Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Attachment therapy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archiving

Nice one Sarner. The only problem is there's already an archive 1. The last lot should archive 2! Fainites ^barley 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Now we need links to the previous 2 archives. It's just work, work, work isn't it? Fainites ^barley 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, amateurism will out. The overhead with Wiki is incredible sometimes. I think this creates the current talk page. I was working on the links when I heard about the problem. Apparently my "move" to Archive 1 was successful -- it just appended it to the previous one (making a really big one)! I'll let someone wiki-proficient sort that all out. I didn't know the other archive existed -- no one posted a link on it to the then-existing page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarner (talk • contribs)

I've requested that Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 be moved back to Talk:Attachment Therapy. After that, I'll just restore my original cut/paste archive that DPeterson reverted. It wasn't clear from the discussion then that I had already made a second archive. shotwell 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requested moves

Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 → Talk:Attachment Therapy — Improper (but accidentally so) talk page archiving: not a subpage, there was already an archive 1, and the first archive was a cut/paste archive. This talk page is currently being used for a lot of evidence during arbcom, it'd be nice if the page history were straightforward. —shotwell 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) shotwell 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It seems from the pages' histories that:-
  - At 21:27, 13 May 2007 User:DanielCD cut-and-pasted about 65,373 bytes (about an eighth part of the page) from Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 1.
  - At 00:10, 22 June 2007 User:Shotwell cut-and-pasted 598,565 bytes from Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 (598,565 bytes), which has not been edited since.
  - At 01:04, 22 June 2007 User:DPeterson reverted User:Shotwell's delete in Talk:Attachment Therapy, thus changing User:Shotwell's cut-and-paste into a copy-and-paste, and making Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 a redundant duplicate. Afterwards, new discussion happened in Talk:Attachment Therapy.
  - At 14:44, 23 July 2007 User:Sarner moved Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 the proper way, leaving Talk:Attachment Therapy as a redirect, which afterwards was gradually enlarged into a discussion page with new discussion.
    - So, please: Do you want me to delete Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 and move Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2? Or what? What histmerging to you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about deleting Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 and moving Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 there, as you suggest. Thanks for your help and sorry for the confusion.shotwell 06:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Intro by DPeterson

In my view, DPeterson's recent edits in the intro are not useful. A reference to "rebirthing" here makes "rebirthing" seem like a synonym for "attachment therapy," which it is not. Rather, it is one form of attachment therapy. In addition, I don't see any reason to highlight ACT and Quackwatch at the outset like this. The external links at the bottom are quite sufficient in this regard. ACT is only one of many organization that are critical of attachment therapy, so it looks odd to emphasize them so much. StokerAce 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have mentioned in my version of the intro that sometimes rebirthing is used in AT, but rebirthing is clearly a separate therapy in it's own right. Is it a form of AT or is it used by Aters? Rebirthing may well be a pseudoscience, but it's a different pseudoscience to AT. The media understandably conflate the two. I also agree about not highlighting ACT and Quackwatch in the opening. It's supposed to be a brief description.Fainites ^barley 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that somewhere on their site ACT give a number of defining characteristics of AT. Perhaps a version of this could go in the definition section. Fainites ^barley 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the placing and length of lack of precise professional meaning, removed rebirthing and references to ACT and Quackwatch, but kept the point that attachment disorder is also an ambiguous term. This was in my earlier proposal but somehow got lost.Fainites ^barley 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The book by ACT and their website all discuss rebirthing, in particular in reference to the Candace Newmaker case. Since all that is referenced in the article, rebirthing is appropriate. DPeterson^talk 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep the record straight, the book Attachment Therapy on Trial is not a publication of or by ACT. The book was published by Praeger, a venerable imprint with professionally refereed titles and no financial connection with ACT whatever. The book was not a vanity publication and received rigorous editorial review in keeping with the publisher's high reputation, though a few minor errors nonetheless crept in. Larry Sarner 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly discussing rebirthing and claiming rebirthing and AT are synonymous are not the same thing. Secondly ACT on their website specifically explain why they have not included rebirthing in their list of AT therapies. Thirdly, this article is not called "ACT's definition of Attachment Therapy". Fainites ^barley 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing may be a kind of attachment therapy, or related to it; it just doesn't make any sense to mention it as a synonym in the first sentence. StokerAce 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that proper rebirthing practioners campaigned against rebirthing being outlawed because of the activities of ATers who were doing their own version, not recognised by rebirthing therapists. A sort of half-baked adoption of bits of someone elses therapy. Fainites ^barley 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it is a synonym, as StokerAce points out, and a term used along with other AKA's for AT. Therefore, it belongs in the list of AT AKA's like the other terms. The disamgiguation page can clear up any confusion of the term with other uses of the term. DPeterson^talk 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I said it was not a synonym, at that you were using it as a synonym improperly. It may be an example, but it is not a synonym. StokerAce 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to make it clear what AT is. AT and rebirthing are not synonymous. The form of rebirthing used in AT is well known because of media attention but that does not make the two terms synonymous. Synonymous usually means 'having the same or similar meaning'. It's like saying age regression is synonymous with attachment therapy. Its an important part of it but its not synonymous.Fainites ^barley 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also corrected DPetersons statement on the disambiguation page that rebirthing is a term used for attachment therapy. Sources please DP. Find me a good source that says attachment therapy and rebirthing are interchangeable terms rather than merely a variant of AT. Here's what Chaffin says:

"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,”" Do you see? This form of rebirthing is an attachment therapy, but attachment therapy is not rebirthing. Chaffins passage is currently in the definition section. It could go in the opening I suppose. It's not that long.Fainites ^barley 00:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Variants are synonyms. You've made the point, thanks! DPeterson^talk 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact in English: a "variant" is not a synonym from what I understand either. It means, closely related in some form, for example an side-shoot, derivative or related item. But variants can often be quite different. For example, there are variants of medications that have very different effects even though pharmaceutically, one derives from and is close to the other and both may be "variants" of the same active ingredient. Likewise one might have two therapies, one of which is harmful in a certain circumstance, a variant of which is not. The meaning is consistent with that sort of scenario. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Variants are not synonyms. I don't really understand what's going on here. Why do you want "rebirthing" in the first sentence anyway? It just makes the article confusing and unclear. StokerAce 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

StokerAce has hit the nail on the head. Frankly, all references to "rebirthing" should be collected into one section, entitled something like "Confusion with Rebirthing". It's my view that "rebirthing" is only used as a straw man by Attachment Therapists to distance themselves from a notorious death. The term entered the AT lexicon because the press picked up on it in the Candace Newmaker case; it made good, sensational shorthand at the time. (In fact, "rebirthing" was just the script for the holding therapy [i.e., attachment therapy] for the day Candace was killed.) As the title of our book on the case suggests (Attachment Therapy on Trial) it was principles and practices of AT and not "rebirthing" responsible for Candace's fate. Obfuscating that fact has served the interests of Attachment Therapists by confusing and misleading the public. Clarity on the point in this article would be a valuable public service by Wikipedia. Larry Sarner 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. 'Spud' is a synonym for 'potato' but 'chip' is a variant. All chips are potatoes, but not all potatoes are chips. Now that it is clear that DPeterson has simply misunderstood the meaning of the word 'synonymous', and has had it explained to him, is it agreed that rebirthing should not be in the first line as an alternative word for attachment therapy? Nor should the disambiguation page imply this? Fainites ^barley 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Yes rebirthing is a strawman. Although the other techniques are not nearly as likely to kill people they still are harmfull. FatherTree 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing is an AKA as described. The ACT lit discuss it and the Candace Newmaker case/crime was all about rebirthing...the ACT book is all about that too. RalphLender^talk 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources please. Not just saying 'they discuss it'. So what if they do? A source saying they are synonymous, interchangeable or whatever. Fainites ^barley 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've simply named it 'attachment therapy' which is what the article is about and then included Chaffins list of 'variants'. That should satisfy DP as apparently variant and synonymous are synonymous, and it is also fully sourced. Please do not revert properly sourced edits DP. I've also removed the totally unecessary mention of ACT and Quackwatch from the intro. The intro is supposed to be a brief description of the subject. The distinction between the AT form of rebirthing and 'proper' rebirthing can be made in the definition section or somewhere.Fainites ^barley 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of introduction

I have attempted to make the introduction as WP:NPOV and concise as I know how. The article has been needing something like this for a very long time. Larry Sarner 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a list of "variants" added to the introduction, as I believe it is cluttering and a digression. In my opinion, the list should find a home elsewhere in the article, or be omitted altogether. Larry Sarner 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that a phrase, "with no precise professional meaning" had been added to the introductory sentence. (I didn't get an "edit conflict" when I made my changes, and just realized the revert I had not intended.) On reflection, though, the qualification is unnecessary since the description of AT as a "popular name" excludes any professional use. Larry Sarner 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re 'variant' and 'no precise professional meaning', the first is part of an APSAC quote that is already in the definition. The second is not really needed. It was put in by me as a (failed) attempt to stop DP et al fillingup the intro with lists of books/orgs etc who don't define AT. Fainites ^barley 08:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional details added

Additional material was added to explain and expand the points here and elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, pg numbers are needed for quotes. Made several minor changes, such as AT, vs at, per article title DPeterson^talk 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean you have added back in for the nth time the same old material that other editors consider unecessary or inappropriate.Fainites ^barley 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The material added is verifiable, factual, and meets wikipedia standards. You and your group continue to revert without consideration or discussion of the merits. You have reverted without explaination or basis for the N to the nth. time and appear unwilling to engage in wikipedia CONTENT DISPUTE resolution discussions or processes. RalphLender^talk 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed ad nauseum for weeks as you very well know. Your edit summaries implying it has not are misleading. Also, we're in the middle of ArbCom on all this right now including accusations of breach of policies in relation to content. That is dispute resolution. In addition, when you keep adding back in old material you don't seem to notice that other editors have sometimes rewritten parts of it. This results in unecessary duplication of points. Fainites ^barley 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact Tags

