Jump to content

Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Van der Kolk

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here No. 78. Are you saying van der Kolk is proposing CDS as an alternative to RAD? Orthat he wants to avoid confusion between CDS and AT definitions of attachment disorder? Or are you saying attachment therapists have jumped on the CDS bandwagon now their RAD and AD diagnoses have been rendered unacceptable by the Taskforce Report? Or something else entirely? Fainites barley 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this for now as No. 78 has not responded and the sentence was not clear. I think it was to do with efforts being msade to develop a new category (of what used to be called 'maltreated child syndrome'?) rather than keep trying tp squeeze the issue into limited diagnoses like RAD. I'd be most grateful if anybody could shed light on this. Fainites barley 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Small nit

Could someone check the "[sic]" in the quote

“The child will never be restrained or have pressure put on them in such a manner that would interfere with their [sic] basic life functions such as breathing, circulation, temperature, etc.” (ATTACh, 2001).

Could it be someone introduced the "[sic]", having misunderstood (or mistrusted) the use of the Singular they ? Shenme (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the ATTACh 2001 practice manual is from a review by Fowler in SRMHP in 2004. He cites it as coming from the ATTACh website in 2004. Unfortunately when I went to the ATTACh website I could not find the 2001 practice manual. It is a feature of AT that so much is on the Web and therefore things that were on websites in the past are changed and updated frequently. This is necessary for owners of sites of course but it does make citing sources difficult. I have, however, given their up-to-date practice guidance on this issue. Therefore until a better source comes along my only current source is Fowlers review. I assume the [sic] was from him. In the circumstances, should it be removed? I think it probably should. Fainites barley 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article lacks balance. The lead is 85% supportive of a therapy that is not accepted by modern clinical science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Interesting. I was expecting to be criticised in the other direction! (I can't find anything positive about this therapy at all other than the claims of protagonists which don't count). The lead says its non mainstream, criticised by the mainstream, has a non-accepted theoretical base, is a pseudoscience, is antithetical to attachment theory and is responsible for the deaths of at least 6 children. If that is supportive of attachment therapy, how do you think it ought to be worded?Fainites barley 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my opinion is from the issues with the lead. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tag OM. Fainites barley 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfree image

[1], the picture of a (presumably ) angry child, is [2], and is not a free image. The license is to be found as a link from that page, and reads in the relevant parts: "All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers. All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You. Your rights to use the Image are subject to this agreement and the restrictions specified at each Image.

We hereby grant to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Image on the terms and conditions explained in this Agreement and on the Image preview page FREE OF CHARGE.

You may use the Image In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones. In printed promotional materials, magazines, newspapers, books, brochures, flyers, CD/DVD covers, etc. Along with your corporate identity on business cards, letterhead, etc. To decorate your home, your office or any public place. You may not use the Image For pornographic, unlawful or other immoral purposes, for spreading hate or discrimination, or to defame or victimise other people, sociteties, cultures. To endorse products and services if it depicts a person. In a way that can give a bad name to SXC or the person(s) depicted on the Image. As part of a trademark, service mark or logo. SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!"

and it also includes the statement: "Since SXC does NOT require a written Model Release for each Image that has identifiable people on it, We cannot guarantee that you will be able to use the Image for any purpose You like. Also, if there is a model release for the Image, We do not represent or make warranties whatsoever as to the legality or validity of it. "

I don;t think it's even fair use. The Full CAPS are in the original. Putting it here is redistribution, It does not illustrate in any necessary way anything in the article. There is no reason to think it represents a child who has received this therapy or is in need of it. It serves a purely decorative purpose. DGG (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. When I put the pictures in the site I got them from was listed at Commons as a source of free images. I see it has now been removed! I've removed the pictures. The chances of being able to find any pictures we will be allowed to use of this therapy actually taking place though is slim. The only ones I am aware of are training videos and although some clips are posted on YouTube I doubt permission will be given. Fainites barley 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this article. Here are some things to fix before renomination:

  • The lead is way too long. Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is 3 or 4 full paragraphs. The lead should briefly summarize all the main points of the article.
  • The article itself is also way too long. Try and cut down any unnecessary examples or information. Try paraphrasing/summarizing quotes instead of giving the full quote. This should help cut down the length.
  • Remove the excess bolding in the lead and the rest of the article...only the title in the first line should be bold. Look at MOS:BOLD for more info.
  • All the refs should be taken out of the text with the <ref></ref> template. The notes should be endnotes, not in-text.
  • Citations go after punctuation. This includes parentheses.
  • Short paragraphs (those that are one or two sentences) should be merged into surrounding paragraphs, expanded, or removed.
  • Citations should be in numerical order in the text. There should be no spaces in between them if there are multiple refs for a sentence.
  • Numbers under 100 should be spelled out.
Actually its no's under 10 that should be spelled out. Fainites barley 08:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Try and avoid words like "notable", especially in headers. Rename that header to be "Cases"
  • Remove any cases without a citation or cite them.
  • The article is in desperate need of some copy editing...way more than I can do by myself. I suggest taking the article to the WP:League of Copyeditors. They should be able to help you out, as they know what to look for.

