because there is no common definition of the terms, such regulation tends to refer to a range of coercive and intrusive practices considered counter-therapeutic rather than ‘attachment therapy’. Care should be taken to distinguish between this subset of therapies and more mainstream therapies which may also be loosely described as attachment or attachment disorder therapy. For the purposes of this article, the term used to describe this subset is ‘Attachment Therapy’ as defined by the advocacy group ACT They have the most clear defination of this termDPeterson^talk 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes above. They should be retained.JonesRD_talk 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(I think we should prioritise the definition of verified, credible sources such as Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser, not ACT. ACT are a POV group!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

ACT has spend a lot of time and effort advocating in this area and so their material is very relevant and appropriate. If you want the Chafin para's first and then the ACT para's that would be fine with me...What do others think? DPeterson^talk 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(OK. I agree ACT is relevent. But this article is not about ACT and their definition. It's about the phenomenon of attachment therapy, with or without capitals, as a non-mainstream, subset of 'therapies' with a particular belief system and mode of therapy.Fainites 06:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Why don't you want ACT material in the article? I don't understand your objection. They have written the most material about this subject. Why would you want to cut out there material? It clearly is relevant.DPeterson^talk 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the ACT material...it should be included...If there is some reason for not including it, please state that. While I don't agree with that group, they do have material that is relevant to this article.JonesRD_talk 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with ACT. The world needs dedicated campaigning groups! It's just that for an encyclopaedia the prime need is verified and credible sources and there is an obvious heirarchy on any subject that is scientific. Chaffin et al have very thoughtfully provided us with a complete analysis of the whole subject, just when we needed it! I think their definitions are not only more comprehensive in the scientific sense but also more likely to meet Wiki standards for evidence based, peer reviewed stuff or expert opinion that's genuinely expert. ACT play a supporting role in an encyclopaedia I think.Fainites 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy," and it is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject. While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean. ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [8] ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."[9] The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy." They have the most clear set of definations for this term, so we should put the details here. DPeterson^talk 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to clearly demonstrate that this is a very very vague term with many divergent meanings. JonesRD_talk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(Who says ACT have the clearest set of definitions? Verified, credible sources please.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))(it is important to do our best to present the most verified and credible sources. I don't undestand your logic in using ACT as your best sourceFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

It is important to present all relevant views in a NPOV. What is your objection to ACT? They have spend a lot of time on this issue and written lots of material. If changing the order helps, that's fine with me...After all, we do have to create a consensus here. No one editor owns the article, right? DPeterson^talk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. JonesRD_talk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Nobody owns the article but there are policies on sources. I think Chaffin not only gives the clearest description but also the most authoritative.Fainites 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The term has little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods. Begin with a clear statement that there are differences in the meaning of this term and its use or non-use DPeterson^talk 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(This is misleading. It implies that Chaffin et al ducked the issue when they didn'tFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) There are clear differences in usage and meaning that should be reflected in a comprehensive encyclopedia article. DPeterson^talk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (I agree there are clear differences in meaning and usage and the article must reflect that, but in a way that makes it plain what the article is about. Not in a way that effectively says the article is about nothing at allFainites 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, in some ways, this is an article about "smoke." This is an ill-defined term that means many different things to many different groups and is not a term used in the clinical literature (not in the AMA's CPT book, not in Bergin and Garfields seminal text, etc.). So, the article should make clear throughout that this is an ill-defined term. DPeterson^talk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, therefore we need an article that clearly delineates this ambiguity and the many facets to the disagreements or confusions that exist. JonesRD_talk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) This article is not about 'smoke'. It's about a subculture of therapies and theories that are of sufficient public importance for the ASPAC to have commissioned more than one report. The fact that it's difficult to describe neatly in oner sentence and has grey areas and fuzzy borders doesn't mean it doesn't really exist. Chaffin and Glaser don't duck the issue so we should seek to clarify not obfuscate.Fainites 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006) describe it as follows (If this is a direct quote, we need a page number)DPeterson^talk 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” Good quote. DPeterson^talk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) p77.

Speltz (2002) in a paper for the APSAC

Was the paper for the APSAC or merely in the journal Child Maltreatment...that is a very important distinction that should be clarified. DPeterson^talk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) He was ASPAC advisor and it was printed by permission of the ASPAC.Fainites 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

describes ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows: ‘… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265. (Better to have a direct quote and not paraphrase as you are doing...also be sure when you add the quote to include a page number for the citation. I think this should be left out unless you want have a section defining "age regression," whatever that means.DPeterson^talk 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) Direct quote set out in new version below. I would also point out that Chaffin includes it in his description of 'attachment therapies' and in his list of guidelines of what not to do.Fainites 21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The advocacy group campaigning group is not a term generally used. ACT is an advocacy group DPeterson^talk 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC),(OK. That may just be a transatlantic thing.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[10]

ACT seems to have the clearest description of this very vague term. Yes, include this. JonesRD_talk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(Again, why this fondness for ACT as the best source?Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree that ACT does provide a clearly worded description of this vague term. Why not use ACT, given their work in this area? What is your objection of this group and it's work? DPeterson^talk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(I have no objection as such to ACT. Pressure groups like ACT are important. I just think this subject goes beyond ACT, otherwise why are the ASPAC commissioning reports from swathes of experts in the field? Why do Prior and Glaser devote the better part of a chapter to it?Fainites 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Again, why not include the ACT material. Please clarify your objection so that I can better understand. Also, we need to be careful about using older references...Remeber that a text published in 2004 probably was submitted in 2002 and may have material from only up to 2001 or so. DPeterson^talk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, using old materials can be dangerous. Even the APSAC report is from 2005 and based on information that is 2004 and earlier...three years old now.JonesRD_talk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Actually the ASPAC report is 2006. Prior and Glaser is August 2006. We have to use verified and credible sources. Are you suggesting that we know better? Based on what sources? Also, calling them 'old materials' is nonsense. We have to be as up to date as we can but what is your source for suggesting the ASPAC report might be out of date? They've only relatively recently published their reply to the correspondance that followed publication.Fainites 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

history and underlying principles

In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’ (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics such as ‘The Center’ in the Pacific northwest. Do you have a citation to support these last accusations? If not, it should be removed.DPeterson^talk 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

remove the above paragraphJonesRD_talk 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(The source is Speltz. We can remove the name of the Center. The Evergreen name change is quite recent I think.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) 0-p+

I think we have to be very very careful here. I'd recommend just leaving it out. DPeterson^talk 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave out actual names.Fainites 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

A substantial rewrite of the above paragraph will then be needed.DPeterson^talk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Actually Foster Cline and the Evergreen Attachment Centre are historical and well documented.Fainites 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) ‘there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)’.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated’. need a page number if this is an actual quoteDPeterson^talk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). The methodology of this study is heavily criticised, including the use of the Child Behaviour Checklist they don't criticize the use of the CBCL, so this error should be deletedDPeterson^talk 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC). (actually that bit is a bit unclear as to whether they're criticising the list or the way its used.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) provide a direct quote and then others can determine. They don't criticize the use of CBCL This is a very reputable instrucment widely used in the field of mental health. DPeterson^talk 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (as I said, it's unclear. Therefore it should not be included from 'Including' onwardsFainites 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC))This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’ According to Prior and Glaser, regression is key to the holding therapy approach,Do you have a specific page number and quote to support this interpretation of their work...it would be good to include that as well as what they mean by age-regression.DPeterson^talk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) but was explicitly rejected by Bowlby (1988) who stated that ‘a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress.’ This last line really is irrelevant and should be removed.DPeterson^talk 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)( It's not irrelevant. It's part of the underlying 'theory' of this type of therapy. How can it be irrelevant if Prior and Glaser say it's 'key' and Chaffin et al list it in their description?Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) I don't read the Bowlby quote as rejecting this notion. Furthermore, if this included then you will need to include clarifying material (just two or three para's would do) that "age regression" is not the same as treating a child at the child's developmental level, not chronological age; which is widely accepted in treatment of children with trauma (See Dr. Brue Perry's materal, 2006, for example) DPeterson^talk 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (we can expand this as necessary. I can put in the whole bit from Glaser, including the Bowlby quote and then readers can see it allFainites 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) Yes, let's take a look at that so that other editors can also comment.DPeterson^talk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’ This would be better DPeterson^talk 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with the shorter version suggested.JonesRD_talk 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Disorder

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’.

Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders.

DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.

Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.

This section is very good as it is...I support keeping it unchanged.JonesRD_talk 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (Yay!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

::I concur. DPeterson^talk 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Treatment characteristics

Traditional use of the term "traditional" is irrelvant. It is Attachment theory. DPeterson^talk 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (Actually I think this is a quote from Chaffin. I'll checkFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (Yes it is a quote. I just forgot the comma.Sorry.Fainites 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional don't need "traditional" here DPeterson^talk 12:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al).Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Becker-Weidman, 2006a) (Becker-Weidman, 2006b) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993. These are evidence based treatments; citations in peer reviewed professional publications.DPeterson^talk 12:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove "traditional." I also agree that the paragraph as edited is better and relies on more current data.JonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)( I think if we're going to go with the list of evidence based treatments it all needs citations from verified, credible sources. Shouldn't be too difficult to do. I put in the Glaser ones because they are the source. It takes some time to become 'evidence based'.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The citations are already there. All the citations are from professional peer-reviewed publicataions and thus support the statement to which the list applies. DPeterson^talk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(actually they're not sufficient citations. This article doesn't have a proper wiki ref section at all yet. One ought to be able to click on a little number which takes you to the full name of the article or source. If you then 'google' or use an appropriate library for the source you should be able to find it, including PMID and IBSN numbers. They need to be verifiable in this way for readers etc to check the validity of the sources. We can do all this when we've sorted the wording. I did it for you for the main sources on the EMDR site DP! Fainites 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, the full citations are in the reference list for the cites in the article. The link between the two may be missing, but my point is that there is sufficient evidence in the article and reference list now. do you disagree?DPeterson^talk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the list and all those references are present and in reputable professional journals.JonesRD_talk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know until I've read them all.Fainites 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for this para now. DPeterson^talk 12:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) This is now old and leaves out material published after 2000DPeterson^talk 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (Prior and Glaser was published August 2006. As I say. It takes time to be accepted as 'evidence based'. Also, they are another credible verified source supporting the description of what proper therapies areFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) So their material is based on sources from 2004 and before. Again, each approach listed has a reliable source and thus meets the wiki standard of being verifiable and shold be included. DPeterson^talk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(see above for verifiability.Fainites 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) All the citations are in the reference list, just the links are missing. DPeterson^talk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002).

Agree. Delete above lines.JonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(You need some basis to delete properly sorced and verified editsFainites 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The basis for deleting it is that it repeats the material in the previous paragraph, but that para has more methods listed. Therefore the previous paragraph is better.DPeterson^talk 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Only one treatment is in both oaragraphsFainites 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the prev. paragraph better too. Let's go with that. JonesRD_talk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not 'old'. Glaser is published 2006. There is no basis for saying the treatments she describes as evidence based are out of date! Furthermore, Chaffin quotes the same meta-analysis they do. How long do you guys think it takes to do this kind of research on children? It takes years and years to develop a therapy and do the research and earn the title 'evidence based' Fainites 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This para is unneed and could be seen as POVDPeterson^talk 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)The focus of non-evidence based Attachment Therapies is somewhat different. According to Prior and Glaser ‘These include work directed at parents interactions with the children such as behaviour management, life story work and work on the meanings of the child’s experience, and some approaches are directed at the child and may or may not include the child’s primary carer. Attachment therapy often however, also includes some other interventions including a number of variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998) and therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley) as well as others such as rage-reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing.’ They also refer to the ‘Handbook of Attachment Interventions’ (Levy 2000), Levy and Orlans and the ‘Holding Nurturing Process.’ The evidence based treatments mentioned in the prev, uneeded par, also focus on parents interactions with children. This is a confusing para ...it should goDPeterson^talk 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, delete above linesJonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(POV is about editors or material from unverified, non-credible sources. It's not POV when it's from a relevant, appropriate source. I agree it's perhaps confusing here and may be better in another section.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (I would propose putting in the Glaser bit first and then adding afterwards any other therapies that we can verify according to WikiFainites 06:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I think the previous paragraph includes all the therapies in one simple paragraph...lets try to keep the article focused and short, not wordy. Since each of the methods has at least one professiona peer-reviewed publication next to the name, each one has a citation that meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPeterson^talk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic".

Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance (Institute for Attachment and Child Development, n.d.).'

the above lines are good...keepJonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Like the standards on bio's of living persons, you must really be careful about making statements about the practice of an existing entity. The Speltz material is many years old now. Are you sure the Center still does this? If so, I think you must provide a relevant current citation. DPeterson^talk 12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(OK we can remove the name. The description is pretty central tho'. Chaffin etc were following on where Speltz left off and in psychology terms, 4 years is not very long.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) I isn't really central to an article on Attachment Therapy as I see it. DPeterson^talk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (this article isn't just about the capital letter version. Chaffin is not the only person to make the point that one of the attractions of this kind of therapy is that it focuses on there being something wrong with the child that needs to be changed rather than focussing on the caregiver. The key to all the therapies that Glaser gives as evidence based is that they ALL revolve around caregiver sensetivityFainites 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) However, all the current protocols regarding trauma treatment DO call for the exploration and revisting of past trauma...this material is not a direct quote and so may be a mis-interpretation. I'd suggest leaving it out or putting in their direct quote so that that reader can understand what they actually said. The line there now "focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers," is misleading because it leads one to conclude that a focus on past trauma is "bad," while that is precisely what is required to resolve trauma (See The National Child Trauma Center's White Paper on Complex Trauma, J. Briere's book Principles of Trauma Treatment, etc., etc.)DPeterson^talk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Trauma treatment and attachment treatment are not the same thing. The Chaffin quote is verified and credible. If there is another source, like the one you've mentioned, that's also verified and credible and relevant to attachment, then stick it in. The two don't mutually cancel each other. Anyway, I don't read that as saying dealing with past traumas is bad. It's about the false notions of what is an attachment issue. Both sources highlight the attachment therapies concentration on changing the child when all the evidence based therapies concentrate on carer sensitivity. Therapy for trauma is something different.Fainites 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Speltz describes a typical treatment taken from The Center’s material as follows; ‘Like Welsh (1984, 1989), The Center induces rage by physically restraining the child and forcing eye contact with the therapist (the child must lie across the laps of two therapists, looking up at one of them). In a workshop handout prepared by two therapists at The Center, the following sequence of events is described: (1) therapist “forces control” by holding (which produces child “rage”); (2) rage leads to child “capitulation” to the therapist, as indicated by the child breaking down emotionally (“sobbing”); (3) the therapist takes advantage of the child’s capitulation by showing nurturance and warmth; (4) this new trust allows the child to accept “control” by the therapist and evenutally the parent. According to The Center’s treatment protocol, if the child “shuts down” (i.e., refuses to comply), he or she may be threatened with detainment for the day at the clinic or forced placement in a temporary foster home; this is explained to the child as a consequence of not choosing to be a “family boy or girl.” If the child is actually placed in foster care, the child is then required to “earn the way back to therapy” and a chance to resume living with the adoptive family. This whole para should go since it is merely a POV attack on that program and not central to this article.DPeterson^talk 12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete. The material adds no value to the article and appears inflamatory and not NPOV JonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(How can it possibly be 'POV'? I suggest you look at the policy. It's a quotation from a peer reviewed report to the ASPAC! A verified, credible source, completely on the point of this article!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Again, leave out material, like bio material, about the Center, unless you have verifiable and reliable sources that that is their 'CURRENT' practice. It's best just to leave it out. DPeterson^talk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Quite happy to leave out the name but not the description. How can it possibly be POV when it's in a report by the ASPAC advisor, on this very issue, and it's a direct quote from a clinics material!Fainites 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker.

ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [11]

Keep this. JonesRD_talk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agreeDPeterson^talk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence

This intro para is better. It clearly defines the issue and subjectDPeterson^talk 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association[[12]], National Association of Social Workers[[13]], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [[14]], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [[15]]),and the American Psychiatric Association. [[16]]. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions. DPeterson^talk 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above edited paragraph is good. JonesRD_talk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Saying 'therefore there are very few practitioners' is a) not a logical conclusion of the previous paragraph and b) is OR.Fainites 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

It is rebirthing that is outlawed. I think the above paragraph states the concept most simply. DPeterson^talk 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows;

Delete the following lines...not relevant here. JonesRD_talk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(This is the conclusion of the report of the ASPAC on prevalence. How can it possibly be irrelevant?Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’. This is not related to prevelance and should be deleted.DPeterson^talk 13:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(Suggest we rename the 'prevalence ' section then. The statement that there are 'very few' practitioners is OR and POV. The quote from Chaffin is not. I think it would be less confusing if we could outline which organisations prohibited these practices and when, and who did so following the Chaffin report. Chaffin laid down guidelines. Two organisations adopted the report wholesale. Your suggestion is confusing but it isn't clear whether all these things were always prohibited and therefore it's completely beyond the pale, or whether the spate of regulation is in response to prevalence.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Chaffin describes the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating ‘This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds.’ not related to prev DPeterson^talk 13:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(Central to prevalence and highly releventFainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))(Completely relevent to prevalence.Fainites 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC))A particular concern of both Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser is the use of the Internet to advertise these therapies and the use of unscientific and 'wildly inclusive' lists of 'symptoms' (Prior and Glaser). According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.' Many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm. Descriptions of children are frequently highly perjorative and 'demonising'. According to Chaffin et al 'Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful’. They also express concern over claims by therapies to be 'evidence based' or indeed the 'only' evidence based therapy when the Task Force found no credible evidence base for any such therapy so advertised. This para is unnecessary...not related to this subject headingDPeterson^talk 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this prev section should go for the reasons already stated. JonesRD_talk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'd be happy to rename the section, but the point being made by Chaffin and Glaser is a substantial part of their report.Fainites 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

I think a better approach would be to edit it down to a much briefer quote. DPeterson^talk 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’ And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the across the lap variety.cite a page# if you are going to provide a direct and accurate quoteDPeterson^talk 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)(p263Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

the article should not be a springboard for one POV by ACTDPeterson^talk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)( I agree. That's why it suprises me that so many of the above amendments put ACT in the driving seat for definitions and descriptions. Surely it makes sense to use the valid, peer reviewed authorities for this, not an advocacy group. I'd be quite happy to put everything relating to ACT in a seperate section.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." The ACT site also contains a list of alleged "Attachment Therapies' by another name, some of whose proponents vehemently deny being derived from or in any way related to 'Attachment Therapy' as described by ACT or this article. The list also contains descriptions too broad to be a ‘name’ of any particular therapy such as ‘attachment disorder therapy’. Fainites 12:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Don't think this para is necessary...but maybe it goes under the defination if anywhereDPeterson^talk 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Attachment disorder
• Attachment theory
• John Bowlby
• Child Development
• Candace Newmaker
• Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

• reactive attachment disorder
• Stanley Greenspan
• Theraplay
• rebirthing
• Advocates for Children in Therapy
• Stephen Barrett
• Quackwatch

References

Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (2005) Creating Capacity for Attachment. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood 'N' Barnes.

Becker-Weidman (2006a) Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 23(2), April 2006

Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b) Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: a multi year follow-up. in Sturt, S., (ed) New Developments in Child Abuse Research. NY: Nova

Becker-Weidman, A., (2006c) “Treatment For Children with Reactive Attachment Disorder: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health Published article online: 21-Nov-2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00428.x.[[17]]

Berliner, L. (2002).Why caregivers turn to "attachment therapy" and what we can do that is better. APSAC Advisor, 14(4), 8-10.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment. New York: Basic.

Chaffin M, Hanson R, Saunders BE, Nichols T, Barnett D, Zeanah C, Berliner L, Egeland B, Newman E, Lyon T, LeTourneau E, Miller-Perrin C. Report of the APSAC task force on attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder, and attachment problems. Child Maltreat. 2006 Feb;11(1):76-89. PMID 16382093

Cline, F. (1994). Hope for high risk and rage-filled children. Evergreen, CO: EC Publications.

Hughes, D., (2003). Psychotherapeutic interventions for the spectrum of attachment disorders and intrafamilial trauma. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 271-279.

Hughes, D. (2004). An attachment-based treatment of maltreated children and young people. Attachment & Human Development, 3, 263–278.

Krenner, M. (1999). Ein Erklaerungsmodell zur "Festhaltetherapie" nach Jirina Prekop. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2000, from http://wwwalt.uni-wuerzburg.de/gbpaed/mixed/work/mkrenner1.html.

Levy, T.M., Ed. (2000). Handbook of attachment interventions. San diego: Academic.

Lieberman, A., (2003). The treatment of attachment disorder in infancy and early childhood. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 279-283.

Marvin, R., & Whelan, W., (2003) Disordered attachment: toward evidence-based clinical practice. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 284-299.

O'Connor, C., & Zeanah, C., Attachment disorder: assessment strategies and treatment approaches, Attachment and Human Development 5, 223-244.

Schechter, D.S. (2003). Intergenerational communication of maternal violent trauma: Understanding the interplay of reflective functioning and posttraumatic psychopathology. In S.W. Coates, J.L. Rosenthal, & D.S. Schechter (Eds.), September 11: Trauma and Human Bonds. New York, NY: The Analytic Press, pp. 115-143.

Thomas, N. (2001). Parenting children with attachment disorders. In T.M. Levy (Ed.), Handbook of attachment interventions. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Verny, T., & Kelly, J. (1981). The secret life of the unborn child. New York: Dell.

Welch, M.G. (1989) Holding time. New York:Fireside.

Welch, M.G., Northrup, R.S., Welch-Horan, T.B., Ludwig, R.J., Austin, C.L., & Jacobson, J.S.(2006). Outcomes of prolonged parent-child embrace therapy among 102 children with behavioral disorders. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 12, 3-12.

Zaslow, R., & Menta, M. (1975) The psychology of the Z-process: Attachment and activity. San Jose, CA: San Jose University Press.

Zeanah, C., (1993) Infant Mental Health. NY: Guilford.

DPetersons amendments

(This section contains DPetersons proposed amendments to Fainites proposed article, and Fainites comments in italics. Fainites 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy,” holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder, which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. (this bit should be in a seperate section that deals with the ACT controversy aspect Fainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing therapy.(haven't they outlawed a bit more than just rebirthing? Didn't some base their codes on Chaffin's recommendations? Fainites 09:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Care should be taken to distinguish between this subset of therapies and more mainstream therapies which may also be loosely described as attachment or attachment disorder therapy. For the purposes of this article, the term used to describe this subset is ‘Attachment Therapy.’

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

The term has little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods. (this proceeding sentence doesn't quite make sense here because the whole point of Chaffin is that he is attempting to define and describe the issue. I think we need to amalgamate these two section more carefullyFainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006) describe it as follows; "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”

Speltz (2002) in a paper for the APSAC (Was it written for APSAC or merely printed in one of their publications such as Child Maltreatment?DPeterson^talk 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) describes ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows; ‘… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265.

The advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[18]

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy," and it is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach.(this preceding sentence needs to be amalgamated with the above paragraph. The bit below merely duplicates what has already been put in. Fainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject. While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean.(this last sentence is misleading as it suggests that nobody knows what 'Attachment Therapy' means when it has in fact been carefully described by Chaffin, Speltz and Prior and Glaser. We don't need to depend on ACT for a description of Attachment Therapy. Fainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [19]

ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."[20]

The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy."

history and underlying principles

In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’ (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics such as ‘The Center’ in the Pacific northwest.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) ‘there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)’.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated’.

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’( why did you remove the rest of this paragraph? Its verified, credible and properly sourced and cited. Fainites 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Attachment Disorder

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’.

Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders.

DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.

Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.

Treatment characteristics

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). ( I'm not to sure about this list business. I put the list in from Prior and Glaser and you have your list here, but I'm wondering if this isn't all a bit unwise. This article is about the OTHER therapies. Should we in fact like Chaffin confine ourselves to describing the characteristics of mainstream treatment rather than getting involved in lists, every entry in which will need to be independently and credibly verified and about which there are bound to be disagreements about who's in and who's out.Fainites 09:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) ((I've commented above in your article to keep all comments in one place. I think it is important to list these reputable approaches...once you begin to list approaches, leaving out affiliated approaches, like Theraplay, is damming by omission. We don't need to confine the list to Chafin, especially since that article only covers material through about 2004 and more recent material should be included. The other approaches included have the appropriate citations necessarry to include them. Not including them appears POV.JonesRD_talk 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) (I think however we do the list looks POV which is perhaps why Chaffin etc wisely decided not to do a list. Maybe we should follow his exampleFainites 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC))Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002).

According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic".

Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance.'

Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker.

The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.( I frankly don't understand why you've put this paragraph in here. The issue of descriptions/capitals/non-capitals should be dealt with in the intro or definition section, and indeed is. Also the fact that this is a subset. That's what this article is all about! Who says the 'controversy is a narrow one'? I also think we need to establish the context in the intro and the definition section. I think we should stick to the commentators on this. Fainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [21]

Prevalence

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association[[22]], National Association of Social Workers[[23]], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [[24]], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [[25]]) , and the American Psychiatric Association. [[26]]. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.

by Chaffin et al state, ‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’.

( I think it makes more sense to put Chaffins views on prevalence first and then list the organisations and states that have outlawed it afterwards. However, Chaffin does make the point that just because people regulate against it doesn't mean it goes away. What is the source for saying it is 'rare'? I think Chaffin is the best source we have on prevalence. Also, why have you removed Prior and Glaser on the UK? and why have you removed Chaffin on polarization?Fainites 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Comments on suggested changes

This is a really good start!. I'll be interested to see what other editors think and the read their suggested additions etc. I'll make mine above in the prev section. I encourage other editors to review the above material and make their suggested edits and changes to it so we can build consensus. DPeterson^talk 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. I will add my comments above to keep everything in one place.JonesRD_talk 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Article by DPeterson

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy,” holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder, which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing therapy. Care should be taken to distinguish between this subset of therapies and more mainstream therapies which may also be loosely described as attachment or attachment disorder therapy. For the purposes of this article, the term used to describe this subset is ‘Attachment Therapy.’

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

The term has little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods. The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006) describe it as follows; "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”

Speltz (2002) in a paper for the APSAC describes ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows; ‘… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265.

The advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[27]

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy," and it is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject. While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean.

ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [28]

ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."[29]

The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy."

history and underlying principles

In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’ (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics such as ‘The Center’ in the Pacific northwest.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) ‘there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)’.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated’.

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’

Attachment Disorder

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’.

Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders.

DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.

Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.

Treatment characteristics

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002).

According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic".

Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance.'

Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker.

The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [30]

Prevalence

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association[[31]], National Association of Social Workers[[32]], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [[33]], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [[34]]) , and the American Psychiatric Association. [[35]]. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.

by Chaffin et al state, ‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’.

Suggestion for another approach

I'd like to hear what other editors think of the following proposal. Instead of trying to cover the waterfront and all aspects here. Why not just have an article that defines attachment therapy using available mateirals? JonesRD_talk 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy,” holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder, which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing therapy. Care should be taken to distinguish between this subset of therapies and more mainstream therapies which may also be loosely described as attachment or attachment disorder therapy. For the purposes of this article, the term used to describe this subset is ‘Attachment Therapy.’

Attachment Therapy is a term with little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. It is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (2006), nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject. While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean.

The advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[36]

The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods. The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006) describe it as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265.

ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [37]

ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."[38] ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [39]

JonesRD_talk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think that the above defines the term reasonably well and could be the entire article. What do other contributors think?JonesRD_talk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr Jones, I don't think your proposal addresses what is wrong with the existing article. It prioritises ACT over and above valid credible verified and relevant sources like Chaffin et al, Speltz, Prior and Glaser. Why give ACT the lead in definitions and descriptions? The entire Chaffin report is about the subject matter of this article. It was compiled by all the big names in this field. Lets use that guys! Lets quote their definition, not ACT's. Better still, lets write the whole article without even mentioning ACT! ACT didn't invent this controversy about Attachment Therapy, attachment therapy or coercive attachment therapy. Chaffins definition is as good as it's going to get. Also, The article ought to include the theoretical base of these 'therapies' and point out the history and differences. I thought you liked those bits!Fainites 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the italics thing was fun but it got a little messy. We all need to read all the versions and comments though to avoid repeating ourselves.Fainites 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

evidence based treatments

Actually this might be a great consensus builder. If the material were reordered to put Chafin first as Fainities wants, then it would be a nice tightly focused article that defines, or attempts to define, this vague term. The entirel Chafin report is really about a broader set of issues. Put their relevant quotes first, and then the others. This way all the material about "other treatments" can be avoided, and a lot of other material can be left out. DPeterson^talk 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I reread it, I think it flows well. The Chafin material is up there and so are other sources. ACT is quoted, as it should be along with the other sources so we get several descriptions. DPeterson^talk 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that Chaffin is about a 'broader set of issues'. If that's going to be the basis of editing of this article, then the only solution is to have two articles. One which is called Attachment Therapy with capitals and deals with the ACT side of things only and another which tackles the whole issue of the 'attachment therapy' controversy as per Speltz/Chaffin/Glaser etc. You guys presumably wouldn't be interested in editing that article so you could concentrate on the ACT one here. Then we can disambiguate 'Attachment Therapy' and 'attachment therapy'.Fainites 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of ACT's 'list', that's actually quite a big topic in itself. This is the list; Z-therapy- rage-reduction therapy- Theraplay- holding therapy-attachment holding therapy-attachment disorder therapy-holding time-cuddle time-gentle containment-holding-nurturing process-emotional shuttling-direct synchronous bonding-breakthrough synchronous bonding-therapeutic parenting-dynamic attachment therapy-humanistic attachment therapy-corrective attachment therapy-developmental attachment therapy-dyadic attachment therapy-dyadic developmental psychotherapy-dyadic support environment-affective attunement-some of these are just so vague they're not individual therapies at all. Most of them however (I have actually looked them up!) look like a true bill. The two most controversial inclusions here are Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I don't really want to get involved in DDP's ongoing feud with ACT, but the point is, none of the other therapies in Glasers list or the current articles list apart from these two are in this ACT list. I don't therefore see how we can say (in the introduction no less) that ACT have labelled nearly all treatment's as attachment therapy. I've tried to think of a way of wording it in a more encyclopaedic way but it's a bit tricky.Fainites 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ACT and Quackwatch also take aim at EMDR and some other therapies. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay has professional peer reviewed research (meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable) to support it as being effective and the descriptions of it in the various articles and books are clearly consistent with the other treatments. It looks like they just took a bunch of words and there them together...what is the basis for their labeling these as intrusive and problematic? What methods does ACT label as acceptable? I don't see any listed on their site. So, it probably is accurate to say they label nearly all...DPeterson^talk 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As you know I also take issue with their 'list of shame' of other therapies offhandedly condemned as quackery. I'm also no fan of Quackwatch. However, there is no reason why they should list acceptable therapies. That's not their thing! But none of the therapies named by Glaser are in their list. I managed to find examples of most of whats on ACT's list. Also their beef with Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy is set out pretty plainly on their page on Hughes. Basically they say a leopard doesn't change it's spots, whereas Hughes himself in various places makes it clear that he has discarded 'attachment therapy' type methods and developed a new therapy that he clearly means to be congruent with attachment theory. Whether he has suceeded or not is not for us to say unless we can find verified or credible sources to speak authoritatively on this point. Also I have seen a study on theraplay which makes it plain that it is in some respects 'intrusive' but this was not being said in a perjorative sense. Maybe ACT have other sources, or maybe they just picked up on this. The point I'm making is that it is a big piece of work to decide whether various therapies are 'evidence based' or congruent with attachment theory or all the professional codes and something that really needs to be dealt with individually for each therapy. Chaffin avoided specifically naming therapies. I think we should too, or we get into difficulties about what is and what isn't evidence based. Wiki can't accept self-report for evidence base or compliance with codes of professional conduct.Fainites 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to decide whether anything is evidence based. We only need to list sources that meet the Wikipedia standard for being WP:verifiable. If the source makes a statement and it is verifiable, then we can use that statement. The list of therapies and citations is consistent with Wikipedia standards for being verifiable. But, anyway, lets stick with getting the article written and focus on the intro paragraph and move along. OK?DPeterson^talk 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have to ascertain if they're evidence based if we are going to say they are evidence based. eg on 'Circle' we can say Prior and Glaser say it's evidence based. On Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy we can't say it's evidence based just because it's proponents say it is. We could only say it claims to be evidence based unless we can find a verified and credible source that says its evidence based. As you know, 'evidence based' has a fairly specific meaning in science and doesn't just mean it's published a peer-reviewed study. This is why I think it's fairer and wiser to do what Chaffin et al did and not start listing therapies as evidence based. It's all too complicated and it's not necessary for the scope of this article. Fainites 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the material is published in professional peer-reviewed journals (and that these are all empirical studies) means they are evidence based. Therefore, the material should be included. My reading of the comments above, is that most editors, so far, agree with this view and so the mateiral should be included. JohnsonRon 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Having a peer-reviewed study is not the same as 'evidence based'. A peer reviewed study is a verified and credible source for Wiki purposes so we can cite it. There's alot more than that to calling a therapy 'evidence based' which is a term used in the scientific world, not a 'Wiki' term. This is set out in many places but for now I'll just give you Chaffin;"In general, we believe that designating a treatmentas evidence based is a job for an independenttreatment review panel (e.g., AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration [SAMHSA], Office forVictims of Crime Task Force, Cochrane Collaborative,etc.) applying accepted and established scientificreview criteria. The fact that most editors agree is irrelevent if most editors are in fact, wrong.Fainites 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Heres another bit of Chaffin for you;"Moreover, the sides do not agree on the rules for determining the risks and benefitsof psychological treatments or how questions about risks and benefits should be resolved. Critics" (of attachment therapy) "tend to rely on the well-established and accepted principlesof clinical science. Central to the clinical science perspective is testing outcomes using rigorous scientific research designs and methods that control for well-known confounds such as spontaneous recovery, the placebo effect, patient expectancy effects, investigator effects, and other forces that may influence the perceived outcomes of any clinical intervention. Critics tend to rely on scientific peer-review of research findings, publishing results in the scientific literature for wider scrutiny and review, and independent replication of findings before labeling a treatment as efficacious with an acceptable level of risk."Fainites 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The materials and statements meet Wikipedia standards for being verifiable and that is all that matters here. The articles are published in PROFESSIONAL PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS and that makes the material evidence based as it has had blinded independent professional review. Regardless, the material and statements are verifiable and so can be included. Since wikipeidis operates on consensus, it is VERY RELEVANT to a discussion if there is consensus and most editors agree on a point and on the inclusion or exclusion of an item. That's how Wikipedia works. You just are not the final decider and you have not "veto" power if the consensus is against your view. Wikkipedia is sort of ruthless that way. JohnsonRon 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, if there is no agreement, then it is best to leave the section as is without any changes. JohnsonRon 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to citations from peer reviewed journals. I'm objecting to the use of the term 'evidence-based' which does not mean 'published in a peer reviewed journal'. Presumably if you agree relevent citations from verified and credible sources you don't object to everything Chaffin et al say on the subject of 'attachment therapies' claiming to be evidence based when they are not going in? Fainites 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the material has been peer-reviewed and the article is empirical in nature, then it is, by definition, evidence-based. You may have some other definition or criteria in mind, but that is not the only view. Other views are valid and acceptable. So, the various treatments, if they have evidence-based articles to support the efficacy of the approach, can be cited as such. Again, we can disagree, and see that other editors think and then what will go into this article is the consensus, even if the consensus is not what you, or I, prefer...This is how Wikipedia works. JohnsonRon 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a democracy and there are rules about sources. Chaffin et al is a verified and credible source and they have a great deal to say on the subject of attachment therapies claiming to be evidence based. You will not be able to remove such evidence by 'consensus'. So both views will have to go in, yours (if you have a source for it) and Chaffins, and Prior and Glasers, and any other verified and credible source. I'm quite happy to put in all views. Fainites 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I find it surprising that this needs to be said. There is a strong difference between "some papers concerning this therapy made it past a referee" and "this therapy is evidence-based". shotwell 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