Fact tags are being constantly inserted under the rather feeble pretence that page numbers are needed. Whilst page numbers are recommended for quotes, a number of quotes properly contain the page numbers within the refs where they should be. Where a source is extensively quoted this is a little more difficult. It is however a completely inappropriate use of fact tags which of course appear as saying citation needed, particularly as the editor concerned claims to have the sources and therefore, if editing constructively and co-operatively, could insert the page numbers himself.Fainites ^barley 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers are used with quotes. That is a common convention and allows the interested reader to easily find and check the quote. RalphLender^talk 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Put them in then instead of adding citation tags. I may have time to dig them up later this weekend.Fainites ^barley 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proponants

I've started trying to add material that gives the views of proponants, who's views must be fairly represented here. Expert assistance would be welcome! Fainites ^barley 21:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Variants

Hi guys. Can I kick off a discussion on the issue of variants in the intro. instead of this reverting. It was originally put in by me in a (failed) attempt to stop DP et al constantly trying to describe rebirthing and AT as synonymous. However, it may have some value in the intro in any event. It is a keynote of AT that there are many variants which are constantly renamed. The two most well known are probably holding and rebirthing, the latter because of deaths. These are the ones readers are most likely to have heard of. I think therefore it helps to have the list of main variants from Chaffin in the intro. I also think Sarners version that makes it very clear that AT applies to the theoretical base as well as specific well known elements was a very good addition. Fainites ^barley 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the fuller (but way incomplete list) appears later in the article, I think it is cluttering to repeat it in the intro. However, in the interest of comity, I will now try to come up with shorter wording for this (sub)topic which can satisfy us all (I hope). I also hope that Orangemarlin will let my other formatting stand if he continues his objections to my stance on the variant list. Larry Sarner 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch "See Also"

I have been trying to eliminate the cockroach reference to Wikipedia's article on Quackwatch for a few days now. It was originally put in by certain editors (who shall remain nameless) who thought that they could discredit this article by association. (I think they are wrong in that view and the association is actually a helpful one for this article.) However much I like the Quackwatch article and association, it remains that the Quackwatch article contains no "further reading" on this topic and is a misdirection for readers of this article. Given my own association with Quackwatch, if the shoe were on the other foot and I were pushing for inclusion of the link, I think I could be fairly accused of advertising! IMHO, the link here really does need to go. I'm willing to listen to reason and evidence to the contrary. Larry Sarner 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Its only a link! Fainites ^barley 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not the one fighting to keep it! As with so much, it's the principle of the thing. Larry Sarner 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic principles only need apply! Isn't just a link to the Quackwatch article on AT ok then? I'm easy either way really. My main objection was to Quackwatch being inserted into the intro. Fainites ^barley 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article. DPeterson^talk 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy is not mentioned in the Quackwatch article and Quackwatch is not mentioned in the AT article. To what are you referring?Fainites ^barley 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson at 2.07 you made a substantial edit. In the edit summary you state restoring material that was added with sources and verificable citations. No material had been deleted; only added to improve article. This is patently untrue. You have deleted a section on evidence based interventions from Prior and Glaser and a section from the non-evidence based section dealing with Craven and Lee - the extensively discussed review you previously cited - and such evidence as there is for attachment therapy. It is simply not possible to WP:AGF.Fainites ^barley 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTACh is not organization of professionals pertinent to stated purpose of list

ATTACh was listed as one of the "professional" organizations prohibiting "some practices" by its members. While it is even arguable whether ATTACh has really done this, it is nevertheless a fact that ATTACh is not a professional organization in the same sense as the others in the list are. Prominently on its home page (www.attach.org), ATTACh describes itself as a "coalition of professionals and families", which contrasts to the others (e.g., APA, ApA, APSAC, NASW) which do not have lay people able to decide policy. ATTACh is actually a trade organization founded to promote AT, or at the very least an advocacy group in its behalf. There's nothing wrong with being either or both of those things (as I well know), but for the offered purpose of the present list, the group's positions are not pertinent. Larry Sarner 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin says:

"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)."

presumably there is a distinction here between 'mainstream professional societies' and professional organization', but as ATTACh seems to be considered the home of attachment therapists, the fact that they've issued a statement against coercion is surely worthy of note. Fainites ^barley 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Base

I've expanded this section based on the sources so frequently previously discussed, namely APSAC, Prior and Glaser, Craven & Lee, Pignotti & Mercer, Myeroff and Becker-Weidman. I've put in some material relating to Hughes and his purpose regarding DDP. Myeroff and DDP are the only studies I am aware of relating to AT treatments. No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong! Fainites ^barley 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just glanced over the article myself today, for the first time in ages. Mostly I wanted to double check what sort of edits were being added, during the present 24 hour block which DPeterson's conduct led to.

I have a concern from a neutrality viewpoint on this section. The title itself ("Lack of Evidence Basis for Controversial Therapies") contrasted with the title of the previous section ("Evidence-based mainstream therapies") seems to have a considerable NPOV problem -- it suggests that lack of evidence basis is a Wikipedia viewpoint. Page and section titles should not breach WP:NPOV. The section itself is a bit POINTy-tasting too. I thought about it, and would like to offer an external rewrite suggestion on the following lines for consideration by all sides in the debate. I'd suggest a section roughly as follows:

Better title
What is evidence basis? Why does it matter? What are current mainstream views and trends on it?
What views are expressed on evidence and controversial therapies in general, and within that, on attachment therapy, by notable bodies?
Who else has expressed views, and characterize the debate and current positions.

==Evidence Basis and Controversial Therapies==

Evidence based medicine is a term used to mean that proposed medical and psychological treatments should be tested and used, based upon rigorous testing and independent peer review of findings by the medical community and reviewers. There have been a number of reports on the evidence base for attachment therapy and holding therapies in general.

A major review of evidence on Attachment therapy (among other controversial therapies) was carried out by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children ("APSAC", a mental health professionals' support group) Task Force, known as the 'Chaffin report' (2006). It noted that "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,[CITE in ref tags] and expressed concerns over claims by some therapies to be "evidence based" (or indeed the only evidence-based therapy), whereas the Task Force often found no credible evidence base existed for such therapies upon examination.[QUOTE AND CITE this text in a footnote to keep the article body shorter! "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 scientific research sufficient to support these claims [CITE in ref tags]. 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."] According to 'Chaffin', Attachment therapy is [or should that be ?"holding therapies are"] considered [or: noted, listed] as one of the therapies to be well supported/poorly supported in this manner. [whichever it is + cite]

etc....

Like this, the evidence and criticism sections really can be shortened and changed from a stance, to a discussion and characterization of the issue of evidence basis. It could then balance and incorporate views for and against and descriptions of the evidence and aims involved, for example. It also explains that APSAC is a members advocacy/support group, which is relevant in understanding its role. The section has covered the basics in a few short sentences, and can now go on to discuss and summarize why APSAC says as it did and any other views they give, who else has opinions and what they say, minority views and submissions (with due weight), and thats it, one NPOV based discussion of evidence basis in attachment/holding therapy.

Anyhow, that's just a thought on a section that looks like it needs work from a policy perspective. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. It was bit of a hasty edit in some ways. I'm sure when ArbCom is finished other editors will be more inclined to join in and improve the article. I've changed the title. On your suggestions, this particular Taskforce was only on the whole phenomenon of AT. Also, though APSAC itself is a professional org., the Taskforce contained a large chunk of the big names in the field and is therefore by no means an APSAC commentary document as such. This is why it's such a big source. It isn't 'APSAC's view'. I'll try the footnotes thing out. Also, one of the reasons why its such a quotefarm is that direct quotes serve as a defence against POV paraphrases. Fainites ^barley 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND applies to all sides and issues. In an edit war, its very common for sections to be written "defensively" -- armies of quotes fighting armies of quotes in polarized battle (so to speak). But that's not really satisfactory. A good article isn't written that way, it tries to rise above the dispute to characterize the topic and debate, and that means somewhere along the line, much of the quote farm goes into footnotes (that way they can be checked if anyone wishes); quotes and points are not used to "win" for either side, but cited as notes, to support a balanced flowing discursive overview/summary of the topic. It's hard to do that when theres a major edit dispute, but that's the sort of shape an article should try to head for when possible. Hope that helps focus the article on what to aim more for. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Also, editors to this page might like to review the style and flow of English. For example: "The APSAC Task Force stated that proponents correctly point out that..." -> "The Task Force agreed with proponents of holding therapies, that...", maybe from a style point of view move the actual cite page notes "(APSAC, 2006, pXX)" etc into footnotes to reduce the disruption of the main text, merge some paragraphs into umbrella sentences that then refer to footnoted cites for the detail, and so on. (You might also want to footnote the bit about the report's authority, if that's so, since a casual reader referencing the APSAC article will surely not realize that, just as I didn't). A lot can be done to improve this section -- just think how you'd expect a reference article to read and it gets easy! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) )

i agree that accurate paraphrases is something to aim for. Fainites ^barley 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute little of what FT2 has said here. One of the recommendations was that a change of title for the section following "Mainstream Evidence-Based Therapies", to wit, "Evidence Basis and Controversial Therapies", which has been complied with as being more NPOV. That is indeed an improvement. On reflection, I would like to solicit comments about a further change of title that I think would be even more in the spirit of NPOV: "Controversial Interventions". It would also be a natural progression from the subject of the preceding section, or so I think. Larry Sarner 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Contentious editing

All the material added regarding Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy clearly is contentious and added by the leaders of ACT and supporters, who have a POV. The material is even misrepresenting some sources. APSAC never stated that they "stand by their earlier comments." That is an interpretation, or OR in wiki parlance. DPeterson^talk 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Taskforce specifically maintained their opinion on the issue of evidence base. Also, Craven and Lee is May 2006, before the Chaffin Reply in November 2006. I've rearranged the section a bit to make more sense of the Craven/Lee - Apsac dichotomy. I hope you think the section is now a fair representation of the controversy with all relevent sources cited. I have included APSAC's words of encouragement. I hope it is also a fair representation of Hughes who makes his position pretty clear on his website and in his forward to Becker-Weidmans book. I have also included that it is a moot point as to whther or not DDP is in fact an attachment therapy, in that ACT and the taskforce clearly think it is, but Prior and Glaser do not put it in that section of their book. Again, I think this is fair to Hughes. Fainites ^barley 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The other alternative is to have a very short section which simply states that there are no 'attachment therapies' considered to be evidence based, cite Chaffin, Prior and Glaser and leave it at that. All the stuff about whether or not DDP is an attachment therapy, the status of Craven and Lee etc perhaps belongs in the DDP article. Fainites ^barley 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The material added is obviously slanderous and is POV-ACT material. I see not line in the APSAC report or response that says, we "Stand by our earlier comments." Can you show that to me? Also, DDP is evaluated as evidence-based, cat3 by Craven & Lee and that should be included, don't you think? (RalphLender)

Where in the article is the phrase 'stand by our earlier comments'?
Where do Craven & Lee say DDP is evidence based?
Do you accept that Craven & Lees description of DDP as 'supported and acceptable' is included?
Which bits do you say are slanderous?
Where in ACT material is there any recognition of the fact that there is authority to say that DDP is not an attachment therapy?