Overall, the article is very informative and well-sourced. There is just too many MoS errors to pass the article or even put it on hold. Good luck with the article! Nikki311 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. Fainites barley 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started addressing these points - re refs, blockquotes and citations. i don't understand what the nowiki templates do. I've reduced the lead. I PMID'd what refs could be done and removed the multiple cite ones needing page numbers out into a ref section. Now need to do the page numbers for O'Connor and Nilsen and Prior and Glaser. Fainites barley 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the rendered text (i.e. the page itself, not the edit window or stepping through the recent changes) - the nowiki tag is what Nikki311 used to display <ref> in plain text instead of as [1]. This article probably does not require nowiki tags.
Also, I do not know if this was your edit or an old one (once I determined that you were making good edits beyond my knowledge in this area, I have been skimming past this article in my watchlist) - <ref name = "refname" /> is the way to re-reference a citation, <ref name = "refname">refname</ref> is not needed. If I recall correctly, the template uses the first such instance for the text displayed at the bottom, so this latter format will sometimes work but sometimes fubar. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Always wondered what nowiki meant. If they are papers or books only cited once I try and use what you suggest as here Reactive attachment disorder but sometimes I lose the will to live. However, there a couple of books and reports that are cited many times and need page numbers and the only way to do this that I have found is to put a brief citation plus page number into the notes then put the book into the refs. Just as a matter of interest, why is this one on your watchlist? Fainites barley 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have summarised all the block quotes except for the one from Speltz which is in itself a summary of a classic AT treatment programme. Also - found a source for the Vasquez case and rationalised and tidied the refs.Fainites barley 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
TO DO citation templates for websites and newspaper articles and that Mary Dozier article who's ref has gone missing.Fainites barley 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fainites barley 11:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't fix refs 25 and 64 for some reason. Fainites barley 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed 25. The url/title on 67 still won't go right for some reason if you wouldn't mind having a look Nikki 311. Thanks. Fainites barley 14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To even be considered this soon after the righteous reign of Dr Becker-Weidman is something. forestPIG 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there's plenty of good sources now we're allowed to use them and not having six little sockies voting them off. Fainites barley 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-nom

I've fixed everything in the list above and reduced the block quote stuff. The only thing I can't fix is ref 67. Fainites barley 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Differences between AT and attachment based therapies

Waywardradish - I have replaced the sentence removed. There is sourced evidence in the article that despite its name AT is not in fact based on attachment theory - rather it jumped on the attachment theory bandwagon. Its real roots are rage-reduction/primal scream type therapies. Its theoretical base, understanding of attachment theory, diagnosis and forms of treatment are not in accordance with attachment theory and indeed are considered antithetical to it. The mainstream proponents of forms of prvention and treatment of attachment difficulties in children are attachment therapy's most informed and trenchant critics.Fainites barley 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not the least because attachment therapy locates the difficulties and the "cure" in the child - ie the child is the problem - whereas mainstream programmes based on attachment theory are all based on increasing carer sensitivity. Fainites barley 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    "From the 1990s onwards there was a series of prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children," subject/verb agreement? That's in the lead. "This form of therapy is scientifically unvalidated and is not considered to be part of mainstream psychology either as to understanding of attachment theory..." as to? Again, lead section. "The screaming and tantruming five year old was buckled into a highchair" Tantruming is a verb? MoS compliance, using WP:SS, looks mostly good, but the Cases section could be more consistent. Citation style is also mixed--pick one and be consistent throughout.
Sorry - I can't think how to reword "as to". Unfortunately when I was at school grammar was not taught as it was considered elitist. I'd be glad of some help on this point. Fainites barley 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Done Fainites barley 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Done the refs. Well spotted! I thought I'd changed them all to {citation} Fainites barley 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Was" agrees with "series". Fainites barley 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, actually. Sorry about that. However, I'd still recommend changing it to something less ambigious, like "From the 1990s onwards there have been multiple prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children" How does that sound to you? Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Or there have been a number of... Fainites barley 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, that works too. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Done the cases too.Fainites barley 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Looks very well referenced, didn't notice any OR on first pass.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "It is distinct from mainstream forms of therapy based on attachment theory as it is primarily based on misapplied psychoanalytic theories about suppressed rage, catharsis, regression and the breaking down of resistance and defence mechanisms." That's in the lead.
This is a summary of the part of the article which deals with the background and development of attachment therapy. Are you saying it must have a reference in the lead? Fainites barley 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The NPOV problem with the sentence is "based on misapplied psychoanalytic theories"--You and I may agree they're misapplied, but the proponents obviously do not agree. Word that in a more neutral way, such as "which mainstream organizations such as the APA have termed 'misapplied'."--with appropriate citations, of course. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I could just remove "misapplied" from the lead. There is a collection of sources in the history section about this topic which explains it. Fainites barley 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also added Zaslow who is the basic root. Fainites barley 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Are there no images available of any advocates, logos of an associated organization, nothing?
I did find some very good pictures of angry or sad looking kids but these were objected to for various reasons (not least because they didn't actually illustrate the subject - just added interest). I must say it hadn't occured to me to add logos of proponents. ATTACh certainly acknowledge their AT history but I'm not sure the same can be said of many therapists. Mind you - the attachment therapist who used to control this page with 6 sockpuppets objected to any suggestion that ATTACh was connected with attachment therapy despite their own statements.Fainites barley 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't actually need images for GA (or FA for that matter). It would just be nice to have some.Fainites barley 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Prose needs subtantial work--examples are just that: examples. Please go over the article thoroughly for NPOV and style issues. ON HOLD for up to a week for review and improvement. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've redone most of the historical roots section - hopefully to provide more clarity. Fainites barley 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates

There is still a lot of passive voice in the article, as well as many sentences which are needlessly long and complicated. I don't like the way you have year citations in the text, but use <ref>...</ref> style footnoting. I think you ought to drop the years from the text throughout, or go to straight APA citations--what you've got is a mix of the two. Several things seem to be referenced in multiple places throughout the text.