'YES' It is fine for Chaffin et al to be included and the other references to evidence-based material. Empirical evidence in a peer-reviewed professional publication is evidence-based...so including both is fine. Again, we'll see what other editors have to say and the consensus will determine the outcome. JohnsonRon 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wiki policies will determine the outcome. That includes sources and NPOV and all the policies designed to achieve a measure of accuracy and common sense. Lets go over this again. Peer reviewed studies are appropriate sources to be referred to in Wiki. Science/therapies etc being 'evidence based' is a completely different thing. For a newish therapy to be accepted as evidence based it needs (amongst other things) to have been the subject of rigorous clinical trials and it's results need to have been replicated by others (which means it's methods, theories etc must have been fully explained) and then be accepted as evidence based by the wider scientific community. Not being evidence based doesn't mean a therapy is crap! It can take a long time to become evidence based and some never do. What propnents of new therapies usually hope is that their propsals are sufficiently sound, and their preliminary studies are sufficiently promising for others in the field to want to attempt to replicate their findings, thus hopefully leading towards 'evidence based'. Describing therapies as evidence based when they are plainly not probably has the opposite effect so it's quite important not to bandy these words around lightly. My proposal to get away from this problem is not to list any therapies at all in this way. It's not necessary for the article. The article is about 'attachment therapy' ie, as described. We can put in what Chaffin/Glaser etc say about what mainstream therapy as opposed to attachment therapy is, and the underlying principles, but it is not necessary to then try and list all the therapies that are considered evidence based and such a process would be fraught with difficulty. (We could I suppose contact the bodies listed by Chaffin and ask them for lists of what they have verified as evidence based)Fainites 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Including the material is fully within wiki policies. The references are clearly WP:verifiability. The sources and statement meet wP:NPOV as NPOV. And the citations are accurate. You present one view...which is fine. Evidence-based does mean that there is scientific evidence for a statement. In this instance empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals is evidence-based support. I really don't understand what is the AX you are grinding here. Publication in a professional peer reviewed journal is clear evidence of acceptabnce by a wider scientific community. The material should be included as written and the consensus here seems to be for it's inclusion. JonesRD_talk 22:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against including the material. Peer reviewed sources are includable. Its the naming of therapies as 'evidence based' when they are not that I object to. This has a specific meaning within science. Chaffin is very specific on this point. If therapies are to be quoted as evidence based that needs to be from a verified and credible source, not self report or OR. If therapies are put in as evidence based on a self report then it is inevitable that what Chaffin has to say about that claim will also be cited, and properly so under Wiki policies. I repeat that one way out of this dilemma is not to attempt to list therapies as evidence based or not in this article, it being entirely unecessary.Fainites 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The therapies are evidence based for the reasons I, and others, stated above. You seem to be assuming that only your view is correct and that is just not so. The therapies are evidence based. Chaffin may be specific, but that is not the end all and be all in this regardd. The citations are from a "verified and crredible source; peer reviewed blind reviews in professional publications. These are not "self-reported," but independent studies. So, we just don't agree and the final decison will be based on whatever consensus develops here based on all reviewer comments. As I said before, you do not own this article nor have veto power if the consensus is against you. JonesRD_talk 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop altering my edits. We are writing an encyclopaedia. There are policies and aims. Are you suggesting that if enough accounts could gang up and vote on one site to say that eg the Bible was first written on an Amstrad in Wrexham in 1979 and there is no record of it's existence before that date that everybody would have to accept that 'consensus' ?Fainites 10:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am 'NOT alterning your edits. Indenting to keep threats togther if just format and is makes all this easier to follow. Randomly placing comments makes it impossible to follow the tread of the conversation. Your example is interesting, but silly. It is a RED HERRING as "they" say. Wikipedia operates on consensus and when then large marjority agree, that is the tack to be taken. Agreement does not have to be 100% and that is not what 'CONSENSUS' means anyway. wikipedia articles are built on consensus. JonesRD_talk 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Threads don't need to be indented to be 'kept together'. They follow on from each other, only in your case, more and more thinly.Fainites 22:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the "form" uses on Wikipedia Talk pages and the convention suess. Please WP:Assume good faith and try to avoid 'No Personal Attacks'. Your sarcasim is not conducise to developing consensus or a collaboration. JonesRD_talk 02:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have politely asked you not to keep interfering with my edits, yet you continue to do so. I merely took your indentophilia to it's logical conclusion. Shall we get back to the subject in hand? Fainites 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The evidence basis is provided by the several empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals and in the article by Craven & Lee in Research on Social Work Practice, vol 16, May 2006, 287-304...This is the most current article on the subject. DPeterson^talk 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

amended proposed new article

'LETS COMMENT IN ONLY ONE PLACE. THE FIRST VERSION IS THE BEST PLACE TO DO SO...ALL MY COMMENTS ARE THERE. WE CAN BEGIN LOOKING AT THIS SECTION BY SECTION. SEE MY FIRST STAB AT CONSENSUS BELOW'JonesRD_talk 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Another attempt.Fainites 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree...see my comments above.DPeterson^talk 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy,” holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder, which is itself an ambiguous term.DPeterson^talk 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (see previous comment. There is nothing ambiguous about holding or rebirthing. It's the term 'attachment therapy that's ambiguous. Your version makes no sense factually or grammaticallyFainites 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy” or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder. The term has little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature and is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and was is not legitimately described as an 'attachment therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups and commentators such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broad range of therapies in their 'list' who's proponents would vehemently deny such a charge.

The 'treatments' often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies have codes of practice against these practices and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

(phrases like 'offer some guidance' are POV and non-encyclopaedic. ACT are not offering guidance. They make a plain statement about what they sya AT is, which we can either quote or accurately summarise, and we can put in opposing views provided they're from a verified and credible source and not our own views.Fainites 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy", with or without capital letters. It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating ‘This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds.’

The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006), having said 'The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions', attempt to describe this subset as follows; "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” (If this is a direct quote, we need a pg #DPeterson^talk 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) (p83 Fainites 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Speltz (2002) in a paper for the APSAC was this for APSAC or merely published in the journal Child Maltreatment? DPeterson^talk 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (it's headed 'Speltz, Matthew L. (2002). Description, History, and Critique of Corrective Attachment Therapy. The APSAC Advisor, 14(3), 4-8 Reprinted by permission of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children' Fainites 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) describes ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows; ‘… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265.

See comments in your first version...this still does not address what was said.DPeterson^talk 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The entire quote is 'There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: 'present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress' '. This is on p.265. Also Chaffin includes age regression as a feature of these therapies. They obviously didn't feel the need to refine it further but the Glaser passage encapsulates it rather neatlyFainites 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

The campaigning group, Advocacy group```` Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[40]

history and underlying principles

You'v not included all the comments and suggestions from above. DPeterson^talk 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I don't agree with them allFainites 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’ (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) ‘there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)’.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated’.

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). The methodology of this study is heavily criticised. This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’ According to Prior and Glaser, regression is key to the holding therapy approach, but was explicitly rejected by Bowlby (1988) who stated that ‘a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress.’ p263

Attachment Disorder

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’.

Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders.

DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.

Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.

Treatment characteristics

According to Chaffin et al 'although focused primarily on specific attachment therapy techniques, the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these techniques, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents. The controversy deepened after the death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker during a therapy session in 2000 (Crowder & Lowe, 2000), and a number of child deaths occurring at the hands of parents who claim that they acted on attachment therapists’ instructions (Warner, 2003). Criminal charges have been brought against some attachment therapists and against parents who claimed to be using what is known as attachment parenting.'

'Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004).' (Chaffin et al p77).

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. See comments in prev version....listing names and using very old date (Welch 1998, for example) may not reflect current practice. I suggest leaving all that out unless you can verify that this is the current practice eight or ten years later!!!!!DPeterson^talk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Prior and Glaser was first published August 2006. Chaffin is also 2006. These are up-to date sources about the provenance, sourcers and practices of this type of therapy. That's what they're about!Fainites 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

The focus of non-evidence based Attachment Therapies is somewhat different. According to Prior and Glaser ‘These include work directed at parents interactions with the children such as behaviour management, life story work and work on the meanings of the child’s experience, and some approaches are directed at the child and may or may not include the child’s primary carer. Attachment therapy often however, also includes some other interventions including a number of variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998) and therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley) as well as others such as rage-reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing.’ They also refer to the ‘Handbook of Attachment Interventions’ (Levy 2000), Levy and Orlans and the ‘Holding Nurturing Process.’

According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic".

Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance (Institute for Attachment and Child Development, n.d.).'

Speltz describes a typical treatment taken from a clinic's material as follows; ‘Like Welsh (1984, 1989),' the clinic 'induces rage by physically restraining the child and forcing eye contact with the therapist (the child must lie across the laps of two therapists, looking up at one of them). In a workshop handout prepared by two therapists ...... the following sequence of events is described: (1) therapist “forces control” by holding (which produces child “rage”); (2) rage leads to child “capitulation” to the therapist, as indicated by the child breaking down emotionally (“sobbing”); (3) the therapist takes advantage of the child’s capitulation by showing nurturance and warmth; (4) this new trust allows the child to accept “control” by the therapist and evenutally the parent. According to the ...... treatment protocol, if the child “shuts down” (i.e., refuses to comply), he or she may be threatened with detainment for the day at the clinic or forced placement in a temporary foster home; this is explained to the child as a consequence of not choosing to be a “family boy or girl.” If the child is actually placed in foster care, the child is then required to “earn the way back to therapy” and a chance to resume living with the adoptive family.

Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker.

ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [41]

Prevalence

It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows;

‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’.

A particular concern of both Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser is the use of the Internet to advertise these therapies and the use of unscientific and 'wildly inclusive' lists of 'symptoms' (Prior and Glaser). According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.' Many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm. Descriptions of children are frequently highly perjorative and 'demonising'. According to Chaffin et al 'Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful’. They also express concern over claims by therapies to be 'evidence based' or indeed the 'only' evidence based therapy when the Task Force found no credible evidence base for any such therapy so advertised.

The report of Chaffin et al, which contains proposed guidelines for therapies, was endorsed by was endorsed by the American Psychological Association’s Division 37 and the Division 37 Section on Child Maltreatment.

Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’ And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the 'across the lap' variety.

The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers."

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" as described in this article. However the practices it often involves are now prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association30, National Association of Social Workers31, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 32, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 33), and the American Psychiatric Association. 34. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice.

Fainites 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (2005) Creating Capacity for Attachment. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood 'N' Barnes.

Becker-Weidman (2006a) Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 23(2), April 2006

Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b) Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: a multi year follow-up. in Sturt, S., (ed) New Developments in Child Abuse Research. NY: Nova

Becker-Weidman, A., (2006c) “Treatment For Children with Reactive Attachment Disorder: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health Published article online: 21-Nov-2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00428.x.[[42]]

Berliner, L. (2002).Why caregivers turn to "attachment therapy" and what we can do that is better. APSAC Advisor, 14(4), 8-10.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment. New York: Basic.

Chaffin M, Hanson R, Saunders BE, Nichols T, Barnett D, Zeanah C, Berliner L, Egeland B, Newman E, Lyon T, LeTourneau E, Miller-Perrin C. Report of the APSAC task force on attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder, and attachment problems. Child Maltreat. 2006 Feb;11(1):76-89. PMID 16382093

Cline, F. (1994). Hope for high risk and rage-filled children. Evergreen, CO: EC Publications.

Hughes, D., (2003). Psychotherapeutic interventions for the spectrum of attachment disorders and intrafamilial trauma. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 271-279.

Hughes, D. (2004). An attachment-based treatment of maltreated children and young people. Attachment & Human Development, 3, 263–278.

Krenner, M. (1999). Ein Erklaerungsmodell zur "Festhaltetherapie" nach Jirina Prekop. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2000, from http://wwwalt.uni-wuerzburg.de/gbpaed/mixed/work/mkrenner1.html.

Levy, T.M., Ed. (2000). Handbook of attachment interventions. San diego: Academic.

Lieberman, A., (2003). The treatment of attachment disorder in infancy and early childhood. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 279-283.

Marvin, R., & Whelan, W., (2003) Disordered attachment: toward evidence-based clinical practice. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 284-299.

O'Connor, C., & Zeanah, C., Attachment disorder: assessment strategies and treatment approaches, Attachment and Human Development 5, 223-244.

Schechter, D.S. (2003). Intergenerational communication of maternal violent trauma: Understanding the interplay of reflective functioning and posttraumatic psychopathology. In S.W. Coates, J.L. Rosenthal, & D.S. Schechter (Eds.), September 11: Trauma and Human Bonds. New York, NY: The Analytic Press, pp. 115-143.

Thomas, N. (2001). Parenting children with attachment disorders. In T.M. Levy (Ed.), Handbook of attachment interventions. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Verny, T., & Kelly, J. (1981). The secret life of the unborn child. New York: Dell.

Welch, M.G. (1989) Holding time. New York:Fireside.

Welch, M.G., Northrup, R.S., Welch-Horan, T.B., Ludwig, R.J., Austin, C.L., & Jacobson, J.S.(2006). Outcomes of prolonged parent-child embrace therapy among 102 children with behavioral disorders. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 12, 3-12.

Zaslow, R., & Menta, M. (1975) The psychology of the Z-process: Attachment and activity. San Jose, CA: San Jose University Press.

Zeanah, C., (1993) Infant Mental Health. NY: Guilford. Added also see and reference section so that other editors can easily see material to be in article.

Comments on Revised article

A lot of this is very good. However, it is difficult to read it since it does not address all the concerns raised in the previous version. I suggest we stick with that one since it has all the relevant comments until consensus is reached. Maybe go section by section and create a new section below this for the consensus sections. I'd suggest beginning at the beginning.DPeterson^talk 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you've changed my post. Please don't do this! Talk pages should not be refactored. It's my post. I shall now have to replace it as it was, either by posting my version AGAIN or by reverting your edits of my post. Do you have any preferences? You can always insert italicised suggestions.Fainites 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is too difficult to follow the "new" "new" article by Fainites. So, I agree, let's stick with commenting on the first Fainites and DPeterson proposals and go line by line to get a consensus among those and the current article. I'll take a stab by suggesting a first new section below. JonesRD_talk 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep my comments to the first version so that if it is deleted, we don't loose comments. Also, this way, all the comments and suggestions will be in one place and not spread over the ballpark.DPeterson^talk 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION FOR THIS PAGE

This page is getting too long. I'd suggest deleting the "new" new version above, and one of the two DPeterson versions and then working on the last section in this page to discuss each paragraph.JonesRD_talk 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we allowed to delete items from the talk page? If so, I'll be glad to delete one of my versions to simplify things. DPeterson^talk 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We should never mess about with talkpage contributions. It's meant to be a record. However, what we can delete is the reference list that keeps being put in. It's only being copied from the main page so we all know where to find it to look something up. I really don't understand why it keeps appearing here.Fainites 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reference list has more materials on in than are in the article. Also, it is helpful to see the full citations.DPeterson^talk 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Only once surely. Whats the point of filling up the talkpage with the same list over and over again. This is the talkpage! Fainites 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that it should be part of an proposed article since it is different than what is in the article...otherwise, by that logic, whatever is the same in a proposal as is already on this talk page would be left out...there seems to be at least one section that has not had any disagreements; at least among those few editors who have commented so far.DPeterson^talk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article must be properly sourced and referenced. All of my edits are sourced. It's silly to keep listing the same sources. When we have an agreed version the ref list naturally follows. I have already said that this ref list is not properly set up. Fainites 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You only list names and dates, not the citation. Furthermore, as you pointed out, this page is to be a record and so we should not delete any entries. DPeterson^talk 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have given you my citations. I just don't keep repeating them on the talkpage.Fainites 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION/FIRST SECTON

"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy” "holding therapy," "rebirthing therapy," or "corrective attachment therapy" is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” (We need a page number if this is an acutal direct quoteJonesRD_talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and was is not legitimately described as an 'attachment therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups and commentators such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broad range of therapies in their 'list' who's proponents would vehemently deny such a charge.

Comment on Intro section

I think this captures the essential elements of what is being proposed.JonesRD_talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It may need a little work...but I think this is a very good start. I'll wait to see what other editors suggest here. If there is agreement, I'll support this as is.DPeterson^talk 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The content is fine but I think it needs a little rearranging. Including 'holding' and 'rebirthing' in the first line is confusing. Neither are ambiguous terms. It is attachment therapy that's the ambiguous term. How about putting (sometimes called holding or rebirthing therapy) in brackets. On the AT point 'large number' is better than 'nearly all'. Good idea! It's still not quite right though as alot of the therapies in it's list actually are variants of holding or Zaslow type therapies. This is a very tricky sentence to get right without getting too involved in irrelevancies. Also, how about putting this sentence at the end of the first para.? We ought to paraphrase people as accurately as possible and the line 'Attachment Therapy and attachment therapy actually come from the beginning of Chaffin and corrective attachment therapy comes from Speltz. The ACT line where it is sort of cuts the para in half. We ought to do the description first, then outline the ACT controversy.Fainites 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the point. Attachment therapy is an ambigious term for which a lot of other terms are used. How about the following:

"Attachment Therapy", (also know as ”attachment therapy” "holding therapy," "rebirthing therapy," or "corrective attachment therapy") is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term.

. I like the term "large number." I think it accurately caputures ACT's view. In addition not all those on their list are Z-therapies or related to Zaslow. I'd vote to keep the suggestion of "large number." DPeterson^talk 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were all Z therapies. I don't mind 'large number' that much. Fainites 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it flows ok as is. The intro paragraph includes references to all those who will be cited/used later. How would you reword it?DPeterson^talk 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd put both ACT bits with the sentence that starts 'care should be taken...' because that's really partly on the same point. We're warning our readers AND giving an example of why they are being warned. It would then read :

Instead of: DPeterson^talk 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC))"Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy” or "corrective attachment therapy" (also sometimes called rebirthing or holding therapy)is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual.

(Use this:

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual.

)DPeterson^talk 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing. In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and was is not legitimately described as an 'attachment therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups and commentators such as ACT and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of therapies as 'Attachment Therapy' to discredit them (end here...or, instead state, "while the proponents of some of these approaches have presented evidence that the approaches are not corcive and do not use prohibited methods DPeterson^talk 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)) when their proponents deny using coercive or prohibited methods.

Or actually your version of putting them all in brackets except 'Attachment Therapy' is pretty good. I'd be happy with either. On the other point, did you mean just end the last sentence after '...discredit them'. ? Fainites 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing "who's proponents would vehemently deny such a charge." from the last line in either of the following two ways. First, "that (or some of which) are not coercive or use prohibited methods. Or, Second, just leave it out and end with a period after list, without quotes.DPeterson^talk 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, put all the terms in brackets, since the article is just about Attachment Therapy and those are just other terms used for it. See belowDPeterson^talk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say 'this article is just about Attachment Therapy'? Fainites 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what this article is about, what is Attachment Therapy? Yes? DPeterson^talk 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It's about 'what is this subset of non-mainstream therapies popularly called attachment therapy, Attachment therapy, Attachment Therapy, coercive attachment therapy or what ever other names proponents think up in order to keep on the move'! Fainites 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just what I said, the article is about what is Attachment Therapy...What do you mean, "whatever other names proponents think up in order to keep on the move?" Are you suggesting something we should consider in this article?DPeterson^talk 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Intro

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” (We need a page number if this is an acutal direct quoteJonesRD_talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article. DPeterson^talk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

comment

It's fine apart from the Quackwatch ACT bit. We're saying the same thing twice in two paragraphs in what is meant to be a brief descriptive opening which is stylistically horrible. I invented the second form of words to be used instead of the first, not as well as. It sounds wierd to say the same thing twice in different words. The first bit doesn't fit at all where it is in the opening paragraph and is merely confusing. It gives the impression that the word 'treatments' in the following sentence refers to the 'treatments' described by ACT which I don't think is the effect you meant to achieve but the opposite. The opening paragraph should be a brief description of it's subject. There should be no more than one brief description of a main controversy. I don't mind if you take out the first sentence or amalgamate it with the second or replace the second but as an example of encyclopaedic English we can't leave it as it is.Fainites 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a small change. I don't see how we can not have both references in. The first reference describes how ACT defines many trts as AT while the last para is a cautionary para that also needs to be present. So, we are not saying the same precise thing twice. I think it reads ok and suggest we leave it as is and move on the the next section...Alternatively we could do nothing, wait a week or so and see what others think before closing this section and moving on to the next section....Now that I put it like that, it is probably best to leave this as is for a week or so and see what others think...but I am certainly willing to continue working with you on the next section, if you wish. DPeterson^talk 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK we'll leave it for a bit. I don't mind having both sentences in although I think it's unecessary but I don't think it reads OK. I think its disjointed and confusing to have a bit of the controversy slap bang in the middle of what is meant to be a description. I don't understand your reason for wanting it there. Saying 'it reads OK' is not a reason. It would 'read OK' if it were moved to join the other ACT sentence. Anyway, lets move on.Fainites 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe a week or ten days would allow sufficient time. To exaplain my thinking a bit more on this question. It seems that the conecept or definition of Attachment Therapy is not only vague, but is fraught with controversary. Therefore, that belongs in the description of the term. The three leaders of ACT are vocal spokespersons on the subject and have produced a lot of material, therefore, their words or salient. Since the two lines about ACT are pointed in different directions, I'm not sure joining the two lines would work. Regards. DPeterson^talk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not pointing in different directions. If the controversy is too complicated to explain in one simple line then it's too much for the intro. The intro should not create terminal confusion for the reader. We should say simply what AT is, and then outkine briefly the main controversy. At the moment, the main controversy cuts the description in half. I don't understand why you're so keen to keep it as I'm not proposing removing any lines.Fainites 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I support replacing the existing article intro with the intro proposed above. I the material in this intro about the disagreements and ACT is fine. Let's move on, if we can.MarkWood 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The first reference lays out ACT's position. The second reference is part of a cautionary statement. Having both is fine, it's only two lines, and it really does not dilute anything here. If anything, it lays out the disputed points. Since ACT is such a major contributor to this debate I don't think two lines is over the top. I support the intro section as above. MarkWood 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the two lines for the sake of compromise even tho' it's clearly POV. It's the obfuscation created by it's position that is nonsensical. It's about time this article grew up and away from the feud with ACT and concentrated on it's subject. I've added a tag at the top in the hope of attracting more editors. Fainites 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is POV to have material included by a group that has written so extensively on the subject...if anything, excluding their views might be seen as POV. Feud with ACT? I don't understand. Including their material hardly seems to be indicative of a feud with their view and materials. DPeterson^talk 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical reply. You know very well I am not talking about excluding their views. I am talking about moving a wrongly and confusingly placed sentence about 2cms. What is you reason for wanting to leave that sentence where it is?Fainites 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on...let's try to keep the dialogue WP:Civil. Again, what is the feud with ACT you reference? I think the material is relevant and belongs...there are two points being made in that section...I don't understand your vehemanceDPeterson^talk 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Go ahead and use it. SamDavidson 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. JonesRD_talk 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I agree with the prev two comments. It's ok to use. RalphLender^talk 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag removal

I removed the tag because in order to put the tag on certain criteria must be met: "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if: it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references." There are other criteria too. The relevant criteria can be found at WP:NPOVD and WP:AD Once those are met, then the tag can be added. In addition, there is the tag at the top of this page. DPeterson^talk 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear dispute and this is made evident above. Since we lack a "this article is best read while drinking purple kool-aid" template, {{totallydisputed}} is a good choice. shotwell 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a drive by tagging. I am an existing editor. I have read the entire talkpage of this and related articles. I have made it clear that I dispute the neutrality of this article which has been distorted by a dispute between two polarised parties. I have attempted to edit by consensus but some of the main areas of disputed neutrality appearing are

claiming that the two main authorities in this field, Chaffin et al, and Prior and Glaser, both published in 2006 and both still much discussed and not superceded by new scientific research or thought or peer reviwed report, are 'out of date'.

claiming that one of the main conclusions of the lead comprehensive verified and credible sources is 'POV'!

claiming that substantial conclusions of the credible authorities and important issues addressed by these authorities, (such as marketing on the internet, age regression etc) are 'irrelevant', when on any reading of the materials they are central.

I could in fact carry on in this vein for some time, but hopefully this is sufficient to justify a tag. A tag is not an attack on anybody. It is a way of alerting other editors. We need fresh editors to help on this article. Adding a tag is advised as a method of attracting new editors. You do not own this article. I am replacing the tag.Fainites 08:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

APSAC & 'Attachment Therapy' vs. 'attachment therapy'

The article says "The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093) does not use the term 'Attachment Therapy'", but then links to an abstract that uses the term. Using the citation in this way will probably confuse an ordinary reader. The article goes on to say that they use the term 'attachment therapy' without capitals. This wins the "ridiculously trivial distinction" award. Is there a difference between the definitions of 'Attachment Therapy' and 'attachment therapy'? shotwell 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that ACT specifically uses the term Attachment Therapy while more mainstream groups use the term attachment therapy. It seems to be a salient point in the debated literature that we should keep consistent with in our writing here. DPeterson^talk 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the Chaffin report is to address the whole phenomenon of what is, according to them, popularly known as 'attachment therapy'. They have it with capitals in the title, but so what? They clearly do not limit themselves to with or without capitals. ACT happen to use capitals but are clearly discussing the same issue, as are Prior and Glaser who use capital A, small case t. There is nothing remotely confusing about this. Attempts to prioritise this merely obfuscates the subject, as does so much of the existing article. The most obvious way to deal with it is to list the variations in the opening sentence, something I proposed many inches above. It is an ambiguous term, not because different authors may or may not use capitals, but because it may loosely be used to cover mainstream therapies as well as this subset. That is why the opening paragraph needs to make it very clear what the article is about. That is why interupting the description s given by the prime authorities in the field with a loose sentence about a controversy is inappropriate and obfuscating.Fainites 09:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much. The current revision puts a rather large emphasis on ACT's writings. This obscures the broadly accepted research by the likes Chaffin. The artificial distinction concerning capitalization doesn't help. shotwell 10:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually this should be an easy article to write as there are so many good quality up-to-date sources. Chaffin et al were commissioned to write their report and the many authors contain a very fair chunk of the known experts in this field (people like Zeannah for example). It's a comprehensive review of what was obviously percieved to be an issue. It wasn't the first either. Speltz, an APSAC advisor wrote a history and description for the ASPAC a couple of years earlier. Chaffin have included a comprehensive list of guidelines. Alot of associations now have guidelines but I haven't yet researched which ones are pre Chaffin and which ones are a consequence of Chaffin. There was alot of correspondance after Chaffin came out with those who took issue with Chaffin. The report on the issues raised and the response of the authors is also published in Child Maltreatment. The Prior and Glaser book was only recently published over here in the UK. It's from the Royal Psychiatric Research Unit. Glaser is a big noise over here in child psych. There are concerns that AT is making it's way into the UK. Glaser also deals with what treatments are evidence based. Of course it takes along time to become evidence based as your studies have to fufil the criteria and need to be replicable by others and you need the wider scientific community to acknowledge your work as evidence based. It's very difficult to do RCT's on children. We're very lucky on this article to have so many good authorities. The problem is getting them into the article in a coherent form. I don't have problem with using ACT's material but they are not the primary source. Fainites 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, we cannot leave out the ACT material as they have written the most on this subject and have the largest inventory of materials about the subject. For example, their definition is probably the most clear and specific of all those floating around. This article is about what is Attachment Therapy; it's definition, maybe some history, and a description in context of its component parts.DPeterson^talk 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting leaving out their material so I don't know why you keep replying as if somebody is. Anyway the disputed sentence is not their material but is in fact an OR POV statement about them.This article is about a subset of therapies commonly called attachment therapy, with or without capital letters. Fainites 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpose your comments on the talk page when another editor is replying to the first editor as you did at 12.31 above. Also, what do you mean by 'more mainstream groups'? Do you mean mainstream as in not targeted by Chaffin as in the subset or a more mainstream version of AT?Fainites 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fainities and others that the ACT material should be included. Since the article is about AT, all views about what this is should be represented. I don't follow the dispute about "mainstream," but, regardless, Speltz's article in the APSAC advisor (not sure he is an "Apsac advisor"), the Chaffin paper, Glaser, and ACT material all have a place here. We don't need to belabor points...let's just make the points clearly and to the point...making a concise, complete, and relevant article. RalphLender^talk 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we all accept that we are writing an article about the phenonmenon of a subset of non-mainstream therapies as described by Chaffin, Glaser and ACT whether we or they use capital letters or not? Fainites 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't that been clear? As I read all the various editors comments, that seems to cearly be the focus here. The article is about what is this thing called A(a)ttachment T(t)heray, and all the other names it goes by: rebirthing, holding, coercive restraint therapy. RalphLender^talk 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been clear in the past but if it's clear now then jolly good! Fainites 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It seems clear from reading the comments in this section, at least. I don't have a lot of time to devote to idle chatter, so I do hope you, I, and others who wish to contribute, can focus on writing and gettinig some level of consensus. RalphLender^talk 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not idle chatter. It's been a major part of the talkpage from the outset that some editors have pushed the POV that AT with capitals is really just an ACT thing, and they can't be trusted, and that Chaffin et al are talking about something different. If we no longer have to waste our time with that then hooray! But we do need to be clear. Fainites 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'INTRODUCTION READY?'

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[[43]]. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77(We need a page number if this is an acutal direct quoteJonesRD_talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article.

(I think this is ready now. Let's get some comments on this over the next week or two and then we can move on to the next sectionDPeterson^talk 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON INTRO AS WRITTEN

Let's see what various editors think about this paragraphy and see if we have a consensus, or at least a broad and large group agreeing, even if not all agree. DPeterson^talk 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. OKWith addition of the page number requested by Jones. DPeterson^talk 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC) ACT is a major writer on the subject and and produced significant amounts of material on this topic and so should be given substantial weight as they do offer a clear definition and specific materials. DPeterson^talk 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Don't agree with the placement of the first sentence about ACT. Fainites 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Acceptable I've read all the comments and suggestions and think this version represents a concensus (My Webster's defines this as "...a general agreement...the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned."). I think it is time to move along to next sections. RalphLender^talk 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
4. The ACT bit doesn't deserve such prominence. shotwell 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
5. It's done now and just fine. MarkWood 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't done. We're not agreed. It's not fine. I could live with that disputed sentence in an appropriate place even though it's OR, POV and inaccurate (although it's not as bad as it was) but it's absurd to have an attack like that in the middle of the introduction. The point it's trying to make is better made in the last sentence, ie, be careful of ACT's list. Chaffin does a much better job of discrediting some of those therapies than ACT. Shall we put him in instead? We can't deal with all the controversies and arguments in the Intro. and we certainly shouldn't be prominently taking sides with out of place POV statements there. Fainites 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how others feel about this. Remember, no one owns this editing and concensus means consensus among most individuals who have an interest here. Attack? The intro does a very good job of sketching out, briefly, the controversaries and arguments that are later expanded upon. DPeterson^talk 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting to see how others feel. MarkWood was indicating it was all sorted. Fainites 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think EVERYONE should wait and see what other editors think and what may be contributed. DPeterson^talk 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Use it This is ok with me as written. SamDavidson 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Fine with me' This section is ok. JohnsonRon 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Good as writtenJonesRD_talk 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

proposed second section Definitions of Attachment Therapy

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy". It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. There is not any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al (2006) describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating, "This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds." p85 (We need a page number hereRalphLender^talk 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) (Need page #DPeterson^talk 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) it's got oneFainites 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (page numbers go after each discrete quoteDPeterson^talk 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) attempt to describe this subset as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions." p83

Speltz (2002) in a paper published by the APSAC (not for APBSAC, but in one of it's pubs RalphLender^talk 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) (are you sure? It says ASPAC advisor on the paper or is that the name of their pub? Fainites 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) (The APSAC Advisor is a newsletter of that organization...not peer reviewed.DPeterson^talk 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) it looks like the name of the pub.On what basis do you say it's not peer reviewed?Fainites 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (changed itFainites 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) describes ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows: "… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda." p4.(if a quote need pg num.RalphLender^talk 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They state, (If this is a direct quote, quotes " are needed and page number listed...DPeterson^talk 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: 'present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." p265. (if a direct quote...need a page number...it's unclear here what are quotes and what are your statements...try using " "RalphLender^talk 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

(This seems out of place...either delete or put with Chaffin material maybe.DPeterson^talk 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC))Chaffin et al also cite 'encouraging children to regress to infant status'as a feature of these therapies at p83 and include 'age regression' as a technique to avoid in their guidelines at p86.(page # and direct quoteRalphLender^talk 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) (it goes OK now with the expanded Glaser bitFainites 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

The advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT).. as …a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[44] They state "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [45] The group identify rebirthing as a form of "attachment therapy". Fainites 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC) The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy."[[46]] (Their book uses the terms frequentlyDPeterson^talk 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) [[47]] (now proposed this be replaced by "The group identify rebirthing as a form of attachment therapy". Fainites 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Comments on second section

I've put in the bits about it not being defined in various manuals from your version. I've also put in the full quote from Glaser and Prior about age regression that you requested and added that Chaffin includes it in his list. On p83 he calls it 'encouraging children to regress to infant status'. On p86 in his 'guidelines' he just calls it 'age regression'. ACT include it in their definition as well somewhere I think. If you want that too I'll look it up. The polarization bit from Chaffin of course explains why there's nothing in professional manuals about this thing. Fainites 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean we are done with the intro and that the version above, with the requested page notation is to go in? I guess we should wait a bit to see what other editors think too. Agreed? RalphLender^talk 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No we're not done with the intro. I don't agree with the weird line in the middle, but DP suggested leaving it there for a while (actually he said 2 weeks I think) to see what other editors think. We haven't even left it a day yet! That needn't stop us having a bash at the other sections.Fainites 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the page number in the intro. Do you not have Chaffin? Fainites 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OH, good. Ok then. I'll take a look at the second section when I get some time. RalphLender^talk 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some material and made a few edits. I'm ok with this section now as it stands...maybe as DP suggested, we can leave it for a week or two and see what other editors think...hopefully we will have consensus and can move on...I do hope so. RalphLender^talk 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers. I've put the Glaser as just the full quote and also the actual words from Chaffin. On the issue of your additions, is that last sentence a quote? Can we have the page number or link? It's not my understanding of how they state their information, but if it's a direct quote then fair enough. Otherwise best leave it out or find a direct quote of some kind.Apart from this it's fine as a compromise. Fainites 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On your last sentence again Ralph, just looking at the AT site, they list 22 therapies which they call attachment therapy and specifically do not include rebirthing and indeed explain why. I think it's best to stick to direct quotes if we're saying various people or organisations say things. Fainites 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work, Fainites. As I read the very last line it is a direct quote with a cite. As I surf the net, rebirthing is a term used and it is the procedure used in the Candace Newmaker case, in which ACT was quite involved. DPeterson^talk 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But on the last line, either it is or it isn't a direct quote. If it is a direct quote, lead us to it! I clicked on the link which I understood related to the previous passage (and indeed does). I could not find the last line as a quote. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong if you produce it! On the age regression point, it's obviously important but I don't mind whether it goes in this section or the 'underlying principles' section. Leave it here for now and see what other editors say. Also, when we're trying to write a paragraph we can all agree on, do you guys have to keep cluttering the page up with headmistressy remarks about quotation commas. If you think it should have " instead of ' just do it! Fainites 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the diffs and there was a quotation mark round Glaser. You removed it DP to put in your bit about quotation marks! Cheers Fainites 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one quote from them is "who taught that re-enactment of the birth process might be a useful script for some holding sessions. That script he and others called “rebirthing” for short.)" DPeterson^talk 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

However, if you think it better to just say, "sometimes also called rebirthing" and leave out the attribution, that's fine too. The media and on the web we see the term used alot. DPeterson^talk 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your missing the point here. The introduction properly says that it's also sometimes called rebirthing, which in the media it is. But you added a sentence in the definition section that states specifically that ACT specifically call it rebirthing and holding. When queried you state this is a quote. Well if it is, provide the source. If you can't provide the source then it isn't a quote. If you are saying it's a paraphrase you still need to provide the source. You also said the previous link was the source. I looked at it and it says the opposite. How can we reach consensus if you just put in OR statements, claiming they're quotes then refusing to give the source? As I say, I am, quite willing to be proved wrong if you provide the source. After all, you're very keen to demand exact quotes, page numbers, descriptions and names of publications from me all of which I have provided. As for the script quote you put above, this is interesting material but doesn't support the end sentence. It could go in in it's own right but who is 'He' ? Source or direct link please! I've put in a citation needed so we don't forhet and so other editors can easily see what we're talking about. Fainites 06:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd given citations above in this very section! From their book. "Both bills follow on the 2000 death in Colorado of a North Carolina girl, Candace Newmaker, during a “two-week intensive” in Attachment Therapy (AT)." They describe rebirthing as Attachcment Therapy.[[48]] DPeterson^talk 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They consider rebirthing to be a form of attachment therapy, but they do not use the term 'rebirthing' as a term for all attachment therapies. There should be no confusion concerning ACT's definition given that it's explicitly stated at http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/overview.html under the heading "Varying Nomenclature". This is rather confusing because you have previously claimed their definition is too broad. Now you are stating that they have this very narrow definition of attachment therapy. It can't be both. shotwell 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The other confusing thing is that you're so insistent on giving ACT such prominence in this article. On the Advocates for Children in Therapy article, you have described them as a fringe group that receives no serious attention from the professional community. You have portrayed the leaders as being unqualified with respect to attachment therapy. If this is what you truly believe, it seems that you would want to avoid giving their voice undue weight in this article. shotwell 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not provide this link above for this line. I have now looked at the link you provide in yoiur reply now. Here is the exact quote "Though its preamble (to the bill)correctly identifies “rebirthing” as a form of Attachment (Holding) Therapy....." Therefore it is inaccurate to say they call rebirthing attachment therapy as if the two terms were synonymous. An accurate quote would be to put in that they identify rebirthing as a form of AT. They in fact list 22 different names for AT and in that essay they more or less say they specifically do not consider rebirthing synonymous with AT. Again, here is the quote,

"Note may be taken that the list above does not include “rebirthing” or “rebirthing therapy.” This is a label that the press and others put on the procedure that Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder supposedly used to kill Candace Newmaker. Watkins and Ponder were trained in the approaches of Douglas Gosney, an Attachment Therapist practicing in California, who taught that re-enactment of the birth process might be a useful script for some holding sessions. That script he and others called “rebirthing” for short.)" Unless you provide a specific quote, I do not agree to inaccurate, OR, POV statements suddenly appearing and being put in in this way. To what end? For what purpose? There's loads of real material. Fainites 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ACT seems to use holding therapy and rebirthing as elements, aka's, or the same as Attachment Therapy. DPeterson^talk 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometime elements of; yes. Same as; no. This is plainly obvious from their literature. Quotes have been provided above. Specific source and quote for your contention please. Fainites 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the ACT website is that, in fact, they use a variety of terms, including rebirthing and holding therapy as synon. with AT. The links provided in this long thread support that reading, so I support the statement as written. JohnsonRon 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SECOND SECTION DONE?