Fainites ^barley 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually what the Reply says is "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". In other words, its still not evidence based. What paraphrase do you suggest? Or should the whole quote go in? Fainites ^barley 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed again an edit stating Craven and Lee describe DDP as evidence based. Repeated requests for a quote for this have not been answered. Also, I removed the insertion of craven and Lee from the passage on whether DDP is an AT or not as it looked as if was inserted here accidently. Craven and Lee say nothing about this. They simply call it an attachment therapy. Fainites ^barley 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I mean they say its for treating attachment disorders.Fainites ^barley 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce

I think it would be better for the short form name of this report to be Chaffin et al rather than APSAC. Although Apsac set the Taskforce up it stands on its own. It sounds odd to call it APSAC which is the name of an organisation, not the report. Fainites ^barley 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AT should be in caps per general usage. I'm making those changes. RalphLender^talk 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me anybody who always uses caps (other than in headings) apart from ACT? Attachment therapy is not a specific name or proper noun. It is descriptive. This obsession with capitals is a left over from attempts by Becker-Weidman et al in earlier days (and continuing) to pretend that Attachment Therapy as described by ACT and attachment therapy as described by Chaffin et al are two unrelated things. Its nonsense. Fainites ^barley 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite links

There's many cite links that look like this:

(Chaffin et al, 2006, p78<ref name="Chaffin et al" > Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | [http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/76]</ref>).

(Chaffin et al, 2006, p83<ref name="Chaffin et al" > Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | [http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/76]</ref>).

(Chaffin et al, 2006, p78<ref name="Chaffin et al" > Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | [http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/76]</ref>).

etc

Quick tip how to do these better:

You dont need to name refs unless ONE footnote will have MULTIPLE mentions in the article, in which case it works like this (note the "/" for 2nd and further mentions):

''The report by Jim <ref name="jimsreport">http://jim.com</ref> also states this,<ref name="jimsreport" /> this,<ref name="jimsreport" /> and this,<ref name="jimsreport" />''

Page refs can go in the footnotes as well.

Most of the cites in this article can probably be better written like this:

text text text<ref>Chaffin, M. et al, 2006, p78 ''Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems''. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | [http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1/76]</ref> more text text text

which will render like this:

text text text^[1] more text text text

[1] Chaffin, M. et al, 2006, p78 Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | [1]

Likewise cites like this:

"rage-reduction therapy" (Levy & Orlans, 1998^[3]; Lien, 2004^[4]; Welch, 1989^[2]; Cline, 1992^[5]).

can be fixed to read like this:

"rage-reduction therapy" ^[3][4][2][5]....

(Also several cites seem to have inconsistent page numbers.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. When I have a moment. How do you do page numbers when you're citing lots of different pages from the same source? At the moment they're in the article which looks clumsy. Fainites ^barley 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

I was thinking of renaming this page Attachment therapy rather than Attachment Therapy. Its not a proper name and it would bring it in line with the other attachment articles like Attachment theory and Attachment disorder. Any thoughts? Fainites ^barley 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm in favor. Was browsing and I remembered something about the policy on naming. Attachment therapy is not a proper noun (Jim Smith, Tom Jones, New Orleans), and its common usage does not necessitate the capital. Part of the naming guidelines in the manual of style includes that the most common and easily intuitive name should be used. Good examples of second word not being capitalized are: Abnormal psychology, Biological psychology, Cognitive psychology, Developmental psychology (this is just psychology series, but many others too!). The "therapy" is the addendum to the word "attachment", and should be lowercase, it just makes sense. In fact, above, when asked to provide examples of people using attachment therapy capitalized, no one did, if I remember right. On the other hand, here are some examples of people using lowercase wording to describe attachment therapy consistently, and it certainly isn't proper English usage, nor in line with the manual of style. Ah well, that's my two cents! 71.7.205.74 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree. I shall ask for it to be done for fear of messing it up. (The people above you mentioned who kept changing everything to capitals are now banned by the way.) Fainites ^barley 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So, how should coercive restraint therapy be designated-- by that name, as holding therapy, or what? Its proponents initially used the term "Attachment Therapy" (both caps), thus necessitating some other term for therapy that focused on attachment. I suggest for everyone's consideration the terms "attachment-based therapy" and "attachment-related therapy" , although in fact i doubt that any child psychotherapy functions without any attachment issues being considered, whether they're accurately defined or otherwise. Attachment is the imperialistic schema of our day.Jean Mercer 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We could include 'coercive restraint therapy' in the list of names by which it is known. Its a bit like trying to hold the soap in a bath though isn't it? Fainites ^barley 21:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTACh

I've added some material from ATTACh. The previous link to the white paper from the socks was 3 years out of date. They issued a new paper in 2006. They plainly acknowledge their AT roots and say for that reason (amongst others) they are making an unequivocal statament against coercive therapy and parenting techniques. I thought this deserved inclusion. Fainites ^barley 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless Nancy Thomas is slated to speak at their 2007 conference, so the statement may be mainly cosmetic.Jean Mercer 17:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Maybe she's a convert. Fainites ^barley 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed!Jean Mercer 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Have they changed thier booklist? I thought it used to contain Foster Cline etc. (Or maybe I'm thinking of Becker-Weidmans booklist which certainly contained Foster Cline last time I looked.) Fainites ^barley 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Cline is out--- but Terry Levy, whose published work is based on Cline, is still in. Thomas is out but is presenting at the conference. Hard to tell the players without a scorecard.Jean Mercer 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Rome wasn't built in a day. It took all week I understand. Fainites ^barley 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think its worth asking ATTACh if and when they removed Cline, Thomas and Welsh etc from their Internet booklist? It could then go in the paragraph about their change of policy on all this. Fainites ^barley 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You do it, they know me. It's WelCh by the way.Jean Mercer 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well quite. They already know you. I'm in good company by the way - Speltz spelt it Welsh too.Fainites ^barley 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did, and that's why it says "sic" after it.Jean Mercer 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know - I put it there in the good old days when I could spell. 07:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs)

I used to be an excellent speller before I spent years reading student papers-- now i have my choice of misspellings to use. Alot, not to speak of alittle, and the kids are alright!Jean Mercer 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote Farm

At the moment this article is a bit of a quote farm. This was undestandable in the past as a means of defence against misrepresentation of sources, but I'm hoping to tackle this in the next few days to get something more readable. Fainites ^barley 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Milton Erickson

Should that passage saying ME was a source say also to provide a better link to his main source, Zaslow? Fainites ^barley 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Zaslow is the "main source"? I think this is arguable, as there were many strong-arm therapists at this time--- Bettelheim, John Rosen.Jean Mercer 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All the people who've written about the history of AT who've been mentioned so far cite Zaslow as the main influence. However, none of them work in a vacuum I suppose. Also, was Cline basing his ideas on Zaslow or Welsh? Fainites ^barley 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because most of the people mentioned haven't read Zaslow or Cline. Cline approved of Welch and had her out there to speak, but Zaslow was a buddy who lived in Colorado for a while, and Cline dedicates a book to him, if I recall correctly. Don't forget that this was also the time of Esalen, EST, and Fritz Perls.Jean Mercer 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So did Cline attribute his ideas to Zaslow? And who else? Fainites ^barley 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he dedicated to Zaslow and referred to his work, but he also presented the Erickson case in chunks throughout the 1992 book, citing it to Erickson only in the first section he used, so it would be easy for the naive reader to assume that the case was one of Cline's. I don't remember whether he cites Welch-- I'll have to drag out my copy, but on the whole he does not cite people, presenting the whole thing as if it were his own idea (and of course Welch's original claim was to treat autism). An interesting thread in the mix is Outward Bound and related "wilderness therapy" programs, the latter well known for the number of deaths in prone restraint, and of course more than one based in Colorado.Jean Mercer 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems Cline was in business long before Welch came on the scene. Speltz puts it as Cline adapting Welchs holding therapy. Is there any authority for what Cline was doing at his centre before Welch? Was it straight forward Z-process? Was it aimed at adopted and foster children or just badly behaved children? I have a copy of Cline on order. Maybe that will shed some light. Also Connell Watkins was there for a significant period I understand. Fainites ^barley 10:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The first published material relative to Welch that I've located is the Tinbergen & Tinbergen (1983) book, which has an appendix by Welch. My best guess is that Welch was in Evergreen in the late '80s, at about the same time as Vera Fahlberg [V.F.'s 1990 book was "Residential treatment: A tapestry of many therapies."] Cline's acquaintance with Zaslow dated back to the early '70s, when RZ was in Denver and practiced "Z-therapy" on at least one child at the Colorado School for the Blind, claiming to cure her visual impairment and to be able to treat autism, allergies, and acne, as well as other ailments not starting with the letter A. Connell Watkins became involved with Evergreen in the mid-'70s.This period was also the time of the big maternal-infant bonding push by Klaus and Kennell. Terry Levy came along some years later.