I'm thinking more and more that this ought to go through peer review for copyediting before it's really ready to pass GA. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can deal with the inline cites and all your tags tomorrow and look at the long sentences. Don't give up yet! Seven days is up on the 3rd September. Fainites barley 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way - cannot two sentences be referenced by one citation? For example here, there are two sentences summarising a bit from Speltz with the cite at the end. You have added a fact tag after the first sentence. Is it really necessary to repeat the ref after each sentence?
  • "In relation to the use of the Z-process and holding for autism, Zaslow's ideas have been dispelled by research on the genetic/biologic causes of autism.[citation needed] Unlike Zaslow’s techniques, interventions based on behavioral principles have proven effective with autistic children.[2]"Fainites barley 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It can, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me that it did. I'd rewrite the two sentences to be more clearly connected. There's multiple instances of "Some people say foo. Jones says bar.[cite]" construction, where it's not unequivocally clear to a non-specialist that "foo" and "bar" are related. I tagged a bunch of the ones I noticed with {{who}}. I much prefer something like "Some people, such as Jones,[cite] Smith,[cite] and Brown,[cite] say foo. Brown further says bar." --In that case, unless it's a different cite for Brown's additional statement, the reader has just seen it in the prior sentence. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Actually, thinking about it, the bit about what does work for autistic children is probably otiose anyway. Fainites barley 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


On this bit There have been professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents where you've tagged it "who", this is from a passage in the Taskforce Report. Is it necessary to name names? I thought, this being an encyclopaedia article, listing actual therapists, who presumably were acting in good faith whatever the mainstream clinicians and theorists think about attachment therapy, seems unecessary. As the Taskforce is a very notable source, is it not enough that they say what they say? Fainites barley 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article question(s)

  • Is the text (Chaffin et al, 2006) really intended to follow the final sentence of the second lead paragraph? It looks out of place there, and it would seem that the information is sufficiently covered in the references. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Fainites barley 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The sentence "In contrast, traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children's physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment." has problems. The sentence is describing qualities of a caregiver, but immediate lists "environmental stability", which does not appear to be a caregiver quality. "Parental sensitivity" is a problem because the article states that caregivers are not always parents. The next entry starts with "and". Does that mean that the list of qualities is meant to stop at this entry and the remaining remarks are a further exploration of the theory? Regardless, the unqualified "consistency" is too broad to be useful, for example, what if a caregiver consistently drives well or consistently starves the child? The entire sentence needs rework, but I'm not sure exactly what it's trying to say. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Fixed it I think. The environmental bit seemed to be repeated anyway. On the second point, "consistency" is pretty commonly cited as an important parental quality in the sense that it doesn't really matter whether you are a permissive parent or a strict one provided the boundaries and expectations are consistent. Also in the sense of being consistently emotionally 'available' to a child. Technically you're right. It could mean consistently abusive or consistently drunk - but only if you read it disjunctively from all the other positive qualities. The problem is - this is pretty much a direct paraphrase from the Taskforce Report (about 10 joint authors - drafting by committee) and I don't quite like to make assumptions about a source and add things to a sourced point. Personally I think it's unlikely to be misunderstood given the context but I'll have another look at the source. Fainites barley 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the passage:

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). Moreover, generally accepted theory suggests that because attachment patterns develop within relationships, correcting attachment problems requires close attention to improving the stability and increasing the positive quality of the parent-child relationship and parentchild interactions."