Editors: is the second section acceptable for inclusion now? Please limit your comments to yes or no and one or two lines. Longer comments can go above. DPeterson^talk 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. _'OK' with me. It is fine with me and can replace the existing second paragraph in the article. MarkWood 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes This is fine to go in as it has been edited up to this point. I agree it can replace the existing second paragraph. RalphLender^talk 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ralph! You're back! You were the one that put in the quote about ACT calling rebirthing AT. [49] DP's been defending it for you but he hasn't been able to show us the exact quote of hwere it comes from. Please can you give us the exact quote and source so we can resolve this problem.Fainites 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The support is provided above via the links. However, your suggestion below is also fine, "ACT identifies rebirthing as a form of AT." I'd support that. RalphLender^talk 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

3. No Unless the inaccurate and unecessary last phrase is removed or replaced by an accurate and sourced quotation. I would accept "ACT identify rebirthing as a form of AT". Do I take it that you all agree to the bit on regressing to infancy remains in ? Fainites 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comment in number 2 above. RalphLender^talk 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll change it unless anyone else objects.Fainites 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Without the change, however, I do not think the second section is "done". shotwell 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I like, "ACT identifies rebirthing and holding therapy as terms for "Attachment Therapy."...so can we go with that?DPeterson^talk 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just extremely pedantic, but that is still not correct. I would agree with "ACT identifies rebirthing and holding therapy as types of attachment therapy". How's that sound to you? shotwell 07:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They use rebirthing and holding as terms for AT...what is the difference between writing this is AKA that and this is a type of that. A pine is a type of tree and pines are AKA trees.DPeterson^talk 12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DP but with all due respect you've missed the point. They do not use rebirthing and holding as terms for AT. They identify rebirthing and holding as forms or types of AT. In other words not synonymous. Ralph, Shotwell and I can see a clear difference. If you can't what is your objection to Shotwells version going in? Fainites 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that my reading is that the terms are used at terms for AT. rebirthing and holding therapy as types of AT and are AT. JohnsonRon 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for a direct quote from a verified and credible source showing that ACT treat the terms rebirthing and AT as synonymous. Fainites 11:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotes have already been provided as links to their page and a reading makes it very clear that ACT treats the terms as synonymous. 'KEEP'JonesRD_talk 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The links given show the opposite to what you claim on rebirthing. Still waiting for a direct quote that ACT use Rebirthing and AT as synnonymous. Happy to accept an actual quote.Fainites 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the links show that they see all these are similiar terms for similiar procedures. As I said before, we may disagree, so we'll just have to go with the consensus that develops and follow that; which seems to be that the terms are all similliar and used by ACT as largely the same. Remember, although you wrote a lot of this, you do not own the article, nor do you have veto power if the consensus is not your view. JonesRD_talk 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

4. 'YES' This section is fine to go in as written. SamDavidson 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean 'as written'? DP's last line or the one agreed by the others? Fainites 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

5. FINE with the line as DP has it. I read the ACT material and their website as using the various terms there, including rebirthing and holding therapy as synonymous with AT. JohnsonRon 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Yes I agree the section is ok as written (with the line that rebirthing/holding therapy/Attachment Therapy are synonymous. For all the reasons stated above, I won't repeat arguments already presented.JonesRD_talk 22:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Third Section

history and underlying principles--Third section

Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

('DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH' JohnsonRon 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)) Speltz cites (provide a direct quote instead of paraphrasingDPeterson^talk 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) (actually theres nothing wrong with a paraphrase if it's accurate and sourced. Wiki deprecates articles that are long lists of quotes. I'll post the full quote below so you can see if you think its a fair paraphrase.Fainites 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Martha Welch and "holding time" (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics. (you need a citation for this last sentance if you name names and a specific quoteDPeterson^talk 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) OK the specific quote is "Foster Cline (1991) and associates at the Attachment Center at Evergreen, Inc. (Evergreen, Colorado) began to promote the use of the same or similar holding techniques with adopted, maltreated children who were said to have an attachment disorder (not to be confused with DSM-IV’s reactive attachment disorder)." Is this OK? Fainites 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(WOW! Speltz is old, 2002. I think this section should not be here. Incuding such a large amount of material that is probably seven or more years old (and 18 to 16 in two other cases) is just bad...it may even be an inaccurate represesntation of what those people are doing now. Either delete it completely, or cite the current works of those involved. I'd suggest just leaving it out. The paragraph really is unneeded.JohnsonRon 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Its a history section. See title above.Fainites 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) "there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)." p263. (page numberDPeterson^talk 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles of Attachment Therapy as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated." p 78 page #DPeterson^talk 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which "purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy" by Myeroff et al (1999). The methodology of this study is heavily criticized. (please do not remove other peoples talk page posts DPeterson. This is the third time I have had to ask you. If you disagree with this line, don't just silently remove it. Say you disagree and why and we'll discuss it below. Now we don't know whether the other editors are agreeing to my post or my post as altered by you.Fainites)This study covers the "across the lap" type holding therapy, described as "not restraint" by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but "being held whilst unable to gain release."

Prior and Glaser also state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: "present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." " p265. Chaffin et al also cite "encouraging children to regress to infant status" as a feature of these therapies (p83) and include "age regression" as a technique to avoid in their guidelines at p86. Fainites 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think this covers all the comments made. I've put the full 'age regression' bit in here aswell. I don't mind if it goes in here in 'underlying principles' or in 'definition'. It's arguably both but there's no point repeating ourselves unless necessary for the sake of clarity.Fainites 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 'GOOD'I made a few minor changes...as it is now I could support this as our third section. But, as I've said before, no one or two editors own this article, so let's give it a week or two for others to comment and edit and build consensus before we act. DPeterson^talk 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. 'YES' This section is fine as written and, as far as I am concerned, can go in. It is balanced and includes verifiable references/sources. SamDavidson 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
3. 'YES' including the line removed by DP about Myeroffs study being heavily criticised (which I've put back. How can other editors comment on it if it's been removed?). See comment below. I'll do the page numbers and things in a moment.Fainites 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
4. 'YES' With the paragraph with the extensive quote from an article five years old quoting material nearly twenty years old. Leave out the line about the Meyeroff study...JohnsonRon 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I re-read it a couple of more times, and I take back what I sais....the line about the Meyeroff study being heavy criticized, as Fainites has it is fine. It is accurate, and brief. So, 'YES' but with the paragraph I noted deleted or severely edited to reflect how out of date the material is. JohnsonRon 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
5. (#'YES' if we leave Myeroff in. Also put in a direct quote from Speltz re Foster Cline as suggested by DP. Leave paraphrase of martha welch. On the old material point, this is a history section!!!! It starts by saying things like 'the roots are traced back to...' Howmuch clearer can it be? Fainites 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)) I agree with u that the Myeroff line can stay in...it's relevant. But I still object the the outdated material being present. I actually don't think it is necessary for this article and it is too misleading. Maybe if you rewrote it so that it wasn't so misleading and provocative it might be ok...JohnsonRon 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
6. I thought it was fantastic when first posted. This nonsense about things being "out of date" is absurd. shotwell 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. However, it appears that your view is in the minority here. As others have said, no one ownes the articles on Wikipedia. JohnsonRon 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Yes It is fine with the Meyeroff material. I do think the paragraph under dispute in the history section could be deleted. I can see how the material could be misinterpreted, so let's just leave it out...It doesn't add much to an article whose purpose is to define attachment therapy. JonesRD_talk 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

8. Yes The disputed paragraph in the history section is best left out. The Meyeroff stuff is fine. MarkWood 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'9.' 'Yes' The material is good to go with the Myeroff material and it's fine to leave out the disputed paragraph so we can move this along. That paragraph really doesn't add anything that is essential and vital to this article. RalphLender^talk 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Myeroff. This is the only 'holding therapy' study. The Prior/Glaser full quote is as follows;

"Only one published study which purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy was found (Myeroff et al. 1999). In this study the comparison sample was inadequate (families who contacted the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Colorado, but did not attend), the children were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions, and the pre- and post-treatment assessment of the children depended on a questionnaire (the Child behaviour Checklist) completed by mothers. This paper clearly illustrates the leap proponents of holding therapy make from Bowlby's theory to their advocated treatment." I can give you the rest about how it's not really based on Bowlby if anyone wants it.

A similar criticism is made by Chaffin et al:

"For example, perhaps the most widely cited study in the holding therapy literature, and possibly the only empirical study on the topic available in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, suffered from a number of major limitations. The study used a very small sample (12 in the treatment group, 11 in the comparison group), participants were selfselected into treatment and comparison groups, and the statistical analysis did not include any direct test of group differences in change over time (Myeroff, Mertlich, & Gross, 1999)."

I'm quite happy to reduce all this to an accurate paraphrase, but removing it altogether creates a misleading impression of why Prior and Glaser cited this study.Fainites 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re martha welch. DP has asked for the full quote from Speltz. Here it is:

"A decade later, Martha Welsh (1984, 1989) described a technique for children with attachment problems called holding time. Mothers were instructed to take hold of their defiant child at these times, holding them tightly to the point of inducing anger. Mothers were told to expect that the child may spit, scream, swear, attempt to get free, bite, and try to cause alarm by saying that he is in pain, cannot breathe, will vomit, is going to die, or needs to urinate. In this approach, parents were encouraged to accept these behaviors calmly and silently. Welsh described a subsequent stage (marked by the child’s weeping and wailing) in which parents were encouraged to resist the temptation to feel sorry for the child or to feel guilty about what they are doing. Mothers were told that if they could successfully resist these temptations, the child would enter an acceptance stage in which the child would fight less and become relaxed and tired. The mother was then instructed to loosen her hold on the child, at which point a bonding process was believed to begin, in which the child would find comfort from the mother in this relaxed state. To my knowledge, no evidence for the efficacy of this method has ever been provided." Fainites 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This material is 'VERY OUT OF DATE' It is not needed in this article. JohnsonRon 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Its in a history section! It's the history of AT. ie where it comes from. That implies the past. This section traces the provenance of underlying theories behind AT. Also its clearly still being practised! Are we going to leave out everything about attachment in this article because Bowlby is 1988 and therefore very out of date? (By the way, there's no need to SHOUT). Fainites 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out then. It is way to OUT OF DATE to be meaningful...or, as I suggested above, rewrite it substantially so it is not as misleading as it currently is. In any event, the best course is to just leave it out...but we can take a vote and build consensus that way. JohnsonRon 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of date? This is the history section. In the history section, we need to write about notable developments since the beginnings of attachment therapy. These papers are still earning citations in major works by leading experts -- this establishes notability. Your argument here is too bewildering to take seriously. shotwell 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the material cited is out of date and 'MAY' misrepresent the approaches....'BETTER' is to just leave out the section in full as suggested above...Concensus will determin what will occur and a vote seems like a good idea now. JohnsonRon 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

VOTE ON DELETING THE PARAGRAPH DISCUSSED ABOVE

1. 'YES'Just delete it and move on. JohnsonRon 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes I agree. JonesRD_talk 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Actually that makes DPeterson, Samdavidson, Shotwell and me in favour of this paragraph! But as Shotwell says, this argument that the history is too out of date can't really be taken seriously. Why don't you pop along and delete the Hitler page on the grounds that he's now dead! The history is from a credible and verified source that is still being cited. It's not even an old paper. 2002 is nothing in science terms! Are you suggesting that history has changed retrospectively in the last 4 years? Lastly, Wiki is not a democracy. You can't just vote to remove verified and credible sources. As for the suggestion by Ralph, that we leave in tthe history the Myeroff study on holding therapy but leave out development of holding therapy, can anybody explain this? I am quite happy to attempt a different paraphrase of Speltz on Martha Welch, or indeed put in the entire quote, but we cannot in all seriousness leave it out of a history section.Fainites 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
4. It's ok to delete the paragraph under dispute. I can see why it might be confusing as written and if it is included needs significant explainations. DPeterson^talk 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like a paraphrase, (and nobody else seems willing to attempt one), I would propose a direct quote from Speltz (published in the ASPAC publication). :"A decade later, Martha Welsh (1984, 1989) described a technique for children with attachment problems called holding time. Mothers were instructed to take hold of their defiant child at these times, holding them tightly to the point of inducing anger." p 4. "Foster Cline (1991) and associates at the Attachment Center at Evergreen, Inc. (Evergreen, Colorado) began to promote the use of the same or similar holding techniques with adopted, maltreated children who were said to have an attachment disorder (not to be confused with DSM-IV’s reactive attachment disorder)." p 4.Fainites 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't see the comments that way. We certainly should give others a chance to comment. While you have written the material underdiscussion here, you do not OWN it and there must be broad and generally agreement, but no one person has a veto. Maybe if you put something in the clearly indicate that the statements are based on material over a decade and half old and that this may not reflect current practice it could be ok...See, now, that would be a good compromise. JonesRD_talk 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The material comes from an article that specifically states it deals with the history. It all states it comes from this article. How much clearer can it be? Speltz writes the article which deals with the history. We cite and quote Speltz. Speltz is a verified and credible source. it's not rocket science! Fainites 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the fourth time of asking, please don't mess around with other peoples edits. Fainites 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am merely formating so that your comments are in the proper form...indentented and with the thread they apply to. I think a good compromise would be for you to clearly indicte that the statements are based on material that is fifteen or more years old and that it may not reflect their current practice. That seems like a reasonable request. What is your problem with doing that? If you just don't have the time, then let's just leave it out. JonesRD_talk 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If it clearly states that Speltz is describing the history and development that should be sufficient. Fainites 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mess around with or refactor my edits.Fainites 10:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not '"MESSING AROUND"' or "refactoring" your edits. It is custom and form to keep the threads of a conversation together on a talk page by progressivly indenting the comments. Makes it easier to read. Placing comments randomly and all over the place makes it impossible to follow a conversation here. It isn't sufficient since I and others find it misleading. Why not just add a line. Why object to a little suggetion that would build consensus here. Compromise is an important value on wikipedia. Remember, although you did write a lot of the above, you don't own it and it is 'CONSENSUS' that will the the ultimate decider of what goes in or does not and what is edited how. JonesRD_talk 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It does make it easier to follow discussion threads if we stick with the Wikipedia practice of indentation. DPeterson^talk 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'5' 'YES' Let's get rid of it or have it clarified...I think it is fine to just leave it out and move on. It's doesn't add much to the article. MarkWood 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Yes For all the reasons stated above, it can be excluded. RalphLender^talk 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we're obviously not going to be able to agree on history. We seem to be stuck between "History is bunk" (H.Ford), and "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it", (can't remember). Or perhaps it's "History is the propaganda of the victors", (can't remember). Lets move on. (unsigned comment by 'User:Fainites')

I can appreciate your unhappiness with how this has developed and the outcome. We don't have to all agree to move forward. It seems we have five editors in favor of deleting the paragraph in question so that constitutes a consensus on that. DPeterson^talk 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy and I don't have to accept your 'consensus', particularly not when you originally called it 'good'! One more go!

history and underlying principles--Third section

Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

According to Speltz, "a decade later, Martha Welsh (1984, 1989) described a technique for children with attachment problems called holding time. Mothers were instructed to take hold of their defiant child at these times, holding them tightly to the point of inducing anger." p 4. "Foster Cline (1991) and associates at the Attachment Center at Evergreen, Inc. (Evergreen, Colorado) began to promote the use of the same or similar holding techniques with adopted, maltreated children who were said to have an attachment disorder (not to be confused with DSM-IV’s reactive attachment disorder)." p 4.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) "there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)." p263.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles of Attachment Therapy as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated." p 78

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which "purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy" by Myeroff et al (1999). The methodology of this study is heavily criticized. This study covers the "across the lap" type holding therapy, described as "not restraint" by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but "being held whilst unable to gain release."

Prior and Glaser also state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: "present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." " p265. Chaffin et al also cite "encouraging children to regress to infant status" as a feature of these therapies (p83) and include "age regression" as a technique to avoid in their guidelines at p86.

Fainites 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Fourth Section

Attachment Disorder

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’.

Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders.

DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.

Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.

Please do not alter this and then vote on a Bowdlerised version. This is my post. Comment below or in italics.Fainites 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'COMMENTS ON FOURTH SECTION PROPOSAL'

1. Probably ok Let's see what other editors have to say. DPeterson^talk 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Change to 'Good', let's go with this version. DPeterson^talk 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'CONSENSUS VERSION FOR PARAGRAPHS ONE, TWO, AND THREE

The following represents the consenus on the first three paragraphs. I think we can now agree to put this into the article and replace the first three paragraphs

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[[50]]. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article.

Defination of Attachment Therapy There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy". It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. There is not any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al (2006) describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating, "This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds." p85

The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) attempt to describe this subset as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions." p83 Chaffin et al also state, "encouraging children to regress to infant status" as a feature of these therapies and as a technique to be avoided. p83

Speltz (2002) in a paper published in the APSAC newsletter APSAC Advisor and describe ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows: "… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda." p4.

Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: 'present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." p265.

The advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT).. as …a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [[51] They state "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [52] The group identify rebirthing as a form of Attachment therapy.

History and underlying principles Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s. Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others. Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006) "there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)." p263.

Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles of Attachment Therapy as follows; “In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated." p 78

Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which "purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy" by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the "across the lap" approach, described as "not restraint" by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but "being held whilst unable to gain release." Prior and Glaser also state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." p265. DPeterson^talk 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Consensus Version for Paragraphs 1-3

1. GREAT! Ready to be added for all the reasons cited previously. RalphLender^talk 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. OK We're never going to agree on every last little bit but this is a huge improvement on the existing article. Lets stick it in. Any further additions can still be discussed at leisure. we don't have to agree evry last line before putting bits that are agreed into the article. Who knows, a whole bunch of people we've never heard will probably come along in a few weeks and redo the whole thing again! Fainites 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Good so far...but let's not be hastie...let's be sure to give other editors an opportunity to express their views. I agree with Fainities here. Overall, this is ok, even if I don't agree with every comma and line....Let's keep this moving along. The article does need work and this is a good step forward. DPeterson^talk 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
4. I like it it's fine to go in as it is now. JohnsonRon 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
5. OK for all the reasons above. JonesRD_talk 14:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
6. 'Yes' flows well, is coherent, reads well, and is focued. SamDavidson 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED: Treatment characteristics Fourth Section

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, among the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic". Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance. Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker.

The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions." Pg 77 (Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area,) “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 (Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues.) “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

ACT’s site contains descriptions of Attachment Therapy, including a link to the transcript of the rebirthing process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her unlicensed ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." [53]

DPeterson^talk 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FOURTH SECTION: TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS SECTION

1. _Yes As is it is just fine...let's keeping moving on. RalphLender^talk 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. The first bits OK except for the list of therapies. This passage is about the treatment characteristics of the AT therapies. We don't need to list other therapies that aren't AT or that claim not to be AT. We only need to quote Chaffin and Glaser on the salient feature of proper therapy, ie carer sensitivity. If we try and devise a list of 'good' therapies we'll just get into a pickle about what to include and what to leave out, and it isn't necessary anyway. I think its confusing. People might read it quickly and come away just remembering 'rebirthing', 'dead children' and 'Circle of Security' if you see what I mean. We could instead provide a link if there's an article on this. How about to 'Attachment theory' ? I don't understand the inclusion of the third paragraph at all. We've already dealt with the lack of precise definition and why that is the case earlier and I don't see what the stuff about capital letters has to do with 'treatment characteristics'. A whole chunk of it is also already in para.2. I think we should keep treatment characteristics precise and identifiable.Fainites 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Good Since C&G list therapies, we should list these too...Alternatively we can mention none. I think the omission of treatments "damns" them by ommission, and so the listing with the citations to support their inclusion is fine. It's only one long line, so let's let it go. The third para describes treatment characteristics. The lack of defination continues ot make it difficutl to described "treatment characteristics, and so the additional different material is relevant. Without a clear defination of what this thing is, it is difficult to define treatment characteristics. I think as it is written is salient. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the only bit in para.3 that's about treatment characteristics is the bit about holding therapy. The rest is partly a repeat from earlier in the proposed article which doesn't need repeating, but if you look carefully DPeterson you'll see that you've included bits and pieces of various commentaries from earlier parts of the talkpage. Ralph's missed this aswell. In relation to the 'list', I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. I meant no list at all, not from Chaffin or Glaser. Just the bits where they describe what proper therapy is so I think we can agree on that Fainites 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I see all in this section as a description of the characteristics of the treatment called Attachment Therapy. How is this material a repeat of what is in sections 1-3 above? I don't see the same quotes or lines in both. Again, since this is such a vague term, some overlap will occur, but I don't see it as substntial.DPeterson^talk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting no treatments or therapies be listed at all? DPeterson^talk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, the following would be deleted:

Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, among the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

???DPeterson^talk 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For now it is enough to to quote what Chaffin, Glaser etc. say about the characteristics of non-AT therapy if you see what I mean. Fainites 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other point " Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area" and " Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues." are bits of talk page commentary! Fainites 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph should list the various therapies that are not coercive...or list none. RalphLender^talk 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if the first paragraph was only: 'Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible.' I'd consider that. RalphLender^talk 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'4.' 'I like it as is' As written it is fine. I prefer the listing of therapies so that no mistakes are made in assuming a trt is or isn't attachment therapy as defined in this article. But, if most want this without a listing, I could go for that. JohnsonRon 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ralphs on this one. Lets stick with the broad definition of what proper therapies should be in contrast to what AT is and leave it at that. Its simple, taken from good sources, uncontroversial and easily understood. And lets keep the stuff about the lability of the definition in the definition paragraph. Fainites 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to leave out all therapies, not my preference, but acceptable. I also think the last two paragraphs can and should stay...so that would that be an acceptable compromise for you? In the interests of building consensus, since most editors, so far, are accepting the leaving out of the listing of therapies and the inclusion of the last two paragraphs, I can go along with that; in the spirit of collaboration. DPeterson^talk 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry DP? Are you seriously saying you want to keep odd ungrammatical remarks from the talkpage accidently included in paragraph 3, in the article? I'm all in favour of compromise but compromise is usually about the substance of the content, not accidental edits! Have you read it? Fainites 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My lack of clarity, sorry. I put what I think are the comments in () and those ought not be included. Is this better? If I missed something, just note that, and use the same format to mark it, ok? DPeterson^talk 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I still think the stuff about definition is unecessary here but I can live with it :) Fainites 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

5. 'GOOD' Just as it is above, but with the lines redacted () as DP notes in the comment just previous to this one. JonesRD_talk 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 6 Yes I agree that the section can go in the marked items deleted. SamDavidson 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, apart from the line about capital letters (which I thought we had agreed to abandon earlier) the rest of para 3 of this section is a word for word repeat of a chunk of the definition section. Fainites 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at Chaffin, they use capitals in the title. They're plainly talking about the same subset of therapies/phenomenon as ACT or indeed anybody else. Can we just agree to get rid of all this weird stuff about capital letters please? See Ralphs comment on this above where he wrote a(A)ttachment t(T)herapy to illustrate the point. Fainites 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article

I've put in the three first paras with refs, and also the fourth one which was a description of attachment disorder/DSM/IC 10 etc which people agreed as far as I recall. I'm having a bit of trouble with the Prior and Glaser ref which keeps repeating itself instead doing abcdef like it should, but I'm sure I'll get to bottom of it. I'm also proposing to turn all the other 'mentions' of eg Cline/Zeannah into proper refs, but it may take a little time. Fainites 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs fixed Fainites 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the Cline ref is doing the same thing.Fainites 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite the "problems" with references, nicely done. I can agree with what is up there so far. SamDavidson 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you say about para 3 in the treament section which is a repeat of the definition section? (aprt from the line about capital letters) Fainites 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Section

Prevalence

('SUGGESTION': Begin with the original statment: "There are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of these therapies or of how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, they are sufficiently prevalent...continue as you did.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows;

‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies (remove particular therapiesSamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) replace with "rebirthing" That is what is banned in law. SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC).)(its a quote! You can't replcae words you don't like in a quote.Fainites 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (LEAVE OUT NAMES...WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE THIS IS TOO CLOSE TO SLANDERSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’. p83 (nonsense. Its a direct quote from Chaffin, a publically available document. These papers are specifically cited by Chaffin et al.Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, they use a direct quote and don't put it in your own words...lets see how that looks.SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(It is a direct quote, inside quotation marks.Fainites 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

A particular

What is your basis for saying this is a "particular concern?" It is just a section of the report. What word did they use to express this, did they use the word concern? SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (P&G say 'this version is not discernably related to attachment theory, is based on no sound empirical evidence and has given rise to interventions whose effectiveness is not proven and which may be harmful'. Chaffin says 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.' amongst other things. I would have thought 'concern' was a mild paraphrase.Fainites 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

concern of both Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser is the use of the Internet to advertise these therapies and the use of unscientific and 'wildly inclusive' lists of 'symptoms' (Prior and Glaser p186). According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.'p83 (need page numberSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) Many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm. Descriptions of children are frequently highly perjorative and 'demonising'. According to Chaffin et al 'Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful’.p78 (need page numberSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) They also express concern over claims by therapies to be 'evidence based' or indeed the 'only' evidence based therapy when the Task Force found no credible evidence base for any such therapy so advertised.p85 (need page number or quoteSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

The report of Chaffin et al, which contains proposed guidelines for therapies, was endorsed by was endorsed by the American Psychological Association’s Division 37 and the Division 37 Section on Child Maltreatment. (leave out...already cited...or cite all the guidelinesSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (Leave out...cited in last paragraph...SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (the previous mention was in relation to a position statement. Here it is being said that The APA specifically endorsed Chaffin. Its on the front page of Chaffin.Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) The report and its adoption should be in the paragraph with the list of other organizations and standards...not here. SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’(page number needed here. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the 'across the lap' variety.p263.

The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers."

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" as described in this article. However the practices it often involves are now prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association30, National Association of Social Workers31, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 32, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 33), and the American Psychiatric Association. 34. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. (ADD:Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (whats your source for saying there are very few? Why would ASPAC have commissioned that huge and no doubt expensive taskforce if there were very few?Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice.

Needs more work and editing...a bunch more. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It needs some minor tweeks...your additions are acceptable to me, if this leads to consensus. But I don't have very strong feelings. DPeterson^talk 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for saying there are very few, or, its very rare? Is there a better source than the Taskforce on prevalence? Fainites 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of citations

The recent edit by Davidson to add a reference and clean up a line or two are fine with me. I think this is an improvement and I support it. DPeterson^talk 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice...I agree. JonesRD_talk 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The passage from Chaffin is in fact 99% quotation, with a small paraphrase, as was made clear above. I have now made it a full quotation. The citations Chaffin et al give are part of the quotation. It is from the passage on non-controversial and accepted treatments. I assume you do in fact have Chaffin if you're trying to edit this site? Including Becker-Weidman in this passage as if Chaffin had quoted him in this passage is utterly misleading. This would be misleading if Becker-Weidman was merely unknown as he is not cited in this context by Chaffin. In view of the fact that he is specifically quoted on three occasions in the report to illustrate their criticism of aspects of attachment therapy its so misleading its beyond funny and into the surreal. I can give you the full quotes if you wish.Fainites 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the material was well written and so I have restored it. However, if you strongly disagree, we should seek consensus among other editors. The paragraph as written is not a paraphrase of Chaffin and so stands as well sourced and adequately referenced. DPeterson^talk 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the paragraph is not a paraphrase of Chaffin; its a direct quote. The only difference was that the word 'traditional' was removed at the very beginning. To insert another reference that Chaffin does not cite into a passage from Chaffin wherein he cites three other notable attachment experts is misleading to the highest degree. What on earth is your motivation? Consensus is hardly the point. It would be misleading to add other references into a decent paraphrase. Its rank intellectual dishonesty to add it into a direct quote.Fainites 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As written, the paragraph is not a quote or paraphrase of Chaffin or any other particular author. It should stay as is. It appears three editors favor the improvements/editsDPeterson^talk 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the consensus version which consisted of a long direct quote from Chaffin (except for the word traditional) and included Chaffins citations. As you do not seem to have Chaffin, here is a direct copy taken from the report below;

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability,parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’sphysical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safeand predictable environment support the developmentof healthy ttachment. From this perspective,improving these positive caretaker and environmentalqualities is the key to improving attachment. Fromthe traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapyfor children who are maltreated and described as havingattachment problems emphasizes providing astable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive,nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard,2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004)." p 77.