Other influences on both Zaslow and Cline would have included Bruno Bettelheim, with his stress on separating parent and child. Zaslow published in German, and I assume that Jirina Prekop influenced him, as she may also have done Welch. There are probably also influences from Transactional Analysis, in which practitioners like Jacqui Schiff favored brutal if not sadistic methods. On the popular scene, people like Werner Erhard specialized in emotional attacks that were supposed to alter their recipients' personalities.

Zaslow was the great advocate of ethological concepts such as the role of mutual gaze, and in one of his German papers he claims that a basis of human personality is the "Medusa complex", based on the power of eye contact. Welch did not specifically make similar claims, but her stress on stereotyped, repeated behaviors as determinants of personality development is really reminiscent of fixed action patterns as discussed by Lorenz and Tinbergen.

Whether Cline was interested in adopted children only, I can't tell you- Zaslow seems to have gone for both physical and psychological difficulties. Cline now has a parenting empire called Love & Logic.

And don't forget Reich! And as for the German stuff-- have you ever encountered Snoezeln? I must remember to see if it's in the German Wiki.

I'll be back next Saturday.Jean Mercer 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi automatic peer review

This article has undergone some analysis via a javascript program which spots possible MoS errors which would therefore help improve the article if these points were tackled. Good luck with your drive to obtain GA status! SriMesh | talk 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

The prose is technically good, but the article feels inaccessible to laypeople such as I. It reads like an extract from a psychiatric textbook, not like an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. (Is the subject even in the field of psychiatry, or is it in some other medical field? The article doesn't tell us - it provides insufficient context.) WP:MOSDEF advises that:

Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia. The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings. Be sure to make use of the Wiki format and link the term if there is a relevant article.

That advice is not followed here. After the lead, jargon such as "proximity seeking", "caregiver", "attachment needs", "holding process", "clinical agenda" is being used without explanation in short sequence - and that's just from the first section. Even though I have a university education, I simply cannot understand most of the article. It is also unclear why the article is structured the way it is. A layman would expect to be told what this is, why it's used by whom on whom since when, and maybe what parts of it are controversial and why. The section headings don't really tell me this.

2. Factually accurate?:

I have every reason to assume it is too accurate; see above.

3. Broad in coverage?:

The article seems to go into unnecessary details. The extensive citations from technical papers on the subject make the article appear too thorough for a general-purpose encyclopedia.

4. Neutral point of view?:

Yes, to the limited extent I understand the article at all.

5. Article stability?

Yes.

6. Images?:

No images. Is there no image on Wikimedia Commons that could illustrate "attachment" or some other concept?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Difficult article

It is hard to explain all of this in a simple manner because of all the layers of meanings of the words. And the way attachment disorder is conflated with reactive attachment disorder. But his article now is massively better than what is was before. It is a very difficult subject and the latest editors have done a great job. FatherTree 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few alterations to add explanations in the earlier sections. I've also rearranged some material as suggested. But I'm reluctant to dump information as it was such a struggle to be allowed to put information in! You have a point in that this is an area where people deliberately mislead and conceal things in the struggle for aceptance. What do you think? Fainites ^barley 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Review

Returning (briefly) to review the article since the close of the previous case, it's doing well. I'm gratified to see it has gone along the way towards GA-ship in that time. A quick review:

There are still some expressions that could be made more neutral. It's subtle, but does cast a "shade" over the article. For example - "who then seek to produce... a range of responses such as rage and despair which are considered 'cathartic' by the therapists" suggests albeit subtlely that this is a discredited view in the eyes of the article. Better: "who aim to produce... for the purpose of catharsis" or similar. Also "Attachment therapy, which purports to treat supposed disorders of attachment..."
The quote in the intro would perhaps flow better if it read "According to the Chaffin report,[REF] a major report on attachment therapies, [QUOTE]." At present the intro doesnt say what or who chaffin is, and the quote appears without prologue to the new reader.
"Attachment theory is an evolutionary theory whereby the child seeks...". If it's a theory, then presumably it should state "which proposes that the child seeks..."?
"According to O'Connor and Zeanah (2003, p. 235[7]), in contrast with accepted theories of attachment..." Needs clarifying. As a newcomer to the article that text isn't clear. According to them, WHAT, and WHAT is "in contrast" etc? (So to speak.)
"The website of Advocates for Children in Therapy, a group that campaigns against attachment therapy, 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" -- due to obvious COI potential, I'd like to see RFC on this as a matter of transparency, to confirm that the community agrees a link to the website is appropriate. It may well be (its obviously going to be a website that has relevant material and is very focussed on the issue), and there is no objection against it if so, but it would probably be good to briefly RFC it anyway to be sure that citing ACT is transparently agreed by others to be suitable.
The section on theory is not bad, but can it be improved?

The paragraph beginning "Metaphors based on..." might ben efit from reworking. It's not as easy to read or flowing as well as those round it.
Having edited Milton Erickson, and with some background, something doesn't feel right about the case description as presented. Can someone read up the case or link to the 1961 description, and check if this is actually a good, fair, summary of that case report (its aim, strategy and such?) Erickson is reported in most 3rd party literature as being a man of unduely high compassion; was the issue here attachment, or a prerceived need to reassert parental authority structures in the family, or a parent who had problems setting boundaries on antisocial behavior or what? Can someone double check this one.
Again, a big mention of ACT - RFC for transparency if it's relied upon this much?
Maybe split out 2 subsections - "theoretical background" vs. "professional views" to create 2 shorter sections from the one big one?

I';ll come back to the rest afterwards when these are looked at. The latter sections might benefit from restructuring, and grouping "like with like" in subsections, such as "theoretical background", "range of practices", "professional assessments" and the like, all under one umbrella section "psychological background", for example.

If help's needed let me know; I'd like to avoid getting into the content of this but I'd be willing to do a "once off" restructure and refactor of existing material if it'd help get this article to GA standard.

Good work so far :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Milton Erickson thing seemed a bit unusual for him. I'll look up the Foster Cline version and see if jeanmercer can dig up the original 1961 paper. Fainites ^barley 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cline quotes just about the entire Erickson paper verbatim, in chunks throughout his book, with a citation given only for the first chunk, so it appears almost as if it's Cline's own case. The paper is

Erickson, M. (1962). The identification of a secure reality. Family Process, 1(2), 294-303.

This describes the hours of sitting on the child, feeding him on cold oatmeal, and the successful outcome-- he trembles when his mother speaks to him.

The presenting problem, by the way, was that a divorced mother found her 8-year-old son defiant, and this was a problem because he objected to her dating.

Incidentally, if you ever saw Erickson at work, which I did on one occasion not long after this article was published, you might consider his manipulativeness to be as characteristic as his compassion. I don't criticize-- this may be needed in a good clinician-- but it's a mistake to think he always had kindness as his highest priority. Jean Mercer 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of the ideas Erickson developed, and that were carried on by Jay Haley, have been applied in distorted fashion by AT practitioners. for example, "paradoxical interventions" have been used in the form of forced eating and drinking methods used by parents whose children have 'stolen' food and drink.There has been at least one death as a result. Unfortunately, much of the information about this is confined to newspaper reports, Internet archives, etc., or is confidential matter obtained in the course of a criminal investigation. In my opinion, the impact of the Erickson-related practices is greatest in "AT parenting" methods-- what happens in the therapy session is related but not as intense and unrelenting, but evidence either for or against this point is difficult to present.

Probably the case that best represents some of the actual AT parenting practices is California vs. Vasquez, 2007. There was extensive newspaper coverage of this trial.

I'd like to point out that some of the comments above in this section address issues that are difficult to work with in an intellectually honest way. Yes, to say that AT "purports" to do something carries the implication that it's not successful-- but indeed, it isn't successful, and in many cases the claimed effect is not possible. (For example, there does not seem to be any such thing as catharsis, so a claim to achieve this cannot be accepted as reality-based.)

In my own work, I've sometimes said things like " the practitioners do X WITH THE INTENTION OF achieving Y". Would this language be evaluated as neutral?Jean Mercer 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants some of the details of this matter might want to look at Nancy Spoolstra's blog, where she's currently describing how she's treating a child, "Dora", who was handed over to her by the former adoptive mother in what appears to have been an informal, extra-system transfer of custody.Jean Mercer 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Its difficult to split theoretical base from history, as its theoretical development is its history to a large extent. Has anyone else got any ideas on this? Fainites ^barley 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jean & FT2. In my copy of Cline, the whole Joe case is quoted from extensively from page 96 to 101. Its mostly Erickson himself with Cline adding comments in italics. Its the original 1992 version of the book. Cline obviously considers it very important in illustrating the principles he propounds. He sets them out as 1.taking control, 2. the childs expression of rage; and, 3. relaxation and the development of bonding. He calls it holding therapy - by a therapeutic genius. Its essentially a power struggle between an out of control boy and his mother. She wins the power struggle. Where 'bonding' comes in is hard to see. Personally I'm never quite sure how this translates into 'attachment' with new carers for maltreated and disturbed foster children. Cline seems to recognise that it worked on this boy because he actually had a good bond with his mother and years of good parenting. His prescription for a disturbed, foster child was to do more of it for longer!!!! I would be very surprised if Erickson recommended this kind of thing to force 'attachment' in disturbed abused children to new carers with whom they had no historical attachment. Its easy to see how it may force obedience though. Fainites ^barley 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as far as Cline was concerned,and perhaps as far as he's still concerned, there is no attachment without obedience-- forcing obedience creates attachment. "Attachment therapy" might actually be better named "obedience therapy", but those of us who have written about it used the name the treatment's proponents preferred.Jean Mercer 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird idea though. Whereabouts does Cline mix it up so its unclear who's case it is? Fainites ^barley 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He gives pieces of the case as sidebars, and if I remember correctly provides a source only for the first piece he uses. Someone who was just leafing through the book would not necessarily know where the case came from. This book was put out by a local publisher who did not provide the editing services that would have prevented that.Jean Mercer 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that was changed in the version I've got which is a sort of large 10" by 12" affair. He says 'Erickson recounts a case' and then sets out most of it in slightly smaller print with his comments interspersed in italics. he then goes on and doesthe same in relation to Helen keller and so on and so on. I said 'original' 1992 version above because it says copyright 1992. Was there an earlier version? Its "EC Publications" Fainites ^barley 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not much doubt, FT2, that although Erickson is most well known for his development of soft, suggestive, permissive approaches, he could certainly do the authoritarian stuff too. Fainites ^barley 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Review II