Grammar by committee? I suppose it was assumed that most people reading the Taskforce Report would have some familiarity with the language of child development but I really don't think the use of consistency in this way is obscure. Fainites barley 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll close my remarks on this minor wording sub-issue by stating that I believe for the common understanding of consistency in an article written for the untrained public, actions would normally be consistent "in", "about", or "applied to" a practice. As I am not offering a review or recommendation on FA/GA status, I leave my suggestions to your best judgement as the article's primary author and subject matter expert. Please understand that I do not hold a strong opinion on the particular wording: I seldom do, except for clear errors.
But this does illustrate a reason why I am hesitant to work too deeply on the wording of others' articles. The energy expended on disaccord is often all out of proportion to the result. Some prolonged FAC and MOS discussions approach black comedy for the subtle differences in dispute. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Too true. Not just MOS either. I once had to redo over 100 citations 3 times to 3 different specifications in pursuit of FA status.Fainites barley 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Here are minor miscellaneous issues I noticed when reading the article that I don't have enough information to change, or which require an author decision or input.
evidenced-based isn't consistently hyphenated in a reference quote and I don't have access to the quote to see if that's correct.
Quotes in the article are usually double quotemarked, but occasionally are single quotemarked. I don't see a pattern for the difference, except for their correct usage in nested quotes.
A point that may bite you later on, WP:MOSABBR states that et al should have a period after the "al", although my dictionary disagrees and two online dictionaries are split on the matter. Yes, they really have a guideline for that; it probably should be disputed by a brave soul.
"attachment-disordered" is much more commonly hyphenated as a compound word than not in a search through Google Books, although there is a large enough count without the hyphen that you might successfully claim it as an accepted variation.
"<age>-year-old boy or girl" format is not consistently hyphenated in the article. I recommend two hyphens, but at a minimum the formatting should be the same for all uses.
Re: "They set out recommendations for both the better dissemination of understanding of attachment theory and knowledge of the more recent evidence-based treatment options available." Are the recommendations both "better dissemination" and "knowledge"? Recommending "education" rather than "knowledge" makes more sense to me. Or is the "both" misplaced and should be applied to the dissemination of both "understanding" and "knowledge"?
The main article content uses "Web" in one instance rather than the usual "Internet". "Web" is pretty old-school, I'd recommend sticking with "Internet" throughout.
"Attachment theory" is wikilinked five times. This may be seen as overdone.
I don't think that the editorial "(s)" in the quote "unequivocally state (s) our opposition" should be separated from the word "state" that it modifies. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely all done - except that I need to check later on whether 'evidence-based' is hyphenated in the quote from the source.Fainites barley 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the source does in fact use evidence-based (with hyphen) and evidence based (without hyphen) in one sentence! It doesn't look like there's any grammatical justification for it. They probably should have got you to copy-edit it before publication. What do I do now? Stay true to the text or correct it? Fainites barley 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
When you're quoting, their mistakes are not your responsibility.  :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank goodness for that - though it will be interesting to see if any Wiki-gnomes try to correct it :D Fainites barley 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To my way of thinking, the article currently has a problem in its lack of separation of the lead from the rest of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an introduction and an independent summary. However, the first sentence of main content after the lead starts with "The controversy has centered…". What controversy? The article isn't Controversies of attachment therapy. The title is Attachment therapy which, as one of the details about the subject, is controversial. I think the content needs to ease into the initial controversy statement with a bit of background—even a sentence or two—rather than depending on the "independent" lead to set the context. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this resolve it? I was trying to describe what AT actually was, but the source describes it in the context of it being both amorphous and controversial, but centring around holding types of therapy. Its difficult because although people who know, know what attachment therapy is, there's no accepted definition because its all outside the mainstream.
I'm trying to sort this but the broadband is so slow at the moment it's driving me mad. I'll come back later. Fainites barley 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've rearranged material to try and show what AT is and what the controversy arises from. Fainites barley 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More questions and issues

  • I have a rewrite suggestion for the following sentence: Zaslow considered attachment arose when an infant experienced pain, fear and rage and then experienced eye contact when a carer attended to his needs and relieved those feelings
Problems I see with the sentence are that the eye contact is not explicitly bound to the carer, the infant is assumed male, and the sentence is rather awkward, wordy and redundant. By redundant, I mean if a carer relieved the infant's feelings, that seems to be the cause of the attachment, and attending to the needs is simply part of the relief. Instead, how about the shorter: Zaslow thought attachment arose when an infant experienced feelings of pain, fear and rage, and then made eye contact with the carer who relieved those feelings.
You think maybe, could be, something else entirely, or leave it alone? -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I'll change it. Fainites barley 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is very difficult to understand what in it is really supported by empirical studies and what is hypothesis or might be even WP:SYN.
For example: "There are a number of attachment styles or patterns, known as "secure", "anxious-ambivalent", "anxious-avoidant", (all "organized") and "disorganized", some of which are more problematical than others and may be predictive of future social or emotional problems, but none constitute a disorder in themselves." - This sentence is very vague and it has no reference. - "may be predictive" - what does that mean? And if they do not constitute a disorder in themselves, maybe you could explain their relevance to Attachment therapy, especially since "Early intervention for disorganized attachment, or other problematic styles, is directed toward changing the trajectory of development to provide a better outcome later in the person's life." - if they only "may be predictive", what is the rationale for "changing the trajectory of development"? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically Matisse, attachment therapy isn't supported by anything. Its a pseudoscience. However, one of its many claims is that it is based on attachment theory. Attachment theory authors/researchers/commentators etc say it is not. That much is fully cited. There is huge ampunts of research on attachment theory. However, what I was trying to provide was a little potted version of the relevent parts of attachment theory to enable readers to understand the difference in diagnosis or assessment within the world of attachment theory as opposed to within the world of attachment therapy. Obviously I am not achieveing my aim of making the article understandable! I can certainly cite the parts you mention with no difficulty, but is the point not getting across? ie that within attachment theory there are styles which are not disorders and there is a DSM classification of RAD. However, within attachment therapy they either diagnose "Attachment disorder" or RAD in a way not recognised by the mainstream. They use symptom lists that do not accord with either DSM or the tenets of attachment theory. Its important to be clear because one of the things attachment therapists do in their extensive advertising material on the web is mix up insecure attachment styles (common, not a disorder and not necessarily a problem) with attachment disorder (very rare and quite serious). Fainites barley 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile I'll cite the bits you mention and rearrange the material for clarity.Fainites barley 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of quick notes: you have a dab link in the lead (rage); you should check all of those with the tools that I'll install at the top of this talk page. And the infobox at the top of the article is completely confusing to the uninitiated; I have no idea what any of it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What you mean the CAM box? Its just one of those navigation box things. Attachment therapy appears in lists of CAM therapies and treatments in various places. Its not a problem if it goes though. There was some discussion about it earlier. I'm not sure its really appropriate now anyway as attachment therapy likes to claim to be mainstream and "evidence-based" and based on attachment theory so its a pseudoscience really rather than a CAM. Fainites barley 21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the toolbox thing. Cool! Fainites barley 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Review