Otherwise, what was the point of discussing and reaching consensus on the talkpage? As for citing Becker-Weidman as if Chaffin cited him in support, I am a little puzzled. The only mentions of Becker-Weidmans work I could find in Chaffin was these:

"Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachmentdisorders and that more traditional treatments areeither ineffective or harmful (see, e.g., Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b; Kirkland, n.d.; Thomas, n.d.-a)." p78

"Similarly, many controversial treatments hold that children described as attachment disordered must be pushed to revisit and relive early trauma. Children may be encouraged to regress to an earlier age where trauma was experienced (Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b)" p79

"Some proponents have claimed that research exists that supports their methods, or that their methods are evidence based, or are even the sole evidence-based approach in existence, yet these proponents provide no citations to credible scientificresearch sufficient to support these claims (Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b). This Task Force was unable to locate any methodologically adequate clinical trials in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature to support any of these claims for effectiveness, let alone claims that these treatments are the only effective available approaches. Most of the data offered on these Web sites is so methodologically compromised that the Task Force believes it could not support any clear conclusion." p85

Did you want to include any of this? I am happy to provide any more excerpts of Chaffin if you wish. My preference however would be to stick to the subject in hand and prioritise Chaffin, Glaser etc. Fainites 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Three of four editors prefer the version up there now. As far as the other quotes go, that is old and Chaffin recognized that in a response to a letter to the editor. There are not three or four empirical studies that were not in Chaffin's hands when the article was written in 2000-2002. I suggest leaving this alone and seeing what others think. No one owns any articles and we have to go with consensus. DPeterson^talk 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin is not old. I also have their reply to Becker-Weidmans objections which is even more recent. The Chaffin version was agreed by consensus on this talkpage. Or are we not bothering with consensus on the talkpage any more? Presumably if you don't consider yourself in anyway bound by consensus on the talkpage, neither is anybody else and you won't object to me editing the article how I wish? It is misleading to include Becker-Weidman within either a paraphrase or quote from Chaffin as if Chaffin had included it and it is nonsense to cite Becker-Weidman as if he were a mainstream proponent of traditional attachment theory and therapies when he is specifically criticised by Chaffin for being the reverse. I do not see the necessity for him to come into this article at all. Fainites 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The APSAC report was written in 2002 or so and did not include any material from 2005, maybe not even 2004, or later. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you have yet again interfered with my edits, presumably to make them less easily readable by others. For I think what must be about the seventh if not the eighth time, please leave my edits alone.Fainites 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to keep your comments on the talk page consistent. When you don't indent, it is very hard to follow threads of conversations...This is the Wikipedia convention...Following this convention makes following threads easier to follow. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin is older, it was written in 2000 or 02 or so. It did not include materials from 2005, 2006, or 2007, which are the publication dates for the Becker-Weidman empirical studies. Chaffin is not being quoted here. The version above is not a quote, therefore you are just wrong on that point. It seems that at least three of four editors are happy with this versioni. Remeber, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

a)Becker-Weidmans studies are simply later follow ups of the same group of children, or do you not have these sources either? His claim to be evidence based was specifically criticised by Chaffin et al following open correspondance with him after the releas of the report. To include him in a list of proponents of traditional attachment therapy as if Chaffin had so included him is flagrant intellectual dishonesty. It also doesn't do Becker-Weidman any favours. Does he know you're doing this kind of thing? I wouldn't thank you if I were him. You're making him look like a charlatan!

b) Chaffin cites papers published in 2005 and websites from August '05, and there is also the follow up paper from later in '06 after the publication of the original report in February '06. You're unsourced assertion that it was written in 2000, or even 2002 is therefore entirely wrong.

c)Also your constant petty wrist slapping admonishments about 'owning' the article are misplaced. WP:OWN is about articles, not talkpages. I have sought entirely to achieve consensus on the talkpage and only made any edits to the article in order to include the consensus version. It is you who have then almost immediately made a travesty of the agreed article, yet you admonish me! Also, I do in fact own my edits on the talkpage, with which you frequently interfere. Funny! Fainites 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Becker-Weidman studies are empirical studies, one a one year followup, the other four years later. Chaffin does not dispute evidence-basis of studies because the studies were published 'AFTER' his article! Furthermore, Craven & Lee, 2006 (using 2004 data, not the 2005 & 2006 much stronger studies, found the material "evidence-based." DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taskforce did it's work in 2002, etc and was published in 2005. It did not reference the current studies. And, regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talkin about the article not the talk page, read my comments above to verify that. The edits are about the article. You seem very unhappy with the relatively small changes made that all editors, except you, prefer. It is that to which I am referring the comments regarding ownership. Not me, but at least three editors. I suggest that you do not own this article and that changes made by a consensus of editors be abided by. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus.DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting the article stay as it is for now and seeing if any other editors chime in. So far three prefer the current version and you do not. Lets let it sit and see what develops. I do understand you feel very strongly, but engaging in an edit war is not productive. We'd made excellent progress on 95% of the article by building collaboration and consensus. DPeterson^talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Count me as the "fourth" who supports the edits. I think these, while slightly minor, are improvements. The section is clearer and the cites added are relevant to support the statement regarding attuned and sensitive parenting being important. Let's keep these improvements. MarkWood 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's let cool heads prevail. I'd suggest the version up there stay and that DPeterson and Fainites take a break, take a breath, and see what other's have to say. RalphLender^talk 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear your reasons for altering a cited quotation from a verified and credible source and then including the studies that are part of the series that were specifically criticised by that report, as if they supported the report or were cited in support by the report. Can you explain how this fits with policies on the use of sources? (Or indeed common sense). It would be even more interesting to hear why 4 other editors so swiftly support what is plainly a misleading edit in violation of all policies. To what end? Fainites 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'Please' Let's keep a cool head here and avoid any hint of Personal Attacks. I'd suggest taking a day or two to cool off and let other's comment. It is difficult when you've put so much work into an article to see other's editing it in ways you may not approve but in ways that a consensus supports. As I read the report and the comments, the report did not criticize the articles since the articles were published after the report was prepared and subsequently published. RalphLender^talk 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Good advice. I'll abide by it. DPeterson^talk 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I came across AT from my research into hypnotherapy. From the diffs I think there is no problem with the current version (DPeterson et al's version). The line is in quotes and the words are in order and it holds the correct meaning. Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to leave it a while it should be left with the consensus version. By the way, here are the Becker-Weidman citations from the first report "Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-a). Attachment therapy: What it is and what it isn’t. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from www.attachmentdisorder .net/Dr._Art_Treatment.htm Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-b). Dyadic developmental psychotherapy: An attachment-based therapy program. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from www.center4familydevelop.com/therapy.htm"

Here is what Chaffin et al said in November 2006 in reply to Becker-Weidmans letter about, amongst other things, his new study;

"Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encouraging to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is an important first step toward learning the facts about DDP outcomes. We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts. The published study was not available until after the Task Force report was in press, so its findings were not discussed in the report. The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)."

here are the refs they cite; Becker-Weidman, A. (2005). Reader’s response to “Coercive restraint therapies: A dangerous alternative mental health intervention.” Medscape General Medicine, 7(3). Available at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516359 Becker-Weidman, A. (2006a). Attachment disorder checklist. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from www.center4familydevelop.com/checklist.htm Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b). Letter to the editor. Child Maltreatment, 11(4), 379-380.

This was published in the November 2006 issue of Child Maltreat. If you wish to include in the article a discussion about criticism of Chaffin et al and why Becker-Weidman thinks they are wrong, then fine. What you can't do is pretend by misleading edits that Chaffin et al cited Becker-Weidman in their report as if he was one of the mainstream authorities on which they relied. This is misleading, and, as I have pointed out before, doesn't do Becker-Weidman any favours. Verified and credible sources have to actually be source for what they are attached to. Becker-Weidman is not a source for Chaffins description of traditional treatments for attachment disorders. Altering Chaffins quote by a few words to pretend it's not a quote doesn't make it OK! Fainites 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpose your comments in the body of mine as it makes it difficult for others to follow. I have put my edits back together as they were originally posted. Fainites 11:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have not commented on the evidence above that Chaffin et al clearly considered Becker-Weidmans 2006 study in their follow up published in November 2006 and still considered it to be not evidence based. Do you now agree it is misleading to insert Becker-Weidman into material that derives from Chaffin, as if they were all singing from the same hymn sheet? Fainites 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that these other's comments responded to your questions and concerns...but you moved them out of context, so it is hard to follow...So here they are again (RalphLender^talk 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)):

No, the Becker-Weidman studies are empirical studies, one a one year followup, the other four years later. Chaffin does not dispute evidence-basis of studies because the studies were published 'AFTER' his article! Furthermore, Craven & Lee, 2006 (using 2004 data, not the 2005 & 2006 much stronger studies, found the material "evidence-based." DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taskforce did it's work in 2002, etc and was published in 2005. It did not reference the current studies. And, regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talkin about the article not the talk page, read my comments above to verify that. The edits are about the article. You seem very unhappy with the relatively small changes made that all editors, except you, prefer. It is that to which I am referring the comments regarding ownership. Not me, but at least three editors. I suggest that you do not own this article and that changes made by a consensus of editors be abided by. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus.DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting the article stay as it is for now and seeing if any other editors chime in. So far three prefer the current version and you do not. Lets let it sit and see what develops. I do understand you feel very strongly, but engaging in an edit war is not productive. We'd made excellent progress on 95% of the article by building collaboration and consensus. DPeterson^talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the Taskforce report did not include any of the Becker-Weidman empirical studies since the report was prepared in the early 2000's, was submitted in 2004 or 2005 and so did not include the several empirical studies by Dr. BW in peer-reviewed professional journals. In addition, the Craven & Lee meta-analysis/review cites the 2004 Dr. Becker-Weidman material as evidence-based. The later studies are much much stronger. RalphLender^talk 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence above, that Chaffin cites studies and websites from 2005, and cite Becker-Weidman 2004 show that your claims are untrue. Further, their reply of November 2006 shows that they had clearly and specifically considered his 2006 study. You do not deal with this. Why? Do you not have it? I am quite happy to e-mail it to you. Its really very clear.Fainites 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quick questions

• What methods or adjuncts are used with AT?
• Why exactly do certain bodies refuse to use AT or criticise AT?

And of course, where can I find the relevant literature if any? Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main source is a report by the Taskforce set up by the ASPAC (American Society for the Prevention of Abuse against Children). There is a link provided in the notes and refs section (unless it has been removed. Originally this article provided a link in German!). It was compiled by a very substantial number of the experts in the field of attachment and various aspects of child development. It criticises the theory and practice of 'attachment therapy'. It has been specifically endorsed by some professional bodies and it set out a comprehensive set of guidelines. It was published end 05/early 06. Thereafter there was some published open correspondence with those who felt unjustly criticised, to which there was a reply later in 2006. Most of this reply relates to Becker-Weidman, who is specifically criticised by the report on three counts, claiming an evidence base when there is none, overblown advertising on the internet, and use of 'age-regression techniques'. He is not criticised for using coercive or restraining methods but he is quoted as an example of the very 'attachment therapy' the report is dealing with. The argument here is about the fact that a consensus version of the article contained a quote from Chaffin et al about the characteristics of traditional and established therapies for attachment difficulties, by way of contrast to 'attachment therapy', and included citations to two papers. The supporters of Becker-Weidman who edit this page firstly inserted a paper by Becker-Weidman into the quote to make it look as if Becker-Weidman was an authority cited by Chaffin et al in support of their conclusions, rather than someone criticised by them as an 'attachment therapy'. They subsequently altered the quotation from Chaffin et al so it was no longer exactly a quote, and included Becker-Weidman again, to make it look as if he is a mainstream contributor in line with those quoted by Chaffin it al. Fainites 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way its not clear which version you were looking at. The DP version does not have the line in quotes in its more recent manifestation. It is my version which has the first paragraph of 'treatment characteristics' in quotes as it is a quote from Chaffin (who did not include Becker-Weidman here).There is also a recent book by Prior and Glaser, also in the refs, which covers the whole topic of attachment disorders pretty comrehensively.Fainites 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Many professonal organizations oppose rebirthing and coercive forms of Attachment Therapy. Fainities implication that these forms of "treatment" include Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, is just not true. The Chaffin report was written and published before the several empirical studies demonstrating the effectiveness of DDP for the treatment of children with Reactive Attachment Disorder were published in professional peer reviewed journals. A more current report by Craven & Lee (2006), using a brief summary report on Dr. Becker-Weidman's research, which at the time did not report on the data from the control group, did label the treatment as evidence-based. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, Fainities version is not the consensus version as five editors now prefer the version that SamDavidson put up to the one Fainities worked so hard on. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection is to the pretense that Becker-Weidman was cited by Chaffin as if he was a mainstream contributor of whom they approved when in fact the reverse was the case. I have not mentioned Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy above. I see no reason why 'names should be named' in this article at all. It was not me who inserted Becker-Weidman. However, if you are going to include Becker-Weidman in this article, it has to be on a factual basis. Your consistant attempts to include him in lists of 'evidence based treatements (earlier on the talkpage) or as if he was cited as mainstream by Chaffin are misleading and unaccaptable. He may well achieve 'evidence based' one day. There may come a time when Chaffin et al are forced to eat their words, but that is not the current position! Your misleading statements on this page about Chaffin et al having been written on 00/02 and about them not having had access to his recent study, in the light of their November 2006 publication, do not help. I am quite happy to send you my sources. I assumed you had them as you make such confident claims about them, but as so many of your confident claims are wrong, perhaps you don't. Why are you so keen to misrepresent Becker-Weidman? Does he know you're doing it? 'Consensus' doesn't mean its OK to pervert sources.Fainites 12:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. You may well be right. But I think the consensus group is acting in a calm and reasonable manner. I believe you might also bring yourself to that same level of calm. My first question hasn't been answered. From my reading, AT seems to be thought of (by specific sources) as possibly coercive mishmash of many influences and minor tweaks. Please put me right if I'm wrong. Its synonymous with rebirthing and other such cathartic methods and involves eye contact and holding and so on. Is there any information about this somewhere? Maypole 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Fainites has been calm and reasonable and very patient. FatherTree 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Fainites 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AT main purpose?

Hello again. I think this is an important question. There seems to be some evidence of the validity of rebirthing/AT or whatever synonym. Is its main purpose for treating mental behavioral disorders specifically? Maypole 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to treat behaviour problems in adoptees mostly. FatherTree 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing is not synonymous with attachment therapy, but sometimes is used by some attachment therapists. Rebirthing is also used for adults. There is Wiki page on it I think. Try also Singer in 'Crazy Therapies' who has a very entertaining chapter on rebirthing as used on adults. Attachment therapy is a form of therapy used for treating children with supposed attachment disorders, usually, as Father Tree says, adoptees or similar. It varies from one extreme including coercive and restraining techniques, obedience training and sometimes rebirthing, to the other end where it is non coercive, but still comes under the definition of attachment therapy because of the underlying theoretical principles and some practices. What is the evidence you mention for the validity of rebirthing? I'd be interested to see it. You say 'from my reading'. What are you reading? Fainites 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is also called" means synonymous according to my dictionary. I'm reading the article. It looks like some people consider AT to be valid. I see from a brief search on the web that AT is synonymous with just about all the other names in the lead section. What I would like to know here though is whether AT is used to treat behavioral or mental problems. Any answers to my original question? Maypole 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the term attachment therapy in its broadest sense means any therapy used to treat attachment disorder. But in the general market place it refers to coercive therapies. It is a marketing name. FatherTree 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Father Tree is right, but this article is about the subset of non-mainstream therapies commonly referred to as 'attachment therapy'. It encompasses a variety of techniques. The most common is 'holding therapy'. It is absolutely not synonymous with rebirthing. Many attachment therapists do not use rebirthing and some do not use coercive or restraining techniques. Rebirthing became the famous one because of deaths of children. Sometimes in the media the terms are used interchangeably, but this is an encyclopedia. Chaffin et al explain very clearly what it encompasses and what is commonly meant by the term. It is used to treat alleged 'attachment disorders'. That is in itself a controversial term. One of the criticisms of AT is the use of lists of 'symptoms' on the internet so parents self diagnose problematical children as having an attachment disorder and then seek attachment therapy when neither the diagnosis, list nor therapy is in any way validated. Have you found the source for Chaffin et al yet? In the notes and refs section there is a direct link to Pubmed so you can download it from Sage. I can post the Chaffin definition here for you if you like. Fainites 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We ought at some point, if the article ever gets to the point where it's allowed to say what AT is, to put in a paragraph of what its proponents say in it's defence. Chaffin cover this pretty comprehensively aswell. Fainites 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Many "Attachment Therapists" don't use rebirthing, or holding, etc. etc. This is a very ill defined term. But rebirthing and holding are terms also used for AT on the web and in various articles. DPeterson^talk 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of References and edited paragraph (Chaffin quote)

I'm getting a little lost. Could someone please clarify for me what the Chaffin quote dispute is all about? Where exactly is the passage in question? StokerAce 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above. it's the first paragraph under 'treatment characteristics'. Fainites 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chaffin quote is not in dispute. The paragraphs were edited by another editor and the consensus is that version is preferred. There is no dispute with a "Chaffin quote." The paragraphs describe the importance of attuned and sensitive parenting. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Chaffin quote is not in dispute then presumably it can remain in the article, as a quote, with it's genuine citations, without extraneous and misleading citations being added.Fainites 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit is an improvement in that is is broader. RalphLender^talk 13:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The line reads:

Improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is a key to improving attachment. From this perspective, treatment for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, attuned, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005 Nichols,Lacher & May, 2004, Chaffin, 2006).

This is a statement with a number of verifiable citations. RalphLender^talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my take on the issue is that the current version is very confusing. It could be interpeted, by those unfamiliar with the issues here, to mean that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy (this was not the intent, of course). By citing to Dr. Becker-Weidman in a section on "treatment characteristics" on the "attachment therapy" page, it looks like this is what he does. While he used to describe his therapy with this term, he no longer does (as I understand it). Alternatively, the passage could also be interpreted to mean that his work has been endorsed by Chaffin, which it has not. Dr. Becker-Weidman has contributed to these discussions in the past, so it would be interesting to get his views here. StokerAce 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The original passage was Chaffins statement on the characteristics of therapies that were not 'attachment therapy'. This is the full passage.

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004)"

What has happened is that firstly Becker-Weidman was inserted into Chaffins list of authorities for the passage. When it was pointed out how grossly misleading this was, the quote was altered in various ways to change its meaning and effect and Becker-Weidman was again inserted as a reference. The problem with this is that it creates an entirley misleading impression. Chaffin et al do in fact criticise Becker-Weidman in the context of being a proponent of attachment therapy. They do not use the word 'attunement'. To amalgamate two opposing positions into one passage and run all the references togather is utterley misleading and confusing. Also, whats the point? This isn't rocket science! The Chaffin quote is perfectly straightforward. Prior and Glaser also describe non-attachment therapy therapies. Why try and mix it all up with Becker-Weidman who is specifically criticised by Chaffin? If you want to cite Becker-Weidmans opinions on what proper therapy is, fine, but why mix it up with othersources veiews in this misleading way? I also would like to get Becker-Weidmans views on this. It concerns me that he is being misrepresented in this way. If anybody thought he was party to this kind of thing it could damage his credibility.Fainites 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the section was edited and rewritten, it is not a quote and does not misrepresent...In fact is is much improved and, as the other section indicated, most editors prefer this clearer more fully sourced version. DPeterson^talk 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited Treatment Characteristics Section

It appears that a significant number of editors prefer the version by SamDavidson. Consensus supports this version. Fainities concerns are understandable. Anyone who has put a lot of work into a work feels some ownership of that material. Wikipedia works on consensus and that may change over time. As I read it the following editors prefer the version in place:

1. "The recent edit by Davidson to add a reference and clean up a line or two are fine with me. I think this is an improvement and I support it. DPetersontalk 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

2. "Very nice...I agree. JonesRDtalk 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC) "

3. "Support Count me as the "fourth" who supports the edits. I think these, while slightly minor, are improvements. The section is clearer and the cites added are relevant to support the statement regarding attuned and sensitive parenting being important. Let's keep these improvements. MarkWood 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

4. "Hi all. I came across AT from my research into hypnotherapy. From the diffs I think there is no problem with the current version (DPeterson et al's version). The line is in quotes and the words are in order and it holds the correct meaning. Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) "

5. I liked the old version and like this one even more. RalphLender^talk 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

6. I would agree that I prefer this version and would like it to stay. JohnsonRon 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC) RalphLender^talk 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership is not the problem. Distortion and perversion of sources is the problem. And as I keep asking; for what purpose? Fainites 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should really assume good faith here. I'm happy to see if there are any omissions or inaccuracies. Surely there are other editors around who can help you doublecheck also. One thing I find strange about the article is the lack of these multitude of odd techniques that are allegedly being used as AT. What is the actual list of methods or techniques? Maypole 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a real problem is that there is no clear defination of "Attachment Therapy." There is no actual listing, as there are for other reputable approahces, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Theraplay, Object Relations, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, etc. etc. RalphLender^talk 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thats the discrepancy I see. AT may use these well founded methods but from the article the criticism seems to me to be that it also uses all sorts of other unvalidated or quite wild treatments. If so then it really should be ok to have them more clearly in the article. If some practitioners use only kosher methods then thats wonderful for them. If a lot of AT practitioners use flaky methods then its a shame for the good ones. If critics lump everyone together then thats their view. I guess its just one of those things the good ATs have to put up with as a career characteristic anyway. Maypole 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I think the following should be added:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.</bockquote>DPeterson^talk 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

Regarding:

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy"[citation needed]. It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. There is not any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al (2006) describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating, "This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds." p85 [2]

Doesn't the sentance following the citation tag answer that? What I mean is that the rest of the paragraph describes how generally accepted texts do not use the term and the article as a whole seems to make the point that there are varied definations of this term. What do others think? RalphLender^talk 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well no, it just means that book doesn't list it. You need an actual statement of a good source or two who says there's no general definition. Actually there may be one below in the main section of the article thats more likely. But it really could be either cut, sourced, or just placed with the main statement. Maypole 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement,

They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies[citation needed], particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article[citation needed].

, doesn't the first line provide a citation and page number that supports the statement, as might, [54]. What do others think? RalphLender^talk 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the encyclopedic way would be simply to state the term AT plus all the other terms it is known as in the literature. If there are any people who says its poorly or vaguely defined then add their view with the source. Its pretty simple I think. But who says "care should be taken when considering the many...."? To me it looks like an odd bit of unnecessary argument. The article would be more convincing without it no matter if you are pro, against, or anywhere in between. Maypole 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. Do you think you could make a suggestion for rewording each line, below? RalphLender^talk 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on it this weekend. Maypole 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely that the best definition will be the one in the Taskforce report as it was their remit to report on the whole subject. Their definition therefore should be prioritised. We must make sure we don't obscure what this article is about by pretending it's about nothing definable or 'smoke' as a previous editor put it. I've also added a fact tag to the statement that ACT label a large number of treatments as AT. I have their list and in fact they don't label any mainstream or evidence based treatments for children at all as AT.Fainites 16:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Fainites 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They label EMDR and that is a mainstream and evidence based treatment cited by many prominent therapist in the field of trauma treatment as useful. RalphLender^talk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not commonly agreed upon definition of this term, the Taskforce has one, ACT has another, other groups have others...It is a slippery term without consensus. That is what makes this article so complex to prepare. RalphLender^talk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's quite simple to put in Chaffins definition, Prior and Glasers definition and ACT's definition, and any other credible, verified and authoratitive source, without obfuscation, such as an untrue claim that about ACT, or long lists of irrelevant organisations put in because they don't define it. As for EMDR, that is not labelled as attachment therapy. ACT have two lists. One they say is attachment therapy by another name. It contains no mainstream, evidence based treatments, although one or two treatments in it might quibble about their inclusion on the list. The other list is of adjunct therapies, including EMDR, all of which are labelled quackery. It does not improve clarity at all to muddle the two lists up.Fainites 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well EMDR is another story. From my science based hypno-therapies background EMDR is considered highly dubious and theoretically pseudoscientific. Does it work? Well what is "it"? The treatment may "work" but its certainly not the EMDR that's doing the job. OK like I said its another story. Treating "attachment" doesn't seem to be regular at all in clinical psychology. And attachment theory is quite unrelated to what is going on in this article (which is why I mentioned the EMDR case - mechanism of action (theory) is crucial in science). In hypnotherapy there have been many pretenders with funny names. Its not like the collection of names that refer directly to AT though. The AT labels really do seem to be synonymous. Certainly by the looks of the web and the sources anyway. I'd just place them as synonymous. Thats how the majority view (science oriented bodies) seems to treat them. Maypole 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, EMDR is another story. It is accepted by most prominent researchers and clinicians and professionals in the trauma treatment field (Van der Kolk, The National Child Trauma Center, Briere, Lieberman, etc) as an important component of trauma treatment and as evidence based treatment. But, regardless of this debate, this underscores that the ACT list includes some mainstream treatments and other treatments that have a clear empirical basis of support. And, most to the point, this "treatment" of Attachment Therapy is not defined in the mainstream and usual sources for such definitions. RalphLender^talk 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not confuse the two lists though. The list of attachment therapies contains no mainstream therapies. It would probably be too big a task to try and deal here with the second list which I think they just copied from Quackwatch and mention in passing as adjunct therapies. As for AT not being defined by mainstream sources, thats the whole point isn't it? According to Chaffin it exists outside the mainstream, on a different plain eg "Prior and Glaser (2006) describe "two discourses" on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of "treatments"." You've already quoted the Chaffin version above.Fainites 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Both list contain mainstream treatments with emprical evidence to support their efficacy. RalphLender^talk 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same as being mainstream or evidence based. Anyway, my preferred version for an intro would be: "Attachment Therapy", or 'attachment therapy' is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. In a report for the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, (ASPAC), Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects......popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 [2] The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. [1] Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing. The more comprehensive definitions then appear in the definition section. Fainites 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the following, which is the current consensus version. The lists of ACT contain mainstream evidence-based treatments with empirical bases for their efficacy.

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[[55]]. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, (ASPAC), Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.'

They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article.

RalphLender^talk 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the consensus version, for now...consensus can change, further discussion is probably a good thing. RalphLender^talk 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. . Keep Current versionI prefer the version in the article as it stands now. JohnsonRon 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
2. . AGREE DPeterson^talk 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

#. I Agree for all the reasons previously stated. MarkWood 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Underlying Issue

As with many of these discussions, there seems to be something beneath the surface here, but it's not always easy to figure out what it is. My guess is that it's the following. DPeterson et al. are trying to make sure that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy does not get lumped in with Attachment Therapy/attachment therapy. That seems fine to me. I just think it would be better to do it more explicitly and with some detailed comparisons. The way it is being done now is very confusing. In fact, as I've said, I could see how people would read the existing version to mean that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy. Here's my suggestion. Create a separate section explaining that some definitions of attachment therapy have been quite broad, and have implied that various practices (including DDP) are examples of AT. The section could then explain how DDP is different and why it should not be considered part of AT. It doesn't have to be a long section at all, and could link to the DDP page. I think this would be clearer than the current version and (perhaps) less controversial. StokerAce 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really any underlying issue here. However, for the sake of consensus and moving your suggestion forward, the way to do that would be to add in the following paragraph that was deleted from the current version. 'However' if that is the path to be followed, we should really move slowly and carefully as the current version is largely consensus and a new consensus would have to be built...that is how the old version was edited and the folloing paragraph deleted:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

DPeterson^talk 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the paragraph you provided contains only assertions. What does the attachment therapy in the Chaffin report involve? What do DDP and the others involve? The differences really need to be spelled out. StokerAce 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph has links and citations to support the statements. I also urge you to Assume Good Faith. Your comments about underlying motives leads me to remind you of the following:

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Do you realize that the edit summaries in all caps are the section headings that they were replying under? Neither User:Sarner nor User:StokerAce created those sections. shotwell 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) FYI, they are both from the Denver area, when I've done and IRC check on those instances where they neglected to sign in. RalphLendertalk 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An "IRC check when they neglected to sign in"? Are you saying you've seen them on IRC? If so, I don't understand the "neglected to sign in" part. Are you trying to say that you've seen comments from both parties on wikipedia made while they weren't signed in and you did an IP check? Can I ask how you know that the IP's were related to either person? shotwell 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC) from [[56]], and that one could assume some "underlying" purpose in your edits given your history with this subject to eliminate any references to DDP and to portray it in the same light as ACT protrays many other treatments. So, let's just Assume Good Faith here. The above paragraphs would be fine, or leave the article as is, which is also fine. Remember that now I think it is 6 other editors prefer the Treatment Characteristics section you are disputing. DPeterson^talk 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Six other editors prefer the Treatment Characteristics section as written, see above: [57] DPeterson^talk 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my point. I'm not accusing you of bad faith. I'm saying that what you've written does not achieve what I think you're trying to achieve. And I'm suggesting a better way to do it. It doesn't read that way to you because you know something about the field. But for those who are unfamiliar, it will be confusing. Feel free to ignore me. It doesn't bother me if the current version could be read to imply that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy. If you don't care either, that's fine. One other thought. If you are concerned that ACT lists DDP on their page, why don't you just contact them and ask them to take it off? I'm sure they would. Unfortunately, I am not Larry Sarner. Otherwise, I'd just take if off myself. ;) StokerAce 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

you may be right about that, and I apologize if I missed the point..sorry. Well, if you are not satisfied with the para's above, what would you suggest as an alternative? I don't think it makes sense to single out Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay...it belongs in a listing of the various other therapies that don't meet the definition of AT as described in this article...as the first para above seems to state....The first paragraph lists the therapies and the references that support the statement that the treatments are consistent with attachment theory, attunement, etc. etc. DPeterson^talk 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's no need to single out DDP. I just mentioned it because I thought it was your concern. The main problem I see is that I don't think most people will get the difference between "attachment therapy" and "attachment theory." As a result, when you say that DDP etc. are consistent with "attachment theory" on a page about "attachment therapy," I think some people might confuse the two and associate DDP etc. with "attachment therapy" (especially given that Dr. Becker-Weidman used to call his treatment "attachment therapy.") What I would do is try to explain the features of "attachment therapy" (according to Chaffin, for example) and then describe the features of DDP etc. as a comparison. How does DDP work? What does the therapist do? You can't explain the whole thing obviously, but some examples would be helpful.

And I was serious about asking ACT to take DDP off their page. I'm not sure the differences between the two sides are as great as some seem to think. I would explain how DDP works and make clear that it does not involve the practices they are concerned about. If you do that, they will hopefully take it off and it would be the first step towards detente and an end to these edit wars (well, a temporary truce, at least). StokerAce 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but not my place. If Dr. Becker-Weidman felt the need to do that I suspect he would or will. The material on their site and the way they write does not suggest this advocacy group is a reasonable as you hope they may be. Nice wish, though. DPeterson^talk 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple statement that these treatments (list) are consistent with attachment theory and not consistent with the definition of AT in this article would suffice:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al).

Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993. DPeterson^talk 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, for the record, I side with Fainites on this one. StokerAce 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So, the section can remain as is for now, unless others wish to add that para. I will start a new section to see about that. DPeterson^talk 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the original consensus version was the quotation from Chaffin which forms the first part of your paragraph above so there is nothing new about that. It has in fact been repeatedly removed from the article despite being a quotation from a verified and credible source. The current version in the article is utterly misleading as it implies that Chaffin et al and Becker-Weidman are ad idem on AT. The second part of your proposal is an old list from the article that was removed by consensus. Why is it being resurrected now? What is the point of it? Fainites 14:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also e-mailed ACT some time ago to query their inclusion of DDP and Theraplay in their list but got no reply. It seems to me that Becker-Weidman clearly considers the criticism of him (and by implication DDP) to be unjustified and he says as much in his open correspondance with the Taskforce. They didn't agree. The argument will rumble on for ever. We can't take sides. I think there is room in this article for a section on the border areas if you really want one, ie the B-W/Chaffin dispute and what other critics have said. What we can't do however is pretend that Chaffin and Becker-Weidman and Hughes are on all fours when they're plainly not. Personally I don't see the need to name any names in this way.Fainites 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change and as several editors have pointed out...no one owns any article or section...consensus rules. The current version is not misleading as it is not a Chaffin quote or paragraph. I'm not surprised you did not get a response from ACT. They are an advocacy group with a specific agenda and a somewhat radical point of view. The APSAC report is quite consistent with the Hughes, Jernberg, Hughes, etc. materials. The citations are verifiable and meet the wikipedia standards for inclusion. JohnsonRon 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not overide Wiki policies about verifiability, credibilty and authoritativeness of sources. We cannot describe therapy's as 'congruent' with theories or policies on their own say so or on our say so. That is OR. We can say such and such a therapy claims to be congruent, if we have a source where they say this.Fainites 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The material appears consistent with Wikipedia policies, such as its being verifiable. The citations support the statements that the therapies are congruent with the underlying theories; those are the sources. I won't repeat all the other excellent arguments infavor made by other editors, but I do concur with those points. MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Add the following paragraph to Article

It's been suggested that to clarify what is and is not acceptable practice, that the following paragraph be added to the article. Please voice your comments below:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS TO THE ARTICLE

1. 'YES' As suggested by others, this clarifies what is not covered by AT as defined in this article. DPeterson^talk 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. 'Yes to the first part which is almost an exact quotation from Chaffin et al, with the exception of the first word and should therefore be acknowledged and made plain as such, so that it cannot have extraneeous material added to it to make it look as if Chaffin et al said something they didn't.
3. 'No' to the second part which has no place in section of this article which is about the treatment characteristics of 'attachment therapy'. There is a place for describing the characteristics of non-attachment therapy therapies by way of contrast with 'attachment therapy'. There is no necessity whatsoever for a list which is bound to be arguable, incomplete and controversial. Further the list is OR. It does not come from Chaffin, or Prior and Glaser nor any other authoritative source and therapies cannot be included on self report. In addition it contains a therapy that is specifically criticised by Chaffin et al as an attachment therapy and therefore according to them would certainly not be 'congruent'. Also, Prior and Glaser say that Hughes' therapy is nothing to do with attachment. What is the point of creating a list that is in the first place unecessary, in the second place OR, and in the third place contains information that the sources we do have would disagree with? This does not clarify what is and what is not acceptable practice, it obfuscates it. Also, from an encyclopaedic point of view, lists are boring to read and this article contains too many.Fainites 14:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
4. . 'YES'The material is not Chaffin's, and is excellent as proposed. The therapy is not "specifically cirticised by Chaffin at al as an attachment therapy," In fact their material does not include the results of the several empirical studies by Dr. Becker-Weidman because the Task Force Report was prepared before publication of those evidence-based studies. The material meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. JohnsonRon 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
5. . 'Yes, I agree' Again, I won't repeat the points already made and for the sake of brevity, only say I concur with those points. MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I Agree JonesRD_talk 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been argued above. The new study by Becker-Weidman was specifically considered in the November 2006 follow up. The material is only not Chaffins because about two words were altered to create a misleading impression that Chaffin and becker-Weidman were at one. Why? Fainites 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no Chaffin citation, so it is not Chaffin material. Dr. Becker-Weidman appears to have published several empirical articles in journals that were not considered in the APSAC-Chaffin et. al. report because the report was prepared before publication of those articles. The preferred version above does not mislead, 'INCLUDE IT.'MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an exact quote from Chaffin. becker-Weidmanwas misleadingly inserted. A few words were altered to make it not look like a quote from Chaffin. Why? Becker-Weidman is not particularly notable. Why this obsession with getting him in the article? Also, as you know, Chaffin et al specifically considered Becker-Weidmans new studies in the follow up report in November 2006 and did not change their views. That is why it is misleading to mix becker-Weidman up with Chaffin as if they were jointly citing something.Fainites 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quote. Why are you so anti becker-weidman? This really seems like a cause with you and your partners as you e-mail back and forth...I just don't see the point. The paragraph is fine and many others think so. So, let's just move on. The lines are not quotes and are better sourced this way. There is no mixing up of Chaffin and Dr. Becker-Weidman. Your stance on this is so similiar to ACT's, why are you not bringing in their material as well? The lines make no statement of being Chaffins, so this is really a non-issue. Let's move on. MarkWood 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed article I drafted contained no mention of Becker-Weidman at all. Its you who keep inserting him into the article. You're missing the point. The lines were a direct quote of Chaffin. They were slightly altered and Becker-Weidman was inserted. How can that be 'better sourced'. It's not sourced at all! As for anybody elses stance being the 'same as ACT', you keep misrepresenting Becker-Weidmans position. Anybody who can read sources can see that.Fainites 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above seems to have the support of a number of editors. I also wonder what is the difficulty you seem to have with Dr. Becker-Weidman. You are not raising concerns about the other authors in the above consensus paragraph. Each treatment listed has at least one verifiable source; meeting wikip. standards. DPeterson^talk 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence basis is provided by the several empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals and in the article by Craven & Lee in Research on Social Work Practice, vol 16, May 2006, 287-304...This is the most current article on the subject. DPeterson^talk 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But you never cite Craven & Lee though do you. You just try and insert Becker-Weidman into Chaffin! It's not me that keeps trying to include B-W in this article. As for the other authors, B_W is the only one specifically criticised by Chaffin and specifically described, in November 06 as not evidence based. Fainites 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Craven & Lee is another example...I can certainly add it if you wish. No, you keep repeating the same incorrect point. THe Chaffin article is using old data. The article was prepared in 2003 or so and when published did not include the empirical and evidence-based artiles published in professional peer-reviewed publications in 2005 and 2006. But, that is really not the point, the paragraph is not Chaffin or is it attributed to Chaffin. It is a paragraph that a consensus of editors prefers. DPeterson^talk 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add Craven & Lee to the above paragraph, which seems ready to be added, perhaps, as there seems to be a clear consensus on adding it. DPeterson^talk 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus (five of six) above, I added this into the article. MarkWood 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys have Chaffin or do you have some different version to me? My version includes material from 2005. My follow up report talks about Becker-Weidmans 2006 material. It's in the November 2006 issue of Child Maltreat. I am quite happy to post again all the excerpts, or e-mail my sources to anyone. If you say Chaffin was written in 2000/02 (see earlier) or 2003, (your latest claim) please give us the source for this extraordinary statement! If you say Chaffin et al did not refer to Becker-Weidmans recent study in their November 2006 follow up, please give us the source for this claim, bearing in mind that they say "The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)". This has nothing to do with consensus. Fainites 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the agreed upon paragraph is good and adds to the article. JohnsonRon 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reply does not address any of the major factual errors in your statements, unless you believe 'consensus' actually can decide black is white. Two cheers for democracy! Fainites 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no factual errors and this has been extensively discussed above and previously, so I won't repeat previous material...just take a look at the above material and you will find a relevant response. I understand you may disagree, but let's move on as the consensus is not in your favor and does not see it your way...happens sometimes. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sifting the essay from the fact

I have been working through the article and it seems to me that its quite an essay. There is a lot of argument going on even in the article. For example, the last paragraph is making some unsourced comments about "Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.". I had a look through the NPOV article and it seems we could probably do with just moving those argument parts out of the article and putting them in the talkpage for people to work on and source. Part of the difficulty for anyone reading this article is trying to sort the editor's arguments from the source's arguments. I really think this will help. I'll get the ball rolling with the last sentence of the article. Here it is:

"Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions."