I've made a few changes along the lines suggested by FT2 (aswell as the GA review). I'd be grateful if someone would check them out. Fainites ^barley 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the ACT material. I have only left in their description of what they say the characteristics of attachment therapy is - its in the treatment characteristics section. Also one sentence in 'prevalence'. I can see FT2's point about using their material as a primary source as opposed to citing what they say - clearly attributed. I'm not sure how you do an RfC. I'll have a look. Fainites ^barley 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Attachment-based therapies

I just want to note that there are a number of mainstream treatments associated with the attachment concept-- in fact, it would be difficult to find many where attachment and relationships play no role. But not all of the "recognized" interventions for children are psychoanalytic in nature. A number of them emphasize parent training and work on parental attachment status, and others take more of a wraparound approach and attempt to deal with practical issues (e.g. parent adjudication for child abuse) as well as psychodynamic concerns. I agree that in order to define AT clearly, we need to say what it isn't, but I don't think it's accurate to stress psychoanalytically-oriented treatments as the major alternative. For example, I don't think it's accurate to identify PCIT or COS as psychoanalytic in anything but the historical sense.

If we look at AT in its first historical period (Zaslow to conviction of Watkins and Ponder, roughly), we see characteristics unshared with mainstream treatments: concern with obedience rather than insight; establishment of adult authority seen as essential step to mental health; belief that attachment begins prenatally; belief that separation from bio mother at any age before preschool period causes rage and makes further attachment impossible; belief that children with poor attachment histories will become serial killers; belief in McDonald's triad; lack of concern with developmentally appropriate practice. These features are so dramatically different from the assumptions underlying any mainstream treatment that I think we've said it all when we say "not mainstream".

It may be that discussion of these assumptions would be more informative for the reader than any attempt to list members of an alternative category.Jean Mercer 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Attachment and safety needs

I question the statement in this article that a child's safety needs are met by the occurrence of attachment. If this means that actual safety needs are more likely to be met when the child is in an actual attachment relationship with an adult, that's true. but in fact infants do not seem to be aware of safety needs until the point when they are beginning to show attachment behavior. Normally, fearfulness and attachment behaviors develop roughly simultaneously, and it may be the new capacity for fearfulness that drives the development of attachment. I just want the article to avoid the common misconception that very young infants (a few months) are frightened and need to be made to feel secure. They can certainly be distressed and uncomfortable, and need comfort which often familiar people know best how to give, but that's a different matter.

I think the confusion (in the paragraph that mentions safety needs) comes out of the wish to merge Bowlby's views and E.H. Erikson's trust vs. mistrust stage, which is not nearly as easy to do as you'd think. Jean Mercer 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which bit do you mean? Fainites ^barley 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-- what DO I mean? I can't find it any more, so maybe it got re-written out of the way.Jean Mercer 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I did remove the Erickson stuff. But I think the attachment theory page ought to have a section on attachment theory and psychoanalysis. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - Erikson. Fainites ^barley 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Attachment and Psychoanalysis

Joe Schwartz responding to Fainites

I think the artiucle is quite good. Thoughtful and consdered. But as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, a member of the John BOwlby Centre and a frequent writer on clinical issues the question of attachment therapy doesn't engage me much except to be able to point to alernatives particularly my own so to speak, The entry now does that. I am also aware that there can be and usually is considerable tension between psychologists and psychoanalysts/ psychotherapists. Again I think it is difficult to engage these tensions productively as each side tends to defend its turf rtaher than engage openly. I discuss these tensions in my book Cassandra's Daughter: A History of Psychoanalysis in Europe and America, Chapter 1 particularly (Penguin/Viking 1999).

I also want to apologise for my beginners status. It can be irritating to explain things to beginners and I wish I could promise that I'll be a fast learner about the rules and procedures.But I won't be. For example the question of references and their templates has me in a state of terror. HOW DO YOU DO IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

People are generally pretty good about explaining things to newcomers - there's even a policy on it called 'don't bite the newbies', but then on Wiki there's generally a policy about everything. I found one of the best way to work things out is to look at what others have done. Thats how I did it! If you click on 'edit' you can see all the details about how everything has been done and then just copy how the others do refs and titles and things. Most of the 'how to' pages you can find on that table I put on your talkpage.

For a ref you put eg, ref name="William et al 1066" inside two little sideways triangles <>. Followed by the names of authors, date, title of paper (or book) followed by the name of the journal, volume (or edition) page numbers of article, page number of bit you're citing + ISBN number.

When you've done all that you put the two little sideways triangles again with ref/ inside. This ends the ref. This should then automatically create one of those little numbers. If you click on the little number it takes you to the ref - provided someone else has already set up a ref list. To set up a ref list, you put in the title References with two equals signs either side. Then on the line below you type two curly brackets, the word references and then two closing curly brackets. After that it just automatically sorts all the refs you put in.

If you want to repeat a ref , its inside the two sideways triangles again you copy the bit inside ie ref name="William et al 1066", then put a slash / then the second little triangle. I can't type it all out because otherwise it would create it all here!

Thanks for your compliments about this article by the way. What JeanMercer and I started to do was expand the Child psychotherapy article to cover all therapies aimed at children rather than have bits scattered all over the shop. Some of the more important ones already have their own articles and some don't. We also wanted to get round the problem that 'psychotherapy' in the UK tends to refer to the psychoanalytical end of things, but in the USA covers the whole gamut. However, it looks as if this will ultimately make the article too big. I suppose there could be one on behaviourist, one on psychoanalytical and one on attachment based - but then some therapies would be candidates for both. Do you have any ideas? Fainites ^barley 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, on talkpages, you sign youself by typing four of these ~ things. The rest is done automatically. Fainites ^barley 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Josephschwartz-- I confess that i sometimes put in the citation, just in the ordinary way, intending to come back and put in the little greater-than and less-than signs. Then with any luck a kind person like Fainites does it for me. But s/he should stop and force me to do my own housework.Jean Mercer 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, once you've come to an edit page, you can look at how someone else has done it and copy their way.Jean Mercer 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One more point, just by the way: most proponents of this "attachment therapy" are not psychologists. There are quite a few who are clinical social workers, and still others are actually without formal training in mental health. One, for example, is a veterinarian by training. There have been physicians too. There is an organization that gives training in these or related methods and provides credentials stating that the person is a registered attachment therapist. But we're not talking about training in any ordinary university or hospital setting. This is "complementary or alternative" stuff.Jean Mercer 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't one a dog trainer? or is that the vetinarian. Fainites ^barley 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Thomas is a dog trainer, Nancy Spoolstra a veterinarian.Jean Mercer 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my copy of Nancy Thomas an 18 month old should:

Come, when called first time
Go, to room or wherever sent
No means NO - not continue to test limits or start whining and arguing
Sit
Stay where they are told (in their chair, car seat, play area, etc) p11.

I think she's missed out fetching your lead to go walkies but apart from that it seems to cover most things. Fainites ^barley 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's an interesting article that NT should read:

Dix, T., Stewart, A., Gershoff, E.T., & day, W.H. (2007). Autonomy and children's reactions to being controlled: Evidence that both compliance and defiance may be positive markers in early development. Child development, Vol. 78, 1204-1221.Jean Mercer 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not-mainstream

You know, nowhere in the article do we specifically say that this is "alternative" treatment. Would it be opening a definitional can of worms if we did that? Saying not-mainstream is polite, but it may convey to some readers the idea that this is generally accepted but not very common. But I don't want to wander into the morass of trying to define both "mainstream" and "alternative".Jean Mercer 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to define it. I had rather assumed that alternative medicines are proud to be considered alternative but there is an article on Wiki which gives several definitions in its intro. Complementary is different again. Attachment therapy - as previously presented here by - was claiming to be mainstream. What do ATTACh say on the subject? Fainites ^barley 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past, they've made a point of saying that conventional therapies only make RAD worse, an idea that was also implied by the becker-Weidman article.

I wonder whether the term "unconventional" would be easier to define than "alternative". I didn't use "complementary" because that means interventions that are used in addition to conventional treatment-- like dietary supplements, for example. I would say that in order to be "conventional" or "mainstream", a treatment should be taught at more than a few accredited institutions, and in the U.S. should be reimbursed without question by both public and private health insurance. Jean Mercer 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose here it's as taught in medical schools/recognised by the BMA/under the NHS. There are anomolies - like clinical hypnosis which is recognised by the BMA and used in hospitals, but not taught in medical schools. I can't think of a better word than 'mainstream' though. Would psychoanalysis count as mainstream?Fainites ^barley 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly say so (psychoanalysis). But don't forget that interventions may be 'mainstream" but not used by medical people, so one has to look to venues other than medical schools for evidence. "Mainstream" is a fine word for things that are mainstream, but i want a word meaning NOT mainstream. Do you object to using the term "alternative" if i can offer a reasonable definition? If that's a problem, how about unconventional or atypical? Jean Mercer 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe? Unconventional? Non-mainstream? Bywater? Backwater? Not recognised? Unorthodox? Pseudoscience? I'm not that keen on the use of the word 'alternative' as I think that has connotations of things like acupuncture, herbalism and so on and suggests something that is deliberately outside the mainstream for a reason rather than because mainstream theories and practices have been misunderstood. I think non-mainstream or unconventional are the best choices. What definition of alternative would you propose? Fainites ^barley 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See what I wrote, especially what i added to the theory part. I think it's appropriate to say "alternative" because it is in fact (or was) a choice rather than simply a misunderstanding. This is validated by the history of various disapproving remarks stating that conventional treatments make RAD worse, suggesting that AT proponents considered their methods essentially different, not just different in a few details.