Note: this is actually the fourth review, counting Failed "good article" nomination failed by Sandstein October 9, 2007, GA fail failed by Nikki311 April 9, 2008, GA Review failed by Jclemens August 27, 2008. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No JClemens didn't fail it as you keep repeating all over the shop. He asked for a second opinion. So what anyway? Fainites barleyscribs 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm dropping by after noticing that the second opinion tag had been on the GAN page for a while. This isn't my area of expertise, so I probably won't be able to tell you if anything big is missing, but I can give you some help on prose and references. I'll have my comments up in a little bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • On references:
    • All of your links to the Advocates for Children in Therapy link (including the external link) should be updated, as they have changed their domain name from advocatesforchildrenintherapy.org to just childrenintherapy.org. For the moment, this isn't a big deal, but if they ever decide to take down the old domain, it will make a good chunk of your references deadlink.
Done.Fainites barley 19:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The Informaworld references (1,44,76) are timing out on me. I'm not sure if this is just a temporary issue or not.
Seem to be working now. I note Dr Hughes website seems to have been disabled though.Fainites barley 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Please make sure that all of your references have publishers and access dates. For example (note, these are just examples, not an exhaustive list), #34 doesn't have an access date, while 47, 48 and 102 don't have publishers.
Sorry - you've lost me there. 47 is a journal. 102 is a newspaper.
Looks good now.
    • For your Taskforce Report inline references, please put the author first, as this is how you have the publication listed in the references section.
Do you mean "Chaffin et al" rather than "APSAC"? Is another alternative to put (APSAC Taskforce report) in front of the reference.Fainites barley 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The way you have it now will be fine. The only thing I can see now with this is that you have a couple (notable refs 5 and 67) that don't have page numbers.
    • You need to be consistent in how you format your references. If you are going to use the split reference format for books and journals, you need to do it for all books and journals. Basically, all of your book references have to be consistent with each other, and all of your journal refs have to be consistent with each other - the groups themselves don't have to be consistent with other groups, if this makes sense. Also, the consistency has to extend to either always using cite templates or never using them. This consistency is especially important if you plan on taking the article to FA - you'll really get hammered on it there.
Bother. I thought I'd done all these. Fainites barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Citation template used throughout. They should all now be consistent.Fainites barley 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The citation templates should be used in the references section as well then. And also, there are still full book citations for a few books in the in-line refs. There needs to be consistency in using either full refs in-line or split refs.
I've fixed the refs section citation templates but I'm being a bit dim on the next bit. Do you mean where I have used page numbers for refs with the full citation in the references section? I did it like this at FAC for RAD as it is the only way I could find to do it where you are citing multiple times with different page numbers from the same source. The only alternative was to cite the same book over and over in the notes section.Fainites barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the split refs format, like you have for most of the books now, with most of the info in the refs section and just the author name and page number in the notes section. What I'm saying is that if you do this for some of the books, you have to do it for all of the books. For example, you have refs 32 and 78 (just picking two at random) that are in the split format, but refs 2 and 3 have the full information in the notes section. Consistency is what I'm aiming for here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
What i've done is - is anything thats a book or something like a Taskforce report thats cited more than once goes in the refs with page numbers in the notes. However, there are some books which are basically collections of articles so those go in the notes under the name of the authors of the article even though several are from the same book. The only one of these i've put in the refs is O'Connor and Nilsen which I used a great deal which I thought needed multiple page numbers. However, as an article its only 13 pages long including refs so I could just put it in the notes.Fainites barley 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is fine. However, if you are planning on taking this article to FA, I would check with SandyGeorgia (or Ealdgyth) about what they think on the consistency thing. I would do this before FA, so that if they think you should change it, you get it out of the way before noming the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added a few fact tags.
  • On prose:
    • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it shouldn't include original information, and so doesn't need references unless they are backing up a direct quotation.
I've reduced too detailed info from the lead and put it in the body. However, various FA psychology articles like Aspergers, Autism and Reactive attachment disorder all use refs in the lead. I'll check the policy on this.Fainites barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The ones that are backing up direct quotations (5 and 6) are fine to leave in. The rest should be citing information that is already in the body of the article, and so doesn't need to be repeatedly cited.
Hey, Fainites :-) Sorry to jump in here, but it looks like you're FAC bound, so I wanted to weigh in on citations in the lead. Have a look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, which conforms with the citation level you see at Tourette syndrome, Asperger syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, etc. There is a lot of confusion "out there" about citations in the lead, and WP:LEAD sums it up well. You won't be led astray by citing in the lead all hard data and anything likely to surprise the reader or that looks like an opinion or controversial info. In terms of the other sample FAs I've pointed out above, for example, schizophrenia should have a cite on the 40% hard data. You don't want to overcite the lead, and you don't need to cite common, summarizing info, but there is no exemption from citations in the lead on quotes, hard data, or anything surprising or likely to be challenged. I think if you were to remove the citation, for example, on six documented fatalities in the lead, that would most certainly be challenged at FAC, as it surprises the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well;[3] sorry for the interruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh bugger. I just spent the last half hour removing them all before I saw your comment here! Still - they can easily go back. Fainites barley 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I bow before Sandy's wisdom: do whatever she says :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes Ma'am! Fainites barley 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There should not be external links in-line like there are in the Prevalence section. These should either be converted into references or moved to the external links section.
OK. Will do. Fainites barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • You go back and forth between using "Task Force" and "Taskforce" to describe the APSAC group. Please pick whichever one is used in the official description of the group and stick with that throughout the entire article.
Done.Fainites barley 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Other:
    • Are there no pictures that can be used it illustrate this article? This is a long and fairly technical article, and a few images would help to relieve the text.
I had some pics of angry looking children but others said that they weren't children actually diagnosed with anything or undergoing AT so were POV or irrelevant. I've tried getting pics of AT in action but the therapists are very hot on copyright violations. A quick look at this very short remaining YouTube video may explain why [4] Note the elbow in the midriff and the therapist indicating "eye contact". The lengthier YouTube extracts have recently been removed as they were training videos and so presumably there were copyright issues.Fainites barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. I guess it makes sense that they wouldn't want photos/videos of controversial techniques out there - extra material for critics... Oh well, if there's nothing, there's nothing. Please just keep this in mind if you ever do happen to come across some non-copyright photos/vids.