First I believe we need sources for it. Maypole 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I am in favor it it! DPeterson^talk 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back the paragraph only because I do not want to see "edit wars" begun. I think, given the contentiousness of this topic it is best to propose suggestions here on the talk page, see if a consensus exists or can be developed and then make the changes. I support your suggestion, but am not sure others do or what their thinking may be. Is that ok with you? DPeterson^talk 02:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine for now, but remember it seems that you just restored some rather odd unsourced argument into the articleMaypole 05:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know and I'm happy to delete the material, I think...but I just want to be sure we give others a chance to commnent and avoid hot tempers or rash actions. I'm not disagreeing with the substnce of what you are suggesting. I am merely suggesting a slower process to build consensus. P.S. thanks for your work here. DPeterson^talk 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, there is some very good stuff on prevalence of AT in both the Chaffin report and Prior and Glaser which should go in the article. There is no source I have found for saying it's 'rare' but there don't seem to be any statistics at all. The Chaffin report was commissioned because of growing concerns and publicity about various notorious cases. Would you like me to e-mail you a copy.? It might be a good idea for you to read the earlier talkpage. You will see that every single one of these arguments about unsourced material has been argued before so you don't need to go really slowly to build consensus as the arguments are familiar to most of the existing editors. Also, be wary about 'going slowly to build consensus'. I did that for weeks, posted the consensus version and it was almost immediately altered to include stuff previously agreed to be left out. Fainites 14:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You can get a copy at: [58] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it seems that AT therapy is very popular. Just from seeing the amount of advertizement for it on the internet. Can you send me a copy also? Maybe a list of the number of members of attach.org etc would show the number of people practicing it. FatherTree 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[www.Attach.org] has a White paper, cited in this article, against the use of coercion in treatment, so that is another good source. You can read their brief position at [59] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats attachorg? Is that ATTacH or whatever that organisation is that uses part capitals? Didn't they used to be the home of attachment therapy but have now tried to position themselves away from it? We could get ourselves into a bit of a complicated minefield here. Sticking to sources is safest. By the way, if you or Maypole want a copy of Chaffin, you'll have to eable your e-mails or e-mail me. Fainites 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[www.Attach.org] has a White paper, cited in this article, against the use of coercion in treatment, so that is another good source. You can read their brief position at [60] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DP please don't interpose your comments between other editors when one editor has already replied to another as it interrupts the flow of conversation. You can always say 're your comment above' or something. Fainites 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the site, this is 'ATTACh' which I believe is controversial as they have positioned themselves away from coercive therapies, but are seen by some commentators as actually part of 'attachment therapy'. Another controversy too big and unresolvable for this litle page! Fainites 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your 'bias' here now. That helps me understand your position on all these issues. Calling ATTACh controversial when it is a national professioal organization that has the support of many prominent people in the field shows a bias...almost similiar to ACT. They have a White Paper that clearly prohibits coercive treatments or methods and are in alignment with other similiar professional organizations such as APSAC, NASW, APA, AACP, etc. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is version of "Prevalence" I proposed earlier;

It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows; "The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)."

(WHY SO MANY QUOTES FROM JUST ONE SOURCE? THE OTHER VERSION IS BETTER THIS THIS REGARD AS BEING BROADER IN SCOPE. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Chaffin describes the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating ‘This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds.’ (DON'T SEE WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH HOW WIDE SPREAD IS THE PRACTICE.MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)) A particular concern of both Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser is the use of the Internet to advertise these therapies and the use of unscientific and 'wildly inclusive' lists of 'symptoms' (Prior and Glaser). According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. (THIS ISN'T ABOUT HOW WIDE SPREAD IS AT MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.' Many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm Descriptions of children are frequently highly perjorative and 'demonising'.

According to Chaffin et al 'Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful’. They also express concern over claims by therapies to be 'evidence based' or indeed the 'only' evidence based therapy when the Task Force found no credible evidence base for any such therapy so advertised. Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’ And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the across the lap variety.p263.

The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." Fainites 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on one source and irrelvant quotes. Keep this section focused on the main issue: to what extent is this practiced? All professional orgs prohibit practices as defined in this article. AT or rebirthing, or holding therapy as defined is coercive an prohibited by APA, NASW, ATTACh, etc. and rebirthing is illegal in various states. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

need page # DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'need page #DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'Is this a quote or a summary?DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'what does this have to do with prevalence? Might belong in another section DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'Again, this does not belong here. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC). same hereDPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Too much emphasis on Chaffin. There are many other sources that should be cited...see version proposed below for a more balance and comprehensive version. DPeterson^talk 14:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on one source and irrelvant quotes. Keep this section focused on the main issue: to what extent is this practiced? All professional orgs prohibit practices as defined in this article. AT or rebirthing, or holding therapy as defined is coercive an prohibited by APA, NASW, ATTACh, etc. and rebirthing is illegal in various states. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all your interspersed comments as they make it difficult for other editors to read. You know very well that all page numbers have been given previously.It is simply not necessary to create confusion throughout another editors proposed edits with facile demands for page numbers.Fainites 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back those comments so that we can see what they are in reference to. Removing them makes it impossible to follow the comments and is like deleting another editors edits. This is the approach you proposed and have used. It worked well before and continues to be a good one for readability. Let's keep cool heads here and Assume Good Faith JohnsonRon 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is approach we used before when attempting to reach a consensus version. All of these comments have been made before above. there is no need to keep repeating the same comments throughout another editors proposals and it makes it difficult for other new editors to see what is going on. You also removed my paragraphing which was put there to make it easier for editors to discuss seperate parts. Please don't interfere with my edits.Fainites 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to see what DP had in mind when you remove his/her material. This distorts the process. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It distorts the process to make an editors proposed version unreadable. As for ATTACh being controversial, their list of 'symptoms' contains some of the things criticised by both Caffin and Galser. As for Chaffin being too limiting a source, at least it is a source, unlike lists of therapies stated to be 'congruent', with no source, or lists of organisations, again unsourced. Here is the list of members of the Taskforce. You will see it contains many of the best known names in the field. "Byron Egeland, Elana Newman, Tom Lyon, Elizabeth Letourneau and Cindy Miller-Perrin, Mark Chaffin, Rochelle Hanson, Benjamin E. Saunders, Todd Nichols, Douglas Barnett, Charles Zeanah, Lucy Berliner".Fainites 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the process you'd suggested. If you don't wnat comments, so be it. DPeterson^talk 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Each of the therapies listed has one or more sources cited and so this is a broader and better referenced statement...as most other editors agree here and with the another section above, so if that is the consensus, than that is what will be included I guess. All the citations in the section are verifiable and relevant. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They are sources for what they are. They are not sources, on self report or otherwise, for being congruent with attachment theory, or Chaffins statement of traditional theories, unless there is a source that says they are. eg Prior and Glaser, who list only 4. Otherwise its either self report, or us reading them and deciding they're congruent, which would be OR. You can say they 'claim' to be congruent, but I don't think mainstream therapies do that do they?Fainites 18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the citations. They are sources that address the point dead on. The articles in peer-reviewed professional publications in each instance note how the treatment is based on and congruent with attachment theory. Chaffin is not relevant to this discussion. They all meet Wikipedia standards for being verifiable. And, of course, this is the version that represents consensus as this time, so regardless of anyone's personal feelings, or "pride of authorship," consensus will determine the outcome and inclusion of materials. DPeterson^talk 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean to hurt your personal feelings or 'pride of ownership' DP so apologies if I did. The point I'm making is that just because the proponent of a therapy says 'hi everyone! I'm congruent, evidence based and based on attachment theory' doesn't mean it is accepted as such. Others may disagree. On DDP there is obviously major disagreement at the highest level within the field. Chaffin very wisely didn't seek to list 'good' therapies. All sorts of people would have complained about being left out. Glaser only gave a very conservative, well established list. It's a minefield. Lets not go there. Its not necessary for the scope of this article. It's an argument for the DDP page perhaps, not here. We agreed all this before actually. I posted the agreed version and then it got perverted.Fainites 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you've put a lot of work in here and my comment that you may feel "pride of authorship" was meant to be understanding of why you may feel particularily supportive of your versions. The treatments have citations listed to support their inclusion and meet the Wikipedia standard as being verifiable. The listing seems relevant and it also appears to be a consensus. My comment on pride of authorship is directed to mean that even if one feels strongly about one's work, it is the community consensus that prevails. DPeterson^talk 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your committment to your work. Your comment that "I posted the agree version and the it got perverted," I think does express your frustration, and I do appreciate that. There was a consensus (not an agreement between one or two editors) and then a new consensus developed. As frustrating as I know that can be, we still all have to go with the community consensus...even if one feels strongly it is "wrong." DPeterson^talk 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't my work. It's just a passing hobby. I do object to intellectual dishonesty. There was a consensus. It was a passage from Chaffin which all editors knew. One editor immediately inserted a citation in the quote that was not in the original quote thus creating a false and misleading travesty of the quote which was from a verified and credible source. The motive was obviously, as is so often the case on this site, to pretend that Becker-Weidman is cited approvingly by the Taskforce when in fact the reverse is the case. The fact that you and the others then all pile in to say what a wonderful improvement this is says more about you all than I ever could. Your diffs are your record, despite your propensity for going back over the talkpage and altering things retrospectively. Fainites 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph as re-written is an improvement. I see no intellectual dishonesty here and encourage 'ALL' to 'KEEP A COOL HEAD' and Assume good faith. The paragraph makes no statements indicative regarding the Task Force's opinion regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman's past or present works. JonesRD_talk 16:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Prevelance Section

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association[[61]], National Association of Social Workers[[62]], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [[63]], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [[64]]) , and the American Psychiatric Association. [[65]].

Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions. DPeterson^talk 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors who prefer this Version

1. _ No . It does not contain any sourced information about prevalence. AT is not synonymous with rebirthing. It contains OR. It contains an irrelevant list which nobody will read. Lists make peoples eyes glaze over. Also, AT doesn't always involve the use of practices proscribed by those organisations. Part of the essence of AT is its theoretical base. Not all AT's use coercive practices or outlawed practices like rebirthing. Fainites 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes It contains sourced material from nearly all the major professional organizations, such as APA, NASW, ATTACh and supports the statement that licensed mental healh professionals who are members of these organizations do not practice coercive treatments, which AT, as defined in this article, is. This is a nice, short, concise statement on prevelance. AT as defined here is a coercive treatment. DPeterson^talk 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
3. . 'YES' This is a concise listing of the professional standards and status. AT as described in this article is a coercive treatment. JohnsonRon 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
4. . 'Yes, include' for all the reasons stated in this and other sections. MarkWood 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
5. 'I agree' include it. JonesRD_talk 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AT is not simply coercive treatment. Chaffin discuss a number of what they consider to be attachment therapy proponents who do not use coercive methods. the coercive methods are the most concerning ones and the ones most easily banned or regulated against. Fainites 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

'ATTACHMENT THERAPY' as described in this article is a coercive treatment approach. Coercion is not allowed by APA, NASW, ATTACh, or APSAC, among others. This article is not about Chaffin or the Task Force. If you wish to write an article about APSAC, then that is the place for all your quotes and citings. A balanced article must have multiple sources, as does the proposed section above. JohnsonRon 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well being more specific I think we can't state that AT is synonymous with rebirthing unless some source says so. I think there is OR in the article and it needs fixing somehow. I havn't seen a list though. The theoretical base is interesting. I would like to know the range of theoretical parts to AT there are. There must be many as AT uses a range of techniques. I'm not going to take sides but I'm all for improving the article. It needs it. Maypole 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Chaffins attempt at definition. " "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988 [3]) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy”. The coercive elements are the most well known and the most concerning, but the theoretical base doesn't lead to only coercion. Prior and Glaser also make it clear there is a whole range of variants of AT. There's an article by Speltz in 'Child Maltreat' which traces the underlying theory and history behin attachment therapy. A small part of Speltz is in the article, dealing with Zaslows theory of supressed rage and the notion of 'catharsis'. I think the article would be improved by a more comprehensive section on historical roots and underlying theoretical principles. Fainites 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ACT uses the terms together and so does Chaffin, apparently. Looks like there is a growing agreement above on how to proceed on this question. MarkWood 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually if we use the following bits:

"The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy....Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy”." that seems to cover just about everything. Fainites 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. MarkWood 17:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. If this is made clear in the opening and/or the definition section we don't need to keep repeating it. Fainites 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So the above paragraph capture that, I believe. Good work. A significant number of editors concur on that. DPeterson^talk 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole passage is already in the definition section. This shortened version could go in the opening paragraph.Fainites 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. So have it in the introduction and in the definition section? It is an important point...Since most editors prefer the version above, we should probably go with that. DPeterson^talk 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition section has already been put in by consensus. Are you now going to propose we remove a whole chunk of it? To what end? This thread was about the statement that AT was also called rebirthing in the 'prevalence' section. Why would anybody want to remove the full and clear paragraph in the definition section?Fainites 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it could stay just as it is. And a preponderance of editors like the proposed paragraph above. DPeterson^talk 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I like the short version as a quick round up in the intro, but it's not adequate for a definityion section when the subject needs such careful defining. Do you mean the passage in the article stays as it is? Or you proposing to remove the descriptive passage in the article and replace it with a short version. Its a little soon to claim a 'preponderance of editors' isn't it? Especially on a Saturday evening. Fainites 21:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The verson above is the one being worked on and, so far, three editors prefer it just as it is. If you'd like to work to improve it, please do so by making suggstions below for what you might want added or deleted and then others can comment. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at prevalence Another attempt at prevalence

It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows; "The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)."

The following professional organisations have prohibited some of the practices of 'attachment therapy' described in this article: American Psychological Association61, National Association of Social Workers62, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 63, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 64), and the American Psychiatric Association. 65.

Chaffin describes the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating ‘This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds......Much of the available information is found on the Web sites of organizations or centers that deliver the treatment, or in-house and self-published materials. These Web sites often appear to serve as marketing tools and providing information about the treatments used.

Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’ And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the across the lap variety.p263.

The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers."

And please don't go through shrieking PAGE NUMBERS everywhere. If it's agreed, I can add the page numbers before it goes in. Fainites 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I, along with two other editors so far, prefer the version above just as it is. However, if you want to build on that one, that might be better way to go rather than ignoring that version that is still under discussion. I'd suggest you make specific suggestions for lines to be added or deleted and if anyone agrees, then those suggestions would be improvements that can be made. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried incorporating the parts of your version that aren't too obviously OR. Apart from that, I see no point working with your version. It doesn't address the topic and is OR and uninformative. I also see little point in working towards a consensus version when I know from recent history that even if a consensus version is agreed after many weeks of negotiation, once posted it will simply have the same old nonsense put back in and the same old crew will all say 'wow! great! Fainites 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The version above is very good and has not OR...there are relevant citations and verifiable sources. There seems to already be a consensus for this as written. I encourge Fainities to work with the consensus and Assume good faith and avoid Personal attacks. JonesRD_talk 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic in the circumstances. Fainites 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably time to add in this paragraph. DPeterson^talk 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many minor edits to this will not be consistent with the consensus here. DPeterson^talk 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the views, reliable scholarly and non-scholarly

Hello I have been reading the literature sent to me by Fainites. Its very helpful. I have altered my view of the whole subject accordingly. I would place the word "Traditional" in quotes. I think it is more meaningful to have it there.

There are a whole range of views though. The literature I was sent is scholarly for the most part. That is only one aspect of the viewpoints, and it only infers the whole story. For example, Chiffrin says that the controversy has centered on the most worrying interventions. But the paper goes on to say that the whole subject is criticised because a lot of the theories are up the spout, and a lot of other unnamed unvalidated methods are used in addition. This latter aspect does need to be covered in the article. Its crucial from the science (majority) point of view because anything unvalidated is considered unethical, wrong, potentially dangerous in itself, according to the accepted wisdom of clinical practice. Wikipedia RS seems to accept all scholarly and non scholarly sources as long as they are reliable for the views being presented. So now I think its just a matter of including all the unvalidated methods mentioned in the literature. For sure, there must be some valid way of doing AT and to be fair we really have to make the distinction between the valid aspects of dealing with attachment, and dodgy and coercive methods. I think the best way would be to

• state what AT is thought of as being without any criticism whatsoever,
• then explain that attachment problems can be handled well using sensible methods (according to science rather than according to "AT"),
• then state there is a huge outcry about coercive and unvalidated goings on by such and such practitioners and state those unvalidated methods and practices. It would help to characterize that type of practitioner in some representative way if possible. Avoid preaching though.
• the opening section should then follow the above structure

How does that sound to all here? Maypole 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds great to me. but let me make sure I've understood. Are you saying this article should attempt to cover the whole subject of all treatments for attachment disorders, or purported attachment disorders, the good the bad and the ugly? Currently the article really only attmpts to deal with the 'subset' which Chaffin describes as 'popularly known' as attachment therapy. Or are we sticking with that but being a little more expansive about what are and what aren't unvalidated methods and going into underlying theories more? Fainites 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also on sources, you can cite a source as a source. But you have to be careful for what. For example, Prior and Glaser are a source for saying certain therapies are scientifically validated. But a therapy that claims all by itself to be scientifically validated could only be a source for saying it claims to be scientifically validated. Is this correct? Fainites 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the scholarly sources of Prior and Glaser and others are fine but they are not really encyclopedic. Look at their perspective. Either they are warning of problems, or they are saying be careful not to chuck out good stuff with the bathwater. The encyc way I think would be to do what Jim Wales recommends - to include all views and all facts as long as they are relevant and reliable enough. And be as neutral as possible. Present the neutral as possible description of AT, present what attachment is about in theory and how it can be improved according to science, then say how you can bugger it up using unvalidated methods and name all methods associated that people say are unvalidated. Also using sources describe the sort of practitioner who might inadvertently snuff a troublesome minor with his out demons out routine. So yes be as comprehensive as possible within reason. If someone says something is invalidated then thats their view. We (Wikipedians) don't have to say its unvalidated. Just that wassname says its unvalidated. Thats fair, encyclopedic, and accurate. Maypole 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make this article way to broad. The focus is now on the general def. of "Attachemnt Therapy" as a coercive and fringe treatment. To call reputable treatments also AT would confuse the issue. In fact most (all?) reputable treatments would not approve of calling the treatment AT. Therapay would not call it AT. Dr. Marvin would not call circle of security AT, Dr. Daniel Siegel would not call Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy AT. Dr. Van der Kolk would not call Liberman's work AT. etc. There are other articles that address those therapies, what is attachment theory, Bowlvy, the diagnosis of RAD, etc. To have an article try to capture all that at once would be too diverse. I think a narrower focus works better...but the idea certainly is worthy of continued discussion. JonesRD_talk 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My preference has been for not naming specific therapies as I think its a minefield too broad for this article. If we do name them we have to say either so and so says such and such is scientifically validated, or so and so claims his therapy is scientifically validated, but so and so don't agree etc. That's why I think Chaffins and Prior and Glasers descriptions of traditional approaches by way of contrast to AT approaches is sufficient. They're not encyclopaedic in themselves, but they are good sources. I like the idea of addressing the underlying theory and history more as it's really developed from a different line of thinking to Bowlby. I think we should give a broad sourced description of AT. As there's no one definition we can include several as we have done. I think what we should also include is what attachment therapists say about their therapies. Following the Chafiin report some have gone the way of saying they're not AT and never were, some like to pretend attachment therapy doesn't exist at all, but some defend their therapies and say they're right. Sources don't have to be science only! They just have to be accurately characterised. Are you proposing to draft something and let us have a look? (Thats Maypole I mean). Fainites 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The listing in the consensus version of Prevalence, I think it is, to be clear that those are not AT as defined in this article (given that there are verifiable citations to support each one) I think is fine. It is brief (one paragraph) and seems to have the support of most editors so far. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A broader article may confuse the issue. The article is about AT as defined here as a coercive treatment (per ACT, APSAC, etc.). We should keep that focus. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The article is not just about coercive therapies. It is about a subset of therapies outside the mainstream known as 'attachment therapy'. Not all are coercive. I don't think the article can cover all the mainstream therapies aswell though.Fainites 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of AT, per this article is:

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. Chaffin et al (2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) attempt to describe this subset as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988 [3]) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; [4] Lien, 2004 [5] Levy & Orlans, 1998,[6] Welch, 1988 [3]).

. If these aren't coercive, intrusive, and unacceptable modalities, I just don't know what is. DPeterson^talk 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't explain myself very well. They are all unaccaptable and probably all intrusive. I suppose in a psychological sense they're all coercive, but they're not all physically coercive. This talkpage has got bogged down on this before, but I think we're all clear now. Fainites 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is psychological or physical coercion, this is prohibited by various professional groups. The best description and analysis of this is the White Paper by ATTACh. APSAC prohibits coercion, but does not define it. ATTACh in ten or fifteen pages analyzes coercion and defines is well: involving intentional dysregulation, failure to reduce dysregulation, provides a framework for ethical decision making, and much much more. DPeterson^talk 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is too narrow and not encyclopedic in my view and according to the NPOV article I just read. I don't think we need to make any kind of discussion in the article on the many unvalidated therapies that are mentioned by critics. We just need to say the critics state such and such are also used by ATs and they say they are unvalidated. I know someone here disagrees, but EMDR is thought to be unvalidated. I don't think we are looking for truth here, just views. The scary abusive therapies are here pretty much. But we do need to mention what other ones people worry about for being unvalidated. Thats the main science (majority) concern. I do think we should explain what is good treatment of attention problems according to science though. Thats just an explanation of something that clinical therapists do. Its not a version of AT per se. I think we can make that distinction. Maypole 02:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a clear focus makes an encyclopedia article much more clear and specific. DPeterson^talk 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DanielCD's 2 cents worth

Hi, I'm doing some copyediting and trying not to change any content. I am removing some of the "scare" quotes, as they are not really objective. But feel free to revert if I inadvertently step on any toes. --DanielCD 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting. Which 'scarequotes'? Fainites 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's anytime you put quotes around something to imply it's questionable, such as "Attachment Therapy". Another thing I've noticed is that the page numbers for the refs are in the body text. These need to go in the refs at the bottom of the page. I'm trying to stick some in without messing up the ref format. --DanielCD 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now. Thanks for cleaning up the refs and those damned page numbers too! I see you are a clinical psychologist. Would you like to help edit this sites content? We seem to be going round in circles at the moment.Fainites 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you could join in Daniel CD. Your clean up is good and I appreciate it. I see we share a mental health background...I do hope you can help calm things down here so that the focus remains on building consensus and collaboration. cheers. DPeterson^talk 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the page numbers are going where they are supposed to since so many things link to the same ref. I'm going to have to look in the Wikipedia:MOS and see how to do it properly. There must be a way to repeat refs without having to spell them out in so many places. It really cloggs up the text and makes it hard to edit. I think the first step to getting this article in shape is getting the refs standardized and the text clear. --DanielCD 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes its a problem. We asked for peer review on another article and got told off for not having page numbers, but it makes no sense to have a list of page numbers when you're re-using a citation. If you find the answer you're ahead of us. The way to repeat the same ref is to just use the short form, but it often doesn't seem to work.Fainites 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose an alternative, if all else fails, is to put the page # in the text and then use the reference and short name of the reference so that you'd just see a reference # and, "(pg. #)" DPeterson^talk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished therapy from theory

Hi. I made an adjustment or two in the lead. I couldn't find any information from the links of quackwatch or ACT to say that they are trying to discredit particular unvalidated methods, so I improved that statement. Also I think the suggestion to clarify the theory word from the therapy word will also be useful for making the article more readable. Maypole 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good edit. I completely agree. This particular phrase has been discussed before. I checked through the list given by ACT and most of it seems a true bill! There are no mainstream, validated therapies in their list. The controversy on this page is about DDP which may have a bit of a raw deal being included in the list. The last sentence about 'taking care' was my edit. Its a bit OR but it seems fair as DDP certainly object to their inclusion in the list and wouldn't be right to give the impression that Wiki endorses their list. Fainites 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there will be a clearer way to distinguish between good ideas and bad according to source. DPP is listed, and again it is known as an unvalidated therapy even though it may have an ongoing research base and I havn't seen any evidence for it looking like a pseudoscience. I think the article as a whole is qualified enough to include it. (There are many qualifiers in the article). The way to help though is to make sure we have all the related interventions associated with AT. Perhaps more importantly the literature seems to distinguish between flakes and legitimates so it would certainly be a good idea to say more about the behaviour/views and outlook of the flaky ones. I think thats the biggest distinction that will reduce the likelihood of any conflict (ie, the difference between alternative practitioners, and clinical practitioners). That would be fairer and more encyclopedic I believe. Maypole 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, I think we need to emphasis the underlying theory and development, from Zaslow (supressed rage and catharsis), through Welch (holding time), Cline and Thomas, and the associated theoretical beliefs about developmental stages. There's alot of good stuff in Speltz about underlying theoretical beliefs and where they come from. What did you mean about the 'article' being qualified enough to include DPP. Did you mean this article or the ACT article? Also by flakes and legitimates, do you mean legitimates as in mainstream evidence based, and flakes as in AT, or are you making a distiction between legitimate AT (if there is such a thing) and extreme flaky AT? Fainites 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep the focus on AT as described in the article...a somewhat fringe approach not sanctioned by any professional organization that uses methods prohibited by many professional organizations. JohnsonRon 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not that fringe or there wouldn't have been such a fuss about it and alot of organisations have only brought out position statements after notorious cases and after the Chaffin report so this is all quite recent stuff and it's unlikely to disappear overnight. There's plenty of even barmier therapies out there still being practiced. Fainites 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it can be considered fringe as no mainstream professional organization sanctions AT as defined here. ATTACh, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, to name two, had position statements regarding this issue before APSAC did. The Chaffin report was written in 2003 and 4 and published a year later. DPeterson^talk 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see on the issue of when Chaffin was written we've gone up from 2000/02, to 2003, to 2004. Any advance on 2004? Any sources? Fainites 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in here I'd like to say that the citations in the article, including Dr. Becker-Weidman's, meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and so are both relevant and appropriate. I still don't understand the strong objections that you have. I understand Dr. Mercer's objections as she is a leader of ACT...The material is in professional peer-reviewed publications and is evidence-based, Craven & Lee identify it as such. Most importantly, the material is consistent with Wikipedia policy/standard of being a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to an article without consensus

While I think the recent edits (May 14) by Maypole & Fainities are ok, I urge you to first discuss changes on this talk page as the tag at the top of this page suggests:

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Making unliateral changes, especially by relatively new editors (Maypole started 4/29/07 and has primarily limited edits to this article while Fainities has been around longer, since around 2/17/07 and has edited a broader range of articles; primarily articles about EMDR, NLP, and this article) is not a good way to build consensus. Building agreement is important when a subject matter is as contentious as is this one. DPeterson^talk 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello DPeterson. No worries. I'm working with consensus and will continue to. I have firstly asked questions and determined what the problems are after receiving sources. I understand there are interested parties here and I'll act accordingly. Wikipedia says I should be bold. Well, I'll be bold and write in whatever NPOVing needs to be done. If someone want to restore a POV or unsourced statement or argument into the article then its on their own head. I will continue to ask questions and seek agreement but there comes a time when some phrases are so obviously in need of change that changing them really does become an obvious piece of work to do. I think all here are allowed to be bold and edit how they want. Lets just make sure its NPOV and encyclopedia oriented rather than simply consensus based. Maypole 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a new editor focusiing on just this article you may not understand that it is best to discuss changes here first...tag at the top of this page and at the top of the article. I suggest you make your suggested edits 'here' and see what others think 'BEFORE' making a change to the article itself. Actually, editing material that represents a clear 'consensus' is not allowed and can, in some instances, actually be considered vandalism....I suspect you are not aware of all these issues as a new user...I encourage you to read the relevant Wikipedia policies...the tag at the top of the page will take you to most of those. JohnsonRon 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello JohnsonRon. Could you direct me to the specific rule that places consensus above NPOV policy? Because it would seem a little illogical to me (perhaps because I am a newbie) to allow a particular group to say what should or should not be on the article. I thought that any information can get there if it is relevant, reliable, accurate, verifiable and so on. As it is I see no vandalism in any of my edits, at least according to the article concerned with vandalism. Again, could you please point me towards the actual rules you are using? I've looked high and low and I cannot find them. Maypole 16:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules place NPOV, and rules about verified, credible and authoritative sources above notions of consensus. An editor is perfectly entitled to edit OR and POV, and Maypole has discussed it here. Its nice to discuss and try and reach consensus if possible, but its a method, not a goal. Wikipedia is not a democracy (Jimbo Wales). A group does not own a page any more than one editor. Besides, 'consensus' when reached on this page has not been stuck to, so lets just stick to Wiki rules eh? and don't threaten newbies.Fainites 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, no one editor owns a page and "pride of authorship" can creep in when you've spend so much time on this topic. As I've said before, I do appreciate that. Also, as the tag at the top of this page says, let's keep a cool head, and avoid Personal Attacks "don't threaten newbies." As I said, I find the edits acceptable, but it would be best to make suggestions here first, build a consensus, and 'then and only then' add the material. This will actually be quicker and better in the long run. DPeterson^talk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate you've been working on this article since July 2006 DP and I've only been here a few weeks and Maypole a few days, but really fresh eyes on an article can help you know. Just Assume Good Faith and we'll be fine! Fainites 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this. Why are we told to be 'bold' but then again above told to build consensus. And I see your point Fain. When people have been working on these articles for years they must feel a sense of ownership so new blood coming in has to help get a better perspective on things. I really like what you and Maypole have done lately. FatherTree 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like the issue is between you and I, but it is not. Many editors are involved here...some with long histories with Wikipedia and a diverse history of edits and others who are less experienced and/or who have much narrower focus. I know you have only been contributing to Wiki for a short while and that your primary focus seems to be this article and I appreicate that investment of time and energy. DPeterson^talk 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

-

I believe several admins have suggested using WP:BRD as an excellent editing guideline. The only thing I would add to BRD, would be, don't revert unless you are willing to discuss why you reverted and are also willing to help develop a compromise version where applicable. Lsi john 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent advice. Changes should be discussed here first to build a consensus before changing the article, otherwise in high conflict areas there can be needless further conflicts and reverts. DPeterson^talk 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually DP, that's not what WP:BRD says :) Fainites 22:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Prevalence Paragraph

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice Attachment Therapy or "rebirthing" as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, Attachment Therapy involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: the American Psychological Association [6], the National Association of Social Workers [7], the American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [8], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [9], and the American Psychiatric Association. [10].

Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by these organizations' codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of the standards results in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed rebirthing, making anyone using such methods guilty of malpractice.

Although rebirthing has been outlawed in a couple of states it is legal in most of the US. And coercive therapies are legal in all states. And there is no licensing board that forbids rebirthing or coercive therapies. In fact many boards give CEUs for training in attachment therapy.

And the start of the paragraph states the number of practioners is unknown and then at the end it says that there are very few. This is a contradiction. Judging by the amount of websites that come up by googling 'attachment therapy' it seems there are very many practioners. Well at least there are a lot of website advertizing AT. FatherTree 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome new user/editor, FatherTree, to Wikipedia.

Rebirthing and other coercive methods are prohibited by the fostercare regulations in various states and counties. Can you cite a reference for the statement that "many boards give CEU's for training in attachment therapy," as AT is defined in this article, as a coercive, intrusive, practice?