I'd say that an alternative treatment 1)is based on unusual a priori assumptions and has a rationale different from conventional treatment, 2)is chosen as a result of rejection of conventional treatment (that's why it's "alternative"), 3)is not taught through accredited institutions or by national professional organizations, 4) is not usually paid for by health insurance, and 5)has no clear supportive evidence for efficacy.

All these things were true for the first historical period of AT. The extent to which they're true now is difficult to know. Part of the problem is that the parenting methods are kept pretty private and are taught by lecture and private publication-- not through journal articles.Jean Mercer 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes that's fine. Nice paragraph! I think we need a citation for your first paragraph in history and theory though. Is it a paraphrase of your paper or a number of papers? (I also wondered whether or not 2001 was a little bit early). Also, should it say 'accompanying' parenting techniques rather than 'adjuvant' as that is not a word the average lay reader will have come across. Finally 'misunderstanding' referred to the misunderstanding and misapplication of psychoanalytic theories and terminology.Fainites ^barley 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How about one of these

Attachment therapy
This article is part of the branches of CAM series.
Complementary and alternative medicine Classifications
NCCAM:	Mind-Body Intervention
Modality:	Professionalized
Culture:	Western/USA

It could then go in the CAM glossary which you can see if you click "Complementary and alternative medicine Classifications.' Fainites ^barley 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those all sound like good ideas. I'll change 'adjuvant" and add a source. As for "misunderstanding", that's what I thought you meant, but the initial assumptions are so different that it seems to me to amount to a choice of "universe".

I chose 2001 because as soon as Watkins and Ponder were convicted in that year, ATTACh began to scurry around to set new guidelines and to say that they didn't do that anymore. From that point, there seems to me to have been a division into the old guard, anti-professional, anti-mainstream group, and those who want some respectability. But there's no date when the sky fell-- it just seems that the trial was a watershed.

By the way, there's a social work textbook edited by Sophie Dziegielewski that is highly supportive of holding, especially of the Welch type. Must remmeber to put that in.Jean Mercer 13:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A assume that ref was for the book re AT and Candace Newmaker so I've put it in. The papers already cited are for 2002 and 2005. The old guard are still alive and kicking though. NT's recent edition doesn't specifically advocate holding for legal reasons but firmly recommends reading Marth Welch. Becker Weidman cited Hughes 1997 book, which advocated holding and age regression, in his papers which were piblished in 2006 - though that would be just historical accuracy. Fainites ^barley 16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt that holding is still out there in many forms. But unless someone can go underground to some of the related events, lectures, etc., it's quite difficult to state accurately who is doing it. Also, the switch from RAD to these some-kind-of-trauma things will definitely muddy the waters by moving to some names other than "attachment therapy". Jean Mercer 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is one of the terrible weakness of psychotherapy regulation in general. Since the industry is consumer regulated meaning nothing is looked at till there is complaint as long as the 'therapist' and client are in agreement it is difficult to enforce that the therapies must be effective. In AT therapy the counties benefit since as long as the parents do not un-adopt they will be saving money. And if the child is labelled as mentally ill that gets the mother off the hook for bad parenting. The parents usually do not have to pay anything for AT therapy so financially it is OK with them. Plus any sadistic tendencies will be reinforced since the almost cruel parenting techniques are encouraged. The therapists get a lot of unmonitored funds. The only people that would really benefit from having stricter regulation on AT therapy would be the adoptees and the taxpayers and both of those groups have little political clout. Plus since all records are 'confidential' no one on the outside can see them to intervene. And now the AT therapists are going more toward biofeedback and EMDR and diagnosing as ADHD which at least is taking the cruelty aspect more out of it but still adoptive kids are being used as a cash flow source for these therapists. And the holding is being done more within guidelines. FatherTree 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its compounded by the fact that these therapies do not state clearly what they consist of. Its a real problem with something like DDP where on the one hand Hughes gives a list of attachment therapy techniques which he does not want as part of DDP including holding therapy and various parenting techniques, yet he cites the BW studies, for therapies undertaken in 2000/01, in support of DDP. This despite the fact that BW cites Hughes 1997 book and Nancy Thomas in that study. The Kansas University paper makes the point also about BW's website in 2004 citing studies by Randolph and Myeroff as an 'evidence base' for DDP from which they deduced that DDP as practiced by BW was as described in those studies on holding therapy, rather than what is subsequently described by Hughes. The point being that if its not even possible to be clear what the therapy is from published studies, there's little chance of being clear on what it is in general. Fainites ^barley 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the trauma bit - the van der Kolk bandwagon is the one being jumped on now I think. Not that thats a criticism of van der Kolk at all. Fainites ^barley 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean - isn't the target group of patients the same for both time periods? Fainites ^barley 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC) As far as i know--- the only difference would be the frequency of foreign adoptions at different times.Jean Mercer 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying in the intro but I think it creates the impression that standard style AT is really a thing of the past. The most recent court case at which Foster Cline gave evidence was this year wasn't it? And Welch has only recently published a 'pilot' study. I suggest the following for the intro:

Attachment therapy is the name applied to a category of alternative child mental health interventions by practitioners and proponents of such treatments, including the accompanying parenting techniques which proponents consider as important as the therapy itself.

Attachment therapy is primarily aimed at fostered or adopted children whose behavioral difficulties are ascribed to a failure to 'attach' to their new parents because of past maltreatment. Probably the most common form of attachment therapy is 'holding' therapy, in which a child is firmly held (or lain upon) by therapists and/or parents, who then seek to produce in the child a range of responses such as rage and despair for the purpose of 'catharsis'. Control over the children is usually considered essential and the therapy is often accompanied by parenting techniques which emphasised obedience. The aim is to promote attachment with the new carers.

Following publicity for adverse events, including the death of a child in 2000 during an attachment therapy 'intensive', some advocates of attachment therapy began to alter views and practices in ways that would be less potentially dangerous to children. Attachment therapy therefore divides into two periods, the first from about 1975 to 2001 and the second from 2001 to date.

Presently, there seem to be two groups involved in interventions that resemble those described above. One group has attempted to come more into line with mainstream practices and has produced guidelines prohibiting some of the older treatments, including physically coercive practices. Another group, which stresses the importance of parenting techniques, continues to use methods that focus on obedience and affectionate behavior toward caregivers. These historical shifts have made it difficult to say what attachment therapy may or may not mean in current discourse, but there is little doubt what it meant before 2001.

This form of therapy is not considered to be part of mainstream psychology and differs from both mainstream attachment based therapies and talking psychotherapies such as attachment-based psychotherapy and relational psychoanalysis.Fainites ^barley 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This suits me-- but I do think we need to be cautious about assuming that no one changes their thinking. E.g., you feel Hughes has genuinely changed-- why would Cline's testimony necessarily involve his old views?

Once again, I am completely convinced that the old guard are at the old stand, but I cannot supply evidence to support this view, and I have to accept the possibility that ATTACh's guidelines are sincere and mean what they say. It would be a shame to give people the idea that whoever refers to attachment is an AT practitioner of the old school.

I don't understand Orangemarlin's view-- is that we're not sufficiently critical?Jean Mercer 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. People can and do change. Hence the inclusion of ATTACh statements and what the Taskforce say. It was only that I thought to much emphasis on division too early gave the impression of a complete sea change across the board - before the reader knew what AT even was. It is difficult to know who has changed and who hasn't!

As for Orangemarlin - I assume from his edit summary he considers the article insufficiently critical but until he explains - who knows in what way. Fainites ^barley 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In relation to your point about the old guard at the old stand and evidence - it seems to me that given the substantial quantity of evidence about what AT is, it is up to proponents to provide evidence of change, rather than act as if none of it ever really happened as per the old article. Hughes is an example of one who has gone public on it. ATTACh only really got to grips with it in their second statement as linked to in this article. Fainites ^barley 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re tag

I have left a message for Orangemarlin asking him to explain his tag as would be normal when leaving a neutrality tag. Fainites ^barley 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as there's been no comeback from OM. Hopefully if he's got a particular point to make he'll come and say so.Fainites ^barley 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note some one has put the article in the 'pseudoscience' category. That's fine by me. It probably fulfills about every definition of pseudoscience there is. The reason why I raise it is because there has been discussion elsewhere as to whether you can name something a pseudoscience without finding a decent secondary source which says so. In other words if you go through the criteria and decide it meets them - is that OR? Fainites ^barley 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You can cite "Attachment Therapy on Trial", if you want a source.Jean Mercer 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh great. Does it call it a pseudoscience then? Fainites ^barley 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Curses-- it looks like we never used that word! We said "fringe therapy" and "unvalidated treatment", which was a term I had cooked up to try to avoid the emotional flavor of "pseudoscience." But there's a whole chapter showing how AT fails to meet the criteria that would give it scientific status.Jean Mercer 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with 'fringe' is that the word implies something minor or insignificant - or at least it does to me but maybe I'm on the fringe on this. AT is outside the mainstream and is unvalidated and unscientific - but it's not really minor or insignificant. Fainites ^barley 12:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about unvalidated alternative intervention? Of course nothing suits the case like "pseudoscience", but i can't give you anything to quote that uses that word. I agree that fringe sounds unimportant. And words like "fraud" and 'charlatanism" get you in trouble. Oh, you know what--Scott Lilienfeld included AT in a list of what he called "potentially harmful treatments", but unfortunately the description of AT as it went to press was not completely accurate. Eventually a one-page corrigendum I submitted will come out, but not yet. Want to consider using that PHT term? I'll scrounge up the reference, if so.Jean Mercer 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 'unvalidated alternative intervention' or 'therapy' suits. The PHT term is also good - but with the rider that not all recent AT's fit that mode. Which is the Scott Lilienfield paper? Fainites ^barley 10:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If its his book he only mentions Candace Newmaker. Fainites ^barley 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Its under 3) Unvalidated or scientifically unsupported mental health practices can be harmful of his raison d'etre for the Scientific Mental Health Review. [2] Fainites ^barley 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological science, 2(1), 53-70.