Overall, this looks like a nice article. The issues above are fairly minor, so I think this article should be left on hold to allow my concerns to be addressed, and then the article passed to GA status. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Also, Jclemens, as the original reviewer, please add any comments that you may have. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I bowed out because I thought I'd gotten too close to/involved in the article, and you've brought a set of fresh eyes that have seen issues that I missed. I have no objection to any of your comments--thanks for finishing this up. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully I can get all this sorted by the end of the week. Fainites barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I updated my comments above and made a few replies. The article is definitely progressing, and shouldn't take too much more work to get it to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. My only final comments would be to remove the external links from the Prevalence section and check with some FA people on the split ref thing (see my comment above for elaboration). Nice work on a complicated and potentially POV-ridden article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article

  • Are Mainstream therapies considered Attachment therapy since you say that this is article is pseudoscience on the talk page as well as in the lead? If not, why is there a section in this article? (Mainstream implies commonly accepted or legitimate). Recommend that you not confuse the reader by combining legitimate and pseudoscience in the same article.
  • "Probably the most common form of attachment therapy is holding therapy..." - I recommend that you not using vague terms like "probably".
  • Diagnosis and attachment disorder - Here again is a section that discribes mainstream medically-accepted diagnoses and mixes this with the pseudoscience. There is no point in getting into mainstream diagnoses, since they do not apply to this article. For example, "Within mainstream practice, disorders of attachment are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as follows:" - and then you describe material irrelevant to this article. This will confuse the general reader and merely repeats information from other articles that are legitimate.
  • Prevelence - "Attachment therapy prospered during the 1980s and 90s as a consequence of both the influx of older adopted orphans from Eastern European and third world countries and the inclusion of reactive attachment disorder in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which attachment therapists adopted as an alternative name for their existing unvalidated diagnosis of attachment disorder...." - again, this is very misleading because you are combining mainstream views with the pseudoscience.
  • Evidence basis and controversial therapies - This is a very confusing heading. Since this is pseudoscience, should this section not just be called Controversial therapies? This is not an article that is based on scientific evidence, is it? So I am not understanding what "Evidence basis" means. It is not a common term.
  • Recommendations - Remove all the material that is scientifically based and accepted by the medical/psychological disciplines. This is already amply covered in other articles, as your wikilinks show. If you want to have a small paragraph somewhere, describing that there are legitimate therapies, in contrast to the pseudoscience topic of this article, and give some links, that would be fine. But continually intermixing the legitimate with pseudoscience does a disservice to the reader; further, it is not on topic for your article.
Really, this would improve and clarify your article and help you to focus on the topic at hand. To concentrate on your subject matter only would allow the article to make sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Mattisse by Dana

Mattisse, I find that after reading your comments I agree with several of them. I must confess that these issues never crossed my mind as I was reading the article, possibly because this is a subject that I have had little exposure to in the past. However, now that I read your comments, I realize that you are right in several instances.

  • The Mainstream therapies section could probably be completely removed, since you're right, it really seems to have nothing to do with the topic being discussed in the article. Or, at the very least, it could be trimmed to a brief section that says, basically "xyz is what real doctors do for this, see abc article".
  • Diagnosis and attachment disorder - the last two paragraphs of this section could probably be trimmed or cut completely, as they are based on what mainstream medical practitioners say, rather than practitioners of attachment therapy techniques.
  • Evidence basis and controversial therapies - I am agreeing that this section header could be improved, but I am going the opposite direction from Mattisse. You have already established that these are controversial therapies, so you probably don't need to point it out again in the section header. Perhaps it could be changed to something like "Evidence basis for therapy"?