Can you give me a URL or resource where coercive methods are prohibitied? From my experience they are encouraged. I will try to find the reference for AT training. I thought it was common knowledge. FatherTree 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The various professional bodies listed prohibit the use of coercion in treatment and a member would be ejected...this must then be reported to a licensing body upon renewal...one of several questions routinely asked. I only counted about twenty websites when I searched and I am not sure that they all practice AT as described here: a coercive, intrusive set of methods. Twenty out of the hundreds of thousands of professionals is a tiny number...but even if that is so, as a new user you may not be familiar with the Wikipedia probibition against Original Research (OR), so a count of websites cannot be added without a reference...at least that is how I read the OR article. JohnsonRon 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But what if the licensee is not a member or the organizations you are referring to? And why would they answer truthfully? A board would not license it a person was expelled from an organization? I would estimate there are about 400 AT practioners in the US using coercive techniques. Of course none use rebirthing since the scandal. Does that number sound correct to you? I know counting of websites can't be added. But I am trying to get a feel on how other editors view these stats. Would not all practioners listed on attach.org be considered attachment therapists? Or those using Nancy Thomas techniques? FatherTree 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements that 'very few' practice it or it is 'rare' are clearly OR and completely unsourced. Chaffins conclusions on prevalence are probably about as close as we're going to get. It's prevalent enough to have caused the Taskforce to be set up. As a matter of common sense, the cases that get to court are likely to be the tip of the iceberg. It's also likely that since Chaffin, lots will have changed their names and tried to reposition themselves, but we have no sources for this yet. The plain fact of the matter is, without sources from people who've done the research, we don't know how many there are. Prior and Glaser did an internet search. I'll have a look and see what they came up with. Fainites 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, as for the bodies listed, can you give us the links to their policies to see exactly what it is they prohibit and when they did so? Thanks. Fainites 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policies are already cited in the article APSAC, ATTACh's White Paper, APA's endorsement of the APSAC Task Force Report, etc. etc. DPeterson^talk 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am trying to find out here is yes there are many rules put out by Professional organizations and by State boards but in actuality do AT practioners ever get de-licensed for practicing AT per se? The State Boards are noted for being very weak on enforcement. Do have any references about persons being de-licensed for practicing AT? I have never come across any other than the very egregious cases where they kill someone. FatherTree 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep the focus on AT as described in the article...a somewhat fringe approach not sanctioned by any professional organization that uses methods prohibited by many professional organizations. That being said, the prev. para. was built after lengthy discussions and represents current agreement. It fits very well and adds good information. JohnsonRon 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the point. AT is not fringe. At least my understanding of the word fringe. AT is the preferred and dominant form of therapy for adopted kids with behaviour problems. There are no sanctions against it either legally or by professional groups. Except in rare very extreme case usually when someone is killed. AT is very generously funded by most states. It is a lucrative profession. Much more lucrative than other forms of psychotherapy. There is little accountability. This is what I see. And I would like to see in the article. FatherTree 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the list of organisations with position statements; it needs some attention. The first one for the APA doesn't lead to a position statement and there's no link on the page it does lead to to a position statement. The second link is fine but it's Utah only. The third link is dead. There was no link for ATTACh so I've added one. The last two are fine. Could you sort out the other two links please. Thanks. Fainites 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AT is fringe in that no mainstream organization allows it as defined here. That is fringe. The Prevelance material added was developed by consensus and represents the consensus of a diverse group of editors. While you may disagree, and as I've said, I do appreciate your hard work and why it may be hard to let it go, the section represents a broad collaborative consensus. DPeterson^talk 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello DPeterson. I agree that the fringe status is an issue and needs clarifying. If there is a source somewhere saying AT is fringe then it should be included as a view. I know AT often uses many subjects classed as fringe by multiple sources, and that also should be presented. Whether Wikipedia is going to say it is fringe then thats another matter, though I do personally think it is fringe but not tiny fringe enough to warrant exclusion from WP. Its certainly a million miles away from science based accepted method. Consensus is really only a guideline for considering these matters though I do take it seriously. So perhaps we could work to present some of the sources on this matter. It would make it easier for you to argue your case towards weighting of various facts, and it would make it much easier to work towards a NPOV based consensus. We may not agree about the subject as a whole, but we can learn to recognize the existence of specific facts within a specific weight range as a group. Maypole 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you think about it logically, there is no way 'consensus' could override Wiki policies on accuracy or validity of sources. If it could, then the biggest group could always push POV unscientific theories or inaccurate depictions of events by 'consensus' There's plenty of good sources on this subject, so lets just get on with it shall we ? Fainites 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DP I've just looked at your answer above to my request for you to repair your links. Its a bit weird actually! I suggest you read what I said again. It looks as if you're saying consensus has decided to include dead links and I musn't get upset about it! Fainites 09:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We msut be very careful about editing a section that represents consensus. If there are substantative changes, then the best thing to to will be to revert to the consensus version and begin discussion again here on the talk page as the tags above suggest. DPeterson^talk 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I am having trouble with is that if AT is condemned by a few organizations why is it so popular? How does it get its funding? Now people go to astrologers. We cannot stop them if they pay for it with their own money. But why do the states pay for all of this AT therapy? How can we express in the article that even though AT is condemned by some organizations there is still an enormous amount of public money paying for it. FatherTree 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I still really don't get this! I fixed a lost link for you in your edit and alerted you to a dead link and a non-link. 'Thanks Fainites' would have been the normal response rather than remarks about how its 'hard to let go'. It's the reponsibility of each editor to provide refs/links etc for their edits. Links do die from time to time. Are you seriously arguing that there is consensus for a dead link so we have to leave it dead? Fainites 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid Personal Attacks and do Assume good faith. I do appreciate your work and have repeatedly said so. The discussions have been spirited and helpful. I do think that we have to be very careful editing a paragraph or section that represents consensus. If substantive changes are made, a better idea is to revert to the consensus version and begin a disucssion on this talk page as the tag above recommends. DPeterson^talk 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any substantive changes to that paragraph. I kindly checked your links for you! Assume Good Faith Fainites 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was merely restating what many editors, but not all, know. I did not mean to criticise you. I had two thoughts in the one note. DPeterson^talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream therapies

I've moved DP's list of 'congruent' therapies into a seperate section as it doesn't really fit into any other section. My view is that we don't need a list of mainstream therapies at all and certainly not ones that are merely 'congruent'. If we do have a list it needs to be a list of mainstream, accepted, evidence based treatemnts for recognised attachment disorders about which we need to be pretty certain, from verified and credible sources. Do we then also have a list of 'attachment therapies', or rather therapies considered by verified and credible sources to be attachment therapies? Do we outline the controversy of any therapy stuck in between as it were? Fainites 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of inclusiveness. There may be overlap between stuff that gets into valid attachment interventions, and invalid AT and some may say some intervention is valid and others say its as whacked as David Icke on acid. Thats because there may be disagreement between certain experts/sources. Overall though its pretty obvious I think what methods are obviously valid and which are invalid/criminally irresponsible, inhumane, abusive, or just gobsmackingly bizarre. The reader will most likely work it out for themselves. What we can offer in Wikipedia terms is "all relevant views". Also remember this is an electronic medium and the reader can click on the relevant link. So at least the reader will have an informed choice. Beyond that I think we can leave it up to them. Maypole 11:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Some of them, as you say, are obvious. Both Chaffin and Prior and Glaser cite the '03 meta-analysis. Some of them are painfully obvious in the other direction. But there are some that have limited their coercive practices and finally given up on them altogether (eg Hughes) but would still be seen by critics as in the AT line of theory and practices, even though the aggressive physical stuff is no longer used. For the ones which are on the cusp, or disputed, we will just have to briefly outline the controversy with refs. I think a better history and theory section will help. As you pointed out before, AT is as much about underlying theory and beliefs as it is about about mad things like 'German Shepherd Training' Fainites 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fainities, please stop trying to make this a dispute between us. There are a number of other editors who don't always agree with your positions here on this article. DPeterson^talk 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not perceive that Fainities is trying to make a dispute. I think Fain has done a fantastic job here. The research is thorough. This new editor is really making this a great article. And I find little to disagree with Fain. Because everything is so well researched and thought out. FatherTree 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure moving the paragraph to its new location is better...not sure the editor who placed it there had that in mind. I'll take a look. Overall, it is an important paragraph. The material is well referenced with evidence-based, empirical and summary articles in peer-reviewed journals and, as such, meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. In addition, the 2003 articles are dated...based on material at least one or two years older. A better and more current source is 'Craven, A., & Lee, R., "Therapuetic Interventions for Foster Children: A Systematic Research Synthesis," Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 16, #3, May 2006, 287-304' DPeterson^talk 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you read it. That's a step in the right direction. Now, would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the errors made in this article, which concludes that both holding therapy and DDP are supported and acceptable? Here we have excellent evidence that peer review is not the ultimate step in analysis-- it all depends on who those peers are.Jean Mercer 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are writing an article you'd reported, that would constitute OR...DPeterson^talk 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm writing an article I'd reported? I don't follow you. Anyway, try reading C&L closely-- that's what needs to be done if one wants some sort of objective reality in the picture. C&L are ranking DDP with holding therapy. I would think you'd want to explore this issue.Jean Mercer 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, See: [[66]]. You state you are writing an article critical of the work of Craven & Lee, both of whom have extensive clinical backgrounds and faculty appointments at prestigious Universities in Gradute programs. DPeterson^talk 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you should check that statement about those authors a little more closely before posting it. Just a suggestion. But if you were correct, of course you would then be confirming that you think they have the authority to state that HT and DDP should be ranked as equally evidence-based. Is that what you want to do? Perhaps you'd better examine this windfall under a strong light before you approve it.Jean Mercer 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestion that Craven & Lee somehow supercedes Chaffin, Prior and Glaser etc is plainly not the case. They are looking at interventions for social workers and have devised a grading system, given that many many available therapies are not evidence based. Chaffin et al are very clear that both Myeroff and Becker-Weidman (2006) are not evidence based. Why do we have to keep going round an round in circles on this? There's nothing wrong in being not evidence based when you're new. DDP is new. What is this obsession with trying to insert DDP in with the big boys? If you're that keen on including Craven & Lee then it has to done in a completely honest basis, which puts DDP as category 3 with holding therapy! If you want to slip B-W in with Chaffin, then we will have to say that B-W is specifically criticised by Chaffin et al on 3 counts and labelled as not evidence based as of November 2006. Either leave Becker-Weidman out altogether so we can get on with editing this article or you're going to have to accept constant corrections to your misleading edits about him, based firmly on Wiki policies, if not from the current editors, then from any other passing editor who can read sources. He's not particularly notable, nor particularly relevent to the subject. Lets just leave him out. Fainites 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Mercer and others continue to single out Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Dr. Becker-Weidman, except that Mercer is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which has a specific agenda it pursues. Tha APSAC task force report could not have commented on Dr. BW's 2006 studies and articles as the report was published before that...The several empirical studies, Craven & Lee, and peer-reviewed publications clearly distinguish DDP as evidence based. This argument has been repeated many times, so I won't repeat it here as you continue to ignore the facts. As advocates, you are entitled to your position, but Wikipedia only requires material be verifiable, which all this is. Please stop changing conensus material and making substantive changes untill fully discussed on the talk page. DPeterson^talk 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why Becker-Weidman keeps being discussed is because you keep citing him inaccurately and inappropriately in the article! If you stopped doing that the talkpage would be a third of its length. We actually once agreed a consensus version that completely left him out, which you resiled from within hours by inserting him into a quote from Chaffin as if Chaffin wasa citing him in support! I for one can see no reason for his inclusion at all, but if he has to be in, he has to be in on a sourced and accurate basis. Here for the nth time is Chafiin, November 2006, on what he was criticised for, only one of which relates to evidence base, and on his most recent study;

"Dr. Becker-Weidman (2006b) believed the report misrepresented DDP and his center as an example of dangerous or coercive techniques. We have been unable to locate this representation in the Task Force report. In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the Task Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman is cited three times in the body of the report, none of which refer to coercive techniques. The first citation references his Web site’s assertion that traditional therapies are either ineffective or harmful (p. 78). The second citation references his recommendation that children be encouraged to regress to an earlier age as part of treatment (p. 79). The third citation references his assertions, which we believe are unsupported, about practicing an evidence-based treatment (p. 85). Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encouraging to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is an important first step toward learning the facts about DDP outcomes. We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts. The published study was not available until after the Task Force report was in press, so its findings were not discussed in the report. The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)."

Nobody wants to put Becker-Weidman into this article to attack him. Why put him in at all? Fainites 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issues. Why do want to include Becker-Weidman, as evidence based or at all. What is your source for saying he's evidence based, according to the accepted scientific meaning of the term. What is your source for saying he's mainstream and not a mild form of AT as clearly thought by Chaffin. Why do you keep on and on saying Chaffin et al haven't seen his up-to date study when you've been given the evidence many times that they have. Consensus has nothing to do with these major issues to do with Wiki policies about sources. Fainites 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in here I'd like to say that the citations in the article, including Dr. Becker-Weidman's, meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and so are both relevant and appropriate. I still don't understand the strong objections that you have. I understand Dr. Mercer's objections as she is a leader of ACT...The material is in professional peer-reviewed publications and is evidence-based, Craven & Lee identify it as such. Most importantly, the material is consistent with Wikipedia policy/standard of being a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, read the discussion about Wikipedia policy regarding all views...this really answers your question best. [[67]] RalphLender^talk 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Its not enough for a source to be in a peer reviewed journal. It also has to be relevent and accurately cited. Chaffin et al do not support Becker-Weidman or cite him support of their statements about traditional therapies. They do specifically criticise him on 3 points in relation to practicies of attachment therapies of which they disapprove. They have seen his 2006 study. They do not consider him to be evidence based. Craven and Lee put Becker-Weidman in category 3. with Holding Therapy. Chaffin et al have the same criticisms of Myeroffs study as they do of becker-Weidmans. They say so. What is your difficulty in understanding this? On what basis do you keep removing this material from the article. What is your source for claiming DPP is 'evidence based'? What meaning of evidence-based are you using? You keep saying we must discuss and reach consensus yet you will not discuss these issues. Fainites 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The material is relevant and accurately cited. The consensus statement in the article does not proport to be a Chaffin et. al quote. Furthermore, the Task Force Report was published in, what? 2005? and was written in 2003 & 4 before being submitted for publication, so it didn't include any of Dr. BW's 2005 or 2006 material. Craven & Lee, well respected clinicians and researchers evaluated DDP, using 'OLD' data (from 2004) as evidence based...they did not look at the 2005 or 2006 empirical studies in professional peer reviewed publications. The paragraph in was consensus...just not one you liked. So, what is the basis for saying your one opinion over-rules the consensus of a significant consensus of other editors? See [[68]] as this is the answer...'all opinions belong, if verifiable'. RalphLender^talk 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson, maybe you can help with this info

According to your talk page you work with adopted children is that correct?

Why are you reluctant to answer this question? You might have insight that others do not have. Please answer. FatherTree 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Adhere to Tag regarding Changes to Article

substantative changes to the article should be discussed here first to build agreement. RalphLender^talk 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes" the change was not a substantial change it was just a clarification of the previous sentence. If my change does not belong then neither does the sentence before it. FatherTree 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Father Trees edit seemed alright to me.Fainites 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find them unverifiable, and so do not comply with Wikipedia policies. DPeterson^talk 21:12, 15 May 2007(UTC)

Specifically what was unverifiable? FatherTree 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps DP if you could tell us which or how many states have outlawed rebirthing, as its originally your edit I believe? That should solve the matter. Fainites 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See links. (NC & CO) Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be told why my edits were reverted.

They were very minor changes. Do some editors feel they own the article? FatherTree 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting On

Can we get on with editing please and stop going round in circles. This may help everybody see why it's quite important to tackle the underlying theories and priciples of AT and not pretend it's all in the past or doesn't really exist. [69]Fainites 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits should be fully discussed here first to build consensus. AT is a fringe treatment...major professional organizations prohibit what is described in this article as AT. Mainstream treatments (Circle of Security, Theraplay, Parent-Child Interaction, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, etc) should not be confused with AT.DPeterson^talk 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to include Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as a mainstream treatment for attachment disorders, please find a verified and credible source that states that that is what it is. It will have to be a good source, bearing in mind that Chaffin criticises its main proponent on 3 grounds as part of its criticism of attachment therapies within its definition of attachment therapies, and Prior and Glaser say its nothing to do with attachment. I have found sources for Circle of Security, Leibermans Parent/Child psychotherapy and various others and put them in. You need a source, not self report or continued assertion. Fainites 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Already responded to above. Sources in the article already. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Becker-Weidmans own assertions are not a source. Craven and Lee is not a source for saying its evidence based or mainstream. Do you really want to be lumped with Myeroff and Holding Therapy? Fainites 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced and inaccurate material. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Fainites 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles meet the wikipedia standards or being Wikipedia:Verifiability sources. DPeterson^talk 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

nat assc of social workers?

Why does the natl assoc and the utah assoc of social workers to to the same link? Fain, can you check this out. Did DP make another mistake in the links? thanks FatherTree 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fain can you check out those links. they are the same but DP thinks they are 2 different statements. maybe you can explain it to him FatherTree 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well its weird isn't it? The first one says NASW, and 'whereas' etc which is really a very broad short statement about restraint in general, but when you click on the 'online text' you get taken to the Utah chapter again. It's not really good enough. If there is a position statement for the whole NASW then thats the link we ought to have. I'll see if I can find anything from NASW.Fainites 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you search their website you can find it...It's a statment from 2002 of the general assembly. The ACT sources are verifiable. DPeterson^talk 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it by searching their website, why don't you put the proper link in? Fainites 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

?? There is a link in the article to a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the source. It is the same one used for Utah. Please read it FatherTree 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

the link leads to a statment by the NASW national delegate assembly. RalphLender^talk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about link #11 and #12? Did you open the pdf's on both of them? Please answer FatherTree 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Ask Fain to explain it to you. If you cannot see it is exactly the same document in both cases I do not know what else to do. FatherTree 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The link, 12, goes to a page that quotes the NASW national del assemb. RalphLender^talk 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More Craven and Lee

I've just come across this cite:

"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."

See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf

Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here. StokerAce 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It meets the Wikipedia standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability and as such is as relevant and valid as all other references and citations. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is a new Craven and Lee piece. I'm just asking what it says. Can anyone get a copy? Maybe Dr. Lee would send a draft?

DPeterson are you OK? You don't seem like yourself these days. StokerAce 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and harrassment are not condoned on Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please stop attacking me and harassing me then. I'm trying to find out if anyone can get this article and you're cluttering up the whole page. I'm going to start a new section. StokerAce 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not harrassed you in any way nor made Personal Attacks. You have had a history of founded conflict on several pages. I've asked you to please stop. I am now asking again. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did accuse me of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=82802607&oldid=82696095 StokerAce 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue. I was not going to bring that up here, but since you did, I will respond. That went back to 2006...I see you still carry a grudge and I do note that here now. In fact, the administration involved raised that issue first:

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

DPeterson^talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I think it's you who holds the grudge, having had your accusation disproved. If I only I were Larry Sarner. If I were, I would call up Dr. Becker-Weidman and have a peaceful chat in an attempt to resolve this dispute. But I'm not, so all I can do is try to help on Wikipedia. Now, if someone could get that 2007 Craven and Lee piece, that could be a big help. StokerAce 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to Assume Good Faith here and focus on the article, not past hurts or past personal conflicts. Personal Attacks are just not productive. Let's focus on the article and content and Wikipedia policies. RalphLender^talk 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Craven and Lee Piece

It seems that there is a new Craven and Lee piece coming out:

"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."

See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf

Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here. Would Dr. Lee send a copy? StokerAce 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2006 Article is excellent and on point. It certainly meets the Wikipedia standard of being 'verifiable', which is the primary standard for inclusion in an article. I suggest reading it as it semas some editors are not familiar with this. DPeterson^talk 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was good. So good that I'm quite looking forward to reading the 2007 piece. Perhaps Fainites can get a copy. StokerAce 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who can't get the Lee & Craven (in press), I can summarize it as saying,"don't say 'ain't' when I say 'is'." It does not address the criticisms-- a not unfamiliar situation-- but reiterates the original claims.Part of the problem is a failure to read background material even when reminded to do so, again a familiar concern.Jean Mercer 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the most important rules of science, or any type of systematic, logical investigation, is that you can't cherry-pick. In order to reach a legitimate conclusion, all information must be considered-- in fact, the effort is to find ways to reject a hypothesis, not to trawl for support.This is especially important when the goal of work is to provide support for families and for children's mental health. Mistakes can cause unnecessary suffering, whether they are mistakes of design or lack of transparency in reporting (cf. the TREND guidelines).Jean Mercer 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the writer of the letter they are responding to, your comments are not NPOV and may be OR...but in any event, are clearly self-promoting. RalphLender^talk 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in order to understand this we need the Mercer/Pignotti article and the Lee/Craven reply. I understood from what was said in this page that the Mercer/Pignotti article hadn't been published yet. Perhaps Jean Mercer could let us have a copy. Fainites 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this--- is there a way I can send it to you, Fainites, with the proviso that this is a prepublication draft, so no page numbers? I have a copy of the Lee & Craven response but I think you'll have to get that from L & C-- it's not really mine to distribute. 72.73.200.120 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)OOps, thought I had logged on-- J.M.

Thanks! My e-mail is enabled.Fainites 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone hasn't seen the original Craven Lee article which has been, in my view misleadingly, cited as saying that DDP is 'evidence-based' in company with Leiberman no less, what they actually did was set out categories. Only the first three are really relevant here. The first three are :

- Category 1:Well-supported, efficacious treatment - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at-risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for replication. - 6. At least two randomized, controlled outcome studies have demonstrated - the treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster - children. This means the treatment was demonstrated to be - better than placebo or no different or better than an already established - treatment. - 7. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the large majority - of outcome studies support the efficacy of the treatment. - Category 2: Supported and probably efficacious - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for implementation. - 6. At least two studies utilizing some form of control without randomization - (e.g., wait list, untreated group, placebo group) have - established the treatment’s efficacy over the passage of time, efficacy - over placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than - already established treatment. - 7. If multiple treatment outcome studies have been conducted, the - overall weight of evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment. - Category 3: Supported and acceptable treatment - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at-risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for replication. - 6a. At least one group study (controlled or uncontrolled), or a series - of single subject studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the - treatment with at-risk children and foster children; - or - 6b. A treatment that has demonstrated efficacy with other populations - has a sound theoretical basis for use with at-risk children - and foster children, but has not been tested or used extensively - with these populations. - 7. If multiple treatment outcome studies have been conducted, the - overall weight of evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment. -

- - Both Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy (Becker-Weidman) and Holding Therapy (Myeroff) came into category three. Leiberman of course was in category one. The ground rules for category three do not in any event constitute 'evidence-based' as understood by the scientific community. Further, to cite Becker-Weidman and Leiberman in the same breath as confirmed as 'evidence-based' by this study as was done on this page is in the circumstances misleading. It is a source for what it is. DDP and Holding Therapy come into category 3. 'Supported and Acceptable'. You will note for category three the lack of any requirement for 'at least two randomized controlled trials' as in category one and 'at least two studies using some form of control without randomization....' etc as in category two. Only category one would possibly meet the definition 'evidence based' as per accepted standards as quoted by Chaffin and the AACAP (and any other scientific body). Sorry for such a long edit. Fainites 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On POV and OR, at least JeanMercer makes no bones about who she is. Everybody has a POV. It's the article that musn't have a POV. On OR, if her work is published in peer reviewed journals anybody is at liberty to cite it. What OR means is she can't go on the article and say 'I'm Mercer and I say', that's all. Fainites 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article meets the Wikipedia standard of being a reliable and verifiable source...so I don't see why the continued argument. The argument seems more to represent self-promotion ss the writer of the letter Craven & Lee are responding to, the comments are not NPOV and may be OR...but in any event, are clearly self-promoting. RalphLender^talk 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is a proper source. However, its conclusions were misleadingly presented and my attempt to put in an accurate version of its conclusions was repeatedly reverted. Also, a peer reviewed article criticising the article will also be a source. And so on Fainites 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm happy to e-mail the first Craven and Lee article to anyone if they want it. Jeanmercer has offered to send her reply and I have contacted Robert E.Lee (sic) about their reply to the reply. Fainites 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article's conclusions were misleadingly presented. This is your POV, and you are entitled to it. Getting Mercer's response or other letters probably falls under the heading of OR and is not acceptable in this encyclopedia for article. I think you should read the above discussion [[70]] which outlines that all views, if verifiable, are allowed and to be included in articles. RalphLender^talk 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Mercers/Pignottis article on Craven and Lees article is published in a peer reviewed journal, its a suitable source. What do you mean its 'OR'. I really don't understand this one.Fainites 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already made the same point. Getting Mercer's opinion and ideas would be WP:OR. The most relevant point is that I think you should read the above discussion [[71]] which outlines that all views, if verifiable, are allowed and to be included in articles. RalphLender^talk 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if its published in a peer reviewed journal.Fainites 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Because of the contentious reverting I've protected the page. Please discuss disputes here and seek consensus. Let me or any other admin know when there's an agreement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Good move. There are a lot of questions people havn't had a chance to deal with yet. The really obvious improvements can wait also. Maypole 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. This was very necessary since the consensus version (see [[72]]) for Prevelance kept being reverted, along with other changes not agreed to by most editors. DPeterson^talk 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. RalphLender^talk 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The notion of 'consensus' has been much misused on this page for POV pushing. However, even that consensus was broken immediately when consensus version was posted. Let's edit according to Wiki policies. We can try to reach consensus, but not at the expense of the policies. Fainites 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is important and is how Wikipedia works. When only one or two editors have a strongly head position, that POV cannot be pushed onto the consensus. The prev. section was inserted after much discussion on this talk page and represented consensus. That is how edits should continue to go. RalphLender^talk 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

request

The National Association of Social Workers 7

{{editprotected}} I want an admin to make a change for me. There is an error on a citation. FatherTree 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the citation relevant...it points to a statement by the National Association of Social Workers. I do not support the proposed change. RalphLender^talk 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this resistance to providing decent links. This isn't a request for a change! Just to fix your links! The link does not take you to position statement! Lets fix the link so it does. I fixed one for you already. We really don't need to vote on this.Fainites 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very controversial article. Edits, even small ones, should have consensus before using an editprotected request on pages that arouse such controversy. When consensus is formed, please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The link is fine, it leads to a stmt by the NASW national deleg. assemb. RalphLender^talk 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fain

I can see that RL and DP are not willing to cooperate. They will not discuss. And they are pushing their POVs. And yes DP reverted many times the other day. Where do we go with this now? FatherTree 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we post here what sensible edits we think appropriate. If there's the usual lack of sensible discussion and 'consensus' against even straight forward, verified and credibly sourced edits we may have to take the matter higher up for resolution. Maypole seems to think there's some major stuff still needs doing so it'll be interesting to see what comes up there, and I want to greatly expand history and underlying theory and principles. You seem to be working on prevalence. Is there some way of finding out how many states have banned what?Fainites 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

'Mediation?'

Maybe the best way to sort all this out is to get an administrator involved and/or mediation. What do other's think? How about discussing this here and putting a summary in the section below?RalphLender^talk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think having an administrator and moving to mediation or arbitration, if necessary, would be the best course of action here to resolve some of the disagreements that just seem to go round and round. RalphLender^talk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In favor of Administrative Intervention--'MEDIATION'

1. .'Yes' RalphLender^talk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2. .'No' You can't mediate with people relentlessly pushing an agenda. The agenda remains. How about RfC or even Arbcom?Fainites
3. .'No' At this stage, DPeterson/RalphLender et. al. are contesting things like fixing broken links and locating relevant peer-reviewed articles. I'm not sure how mediation will solve that kind of issue. StokerAce 17:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
4. .'No' Father Tree
5. .'Yes' In accord with Wikipedia Dispute resolution processes, policies, and practices. DPeterson^talk 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Obviously, mediation comes before arbitration and arbitration without having had mediation has limited value, SqueakBox 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
7. .'YES' I believe this is the proper course of follow...consistent with Wikipedia dispute resolution process. MarkWood 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In favour of Administrative Intervention--'ARBITRATION'

1. .'Yes' Fainites 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2. .'Yes' Sure, give it a shot, although I'm not sure how the process works. StokerAce 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
3. .'Yes' Sounds fine. Maypole 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
4. .'??' My understanding is that mediation has to be tried before Arbitration. But an administrator can clarify that for us. RalphLender^talk 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
   1. Mediation is not required before going to the ArbCom. Also, mediation is only helpful if all parties agree in advance to abide by the results. What is required is proof that working things out on talk pages was tried unsuccessfully. Herostratus 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Actually you only have to read the talkpage to see that, Herostratus, but I suspect many people might think lifes too short! Fainites 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
5. .'Yes' FatherTree 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6. .'No/Yes' No until Mediation has been attempted. Yes only if there is no other option after all other Wikipedia dispute resolution processes have been attempted with good faith. DPeterson^talk 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
7. .'No/Yes' No until Mediation has been attempted. Yes if other options exhausted after application of WP:FAITH by all parties and then only if one member of arbitration is expert in human right and rights of the child.-- Ziji  (talk)  01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure that everyone understands the options here. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a dispute is handled by discussing the problems with a neutral 3rd party, and either finding a solution amongst yourselves or possibly also getting advice from the moderator. Arbitration is a binding procedure that can be involuntary. It's reserved for situations which can't be handled by ordinary dispute resolutions methods and may result in editors being restricted or even banned. A request for arbitration is neither appropriate at this time nor would it be accepted by the ArbCom. Luckily things aren't that bad here. I urge editor who have expressed opposition to mediation to rethink their choice. Mediation can be helpful and is not stressful. Another realistic options is a request for comment (WP:RFC), but due to the esoteric nature of the topic it might not get much response. Straw polls (like this one) are sometimes used to decide what the consensus is on an issue, but they have to be handled carefully. See WP:Straw poll. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Will_Beback...Thank you. That is very helpful. I certainly would like to at least try mediation as a first step, with a good mediator such as yourself. That seems reasonable and is certainly consistent with Wikipeidia policy and practice regarding dispute resolution. DPeterson^talk 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with mediation is that this article has for a long time been dominated by a group with a very clear agenda. Other editors have argued with them for months and months and it just goes round in circles. To mediate there needs to be a willingness amongst all parties to compromise. Unfortunately, where there is a very clear and indeed simple agenda, compromise is extremely unlikely. I have compromised over all sorts of absurdities in order to get some information into the article, but consensus proposals reached were almost immediately broken to fit the agenda and then a new consensus claimed.Fainites 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many of the single-user-single purpose accounts may have a clear agenda, but it is still important to Assume Good Faith. While I disagree with you that this article has been dominated by a group with a clear agenda, I respect your POV and the adamency with which you have argued your POV. I think the poll regarding mediation will let us know where editors stand on the subject of willingness to compromise. I certainly stand there. DPeterson^talk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, arbitration doesn't settle content disputes so if that's all there is here the ArbCom won't touch it. That leaves mediation, or one of the other suggestions I made above, or simply settling it amongst yourselves. I suggest identifying the main issues that are in dispute and that everyone say (briefly) why their proposed versions is better and the other versions are worse. That's a typical first step in mediation and you might as well do it anyway. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd like to work with that. DPeterson^talk 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll change my vote to "yes" on mediation. But I'm not very hopeful. Some of the recent reactions by DPeterson have been very obstructionist. For example, when I asked above if anyone could get a copy of a 2007 article by Craven & Lee, DPeterson responded by defending their 2006 article. Now, maybe he just mis-read my edit, but these kinds of responses (and there have been others) have made this very difficult. StokerAce 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A good start, regards. DPeterson^talk 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not a suggestion...

...and following it is not optional or open to argument. The beginning section of this article (for a start) shows clearly the author's opinion and needs to be rewritten in an NPOV manner. I also refuse to believe that the meaning of the term "Attachment Therapy" is entirely elusive. Granted that there may be several definitions, would it not be better to give all those definitions to the reader rather than just saying "There is no generally accepted definition of Attachment Therapy" and leaving it at that.

As to the dispute - administrators are just users who can do a couple of extra things such as delete articles. The dispute resolution process is described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. But any resolution has to end up with the article in a NPOV state. Herostratus 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of attachment therapy is not really elusive at all. There are merely a few fuzzy edges that's all. I would propose removing all that stuff about how its not described in various handbooks (of course its not; its under the wire!)and prioritising the comprehensive descriptions of it given by sources. In addition the section on historical roots and underlying theory should be expanded. I also think this article lacks a section on the views of the proponents of attachment therapy, and by proponents I don't mean those who wish to pretend it doesn't exist, but proper proponents. Fainites 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that much of the introduction has been written and defended by those who claim to be proponents of attachment-based therapies. The slant in this article is actually a vehicle for advertising a particular sort of attachment therapy. shotwell 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is essential, as is consensus and verifiability as principles on Wikipedia. I agree with Herostratus that the beginning can describe what is AT and recognize that there is dispute about what is and isn't AT. By and large, AT is defined in this article in a fairly clear manner as a coercive and intrusive approach not sanctioned by many professional organizations such as APA, NASW, ATTACh, APSAC, and AAC&AP. It is not a "main stream" approach and is not defined in any of the standard texts on such subjects and that also deserves mention per Wiki policy. I think that comments, such as Shotwells are not conducive to developing consensus. Who are these proponents of AT? What particular sort of AT is being advertised? My concern is that Shotwell has a history of disputes on this and a number of related pages [[73]] [[74]] [[75]]

DPeterson^talk 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with shotwell. This article has mostly been edited in the past for the express purpose of obscuring the nature of attachment therapy. It is somewhat improved now as after weeks of argument it actually contains some information, but it is still too obscurantist. The form of alleged attachment therapy being advertised here is Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Its controversial as to whether it is a form of attachment therapy or not, but its certainly not the mainstream evidence-based therapy that its supporters are trying to portray here, whilst simultaneously trying to pretend attachment therapy is something it's not, hardly exists and is 'smoke' as one of them put it. Lists of who doesn't describe it are just absurd aswell as staggeringly boring for the passing reader. Fainites 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, until now you have strongly defended the claim that AT is ill-defined. You might remember that we first dealt with this issue at Advocates for Children in Therapy several months ago. In fact, you are the one who first introduced this claim to this article [76] after repeatedly blanking it during an AfD. (And yes, I was talking about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy). Cheers, shotwell 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, RalphLender has been running an ANI called FatherTree against several of us here [77] .Good of you to let us know Ralph! Fainites 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously beeen watcvhing the contribs. Well done! But dont blame anyone were you not to do so, SqueakBox 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually i wasn't watching the contribs. But isn't it good manners to let someone know if you're complaining about them to admin? Even headleyDown used to do that. Fainites 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Who's headleyDown? I can't find the name in the archives. Maypole 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to find the accusations of Fainites and Shotwell offensive. You both seem to have something against Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray as does Mercer and ACT because you keep making that the point they make when that is not the point here at all. Your description of "advertising" I just don't see or agree with. You also keep making this a Personal attack against me by singling me out when it is the issues that should be focused on and there are a number of editors with broad experience who have also commented on various aspects of the controversay and disagreements. I continue to believe that mediation and collaboration are possible; it just takes our willingless to engage in that process and be open mineded. I'd like to do that. As said above, all views can be represented, they just need to have sources that are Verfiability. DPeterson^talk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that I am more than happy to keep DDP out of this article altogether. It's neither particularly notable, nor relevent, and even if it is an attachment therapy, which is perhaps debatable, its clearly not one of the nasty ones. Its not me that keeps putting it in. But if you are going to absolutely insist on its going in it has to be on a fair and accurate basis, not inserted into citations from the Taskforce as if they approved of it, or slipped into lists of 'evidence-based, mainstream' therapies when it isn't.Fainites 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've just verified my previous point. DPeterson^talk 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. A number of editors here wish to edit from verified, authoritative, credible and relevent sources and not have them voted off by straw polls.Fainites 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also DP, re saying other peoples accusations are offensive, if you look back over the talkpage I think you'll find that the first to accuse people of sockpuppetry etc and dig up old disputes and post chunks on the talkpage, and say that everyone who disagrees with you sounds like Sarner, and post offensive warnings on peoples talkpages is usually you.Fainites 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As described in a previous section, "all view scholarly..." All view should be presented in articles on controversial subjects. ACT's view, etc. The primary criteria for sources is that they be Verfiability... you may not like a source and therefore state it is not verified, not authoritative, not credible or not relevant, but if it is verifiable and related to the topic, it is then relevant. DPeterson^talk 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about not liking sources. I'm talking about misquoting them, altering quotes to subvert their meaning and 'voting' to keep it,and 'voting' to delete other editors properly sourced edits whilst 'voting' to keep your own OR.Fainites 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fainites, don't be goaded into falling off the subject. Those with the weakest arguments are generally the ones who jump off the subject the quickest and call names or point fingers. Stick to sourced views and ignore misdirection. It will serve you better. If the sources are mis-quoted, then correct the quotations. In my editing, I've found that one way to fight propaganda is to read the cited source and make sure the citation is contextually accurate. Lsi john 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fain is not being goaded or pointing fingers. There have been many erroneous, unsourced statements that Fain has tried to correct only to have them reverted over and over again. Yes this is a controversial issue. What has been going on with these therapies has been covered up for year. Deaths have occurred. Yes many people do not want all of this to be publicly known. FatherTree 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep bringing that red herring up, but it has already been extensively discussed. There is no quote and, so, no misquote. The statement stands on its own. DPeterson^talk 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, theres an RfC on DPeterson et al. Fainites 06:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

I'm going to file a formal mediation request per Addhoc's suggestion on the RfC. In order to file the request, we need to narrow down the exact issues in need of mediation. All we need is a list of questions without any commentary. (See [78]). We can mediate issues across several articles, so the questions need not be limited to this particular article. Below, please list whatever issues are in need of mediation.