This specifically lists AT as potentially harmful, but the definition of AT is not sufficiently broad.Jean Mercer 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence basis

No meta-analysis has been done on this material, nor is a meta-analysis any help if the basic research design is inappropriate-- so is there any point in talking about meta-analysis?Jean Mercer 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FT2 put that bit in to show what 'evidence based' meant, on the basis there was no point arguing about whether DDP was evidence based or not without the reader knowing what the point of the argument was. (Bit difficult to do a meta-analysis on two studies!) Fainites ^barley 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Parenting methods

How about a separate section dealing with Thomas, and the Vasquez and Gravelle cases?Jean Mercer —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. There's already a short article on the Gravelles. Why not a section on all the AT death/abuse court cases? If that makes it too big it could be a linked article. Which ones are the Vasquez and Thomas cases? Fainites ^barley 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas is Nancy Thomas. Vasquez is the one i went to California for, where the mother kept three adopted children in cages and gave a fourth Lupron to delay her puberty. Ms. Vasquez said Thomas's book was her "Bible". It had been given to her by her adoption caseworker.Jean Mercer 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But yes, a separate section would be good. Some of the nancy Spoolstra blog should go somewhere, though.Jean Mercer 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which was the recent case where Foster Cline gave evidence? The stuff about how the child had driven the mother to it? At this stage I suppose the only sources are newspaper reports and any case reports. If its anything like it is here, only a few cases get formally 'reported' in full in law books. Over here of course cases relating to children are all anonymised.Fainites ^barley 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was the death of Lucas Ciambrone. See childrenintherapy.org for sources. Cline had testified when the mother was first tried and had given the AT view of RAD. Now he came back for the same purpose.

We don't ordinarily get names named unless the child is dead.Jean Mercer 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Two trials - the last being 2007 - when Cline testified again. Were the parents using AT or AT parenting techniques in that one? Fainites ^barley 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The mother originally got off on diminished responsibility, but after a period of years in a mental hospital was said to be competent to stand trial again. As far as i can tell from the newspaper reports, the treatment of the child may have been common or garden abuse, which of course overlaps in some particulars with AT parenting. Cline's testimony was about how the child might make the mother do things, or injure himself on purpose-- just like the testimony about David Polreis, who was claimed to have beaten himself to death with a wooden spoon. (If this weren't so awful, you'd think it was a comedy routine.) Whether Cline's presence means that AT practitioners had been involved, I can't tell. There certainly are such people in that part of Florida-- in fact, the Ciambrone case was in an area near another case (fortunately the child was not injured) that I advised on-- that one never went to criminal court, but came up in a child custody proceeding.Jean Mercer 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We could include those cases where either an attachment therapist was involved, such as the Gravelles, or specifically AT parenting techniques. Fainites ^barley 12:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section for notable cases. Fainites ^barley 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable cases

Killpack, Tibbets, Viktor Matthey, David Polreis, Jeannie Warren, Logan Marr, should all be included. I don't know what rules guide discussion of living people. Jean Mercer 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. It has to be accurate otherwise its potentially defamatory. It also has to be properly sourced. Is there a source for the 'book' in the Vasquez case? It also has to be written 'conservatively with regard for the persons privacy'. Key point - encyclopaedia - not tabloid press. Fainites ^barley 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a source, but I have to figure out my source for the source. I want to make sure it's something i can name.Jean Mercer 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of the police interview (LM) where she says she used a blanket wrap technique she'd 'picked up' from Daniel Hughes (as a caseworker - he wasn't involved in the case) and that it was all about 'control'. [3] Fainites ^barley 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironical. [4] Fainites ^barley 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

However, Logan Marr didn't die in a blanket wrap, but with duct tape over her mouth, as I recall.Jean Mercer 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The only connection with AT appears to be the application by her of AT techniques she'd 'picked up' before the death. She was using blanket wraps. Tying her up and gagging her with duct tape and leaving her in a basement is another thing altogether. Why is she included in AT lists of cases? Fainites ^barley 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are there different rules for talking about surviving children than about adults?Jean Mercer 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't think why there should be (meaning children would be entitled to at least the same protection). There may be legal rules about naming children who are the subject of court proceedings. There are over here anyway. Fainites ^barley 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Logan Marr: this was a period of time when duct tape use was discussed by some AT advocates on line-- also, the child was fostered, and there were various references to RAD. I don't have all this at my fingertips right now, but the foster mother had previously been an adoption worker and had been trained by the state in AT approaches. (I need to read the details again.) But actually your question applies to just about all AT-associated deaths, as the methods used overlap with ordinary child abuse, especially with some punishments once thought acceptable and now rejected. If a child is starved and beaten and eventually dies as a result, what evidence is required in order to conclude that this was AT rather than just general awfulness? Mostly, the assumption has been made that if the parent had received specific AT instruction and advice, a death of this kind can be connected with AT, and if the parent seems never to have heard of such a thing, it's ordinary abuse, not AT. I usually try to say that the death is "associated" with AT rather than caused by it. Even in Candace Newmaker's case, her death was not caused by common AT methods, but occurred in what should have been almost harmless circumstances, which were prolonged to a lethal extent by commitment to AT beliefs. It's a matter of considering a type of intention, not the intention to kill, but the intention to follow unusual procedures in order [they think]to bring about changes, in ways congruent with the AT belief system. Michael Shermer referred to this as "death by theory".

An interesting example is the Krystal Tibbets case, in which the father followed instructions to lie down on the child, which he received as part of the adoption proceedings. He was concerned about doing this, but said in a later interview that because he was trained as a nurse he knew that bonding was very important, so he did it. His own pre-existing theories jibed with the AT beliefs in a way that proved fatal to the child. So what's responsible-- his previous not-too-accurate training, or instructions given by a therapist, or AT itself, or his and his wife's profound desire to do as they were told so the adoption would go through? Is this an AT death, and if not why not?

If you can suggest a better way to parse this matter, I'll be happy to hear it.Jean Mercer 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. If each section says if and how and to what extent AT ideas/practices were associated. In relation to Logan Marr - there's the control thing - but thats difficult to evidence. She says to the police about the blanket roll and 'it's all about control'. Presumably even ATers didn't advocate duct tape over the mouth. Echoes of Victorian pedagogy - about the necessity of breaking a childs will or spirit. Fainites ^barley 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know, duct tape was not advocated in print, but there were chat group remarks about it. Of course these can't be sourced, and one can't argue that they're representative of some larger shared philosophy.

It's not only Victorian-- it's like the so-called "black pedagogy" of 19th century Germany-- also, some of these methods were acceptable "folk pedagogy" in the rural U.S. even when I was a child, and today they are advocated by people like the Pearls.

It's hard to figure out when, historically, certain changes in view occurred. For example, In the Quaker schools of the town where i live, paddling was still used in the later 1800s, even though the adults were committed to the peace testimony--- this concept was not applied to childrearing.

Anyway, yes, I think we're best advised simply to state known AT connections to child deaths.

By the way, good point about Sears. I critiqued his material in my Attachment book-- I believe it's all harmless, but it certainly is not linked with any systematic evidence about early development. Jean Mercer 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you found that ref for the book used in the Vasquez case yet? Fainites ^barley 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, but I'm not sure it was ever mentioned in published reports. That means I may not have a usable source for it.Jean Mercer 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaders in field?

Fainites, you mentioned Popper as a leader-- do you mean Sally Popper? Why do you say she's a leader-- do you see her as more of a leader than others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Mercer (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was quoting the Taskforce. They name Popper, Kelly and Hughes at various points as leaders.Fainites ^barley 18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sally Popper and Victoria Kelly are leaders in the ATTACh organization, but i don't think they're leaders in the sense Hughes is.Jean Mercer 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Kelly and Popper they say:

A paradigm shift has been described as occurring within the attachment therapy field, moving away from coercive or confrontational models and toward models based on parent–child attunement and emotional regulation skills and has been embraced by many leaders in the field (Kelly, 2006; Popper, 2006)

Re Hughes and Popper they say:

If a leading attachment therapist is listing these specific techniques as examples of practices that he wants kept out of his treatment model, presumably somebody somewhere in the attachment therapy world must be practicing them. More important, Hughes went on to describe how his own practice of attachment therapy has changed during the years, specifically in terms of less emphasis on parental victory in power struggles, less use of holding techniques, and rejection of cathartic or dysregulated ventilation of past trauma in favor of approaches that sound very similar to well-supported gradual exposure techniques. Along with this, he offered some discussion of how he came to reconsider some of his own past attachment therapy practices. Similarly, Popper (2006) reflected on the historical origins of many confrontational or coercive attachment therapy models and went on to describe how newer research on child trauma and trauma interventions is moving the attachment therapy field in the direction of models based on attunement and emotion regulation rather than confrontation and coercion.

So thats the context. Its all about moving away from coercion and confrontation into 'effective attunement' etc. Fainites ^barley 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The important point is the claim about the shift-- I just wondered, because Kelly and Popper are not authors of original material as Hughes has been.Jean Mercer 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of material from ACT

A possible issue has been raised on the appropriateness of inclusion of material from Advocates for Children in Therapy. This is an organisation which campaigns against attachment therapy. The Chairman of its board of professional advisors, Prof. Jean Mercer, is an editor on this page and other attachment and child development related pages and edits under her own name. Jean Mercer herself has not, as far as I can ascertain, added the ACT material.