Fainites, I've asked Mattisse to hold of on a GAR right at the moment, to give you a chance to respond to both of our comments. If you could respond here ASAP with your replies to our comments, that would be fantastic! Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Regarding the section heading Evidence basis and controversial therapies, the section establishes that there is no evidence on which to base the therapy. It is pseudoscience. Therefore, it is misleading to put Evidence basis and controversial therapies in the same heading. Maybe No evidence for effectiveness of controversial therapies or something shorter. Pseudoscience of controversial therapies. But not all controversial therapies are in the same bag of pseudoscience as attachment therapy; attachment therapy is really in the same category as the kindergarden sex scandals of past years. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There is alot in what you say. I hadn't really looked at it like this before. Certainly the "mainstream therapies" bit could pretty much go. I'll have to give some more thought to the diagnosis business as diagnosis by "symptoms list" is a big aspect of attachment therapy, or is it the mainstream diagnosis bit you say could go? I also agree with you on the titles. I don't think I'm actually mixing up pseudoscience and mainstream. I think the article makes the distinction between the two pretty clear - or at least that was my intention. For example, if you are going to say the attachment therapy mode of diagnosis is unvalidated and not in accordance with mainstream classifications, does it help or hinder to give a brief description of the mainstream classification? However, you're probably right and simply having links to the mainstream stuff is better. Unfortunately I am horribly busy today and tomorrow but I will give a more considered response on Friday. Fainites barley 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the GA Dana by the way. I will address the remaining points soon! Fainites barley 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The bit in the Diagnosis section that I am talking about is the last two paragraphs, where it is discussing the mainstream diagnosis bit. As for the Evidence heading, perhaps something like "Proposed evidence basis" or "Proponents claims for evidence base". Although I think you do a good job in making the difference between the pseudoscience and the mainstream science clear, there is probably slightly too much emphasis on the mainstream science here: since it is not the topic of the article, it can probably be cut in the two sections we are discussing. Thanks for taking a new look at the article, and I look forward to your comments this weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)



Serious problems with article

Problems with article - putting this here as there was an edit conflict on the GA review page.

  • Are Mainstream therapies considered Attachment therapy since you say that this is article is pseudoscience on the talk page as well as in the lead? If not, why is there a section in this article? (Mainstream implies commonly accepted or legitimate). Recommend that you not confuse the reader by combining legitimate and pseudoscience in the same article.
  • "Probably the most common form of attachment therapy is holding therapy..." - I recommend that you not using vague terms like "probably". This is off the topic of your article
  • Diagnosis and attachment disorder - Here again is a section that discribes mainstream medically-accepted diagnoses and mixes this with the pseudoscience. There is no point in getting into mainstream diagnoses, since they do not apply to this article. For example, "Within mainstream practice, disorders of attachment are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as follows:" - and then you describe material irrelevant to this article. This will confuse the general reader and merely repeats information from other articles that are legitimate. Off the topic of your article.
  • Prevelence - "Attachment therapy prospered during the 1980s and 90s as a consequence of both the influx of older adopted orphans from Eastern European and third world countries and the inclusion of reactive attachment disorder in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which attachment therapists adopted as an alternative name for their existing unvalidated diagnosis of attachment disorder...." - again, this is very misleading because you are combining mainstream views with the pseudoscience. Remove the parts that are off the topic of your article.
  • Evidence basis and controversial therapies - This is a very confusing heading. Since this is pseudoscience, should this section not just be called Controversial therapies? This is not an article that is based on scientific evidence, is it? So I am not understanding what "Evidence basis" means. It is not a common term.
  • Recommendations - Remove all the material that is scientifically based and accepted by the medical/psychological disciplines as it is off the topic of your article. This is already amply covered in other articles, as your wikilinks show. If you want to have a small paragraph somewhere, describing that there are legitimate therapies, in contrast to the pseudoscience topic of this article, and give some links, that would be fine. But continually intermixing the legitimate with pseudoscience does a disservice to the reader; further, it is not on topic for your article.
Really, this would improve and clarify your article and help you to focus on the topic at hand. To concentrate on your subject matter only would allow the article to make sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Regarding the section heading Evidence basis and controversial therapies, the section establishes that there is no evidence on which to base the therapy. It is pseudoscience. Therefore, it is misleading to put Evidence basis and controversial therapies in the same heading. Maybe No evidence for effectiveness of controversial therapies or something shorter. Pseudoscience of controversial therapies. But not all controversial therapies are in the same bag of pseudoscience as attachment therapy; attachment therapy is really in the same category as the kindergarden sex scandals of past years. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote from website:"DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS: This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"). None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this website in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in these web pages. All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary information to the public.
FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."
Same disclaimer as above

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Preparing to recommend this article for GAR - fails to meet 3b of GA criteria

I am preparing to recommend this article for GAR review as it does not meet 3b of the GA criteria—it doesn't stay focused on this specific therapy. (See my criticisms in the section above.) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Michael Devore, a very good copy editor, tried to help. See: Article question(s)