There is the question of who needs to be included in mediation. The most active editors in the last few weeks have been, myself, Fainites, StokerAce, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, and JohnsonRon. There is also Jean Mercer, FCYTravis, Fathertree, and Sarner. Sarner dosn't appear active and FCYTravis has always refused mediation about these things on the grounds that it's a matter for arbcom. If you want to be included in mediation, then make it known. It is better to err on the side of inclusiveness in order to solve these issues in one fell swoop.

Once this list is more or less complete, I'll file the request. Let's just make the list without any argument or commentary -- we will have plenty of time to get our point across during mediation. Please try to make your questions precise, focused on a single issue, and to the point. shotwell 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to participate-- see comment on my talk page.Jean Mercer 14:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

• Is it appropriate to say that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is "effective and evidence based" without attributing this assertion to the researchers who have made it? shotwell 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate to say that certain groups "have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials; although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups"?

• Is it appropriate to mention the leaders of ACT and then say "none of whom are licensed mental health providers"? StokerAce 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate to list practitioners as a source for a statement about the characteristics of a particular therapy taken from a different source, on the basis that they claim to agree with it?

• Is it appropriate alter a quotation from one source by a few words for the purpose of attaching another source to it, or to alter the meaning of the quotation?

• Is it appropriate to claim there are 'very few' practitoners of attachment therapy on the basis of a list or organisations that have made position statements against it.

• Is it appropriate to list Dyadic Developomental Psychotherapy amongst lists of evidence based, mainstream treatments when it is at best controversial according to credible sources whether Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is evidence based, mainstream or in fact an 'attachment therapy' itself.

• Is it appropriate to have a statement about ACT's claims by list in the introductory paragraph.

• Is it appropriate to assert at all or more than once, or at the beginning of paragraphs that AT cannot really be defined and is not a used in lists of mainstream hadnbooks or by lists of mainstream organisations etc.

Fainites 10:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)I

(If I'm repeating issues here, feel free to say so and we can cut them down) Fainites 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was probably going to trim the list down anyhow, so it doesn't matter. If I happen to filter out an issue that turned out to be important, it can always be listed under the "additional issues" section. shotwell 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd be more effective if we could make some of these questions more specific. For example, "Is it appropriate alter a quotation from one source by a few words for the purpose of attaching another source to it, or to alter the meaning of the quotation? " would be better if it was limited to the quote in question. shotwell 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure its quite English either. Even I can't work it out now! Fainites 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one quote this happened to so I'll provide diffs when I have a moment.Fainites 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Heres one [79] Fainites 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Heres another [80]Fainites 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Heres another, although I had forgotten to put the quotation marks on this one but they all knew it was a quote. [81] Fainites 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC) [82] Fainites 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See the prior mediation requests as those are the same disputed issues being raised again by your gorup. DPeterson^talk 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are raising are the same ones your group has raised in the past: These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[83]], [[84]], [[85]], [[86]] DPeterson^talk 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When a convicted criminal gets a second trial, the prosecutor doesn't get to say 'this was already tried'. If the previous mediation was with different people then it is entirely possible that the new set of editors will have different reasons, different rationale, different arguements and different places they are willing to compromise.

DPeterson, I've seen articles get AfD'd and then pop back up less than a month later. I've seen articles come up for AfD 6 times. This is wikipedia, sometimes we go through the same arguments twice. If they were not party to the previous mediation, and thus had no input into it, it is unfair to expect them to simply accept the results of that mediation. I assume that you would want an opportunity to have a mediation if the shoe were on the other foot (I know that I would). Lsi john 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any of the previous mediations/RfC's etc. Now they've all been cited in the RfC it looks to me as if nothings ever really been resolved. Fainites 10:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is easily solved. I don't know about the prior attempts, but they look to have been cockups. The article is full of odd argument. That should simply go. The first points above "is it appropriate to say...". They can be easily sorted out by properly attributing any facts to sources. If there are no people that say "none of whom...." then we shouldn't state it in the article otherwise its probably original research.

Listing practitioners for anything should only be done on the basis that a source or collection of sources say so. Otherwise compiling lists ourselves will be original research I think.

Any source that says something similar to another can be grouped.

Its only approtprate to say "only a few" if that is a statement of a particular source. The source must be attributed.

DDP should only be mentioned in the context of the sources that say anything about it.

My own contribution - we need more views here, both scholarly and otherwise as long as they are reliable.

If all above is adhered to then the article will be fine I think. Right now its not being followed. I think thats pretty simple. We'll see how it is in practice. Maypole 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with you Maypole that the practise guidelines and policies are straight forward but have not been followed in this article. The trouble is that any attempt to remedy this is 'voted' off by 'consensus' and any attempt to edit the obvious abuses are reverted. So whilst your broad statement is correct, some kind of adjudication is clearly required. Fainites 14:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious, a discussion of the meaning of consensus that i put right here seems to have vanished. Jean Mercer 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stick it in again. It may have been an edit conflict, ie two trying edit at the same time. Fainites 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, that first point has actually been a source of endless arguments. Previously I had wanted to change assertions like "DDP is effective and evidence based" to "Becker-Weidman concluded that DDP is effective and evidence based". This change was strongly rejected -- hence it is listed above. shotwell 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

The issues you are raising are the same ones various members of your group have raised in the past several times. These are not new issues and have been mediated before, and the actors are largely the same group: These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[87]], [[88]], [[89]], [[90]] 'See RfC [[91]] Where the discussion describes this repeated and recurring conflict in detail.' DPeterson^talk 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dpeterson, as I see you are repeating, you may have missed my note above. I'll repeat it here so you have a chance to see it. Allowing that editors which were involved in a prior mediation on specific issues would probably be bound by that mediation (though I imagine that they could certainly choose to reopen it), my remarks were specifically to address editors who were not part of those mediation efforts. Lsi john 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, I've seen articles get AfD'd and then pop back up less than a month later. I've seen articles come up for AfD 6 times. This is wikipedia, sometimes we go through the same arguments twice. If they were not party to the previous mediation, and thus had no input into it, it is unfair to expect them to simply accept the results of that mediation. I assume that you would want an opportunity to have a mediation if the shoe were on the other foot (I know that I would). Lsi john 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Maypole. Do you have any particular issues you think ought to be resolved in mediation? If we create a comprehensive list we can then refine it. Just add them to the list above started by Shotwell.Fainites 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I'm still working on it really. I still don't fully understand all the issues. I do realize that the article is in need of fixing up pretty badly though. That much is clear. I think as the science view concerning AT is probably the most significant (and the most critical) it should get much clearer, if not larger, weight in the article. We need to say what the stated problems are and give very clear explanations for why. I think we also need to be more explicit about the pseudoscientific shortcomings of the associated individuals who perform AT. Its not just the ideas that are wrong or possibly harmful, but the activities of the proponents who are acting in a pseudoscientific or misleading way. I'll thresh out the details in point form shortly. Maypole 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Righty Ho. Were you going to join in on the RfC by the way, as an involved editor. Fainites 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. How do I do that? Maypole 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Click on this link [92]and then follow the instructions! There is a Talkpage attached to it aswell.Fainites 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Issues repeatedly raised, mediated, and resolved

These issues have repeatedly been raised, mediated, and then resovled, only to be re-raised by the same loosely affiliated group. This group's members primarily edit this and related pages. See: [[93]] for a table that shows the group's members edits. Mercer has a financial interest in the subject: she is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which promotes her book. She recently has made a career of sorts with this group and publications sponsored/promoted by them and their postions. JonesRD_talk 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point...it is so very tiresome. The group drops a member, adds a "new" member...SamDavidson 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuousness

As stated above, these issues have been raised repeatedly by a loosly connected group of editors who share a POV identical with some of the advocacy group Advocates For Children in Therapy, of which some of this group are leaders. Let the RfC [[94]] run its source. The outside view of Hipocrite [[95]] are strongly supported by a broad and uninvolved group of editors...suggesting that this is not a "real" dispute, but is driven by an advocacy POV postion shared by a group (some of whom are leaders of ACT) JonesRD_talk 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There can be an excellent reason for the presence of uninvolved editors-- that is, we have no actual interest in the mechanism of Wiki, but are concerned about impressions given to the public on specific topics. My own interest is in public education about mental health, and I believe Wiki is a source of that information which should be kept as accurate as possible. The potential impact of misinformation and disinformation with respect to this topic is enormous, unlike the situation for topics like Star Trek.Jean Mercer 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In my case, I'm an uninvolved editor who can spell NLP. Beyond that, on the surface it appears to be very dry and boring. (No offense intended to anyone). So, seemingly in contrast to Jean Mercer, my interest is in making sure that the wiki process is followed, maintaining an NPOV article, and helping to ensure that no single individual (or group) is dominating/controlling/biasing an article's viewpoint. NPOV means that all (sourced) views are represented, in proportion to their representation in the related-world-community. Wiki isn't about presenting a single-truth, rather it is about presenting all relevant (sourced) viewpoints and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. Lsi john 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't share a POV identical to ACT. I've already said I thought their inclusion of DDP and possibly Theraplay in their list of 'AT by another name' was unfair and I disapprove of their list of adjunct therapies named as 'quackery' on the basis of Quackwatch. I e-mailed them about this. I understand from earlier in the Talkpage that StokerAce had also raised similar concerns with them. Its probably true to say, however, that the disparate collection of editors you now call a 'group' do share a 'POV' if you like to call it that, as to what is meant by 'evidence based'. I am more than willing to provide decent sources as to the generally accepted meaning of evidence-based. Further, JeanMercer is quite right. Wiki shouldn't operate like an arcane cult for the cognoscenti. I would hope that more psychologists join in. They can always be helped on the technicalities. Fainites 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPeterson^talk 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a 'VERY' important point and driver to this conflict...ACT has a specific agenda that it's leaders push (Mercer and Sarner) and Mercer's career seems to be being built on that. SamDavidson 19:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Craven/Lee etc

Just to let you know, I now have the Pignotti/Mercer critique of Craven/Lee and Craven/Lees reply. Many thanks to the authors for kindly letting us see these. When we start actually editing this page again I shall be happy to show these for the purpose of editing this page only (as they're not yet published).Fainites 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is required for article content. Unpublished works are fine for your own research, but I would caution against using them as a basis for article content. Lsi john 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPeterson^talk 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are specifically charging someone here with conflict of interest (which would be rather bad faith without credible evidence to support such an allegation, and therefore I'm assuming that you aren't), or are charging that Mercer is not considered a reliable source, then whether or not he has a financial interest is, in all honesty, irrelevant. Many authors have a financial interest in their field of study. That does not mean their works cannot be cited. Lsi john 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi this bit comes from an earlier thread on the talkpage where Craven and Lee 2006 is discussed. These two 2007 ones are about to be published any minute now (metaphorically speaking) in a journal as one is a response to a published article and the other is the original authors reply. So we thought it might help resolve our debate about whether DDP is evidence based to have a quick look. We can't use them as refs until they're actually published though. Fainites 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Mercer has a vested financial interest in this issue. DPeterson^talk 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, you're repeating yourself to the point of disruption. You've written this on every related page... we hear you. shotwell 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense. Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used. In fact, we welcome him. Wikipedia is open to everyone. The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed. Let's stay focused on that. StokerAce 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't actually advertise Mercers book in these articles! Fainites 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of advertising one's own services, anyone care to guess who created the DDP page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&oldid=30129994 StokerAce 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This the second line of that first draft : "First, some truths. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is the one of the only forms of treatment that is effective with trauma-attachment disordered children[1]. It is the only “evidence-based” treatment, meaning that there has been research published in peer-reviewed journals ." Sound familiar? Fainites 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not nonsense. In fact, ethical standards of the APA would require reporting such conflict of interests as Mercer has here as a leader of ACT with a financial interest in the "dispute". And, it is against Wikipedia standards and practice to self-promote as Mercer is doing. DPeterson^talk 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things). StokerAce 00:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the point here regarding Mercer's financial interests and conflict of interest. DPeterson^talk 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, excuse my ignorance. Which editor here is Mercer? Lsi john 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jean Mercer DPeterson^talk 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and the last time that user edited this article was in July 2006. I see no recent comments from him in this discussion. Please take a moment to explain to me how Mercer's financial interest relates to the current editors of this article and conflict of interest. Lsi john 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding the point. I just disagree with your view. Also, if your view is right, it would seem to apply even more strongly to Dr. Becker-Weidman's materials. Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's. I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I am the only editor here whose identity, background, training, and financial or other interests are completely transparent, and i use my real name with the intention of making them so. One person who is associated with this argument has even seen my children's birth certificates. Lsi john, if you don't mind, I'm "she". If you'll look at some history you'll see that there was considerable discussion of this point at one time, and, believe it or not, disagreement.Jean Mercer 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jean, I had seen that comment about your gender. That is one reason I give DP little credibility. To bring something like that up is very low. Thats when I became very suspicious of him. Yes, you are being criticized by anonymous editors for promoting yourself when they do not reveal their idenities. DP puts you down because you are not 'licensed' ? Well is he? (or she?) I have read much of your work and it is just excellent. And now those tactics of linking those who want to correct the AT article to pedophiles? How low can they go? And these are the people promoting AT? Anyone with half a brain can see what is going on here. These people are taking advantage of govt funds intended for unfortunate kids. If half the money these therapist made off these kids would go into trust funds for these kids they would all have paid for houses. Jean dont give up. I knew it was all bull when they brought up that gender thing. It just showed how little substance any of their arguments have. FatherTree 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FT-- I suppose it's not necessarily true that people who are false in one thing are false in all, but it makes ya wonder. No, I won't give up. Don't you, either--Jean Mercer 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure it is self-promotion anyway. JeanMercers book is not cited in this article. I haven't checked but I'd be suprised if it was JeanMercer who put her name in the ACT article. How does JeanMercer have a financial interest in 'this dispute'? How does it benefit her one way or the other if the AT and ACT articles are factual and correct? Would somebody who had, for example written a biography of Charles Dickens be conflicted out of helping edit the Charles Dickens page, provided they weren't using it as an opportunity to plug their biography over the other 600? Perhaps an admin can help us on this once we get into mediation.Fainites 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in the section above is very informative. See: [[96]] MarkWood 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I argree. No one would come out using their own name if they were trying to sneak self-promotion. And the other ACT people used their real names. But we do have a couple of self-proclaimed medical professionals editing here who will not say who they really are. FatherTree 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all a red herring anyway. These arguments about AT have been argued at length with no resolution for months. JeanMercer is only one editor and has made who she is and what she does absolutely plain. It is not only offensive but silly to suggest that all of the editors here who have been citing scientific reports, studies and books, and indeed trying to de-emphasise ACT, are all somehow contaminated by ACT or part of a group. Coming from a group of editors who's modus operandi is the total revert and total control of articles subject to their 'inane' (Shotwells word) polls, regardless of the evidence, that's rich indeed. Lets stop with the repetitive personal attacks and claims that its all been decided before and get on with the job - although its getting increasingly difficult to see how mediation could possibly achieve anything.Fainites 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues that keep being raised by this group are the "red-herrings," as I see it. The group repeatedly brings up the same issues every now and then. The table mentioned by MarkWood makes this point. DPeterson^talk 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dpeterson, please take a moment to scroll up and address my question. Thanks. Lsi john 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fain, I really see little use trying to discuss this with DP et al. DP, are you Becker? If you tell us you are not that would help your credibility. I have no connection with ACT. The first time I ever heard of it when I saw this article. Jean says who she is. Why can't you DP?FatherTree 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a leader of an advocacy group whose career is built on publications her group promotes is part of this dispute along with several "new" editors and the fact that these issues have been raised, resolved, only to be raised again by the same group is very important. As the RfC describes, this dispute really has the smell of a witch hunt against a particular methodology or therapy. SamDavidson 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people are using adopted kids to get a lot of money from the taxpayer to pay for worthless therapy might be a reason for some to not want information on this terrible scam that is going on in the US. Witch hunt no. Charlatan hunt yes. FatherTree 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was quite happy to leave DDP out altogether, but you would insist on it going in 'as personally approved by Chaffin et al' or whatever the wording was. We have to decide these issues one way or another. And no they haven't all been decided before. Mostly they weren't decided upon, and as far as I'm concerned, alot of the issues have come up while I've been editing and I wasn't involved in any previous mediations/RfC's or whatever. Either mediation, or if people refuse to mediate, it has to be Arbcom. We can't argue round in circles till Kingdom come. We can't even agree to fix a broken link!Fainites 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on FatherTree's reference to medical professionals and its implications: there may be some medical people among those involved here, but Becker-Weidman is not one of them. His licensure is in clinical social work, with a doctorate in "human development" and a dissertation on adolescent drug abuse, if my memory serves. These are perfectly legitimate credentials, but they are not medical, and the expert witness web site that says his expertise is in child psychiatry is incorrect. If anyone looks at his web site, they would be well advised to look into the actual significance of the various board qualifications and so on. This does not really matter, except that there seemed to be some assumptions being made that might lead people to infer particular kinds of expertise. Actually medical training would in this case possibly be of less value than membership in the Society for Research in Child Development and mastery of some statistical concepts.Jean Mercer 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is absurd for DP to question your credentials when he is an anonymous editor. As far as I am concerned every anonymous poster has zero credentials (and they do not need them since this is resource based). I could say I have a Nobel Prize. Until DP identifies himself he has ZERO credentials. I claim no credentials and feel it is deceptive to do so unless reveals their true identity has you and Linda Rosa and Larry Sarner have. So if DP want to criticize credentials he should tell us who he is. And most people think he is Becker and he has never denied that. FatherTree 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding JeanMercers career being built on ACT, according to her CV to which you so helpfully provided a link in the ACT page in support of your edit in the introduction that she's not 'a licenced mental health provider', [97]she appears to have been a Professor of Psychology for over 25 years and is in addition a consulting editor to a well known journal and on the boards of a number of associations about child development matters and has a broad range of publications to her name, most of which do not relate to AT. It would appear that Mercers career was long 'built' when DDP was just a twinkle in Hughes eye. Can you please stop these unpleasant, hysterical and possibly libellous personal attacks and decide whether or not you agree to mediation. Fainites 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation x 2

Please will all involved editors indicate here if they are willing to agree to formal mediation. We need to make a decision as to whether its to be mediation or not. Fainites 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm hoping for it. Jean Mercer 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. shotwell 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Fainites 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, in the hope that Wiki can redeem itself. Larry Sarner 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. StokerAce 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes Maypole 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes FatherTree 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear here for any passing interested editors, the allegation at the RfC is not merely of possible sockpuppetry, it is also meat puppetry and/or operating as a cohesive group in order to undermine or disregard Wiki policies (in broad terms). It is not, in the view of many editors, a matter that has previously been resolved. Fainites 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that listed there, but it should...specifically, it might appear that the single-purpose accounts, in the above list, etc (see chart on talk page of RfC) may be meat puppets as described above. DPeterson^talk 12:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if mediation is the correct or most effective method to resolve such an issue. I'm open to anything though. At any rate, don't forget to indicate whether or not you agree to mediation. shotwell 11:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

For anyone who hasn't read it, here is the link to the policy. [98] The first paragraph is instructive:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. Conflicts may include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, or criticizing competitors. Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

As is the sentence from living biographies:

Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy allows subjects of articles to correct inaccuracies, and to remove inaccurate or unsourced material. Making such edits to an article about yourself is allowed.

And a passage on defining COI.:

There is no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, employer, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.....In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article.

Do people think that this issue should also be resolved in any mediation? Fainites 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Mercer, and now Sarner, have a conflict of interest. The facts are:

1. Mercer has done no research in this area.
2. Mercer has no clinical background
3. Mercer is at a small college that does not have a graduate clinical program in any mental health field
4. Mercer has only recently become interested in this area.
5. Mercer and Sarner are leaders of ACT, which promites their book and materials and so
6. They have a vested financial intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.

Their "careers" in this area are built on the advocacy work of ACT, which actively pursues and fans this dispute for it's own purposes. They benefit from this. RalphLender^talk 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are employed by? How do you make your money? Where is your CV? FatherTree 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a yes or no to a) mediation, and b) including this topic then? Fainites 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary, unless DPeterson et al. raise the issue with respect to Mercer. If they do, then I think it is worth raising the issue of Dr. Becker-Weidman's contributions as well as those by various anonymous editors that promote DDP and denigrate ACT. StokerAce 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note my comments on the ACT page.Beyond that, I see no point in being drawn into defending myself against anonymous critics who are unfamiliar with infant mental health practices.Jean Mercer 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) By the way, that c.v. they have must be from 3 or 4 years ago-- lots of water under the bridge since then.Jean Mercer 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I suppose though by saying these articles have all been written to a pro-DPP slant, regardless of evidence from sources, (and that going back in history the progenitor of this was one AWeidman eg [99] [100] [101] but theres loads of these), it sort of assumes a COI issue anyway. Fainites 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Becker-Weidman isn't editing these disputed pages, so that is just a red-herring your group continues to raise to avoid directly addressing the clearly financial and other conflicts of interest that exist with Mercer and now that Sarner has been brought back, Sarner. Mercer and Sarner's conflict is quite clear as outlined above. As a leader of ACT, this is their soap-box and bully-pulpit. RalphLender^talk 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He isn't? Doesn't he go by the name DPeterson here? FatherTree 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you have just made a statement that you know to be false...that is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and practices...it is at least a Personal Attack and worse. The evidence to the contrary was posted and you know of it. Knowingly spreading false information is bad form here...and worse. RalphLender^talk 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What statement did I make that I know was false? Where is there evidence to the contrary? FatherTree 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of sockpuppetry...see the RfC. RalphLender^talk 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This getting absurd. Every request for sources, information or a reply to whether you will agree mediation is simply met with yet another personal attack, although you don't hesitate to accuse others of it. This is merely filibustering. In the light of your continued refusal to even say whether you agree to mediation or not, I propose we consider whether we have any option but Arbcom.

What? We want mediation. Didnt you read the list?? FatherTree 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Making knowingly false accusations is a major breach here and does call into question your group's willingness to collaborate. RalphLender^talk 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop this nonsense please. You're not practicing what you preach Ralph, and all this has been said over and over for the last two feet of talkpage. Lets get on with mediation.Fainites 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, on reading the above, how do you know, Ralph, that Dr Becker-Weidman isn't editing these pages? Unless of course you know JohnsonRon, DPeterson, Jones RD, SamDavidson and MarkWood. He'd be perfectly entitled to as much as anyone else, provided he abided by Wiki policies. Fainites 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are changing the subject, again. Making knowingly false accusations is a very serious infraction and a member of your group has done just that. RalphLender^talk 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph, there is no "group". Let's just all agree to an armistice on these accusations. Mediation will go much more smoothly if we can stick to arguing about the content of these articles rather than each other. shotwell 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Shotwell. Sorry. I'm not practicing what I preach either! Enough already. Lets mediate.Fainites 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. But the conflict of interest present by Sarner and Mercer is an important issue that should be resolved as a first step in mediation. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont you also have as much of a conflict of interest as Mercer and Sarner? FatherTree 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to decide all the issues. Both these issues are in the lists. We can discuss which order to do them in if necessary once we start. If we start. Alot of the regular editors here involved in the dispute have still not agreed to mediation.Fainites 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I will be away June 1-12. I would think that would be an appropriate time to discuss my possible COI, if there is to be such a discussion. I can supply a current c.v. before that time if that is desired.Jean Mercer 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jean, that would be helpful. Also, I understand from the ACT site that you are their professional advisor. Is that the extent of your position? Fainites 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

In the light of the continued refusal by one 'side' of this dispute to say whether they are agreed to mediation or not, (which of course does require agreement)what do editors think about the alternative of Arbcom? Fainites 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper procedure is the file your request for Mediation first and try that before AbCom. RalphLender^talk 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So then you will agree to mediation? shotwell 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for formal mediation. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. Additional issues can be listed under the appropriate heading. Issues should be limited to straightforward questions without any commentary.[102] shotwell 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Fainites 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

on a lighter note - Elvis does attachment therapy on film

I was watching the 1969 Elvis film Change of Habit about a week ago and was surprised to see him, in his role as a doctor, treat a young girl supposed to be suffering from attachement disorder with the common restraining therapy. It was so remarkable that I wrote it down to look up to see if the article on the film mentioned its inclusion. it doesn't. Just thought it might be worth mentioning.LiPollis 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, revealing isn't it? Robert Zaslow was the advisor on this subplot in the film. A couple years later Zaslow lost his license for doing this kind of stuff. Zaslow was the godfather of Attachment Therapy, who introduced Foster Cline to the approach. Cline is the one who developed it into a cottage industry, popularizing the concepts (and techniques) which led to all the rest: Welch (Holding Time), Hughes (DDP), Keck, Post, et al. And all without a lick of reliable evidence! (Still doesn't have any.) Larry Sarner 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting historical reference from forty years ago. It is also very interesting that ACT continues to push this agenda with unfounded and patently false statements, often using just such very old sources as "proof" of its statements...I guess it sells their books and materials and may keep donations coming in, although I don't think they have any real membership beyond their three promoters. JohnsonRon 19:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well really JR! Do you have to be quite so staggeringly offensive? We are supposed to be awaiting mediation you know. Fainites 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd also like to point out the following since you raise it:

the fact that there is no reliable evidence for Attachment Therapy (as defined in this article and by them) is one of the main conclusions of Chaffin et al, the 'et al' including most of the big names in the field. This therefore does not derive from ACT, (unless you think Chaffin et al were powerfully influenced by ACT).

Attachment therapy has a starting point and a history and a background like any other theory, and history, as such, does not go out of date.

Zaslow is a genuine historical figure who published real papers and lost a real licence. Zaslow is seen by a number of mainstream commentators as significant in the development of attachment therapy ideas. This was not invented by ACT.

I don't understand your logic that false claims by ACT both 'sells their books' and 'keeps donations coming in' but at the same time severely limits their membership.

I don't understand why you felt the need to start an argument on the talkpage pending mediation over what was an entertaining little note from a passing editor.

Fainites 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

JR's comments seem on target. ACT pursues its agenda despite evidence they are just incorrect, in, for example, labeling nearly every treatment of children with attachment difficulties as AT as defined in this article, even treatments that have a clear evidence base of demonstrated effectivenss and efficacy. I think you are being too sensitive here. JR merely pointed out, correctly so, that the comment is an "interesting historical reference from 40 yrs ago." What's wrong or incorrect about that? And it is true that they do pursue an agenda and have books and materials they publish for profit and to promote their specific agenda. ACT doesn't really have a membership, does it? I see no membership figures on their site and their filings with the CO sec of state don't show any. I don't think he was starting an arguement. JR seemed to be responding to Sarner's provocation and patently false accusations...I think JR responded in a very tame and restrained way...JR is to be commended. DPeterson^talk 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, ACT is a non-profit group, so they are not doing any of this "for profit." Perhaps one of the ACT people can clarify, though. StokerAce 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I was wondering when the rest of the gang would start to chime in.DPeterson^talk 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that ACT is a NPO and that they fund their activities in part from their sales and publications and from any memberships they have...although I don't think they hae a real membership per se. I'm sure Sarner and Mercer, two primary leaders of ACT, can comment on membership numbers and the financial operations of ACT.DPeterson^talk 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is another somewhat offensive remark DP, particularly from someone who cites 'personal attack' so frequently. The remark could equally as well have been made about you. Fainites 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Calm down now. My remark above was not offensive at all. I agreed with StokerAce that ACT (via Mercer and Sarner) could provide the date requsted. I don't see how my remark applies to me...I am not part of ACT and do not base any of my career on that group, it's books, publications, or agenda. Maybe it is a good thing that the Mediation is taking a slow path if there are such volitile sensitivies still brewing. Maybe the best course is to let this lay for a while longer. DPeterson^talk 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about your remark about 'gangs, 'chiming in'. Please try to be civil. Fainites 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't follow your comments. Sorry, that was meant tongue-in-cheek. I was just referencing that the group (didn't mean disrespect by calling them a gang) had been inactive for a while and I saw that the activity here had brought in a few of them and was wondering if the others would chime in...that's all. DPeterson^talk 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well everybody's been waiting for mediation DP, and the issues aren't going to go away however long you wait, since they concern Wiki policies on sources. Your fervent apology is accepted. Fainites 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious how nothing I say seems to get saved.Jean Mercer 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, it wasn't any more constructive than anything else here, though it was funnier.

Well say it again then! Anything for a laugh.(probably an edit conflict). Fainites 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now. DPeterson^talk 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Really if you do not see how referring to other editors as a 'gang' is not offensive you need to get some sensitivity training. And why have you not revealed your identity? You claim a lot but will not say who you are. At least Sarner and Mercer are forthcoming. You certainly are not. How does anyone know that you are not Becker? You add Beckers Urls to many articles. Why is that? FatherTree 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See there you go again making a false accusation of my being a sockpuppet knowing that it is false. You are certainly welcome to "reveal" your identity if you wish, or keep it as you do...But knowinlgy making false accusations is bad form and a violation of wikipedia policies. DPeterson^talk 01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'knowingly making a false accusation'?? So you are saying I *know* you are not Becker? Can you see your lack of logic here? You have all the appearances of being Becker. And you will not say who you are yet you claim all sorts of credentials and then you criticize Mercer and Sarner for self-promotion. Well no one can do that with you since you will not tell us who you are. And for someone who is not Becker you certainly do put a lot of links in for him. I think there is an abundance of evidence that would lead to the conclusion that you are Becker. You could end this by having the same amount of backbone as Mercer and Sarner and use your real name. FatherTree 10:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, let's go back to "gang". We all have tattoos, of course -- the words "Jack Shonkoff" with a heart around them and an axon running through the middle. Neat but not gaudy, you know... I do hope we can soon put this simmering energy into work toward resolution of this argument. And you can read my new media watch piece about Wikipedia in SRMHP very soon.Jean Mercer 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I showed no temper, only made an observation and commented that another editor's comments seemed ok to me. But, I see that the group of you is now all back on line supporting and amplifying each other's comments as before. DPeterson^talk 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is this a foretaste of how the mediation will go? I make assertions about the subject matter; those who disagree respond with personal attacks and challenges to my (and others') motives. Where have I read that this is not the done thing on Wiki? Larry Sarner 04:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've read that this isn't done on Wikipedia in the slick, glossy promotional materials that they hand out to investors. Things down here in the trenches get a lot uglier than they should. Bhimaji 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its just a way of avoiding dealing with the factual issues really isn't it? Accusations about gangs and the like. It means not having to deal with the point that notable, verified and credible sources consider attachment therapy to be scientifically unvalidated and that notable, verified and credible sources have traced the development of the underlying theories and ideas of AT. It's really nothing to do with ACT. The funny thing is that it's DP's er 'group' that are so keen to push ACT and indeed he started the ACT article. Just off to give myself another tattoo. Fainites 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's Jack Shonkoff by the way? Fainites 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Found him on Google. In cyrillic script across the forehead I think. Fainites 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We're poorly attached, hence the gang activity. We should find a good therapist who will let us sit in his lap. That always works. shotwell 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have touched off yet another debate. I suppose I should have said a little more rather than expect editors to go to my User page to suss out my angle. (Thanks to those that did). My interest is in the cultural representation of the therapy given my background in Anthropology. I recommend anyone with an interest in the way this article is going to actually view the film. It is an accurate snapshot of the time and the then attitude towards such therapy and theories of such disorders in children by those advocating the disorder. It turned out to be Elvis's last film. I had seen it only once before and hadn't remembered that scene. It's inclusion is perhaps the first Film/TV representation of the theory though there have been many, many since. It is presented as something new that the the young doctor is aware of and something he'd like to try. It's presented more as rage reduction therapy and in the film, it is theraputic and successful. Please - do take the time to order it from netflix or rent it if you have an interest in the history of such representations.LiPollis 11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is really interesting. Its easy to forget that these things were once seen as new and cutting edge and 1969 isn't really that long ago. The idea of supressed rage and the cathartic release thereof was one of those ideas that was so pervasive it entered the popular consciousness. By the way Sarner, how do you know Zaslow was the advisor on this subplot? Does he actually appear in the credits or did he write about it? What great publicity he must have thought he was getting. Fainites 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have seen the Elvis AT video. Yes it was the fashion at the time. The 60s brought in much pseudotherapy. Schizophrenics were given LSD as therapy. And of course this movie did not help. Here we have the handsome Elvis 'helping' this child. It was a movie and it put AT in a positive light. The harm that this one scene did was immeasurable. It justified cruelty. Here are better scenes in real life that show the reality of this therapy. http://youtube.com/watch?v=i5qZrVzqGO8, http://youtube.com/watch?v=YzS7x-qKYfU. A person doing this to an animal would be reported to the ASPCA. FatherTree 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it say anywhere who the therapists are in those clips? Fainites 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so much of what was current historically is not used anymore: Radical Masts, bleeding, etc. RalphLender^talk 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Really people. Let's calm down and focus. Sarner made a clearly provocative and accusatory statement as he's done before and then both sides explode. Yes, Sarner made an inappropriate provocative comment. FatherTree made a false accusations of editors being sockpuppets, and then everyone began screaming. The group on one side begin defending each other and making more and more of the same comments. This does not bode well for mediation. Accusations of editors being sockpuppets, especially when the editor knows the accusation to be untrue are not productive. Making inflamatory comments and statements is also not productive. I suggest you focus on the issues. RalphLender^talk 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that DPeterson is not Becker??? Now that is a false accusation. FatherTree 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpose your comments when other people have already replied to a previous editor Ralph. I have repositioned them in order. Also, there seems to be plenty of evidence that restraint/holding is still used and theories about rage reduction and catharsis are still current, though differently called. I believe Cline was giving evidence in a case as an expert relatively recently. Certainly Cline's and Welch's work is still advertised on attachment therapy sites. No doubt after Chaffin a number of attachment therapists have sought to reposition themselves as not attachment therapists, but we are not exactly talking ancient history here and I doubt all attachment therapists will have simply given it up. Presumably they believe in what they do and are confident in its efficacy and underlying theoretical principles. The chap from the psychology project who left a message in a box at the top of this page is a case in point. This is one of the things I think this article lacks - the voice of unashamed attachment therapists who say Chaffin etc is wrong and why. I suppose also this is why we need a comprehensive history and development section so that its development into present forms can be traced. Fainites 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the accusation that all of the approaches cited by Sarner use rage reduction...That is just false and the comment was clearly provocative and accusatory and not helpful for mediation. He's got a history of being sanctioned for uncivil behavior. The movie is 40 years old, as said before, there are lots of practices that are historically interesting and old such as bleeding, the use of lead in treatment, radical surgeries, lobotomies, etc. etc. RalphLender^talk 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment on how recently holding has been used: there's a whole chapter recommending the Welch technique in "DSM-IV-Tr in action", ed. S. Dziegielewski, Wiley, 2002. This is still in print, and Welch has a 2006 article claiming evidentiary support for her method. To suggest that holding is temporally parallel with bleeding would be disingenuous, had the idea not, of course, been offered in good faith.In any case, historical beliefs have a real and present influence when popular thinking continues to hold them and to accept practices based on them as "what everybody knows"-- an example would be the idea that breastfeeding causes "bonding". Although outcome studies are the real test of an intervention, parsing its a priori assumptions by tracing its history can be a valuable preliminary step in assessment.Jean Mercer 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RLender has to be out of touch. AT therapy using rage reduction, constraint, yelling, forced eye contact, food deprivation is not '40 years' old. It is one of the most prevalent types of therapies that are promoted by Social Service agencies for adopted kids right now. Millions of taxpayers money is spent on these 'therapies'. FatherTree 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There you both go again ignoring the point and knowingly making false and misleading statements. I can understand why you both support Sarner, as do others. Given the financial ties Mercer and Sarner have via their book and ACT, that is understandable and it is understandable that ACT continues to beat the same drum despite evidence to the contrary. When you are building a career on the topic, commenting on various listservs, etc., I suppose one does that. RL said the movie is 40 years old how FatherTrees characterizes the statement is false. "Millions of taxpayers money is spent.." I see no facts to support that. DPeterson^talk 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Some editors are discussing the relevence of historical influence and materials. This is an important point with a wealth of sources and not derived from ACT. It is you who are ignoring the point by your repeated attacks on members of ACT. We know what you think of them. You don't have to keep repeating it ad nauseum. Or you could just give this particular form of attack a number which would clutter up the talkpage less. You also seem to be accusing other editors of benefiting from Mercer and Sarners alleged financial ties. Are you sure you meant to do that or have I misread it? Fainites 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the substantive point, Prior and Glaser also point out the theoretical underpinnings of Zaslow and Cline on the issue of diagnosis, the use of symptom lists and the use of the term 'attachment disorder'. They searched the web in July 2006 for their info. on the prevalence of the use of the term 'attachment disorder' based on those theoretical concepts. They also refer to Chaffin et al's citation of various websites using the diagnosis lists. The most recent website search on Chaffin is August 2005. I'd love to know the date of that clip FatherTree showed us. Perhaps we could include it in the article. Fainites 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've developed a thick skin, both after a lengthy teaching career and in this discussion, but I take exception to the claim that my statements were false and misleading. I confess to a bit of heavy-handed sarcasm, but I can provide support for all the factual statements. As for building a career--- well, I'm sure that if you had my c.v. we'd have seen plenty of evidence of it. I believe DPeterson owes an apology for his completely uncalled-for responses to my attempt to return to a useful intellectual level of discourse.In addition, I would like to suggest that our goal be not just civility, but collegiality, and that our concern focus on information the public can rely on. Jean Mercer 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jean providing factual sources for statements cuts little ice on this page at the moment. These are the people who continue to insist that Chaffin et al did not see Becker-Weidmans 2006 study even when the quote in which they describe examining it is posted on the page. It does make it very difficult though to discuss interesting points when the page is constantly filled with the same allegations. I'm looking forward to being able to collaborate with people who understand the subject on creating a sound, well sourced article on the whole phenomenon. Tracing the historical development of ideas is probably one of the most interesting bits. Fainites 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are repeating arguments and statements already made. Why not just let mediation take its course. Then you can make your case in one place at one time. Prior and Glaser is a book with a POV like the ACT book of Mercer, Sarner, and Rosa. I don't think it deserves the undue weight you are giving it. I can understand that making a career out of a POV and having a financial interest in ones career and POV can lead to being less than open about alternatives that don't support that POV. The movie is interesting from a historical perspective; being 40 years old...just like it is interesting to see how breast cancer was treated 25 years ago and how practice had dramatically changed...or knee surgery....or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy...or... DPeterson^talk 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you get hold of a copy of Prior and Glaser and read it before making such statements. It might prove useful in mediation.Fainites 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith is always a good stance to take. Have the book, read the book. DPeterson^talk 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd abide by your own advice and stop repeating the same old personal attacks. Aside from its rudeness and the tedium of constant repitition it makes it difficult for editors actually interested in the subject to sustain a discussion. Anyway, I'm bored with the same tedious old attacks against the 'gang' now. I'm proposing to simply ignore them and just discuss content with those who wish to discuss content and ignore these repetitive postings as much as possible. Fainites 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should. My comment was just fine. I have the book and have read it. I suggest you Assume good faith and try to avoid continuing to make personal attacks and focus on the issues. Move on...I don't use the word gang and you don't seem able to let go even though I said it was a poor use of term and stopped using it after that one time. Please give it a rest and stop trying to create needless conflicts. Mediation requires good faith and a spirit of collaboration and cooperation. It would work best if you and colleagues avoided being inflammatory and provocative and violating wiki policies, such as canvasing, etc. DPeterson^talk 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is canvassing and where are they doing it? shotwell 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