Some attributed material in the sections 'Treatment characteristics...', 'Prevalence....' and 'Evidence basis....' comes from the ACT website [5]. Fainites ^barley 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't add the ACT material. Is it verbatim? Jean Mercer 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's material from ATTACh, too-- so do two opposing advocacy groups = neutrality? I'm not sure I understand the issue being raised. Jean Mercer 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested by FT2 - see above. Fainites ^barley 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem about removing the statement about prevalence-- I can't state any evidence to show either that it's growing or that it's not. There are lots of other possible sources for the other material, and perhaps a solution would be to add sources rather than to remove ACT as a source, and to identify ACT as an advocacy group. I also feel that ATTACh should be clearly identified as an advocacy group; I don't mind keeping their material on here, because it is relevant to the changing status of AT.Jean Mercer 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Evidence basis material, I don't see it as having "come from" the ACT web site-- both passages came out of the same background, that's all. If anyone has reason to think that the material presented is inaccurate, I hope he or she will come forward to explain this.Jean Mercer 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its suggested its inaccurate. FT2 thought we ought to ask for outside views on whether an advocacy group is a suitable source. Personally I think if its said its an advocacy group and clearly attributed its not a problem. It is identified as an advocacy group that campaigns against AT. I agree with you about the evidence base section. I think ACT views are relevent in prevalence though because prevalence is difficult to ascertain unless you get heavily involved. Fainites ^barley 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't say they're irrelevant-- I just think 1)it's not well-defined what sort of prevalence we're talking about-- governmental agencies paying for AT, individuals receiving it, web sites advertising it?, and 2)I don't know another source for the statement, whatever it refers to. Perhaps it should be phrased "In the opinion of the advocacy group ACT...". I think this is a bit like the argument about autism rates-- you don't know whether the disorder is becoming more common, or whether diagnostic and reporting practices have changed.Jean Mercer 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All right! A special bending-over-backward exercise in rhetorical gymnastics.Jean Mercer 01:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

^{[clarification needed]} Fainites ^barley 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just meant, the way you inserted the statement about ACT advocacy. It was good, but as you've said before, perhaps not entirely necessary.Jean Mercer 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wot you mean the way they call themselves 'Advocates' is a bit of a giveaway? Fainites ^barley 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Only to clever clogses such as yourself.-- Jean Mercer (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's two g's in 'cloggses'. Fainites ^barley 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Iss nott! Hey-- is your name really ffainites?Jean Mercer (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yessss! (What hass it got in itss pocketsesss?) Fainites ^barley 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thing you came back to closssse thossse parenthesseessssss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Mercer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the point of the RfC is to solicit outside opinions, I thought I'd chime in and say that I think the material is fine. shotwell (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Shotwell-- nice to "see" you.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eisner

Eisner in "The Death of Psychotherapy" has a chapter on cathartic therapies in which he covers Primal therapy, est, LGATs and what he calls Attack therapies. He traces the roots to 'direct therapy' and 'z-therapy' citing Zaslow and Rosen who he says both lost their licences. He cites the heirs of this as the 'feeling therapies' in the 70's and 'rage reduction' for children, with the use of both physical coercion and taunting and teasing. Aswell as Zaslow and Cline he cites Magid and McKelvey - as described in 1994 in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Does anyone have this? It seems to be called 'Bath H (1994), The physical restraint of children: is it therapeutic? Am J Orthopsychiatry 64:40-49 '.Fainites ^barley 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Bath article-- it's cited in "Attachment Therapy On Trial" and elsewhere. Bath concluded that restraint is possibly therapeutic, and his conclusion has been echoed much more recently by David Ziegler, with about the same supporting evidence, i.e. not much.

Rosen did lose his license, as I recall, in the wake of an incident when a patient was pushed down a flight of stairs. (Notice me not saying that Rosen did it!)

I would maintain that the roots go back a good deal farther than what Eisner suggests and that they're connected in the U.S. with the William Allanson White institute and the influence of the Ferenczi school of thought-- this group tended to reject the idea of the "objective" therapist and to stress the need for personal engagement of the therapist in the relationship with the patient. You have Ferenczi influence "over there" via Winnicott and R.D. Laing.

However, it's difficult to figure out when any idea really began. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to present more history, don't forget Jirina Prekop. I wonder about a connection between JP and Martha Welch, but haven't found one.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Her website says;

"Due of her interest in autism, she took over Holding Therapy from Martha Welch (USA) under the personal scientific consultation of Nobel prize winner Niko Tinbergen (Oxford). She then linked this with the systemic approach of Bert Hellinger and developed it in her own terms into a medium for renewing love in the context of family bonds." [6]

I don't think she means 'took over'. Welch still practices. Fainites ^barley 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Caution to GA reviewers

This article has a long and murky history of conflict and charges/countercharges regarding WP:NPOV, including resorting to RfC and it seems perhaps also mediation (?). The relevant archived discussion threads are long and more than a little involved. While that does not automagically disqualify it under WP:WIAGA, it raises red flags, esp. regarding potential NPOV probs. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed out arbitration in that list there Ling.Nut. See [7]. Seven editors (or rather one editor and his 6 socks) were banned, 6 by the end of August and the last by the end of October 2007.[8] The edit warring and fake 'consensus' run by these socks for over a year to WP:OWN articles had covered every article relating to attachment and about 2 dozen others besides. This article's mostly been pretty much rewritten since July (when 4 were banned) and the end of August (when two more went). There's been no edit warring since then. The same applies to Reactive attachment disorder, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, John Bowlby, Attachment theory, Candace Newmaker, Dyadic developmental psychotherapy etc etc etc. I did put notices on most of the pages but appear to have forgotten this one [9]. Although other editors opposed them, it wasn't really genuinely two sides because their main aim was to promote Dyadic developmental psychotherapy as mainstream and the only evidence based cure for RAD or AD etc(and not a form of attachment therapy), and pretend that either attachment therapy didn't exist or was very obscure, limited and hardly practiced at all.Fainites ^barley 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

'Automagically' is a good word by the way. Fainites ^barley 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although i ordinarily want to avoid pseudosymmetry, I wonder whether in the case of this topic it may be suitable to provide sections based on statements of a) proponents and b) opponents of AT. I can't conceive of any other way to avoid an obvious POV-- and in this case I personally don't see why it should be avoided-- does an article about cancer have to discuss the bright side of a serious illness?Jean Mercer (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did put in some of what the proponents say from Chaffin and the section on ATTACh's recent statements away from coercion/suppressed rage etc and about leading theorists developing new processes etc. Its difficult to put in the positive side of "classic" AT when their main representative body says they don't do that anymore. Who is going to be a 'proponent' now when the 'official' line is that they don't do it? Also, on what do they base their support of it? There's only Myeroff on holding and B-W on DDP and that's in already, including Craven and Lee. I posted the current Arbcom guidelines on the presentation of pseudoscience on my talkpage if you want to have a look. There was once a comment from the portal on an old page from somebody who said they were an attachment therapist and who said they always practiced within Taskforce type guidelines. I seem to recall inviting them to come and help edit but they never appeared again. Fainites ^barley 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

cf. www.apapo.org/DrDonaldMcCann/?section=forms, also Walter Buenning's web site, and M. Welch. There are supporters still. By the way, i haven't looked, but if there's nothing in here about bottlefeeding we need to put it in.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did the bottles. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Great on the bottles. The bit about the 'disobedience and lack of affection' does imply that these are the main behavioural problems. Is that right? I would have thought some of the problems are far more severe and alarming. Suppose it said 'including' ? Fainites ^barley 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Including" is fine. The difficulty with noting the "severe and alarming" problems is that there is rarely any evidence for them except the parent's report, and that they are so vaguely described as to be questionable-- e.g. Nancy Thomas says most of the foster children she has cared for were "killers". How likely is this? Or, what did they kill? Or even, did she just think they were the kinds of people who would kill? Some of the anecdotes supporting the existence of the "alarming" problems get repeated again and again, in similar form.

Zeanah's taxonomy suggests very few children with problems of severe aggression.

I think it's important to clarify that obedience is usually the major issue for those seeking AT. The very small number of children who are dangerously aggressive at early ages are more likely to have early onset schizophrenia (cf. Malcolm Shabazz), and it would be disastrous to give people the impression that this was RAD or AD or whatever, and that treatment with AT methods had some advocates. Jean Mercer (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

I find this illustration deceptive, especially with the caption taken from the text-- it implies that the child in the picture is actually being subjected to AT techniques, and of course this is not likely to be the case. In addition, the child's defensive posture suggests that AT techniques include blows, and this suggestion is not congruent with any published material. I don't think we should give in to this kind of journalistic temptation. AT is quite bad enough without any sensational additions.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Actually the child is lying down and relaxing I think. Its difficult to find suitable images. I'll try another. Do you have the same objections to the other two images? Do you have access to any images of AT in progress? Fainites ^barley 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

These are much better--- although the snarling little girl is enough to scare anybody! The only images I have access to are video ones like those on Youtube, or published ones like those in Welch's "Holding Time". I assume that permission from the publishers would be required, in order to use any of those?Jean Mercer (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want images?Jean Mercer (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

GA and FA requirements want images. Fainites ^barley 09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree these images don't seem to have much to do with therapy per se. They just look to me like pictures of disturbed kids. Are there any available photos of, for example, 're-birthing'? The captions also seem somewhat POV.71.63.119.49 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are just pictures of kids. (Feel free to change the captions by the way.) I already enquired about the YouTube videos but you can't use those in articles apparently. I was thinking of contacting CNN who did a programme on it and had some videos to see if I could get permission to use a still. I'm not really sure how to go about this. I found this link that has some pictures so I could ask them. [10] There's unlikely to be a picture of 'rebirthing' as it was a pretty rare practice and not the norm for AT. Holding, both on laps and by lying on the child seemed to be common practice though.Fainites ^barley 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No hen therapy please.

Anyway, if you had a picture of rebirthing it wouldn't be of much interest-- either a child covered up, or a child not covered up, those are the options.

There's a very touching scene in the videotapes of Candace Newmaker's rebirthing death, in which she stands by the blanket and asks whether she should take her shoes off first. But these tapes have not been released and frankly i hope they never will be.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats hen therapy? Is it related to chicken hypnosis? Fainites ^barley 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Its a merry quip on my spelling. Fainites ^barley 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)