DPeterson seems to be suggesting to the mediators that mediation should be delayed. [103] and [104]. I don't know whether the mediators take any notice of this, given that it's a) not a new allegation and b) comparable allegations were made in the other direction on the mediation referral itself, yet the mediation was accepted. I for one would like to get on with mediation. Otherwise the issues will continue to fester and the pages will continue to stagnate. There are offensive remarks above but I see no special sensitivities or volatility. We all know where we stand. The sooner we get on with it the better in my view. Fainites 11:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. A first step will be to set ground rules regarding behavior and avoiding knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry as FatherTree has. In addition, I think those with a history of sanctioned disruptive behavior should be especially careful if those who were victims of that are to continue to assume good faith here.
2. A major second step will be to sort out how to consider the input of those who have a vested financial interest in this since they have publisehd materials, are leaders of an advocacy group, and are trying to build a career on the plaform of their advocacy group, all of which creates a huge conflict of interest here.
3. Finally,the specific questions to be mediated and the order of mediation and which articles are invovled also needs to be sorted out.

DPeterson^talk 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please all now note that DPeterson has stated on the mediation talkpage that he is not wishing to delay or put off mediation. Fainites 11:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On your points above;

1. Accusations of sock puppetry and the like have no place within mediation. That is why your accusations of meatpuppetry were removed from the mediation referral page by a mediator, remember?
2. This allegation was also removed from the mediation page by a mediator although I note you have since put it back in. Have you given some thought as to why a mediator may have removed it? ( personally I'm more than happy to deal with it though).
3. This point is already on the mediation pages.

Fainites 11:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is WP:Uncivil to knowingly make false accusations of sockpuppetry as FatherTree did and not helpful to the mediation process of building consensus and collaboration. DPeterson^talk 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Uncivil. And you are right. When a room is full of gasoline, it's not a good idea to light a match and Sarner and others have here and on the other page. Making statements that the editor knows is inflamatory (or just plain false) is not helpful. Everyone should just cool down and take a breath if we are to successfully mediate the substantive differences here and reach some sort of agreement. SamDavidson 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting analogy: room full of gasoline being dangerous. I think the wisest action in that case would be to clean all of the gasoline out of the room so some inadvertent, unintentional spark does not destroy the entire house. FatherTree 11:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But your comments were intentional and knowingly false. JonesRD_talk 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This "therapy" meets all of the standards of pseudoscience (or pseudo-medicine for this purpose):

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims--Yes. This field relies upon research that could be at best quasi-experimental.
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation--Yes. Lack of scientific method. Most of the research assumes that it works, and will not falsify the hypothesis.
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts--Yes. the usual assumption that data should be capable of communication to others and verifiable by confirmatory measurement. This is generally considered one of the foundations of scientific method, but it is rejected by AT writers who assert that the only valid measure of the symptoms of an attachment disorder is the mother's report. Little or no peer-review in medical and science journals.
4. Lack of progress--Yes. Not much has changed in 30 years.
5. Personalization of issues--Of course. We just don't understand it.

This is junk science (or therapy), and it's dangerous to those who think it actually works. Orangemarlin 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I urge you to monitor the upcoming mediation and join the "community" as matters touching on your concerns are addressed. Contributions of this sort will be valuable as the discussion progresses. Larry Sarner 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It also claims to be 'evidence based' and by self report, based on attachment theory (which is largely evidence based)and uses scientific terms to give itself a cloak of scientific respectability. Do you have a source any where that actually names it 'pseudoscience'? The inability of others to replicate results due to insufficient detail means it is unlikely to achieve evidence based status. This is aside from the problems of its underlying theoretical base. I hope you can take up Sarners proposal. These attachment pages need more independent editors. Fainites 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be too late. I saw the date of the mediation, and it was in May. At any rate, why is an arbitration required? This is easy, all of the scientific and medical (read verifiable), peer-reviewed articles state that this is junk medicine. I've edited lots of controversial articles with POV warriors pushing pseudoscience, and I've never seen one mediation required. An admin should remove the protection, and this article should be re-edited with peer-reviewed citations. Since the POV warriors supporting this pseudoscientific therapy have NO peer-reviewed citations, this should be easy. Science and scientific method is easily found, and pseudoscience is easily uncovered. Arbitration is a waste, but I'll contribute, because there is a moral requirement for Wikipedia to provide accurate information in the medical sciences. I could care less of any of the Star Trek articles are NPOV or accurate, because no one lives or dies with those articles. But if someone comes here (because of google), then they could read this POV article and assume the therapy actually does anything but destroy children. And why is this article under the Psychology category? It should be under whatever category we throw Homeopathy. Orangemarlin 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is important to not lump together valid and emerging promising approaches with clearly prohibited and pseudoscientific approaches. The ACT group seems to be unable to make those distinctions. Many of the approaches labeled AT are clearly pseudoscience, without any empirical basis. However, some approaches, such as Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, do have peer-reviewed citations, but get lumped in with the others by those who are not knowledgeable or who have a specific POV to push (the ACT group and it's leader, for example). I agree with you that the VERIFIABILITY statement is a good one to follow and should be a guide here, especially to sort out the claims and keep the article focused on the unverifiable and pseudo-scientific approaches and not smear the valid approaches. RalphLender^talk 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. JonesRD_talk 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the allegation here is that there are 6 editors with a particular POV and until recently there has only ever really been one or two editors at a time opposing them, with no success due to 'consensus'. So your phrase 'this is easy' might produce hollow laughter. Having something 'voted' as eg evidence based, by consensus and being told off for 'personal attack' or disruptive editing or vandalism every time you disagree does make one willing to try almost anything as an alternative. (And having material on history and development 'voted' to be out of date!) This is up for formal mediation at the moment by the way and I sincerely admire the brave soul who is prepared to take it on! If you look at the talkpages of this article, John Bowlby, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and glance through Attachment disorder and Reactive attachment disorder you will have a fair idea of the history. Also Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A major source of dispute is over whether Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is in fact an attachment therapy or mainstream, but many articles have been totally distorted in this dispute, including trying to pretend attachment therapy doesn't really exist. The only reason why Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and its main proponent do not appear in this article at the moment is because an admin accidently protected it just after references were removed. DDP does in fact have a study and a follow up study on the same group in a peer reviewed journal and one of the big arguments is that its proponents claim this makes it evidence based and insert it as such (in more than a dozen articles on Wiki) whereas opponents disagree with this definition of 'evidence based'(ie 'a study published in a peer reviewed journal'). ACT also claim it is in fact a form of attachment therapy though this is perhaps a moot point. Other editors might not go as far as that but certainly object to its characterisation as effective and evidence based and in some articles the 'only' effective therapy. This is one of the elements of the mediation. It should be easy as there was a substantial Taskforce report and follow up reports in 05/06 on the whole thing, with all the big names involved. There was also a book published by the RPS over here as recently as August 06 for the express purpose of explaining and elucidating evidence based theories and treatments as opposed to 'attachment therapy' and the like, but getting any of this into the articles in an agreed form is the problem. Fainites 12:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. Talking of Google, why don't you try googling 'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy' and see what you get! Fainites 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the allegation here is that a small group with a POV of the ACT advocacy group continues to push for a large tent to label nearly all approaches as AT, as defined in this article. Two of the leaders of ACT are involved and have financial interests in the subject and, therefore, a conflict of interest. One is building a career as a critic of AT and two have published a book together. DDP has several publications in peer reviewed journals and at least two empirical studies of which I am aware in professional peer reviewed journals and other literature supporting its effectiveness and promise as a treatment. AT as defined here, does not include DDP or Ciricle of Security or a variety of other promising and evidence based approaches. RalphLender^talk 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Or just read the articles, talkpages and the citations and come to your own conclusions OrangeMarlin. Actually only the two editors from ACT (who edit by their real names) are entirely confident that DDP belongs in the list of 'attachment therapy by another name' but this has not yet been fully explored. The ACT list in any event appears on the ACT website. I'm not aware of any proposal to transpose that list into the article. It is the proponents of DDP who repeatedly place DDP in the articles, not the opponents. And Ralph, please resist the temptation to interfere with other editors talkpage edits or interpose replies when another editor has already replied to the previous editor. You can always say 're your post above' or something. Fainites 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I made my conclusion about this therapy years ago. Maybe it's because I trained in science and medicine that I utilize only what has been tested in a scientific manner. I know several neurosurgeons who refuse to use bluetooth headsets. Why? Because they think they might cause neurological problems. I asked if there are any studies. No, except from the crazies. Have they noticed more neurological issues since the advent of cell phones? No (although no science there, I just thought I push them.) My point is if AT crowd can verify their results without resorting to "scientific method cannot work here", then I have no use for it. To find out it might be dangerous scares me. People read these articles and think that "eye of newt" and "ear of bat" can cure cancer. It's because people want what is easy. Fainites, don't worry, I have reached my own conclusions. And I guess I was wrong when I said "this should be easy." Orangemarlin 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right on target here. If there is no empirical support, then those treatments should not be supported. The problem here is that several editors seem to want to lump all treatments for children with problems caused by chronic early maltreatment under the same tent. There are treatments defined at AT using this articles def. of AT that are unacceptable. I think the article does make that point. No professional group supports such intrusive, invasive, coercive approaches. They are worse than no good (do no harm); they further damage a child who has experienced trauma. We just don't want to say, all treatments for children who have experienced trauma are bad, ineffective, or have no evidence to support them when that is not the case. RalphLender^talk 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article says that. If it's a marketing problem, meaning why would you name a therapy after such a disreputable one, then someone needs to clear it up. But it's up to you as an editor to provide clearly distinguishable and supported information on those therapies that aren't the same as the one described in the article. I've read this before from other editors where they claim that "this one is really different" and it really isn't. Orangemarlin 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well several editors have tried to take this article away from the feud between ACT and the pro-DDP ites but without any success. The problem is that the efforts of the pro-DDPites to position their favoured therapy as mainstream and evidence based distorts all the other information that they allow in the article. This is why this whole range of articles is so bad. Attachment therapy would be fairly easy to describe as there are many good sources, but not when the page has been controlled and edited by people who want to pretend it either doesn't exist or only exists in very extreme forms because they want to protect DDP from contamination. Actually the inventor of DDP, Daniel Hughes is a former attachemnt therapist who, after discovering attachment theory late in life, has made an effort to develop a therapy that is removed from the coercive and physical side of attachment therapy. Whether he has succeeded in breaking away altogether from the concepts underpinning attachment therapy is a point worthy of serious discussion but may be too esoteric for Wiki. (Certainly Chaffin criticises the main proponent of DDP for the use of dodgy diagnosis lists and age regression and claims for 'evidence base'. Whether or not this is what Hughes had in mind when he developed DDP I don't know). Unfortunately any attempt to get decent information into the articles or discuss serious issues about what is and what is not attachment therapy is stymied by this obsession with ACT. Its not actually ACT who started the ACT article! Fainites 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a marketing problem in that Circle of Security, Parent-Child-Interaction Therapy (Lieberman), and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy don't use the term AT to describe their approach. However, ACT seems to list a whole broad range of therapies under the term AT as defined in this article. Of course, ACT does have a vested interest in making the issue as big as possible as do their two leaders who are active in this dispute. ACT has a following and puts out newsletters and e-mails to their following. There is a group of editors who clearly have taken this ACT position and attack any reference to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy despite evidence to support its not being AT as described in this article and despite his having an evidence base of empirical support in peer-reviewed articles and in the professional lit. These individuals just won't consider the evidence presented to them and even when listing material (like in the above post) only include material with a certain POV and material that is not empirically based...such as the polemic book by Prior that some are so fond of quoting and using. JonesRD_talk 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is not true that editors here want to label all or nearly all therapies as attachment therapies. The ACT list is here [105]. I have worked my way through as many of them as I could find and most seem to be a true bill. The therapies truly in dispute are DDP and Theraplay. None of the mainstream, conventional, evidence based therapies are in this list. ACT clearly consider mainstream therapies to be different and describe the difference here [106]. Fainites 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an Advocacy group you, or ACT, have a specific POV that is pushed with vigor. The problem is that there is no openness to any other view and no willingness to change...It is hard for an advocacy group to be open to new information that may contradict their view and what sells books and materials. ACT, Mercer, Sarner, and it's supporters won't acknowledge that Theraplay or Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy don't fit their def. Mercer has built a career on this and ACT certainly has a group of loyal followers, some of whom may even be editors on Wikipedia. JonesRD_talk 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What evidence are we talking about? There are three shoddy studies that make specious conclusions and some incoherent books pushed through publishing farms. You make it sound as if there is this great body of research behind DDP. There is not. shotwell 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The various studies meet the wikipedia standard of WP:Verifiability. They are professional publications in peer reviewed journals and are emprical studies. Your bias is clear in your wording. You don't seem open to compromise or building consensus. I hope I am wrong. DPeterson^talk 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Being published in a peer reviewed journal does not make a therapy evidence based. There's a little more to it than that. It isn't really possible to compromise on basic facts. Fainites 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

a) many editors here would be perfectly happy for DDP not to be mentioned at all. Its not particularly notable. What they do not accept is it's being described as 'evidence based' in the same breath as the likes of Leiberman and 'congruent' with Chaffins guidelines when its main propnent was specifically criticised by Chaffin on three counts. I and many others would be perfectly happy for DDP to be accurately described in accordance with sources but that has been resisted.

b) it really is very very funny for you to describe Prior and Glaser as 'polemic'. It is published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit, as part of the work of FOCUS whose purpose is to provide both professionals and parents with accessible, evidence based resources and (I quote) 'up-to-the-minute analysis of research' !

c) I have absolutely nothing to do with ACT and have, as you very well know, attempted (without success) to de-emphasise your emphasis on ACT in this article. I have frequently complained about the distortion of this article by your obsession with ACT. All the relevent sources to write an article on attachment therapy are available without reference to ACT if necessary.

d) Sarner and Mercer have made their affiliation with ACT very plain and they edit in their own names, which is more that anybody else does here, and it is honest and up front of them to do so. You have no basis for implying that other editors are editing on their behalf, receiving financial benefits, are part of their 'group' or 'gang' or are meats or socks. Fainites 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mercer and Sarner have a financial interest in this and so have a very big conflict of interest here. That is a major problem with their contributions and POV pushing. Prior is a book and a polemic pushing a POV, which is fine, as far as it goes. DPeterson^talk 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well really DP. After all that whinging about how it was me interfereing with JonesRD's edit, here you are deliberately interefering with mine [107]. This really is very very petty. Fainites 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the wikipedia policy on talk page you would see that if you use formatting properly and indent appropriately, that one can do that...and I see that you did just that on the talk page for the Attachment Therapy article where you put a whole section out of order. RalphLender indented his comment so it is obvious it is a response to Orange's...if you'd use the indents properly you'd not have a problem here. DPeterson^talk 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Based

On evidence based therapies; I was actually in the process of finding sources for evidence based therapies which I put in the article. You guys kept removing them and replacing them with an unsourced list that contained DDP. My sourced evidence based therapies are, by a happy and no doubt unintended accident, currently in the protected version. Chaffin did not specifically name any but did refer to the same meta-analysis to which Prior and Glaser refer in their chapter on evidence based interentions. The others I got from the APA. It's very much work in progress though and more sourced evidence based therapies would be welcome if there are any. My view is that they have to be described as evidence based by notable authorities, not just self report. Do you agree? Should we also agree what definition of evidence based is appropriate for Wiki? They're all much the same really and there's a good definition in Chaffin.Fainites 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep making the same points you have before, why not just wait till mediation takes place instead of rearguing what you have before? Many have responded to your questions and have fully addressed your points. I won't repeat those here. There is clear empirical evidence that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy produces positive and measurable improvements in child behavior. DPeterson^talk 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Following your arguments about interposing, shouldn't this go after the following section since the material was added after?????DPeterson^talk 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you never do address the points. I'm hoping this will be resolved in mediation. Meanwhile, I am quite happy to invite other editors to consider the meaning of evidence based if they wish since it has come up in discussion. Fainites 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the points are addressed above on this and other talk pages and in the talk page archives...the arguments have been going on so long. There is empirical evidence to support the statement that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an effective treatment for children who meet the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder as cited in the article and elsewhere. DPeterson^talk 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

By the way Orange, would you like me to e-mail you any sources that I have? You presumably have access to an academic data base, but if it helps I can e-mail you the Taskforce report, the ensuing open correspondance and the supplemental report, Speltz on the history and development of attachment therapy, Craven & Lee on their graded scheme of support for therapies, Mercer/Pignotti's reply and Craven and Lees reply to that and Prior and Glasers chapter on non-evidence based treatments for supposed attachment disorders. Fainites 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reading them. Thanks. Orangemarlin 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

There is current information on this page from as recently as Msy. Please do not archive this page until mediation is complete. DPeterson^talk 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's around 600KB. It is quite typical to archive such a large and active page. The useful information is preserved in the archive and readily available. I'll just let someone else handle it though. shotwell 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. DPeterson^talk 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to archive or good idea to let someone else handle it? If you believe it is a good idea for someone else to archive the talkpage, I would wonder why you have explicitly disallowed me from doing so. On a completely unrelated note (I've had a bit of celebration scotch by now), I have proven a theorem that I've been working on for over six months. Three cheers for me! Legitimate intellectual pursuits are quite rewarding. shotwell 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to let this be until mediation is settled and then archive it. Congrats on the other. DPeterson^talk 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why DPeterson raised this matter at this time. Once a mediator was assigned, I was going to make the suggestion that s/he archive the pre-mediation talk on this page. It takes a long time to download (on my computer/link at least), and the real issues need to be discussed de novo during mediation anyway. Given that the prior discussion is retained in its entirety by the archive, I don't see a single reason why it shouldn't be done. Larry Sarner 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Do Not Archive. Leave this up for now until mediation is done. There is important material here that pertains to the mediation and the history of discissions. I don't see why anyone would want to hide this material away or make is more difficult to get to. Archiving it makes it more difficult to see the title of the discussions, the previous proposals, and other important things. RalphLender^talk 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is appropriate. The page was too large, and took forever to load. Orangemarlin 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like no agreement, so the status quo should remain. RalphLender^talk 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to archive. We can label it in some detail for clarity. We could even split it up into sections for easy reference. Fainites 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't archive this. Archiving it makes it too difficult to know what is in an arcive and to find it. The material here should stay readily available for all. I don't know why you'd want to hide it away? I agree with RalphLender...seems to be no agreement on this point, so leave it as is until agreement is reached. Once the mediation is done, then it can be archived. MarkWood 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the line numbering on a "diff" of the last section on this talk page? It's up to at least line 2,758! It's long past due for an archive. But I'm willing to wait for a mediator to come on board and decide on the archiving, so there can't be any unfounded charges of "bias" in this simple act of Wiki management. Larry Sarner 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, grammarically I should have said "arguable" instead of "unfounded"...and the line count is up to at least line 2,763 now. Larry Sarner 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is pending. There is important information on this talk page. Why would anyone want to hide it away in an archive...even if you can get to it. Leave it here for now.JohnsonRon 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be easier to find things if we labelled it in sections. It also might need a bit of work. I notice the Phantom Retrospective Indenter has been at it. One of my proposed article sections has been turned into a weird diagonal wedge with the heading run into the text. Can't think of any justification for that from formatting policies. Fainites 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnson that since mediation is pending this should stay just as it is. DPeterson^talk 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think it can stay as is for now. Mediation will be helped by accessibility of information. Maypole 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It may not matter. I was reading on the MedCom page that formal mediation is done in private. I've checked one of the other articles assigned to a mediator, and no traffic on its talk page at all since the assignment. But if the mediation proceeds here on this page, there is little doubt that without archiving, this page will be a mess, especially with DPeterson being OCD about indenting. "Accessibility of information" on this page will get vanishingly small as this page grows during mediation. Larry Sarner 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now this talk page is up to at least 2,817 lines! It downloads horribly, even on my broadband connection, even on diffs and edits. Like justice, accessibility delayed is accessibility denied. Larry Sarner 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Just to let everyone know (particularly FatherTree against whom they are filed and who was not informed) that DPeterson has filed two ANI's relating to this page and RalphLender one. [108] and [109] [110]. Fainites 08:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is more nonsense. For a person who constantly claims 'false accusation' this silly tactic is completely unfounded. He should read the descriptions of what he charges people for. And this is something also we should bring up about DP in mediation: these unending charges he files against so many people. Fain, do you have that IP comparison? FatherTree 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The AN/I's are clearly focused on two issues that an administrator can address, and remedy if there has, in fact been a violation. All other discussion is beside the point and appears to be more of a smoke screen to divert from the two issues: A violation of WP:CANVAS by canvassing and a WP:NPA by knowingly making false accusations of an editor being a sockpuppet. Everything else is a diversion and off point. RalphLender^talk 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listing the ANI. I'd not known about them. I'll take a look. MarkWood 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it only seemed polite. Fainites 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What IP comparison do you mean Father Tree? There was one put on StokerAces talkpage a while back by someone, or there was an old one found ages ago of AWeidman and DPeterson apparently using the same IP number. Is that the one? After all. There's nothing inherently wrong in editing under a different name. Many editors wish to remain anonymous. My real name, oddly enough, isn't Fainites! Fainites 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

'Be careful about making accusations of sockpuppet.' The issue seems to have been investigated at least twice and there was not sockpuppet...the various editors were distinct. Continuing to raise '"innocent"' questions can still be considered a personal attack. JohnsonRon 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out on the ANI that Father Tree in DP's diffs asked DP if he were Becker-Weidman. Editing under a different name is OK if its done for legitimate purposes. The fact that DPeterson and AWeidman appear to have in the past shared an IP number has been disclosed in the past from old diffs I believe. Thats not the same as being a sockpuppet is it?Fainites 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking an inocent question isn't so innocent. Continually asking this when you know it to not be true is a personal attack and you really should know better, Fainities...or are you intending to be provocative? DPeterson^talk 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used the word 'innocent' which tends to imply a sort of knowing tongue in cheek. FatherTrees question is plain and straightforward. It is what it is. He's asked it more than once. You are free of course to decline to answer it. I was making the distinction between someone with some reason saying 'are you Becker-Weidman ?' as opposed to someone saying for example 'you're a sockpuppet of Weidmans'. Fainites 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry is considered a personal attack and you seem to be crossing the line. Your innocent exploration of this area when you know it has been investigated and is unfounded is now in the same league as FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. DPeterson^talk 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exploring it. I'm replying to your points. By the way, there is a reply to your first ANI on canvassing (my third link above). Fainites 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The salient issues are FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and his abuse of WP:CANVAS. Best to keep the focus on the primary issue and not divert with various red-herrings. DPeterson^talk 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And for the ANI on my third link above. Fainites 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) And for the one on my middle link. Fainites 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one ANI. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPeterson^talk 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Give the needle a shove DP. Fainites 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You really should learn to be civil. Making personal attacks are not helpful and makes me question your sincerity about the mediation process. Best if you can at least try to keep a cool head Fainities and focus on the issues not paranoid notions; assume good faith would be good here, so just take a deep breath and let it go. DPeterson^talk 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be unaware of this, but many consider it rude to constantly remind others of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. The vast majority of your recent comments have included something along these lines. It is also a tad rude to constantly question the sincerity of others in regard to mediation. shotwell 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if those others did not continue to fling accusations or make rude statements, such as, "Give the needle a shove DP," there would be no need to remind those other editors that WP:Assume Good Faith is something to adhere to. It does seem that such a comment is rude DPeterson^talk 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well DP since mediation was filed, less than a month ago, you and yours have made 11 accusations of COI and financial bad faith against Sarner and Mercer on this page, 6 on the mediation talkpage, 1 on the mediation referral page (which was removed by a mediator and replaced by you), called anybody who opposes you a 'gang' and 'meatpuppets', falsey accused some editors of being SPA's when they are plainly not and filed 3 ANI's against Father Tree without telling him accusing him of various things, in particular 'canvassing' when the diffs show it is you who canvass. In the circumstances I don't think it's me that needs to 'take a deep breath and let it go' DP. You're also admin shopping. Do you understand what the words assume, good, faith and civil mean? Why should editors put up with your constant accusations and rudeness? If anybody took them seriously you could be ANI'd practiaclly on a daily basis. Saying 'give the needle a shove' was supposed to be a pointer to you that you are repeating yourself ad nauseum. You also constantly hint in various places about giving up mediation. I asked you about this before. Are you or are you not prepapred to mediate? I would remind you lest you cite other peoples behaviour as any kind of reason, that none of the allegations made by anybody are new. Fainites 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it. It is clear that Mercer and Sarner meet the wikipedia standard for having a conflict of interest, in part because of their financial interests in this issue and this dispute and for other reasons too. DP did not file 3 ANI's...As I read it, DP filed one, I filed one, and then DP filed one he'd thought was deleted. I think that focusing on the issues of the ANI, that FatherTree makes false accusations of DP and others being sockpuppets when he knows better is the issue to be focused on here, which was indicated. Now there remains the canvasing issue to be resovledStop diverting to irrelevant issues....Now, are you going to tell me to, "Give the needle a shove RL?" Hard to see how such phrases assume good faith or are to be considered civil. You've made your points abundantly and clearly...no need to repeat them. The ANI's deserve to be investigated for what they state and then resolved. RalphLender^talk 21:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All three ANI's are recommended reading.Fainites 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one remains open. The other two are closed and the administrator did find that the issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is real and valid

*All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell ^babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RalphLender^talk 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to read all of Shellbabelfishes comments. Fainites 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd think anyone interested would...always a good suggestion to read quotes in context. DPeterson^talk 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa - I did not support your accusation; I said if he was doing it to warn him and then let me know if he continues. You would need to provide some kind of proof to back up those accusations and his continuing after your warning. That in no way was a finding that FatherTree had done anything improper. Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false. Shell ^babelfish 23:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your claifity that. DPeterson^talk 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever "claifity" [sic] is; not in any of my dictionaries. Also not sure what this sentence means taken in toto. Larry Sarner 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shell. I think what he means Sarner is that a) he does not find that that Father Tree has called DP a sockpuppt, but b) if he does call DP a sockpuppet, warn him and if he carries on let me know, and c) the allegations of canvassing were false. Please correct me if I'm wrong Shellfish! Fainites 07:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sudden thought! Were you talking about DP's sentence not Shellfishes? Fainites 07:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false" a quote from Shell. Am I correct in my assesment here that DP was making false accusations? FatherTree 13:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, DP's! Can you make any sense of that sentence?! No doubt whatever about what Shell_Kinney meant. I would add to his demurral that Shell_Kinney -- or anyone commenting -- is not the administrator on an ANI, as baldly claimed by DPI. DPeterson's ability to conflate sundry Wiki processes with kangaroo courts for his purposes seemingly has no bound. Glad someone on the outside of this dispute finally called him on it. Larry Sarner 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there seems to be an inherent problem in wiki where one editor by using procedural tactics can completely control an article. By constantly filing official complaints against those who oppose him one can bring the system to a halt. Now there has to be a way to stop this. Of course in real life there would be the cost to file the complaint. But here there is none. This seems to be a flaw in the system. Should there be a limit to the number official complaints one individual can make? Also this is very frightening that people doing this type of almost compulsive accusing may actually be giving people therapy. I think this is the crux of the problem here. In the US there is no regualation of 'psychotherapy' as can be seen by the enormous proliferation of AT therapy which is paid for by the state, encouraged by the state even thought most professional organizations consider it harmful. There is almost an analogy here where there is no real method to prevent persons from taking advantage of the system. FatherTree 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, notice that everyone caught on pretty quickly and that DPeterson was informed he should not start so many complaints about the same exact thing. I'd see that as a sign that things can work pretty well around here. Also, I think we should avoid publicly making conclusions about each others' professional abilities -- that could get nasty all round. shotwell 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, all of the complaints have been closed. This discussion is really just dragging it on for no good reason. Let's just all agree that DPeterson made a mistake, that you should avoid drawing connections between he and Becker-Weidman (he clearly takes offense), and that we shall wait peacefully for mediation. shotwell 14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK when will this 'mediation' start and what can we expect from it? And if you look thru the histories here you will see that part of DP's tactics is to constantly take offense with any little thing and then make false accusations and delay the whole process. Why is there not a way to stop this endless obstruction tactic? FatherTree 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation will start whenever a member of the mediation committee takes our case. There are not many mediators and there are a lot of current cases. Look at the archive of closed cases to get a taste of what to expect from mediation. shotwell 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WJBScribe has just said they are in the middle of appointing new members and a new chair, but we are not forgotten! Fainites 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Due to the user-conduct issues which have made it impossible to proceed with any meaningful discussion, I have requested arbitration. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Shotwell. Why has the article been locked off? Addisababa 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was protected on May 15th Will Beback due some edit warring over the inclusion of unsourced information. shotwell 09:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Addisababa has been blocked as another sock of HeadleyDown. Fainites 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is now two supporters who have been blocked related to this article, or is it now three?. DPeterson^talk 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Supporters DP? On what basis do you consider Addisababa a supporter? Of whom? Fainites 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact note: these two blocks relate to existing bans in place since 2006. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Policy is that pages are protected as little as possible, since page protection itself is disruptive. With the blocking of certain socks the need to protect the page may not be as acute.

As and when protection can be removed or downgraded, please go ahead and ask for unprotection. The same applies to other pages affected by this dispute. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the general view on this? Arbitration isn't finished but in the light of the removal of 5 socks, is there any reason why this page shouldn't now be edited again? Fainites ^barley 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Unprotection

Now that the page has been unprotected I have taken the liberty of removing the most obvious POV and sockery and amalgamating the proposed alternative article I drafted back in April with the better bits of this article. I thought this might be a better starting point. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I recommend that we archive this talk page to this point? It's huge, still takes forever to load, and has tremendous edit-warring by five, maybe seven, sockpuppets. If the article itself is at a better starting point, it would be worthwhile to have the talk page at a likewise better starting point. Larry Sarner 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Don't have a clue how to do it though. I've added some more Chaffin in treatment characteristics. This could perhaps be organised better into sections do you think? I need to put in proper refs fro some of the cites. Also, there's some bits floating around under 'attachemnt therapies' that don't seem to belong. Would this be an appropriate place fro Craven & Lee do you think? The other thing is a think it needs a section on what attachment therapists have to say for themselves as opposed to just what their critics say. It wasn't really possible to get round to that when trying to edit with socks who's main purpose was to pretend it doesn't really exist. Fainites ^barley 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)