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Somethings happened to this talkpage so sections are now out of order. There's a chunk of discussions with Michael from JClemens review that now appear after Dana's second opinion. JClemens asked for a second opinion which DanaBoomer provided. I'll put the sections back otherwise its very confusing.Fainites barley 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not mess around with the talk page. Some of it comes from the review pages which are included templates. Because of the irregularity in the way the last review was conducted, there were postings on the last included review page that probably properly should have been on a new included review page. However, if you screw around with it, you will probably make the problem worse. Also, you will break links to the talk page sections and review page sections. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well its already been messed around with making it difficult to follow. Its now completely out of order today when it wasn't yesterday so perhaps whatever was done to put it out of order recently should be undone.Fainites barley 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Geometry guy, who monitors GA and GAR pages and cleans up mixups, tried to fix the mistakes in transcluding pages made by other editors. That is probably what you are noticing. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do sometimes do that, but in this case the only edit I've made is to the ArticleHistory template. Geometry guy 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then, Fainites, looking at the article history [5] you are the only one that has shifted anything (which, by the way should be done not according to talk page etiquette). Not that I care, as it was a mess anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I see what happened. Fainites, you modified Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1 after it was closed. You added about 20,000 bytes to Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1 on October 25 for some reason.[6] Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1 had always been about 20,000 bytes or under until you did that. Why did you add so much that had never been there after the review had closed? And you removed about 20,000 bytes from this talk page that had been there for a while. Look at the article histories. Why? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I probably thought I was on the talkpage. I seem to recall some stuff went on with Michael Devore after JClemens asked for a second opinion but whether that appeared on both talkpage and reveiw page I don't know. I don't understand how page transclusions work. When I looked at the talkpage whole chunks had somehow got out of order. There was a whole September bit that seemed to have been moved to after some much later discussions so I tried to put them back in order but presumably that hasn't worked. If I try and fix it now I'll probably make it worse. Sorry. Fainites barley 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is all there. Anything you put on Talk:Attachment therapy/GA1 gets trancluded back on this page anyway. The stuff from Michael Devors is on this page, under Article questions(s) and More questions and issues. Don't worry about it. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this section be added? There are several movies and tv shows which center around this technique. Law and Order is airing this episode right now which is completely about Attachment therapy. I can't think of the movie titles at the moment, but I have seen at least 4. Is this enough to warrant a new section? Facebookery (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could be, could be! I don't know enough about this - not being an American and these being American programmes. I believe there was also a Twilight Zone episode once about "Evergreen" (where all the attachment therapists hung out) featuring a family with a teenage girl being brought for what appeared to be behaviour training but I haven't seen it. There's also an old Elvis Presley film from the 60's where he is the dashing young doctor trying a new therapy (rage reductio probably) on what was probably meant to be an autistic girl - which is how this form of therapy started out. I don't feel I have the knowledge or access to sources to tackle this section myself though. You could have a shot! Fainites barley 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think at the time of Candace Newmaker, (the girl killed by rebirthing), alot of the media got hold of the rebirthing idea and missed the fact that it all happened in the middle of an attachment therapy two week intensive and the perpertrator, Connell Watkins was a big name in AT. The attachment therapists (who used to "own" this article) very much pushed the idea that this was rebirthing, not proper attachment therapy. If you want to read an abridged version of the transcript of Candace Newmakers last session, look here. Not for the faint hearted. Fainites barley 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I had neven heard of attachment therapy, but I recognized it as the therapy that was applied in the motion picture Backstreet Dreams, where a therapist (played by Brooke Shields) used it as a novel way to treat a child with autism. I never even knew that there really was such a therapy. Johan Lont (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. 1990 eh. It's use for autism started in the 70s wit Zaslow. Two later "names" in these ideas about autism were Tinbergen 1983 and Welch, 1988, so 1990 was about right but I think by then it had been pretty much discarded by the mainstream as autism is not, in fact, a deficiency in attachment. The therapy got taken up for supposed "attachment disorders". It is, however, still used for autism but not by the mainstream and there's no accepted evidence of efficacy that I'm aware of. Some autists have spoken out against it pretty vehemently. There's a YouTube video somewhere by a german girl who calls herself "gingerautie" who describes her experiences with holding therapy. Did the film show the result of the therapy? Fainites barleyscribs 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
In the film Backstreet Dreams, the main character is in all sorts of problems, financially, legally, socially, and he is also rather desperate, because his son (I estimate 4-6 years old) doesn't talk and doesn't make contact with anybody. A graduate student (Shields) tells him the child is autistic and she knows a new (experimental?) therapy. The child must be held tightly in his arms even if the child doesn't want to. Meanwhile, the main character's wife cheats on him and her lover abuses the child, so she is exit. The therapist volunteers to help with the child. They fall in love. But, more relevant, after putting in an incredible amount of patience and perseverence, the boy starts to talk for the first time. That's about it. I found a description and movie trailer here: http://www.answers.com/topic/backstreet-dreams-1990-film
So in this film, the therapy is depicted as "the wonder therapy that helped when nothing else did." Johan Lont (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he had to talk so he could say "please let me go!" Thanks for the info. I'd like someone to write a cultural refernces section for this article. Most of the cultural references are American so it would be easier if someone American did that bit.Fainites barleyscribs 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, No actually, he wanted milk from the fridge. And the father and the therapist/girlfriend got the spontaneous idea to pretend to "misunderstand" the boy. And after bringing him several items that he didn't want, and asking him "tell us then, what do you want", he answered by saying "milk". Johan Lont (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion (off reassessment page)

I'll come over here for further discussion.

I don't see that it's appropriate to act as if "therapeutic holding" will some day be supported by evidence, as Montanbw suggests. My crystal ball isn't tuned to that frequency! If Montanabw would like to start an article defining and describing "therapeutic holding", that might be a good idea, but as it is both different in some ways from Attachment Therapy and lacking in empirical support that might allow some comparison to Attachment Therapy, I don't see including it in this article. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As "holding" has been around for about 40 years its a bit surprising there haven't been many attempts at obtaining evidence. Fainites barley 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But in this ("therapeutic") form I'd just date it back to the '90s-- however, there's no systematic research evidence, that's why some authors have ended up citing material about the rage-reduction form in attempts to support this type. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Jean Mercer (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) that is.

It's interesting to see how many possible referents for the TH term are listed by Kim Masters in his AACAP comment.72.73.196.59 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Jean Mercer (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) that is.

Claims

In reply to your question GG, it was changed to "Claims" from "Proponants claims to evidence base" on the suggestion of Casliber (supported by Matisse) on the basis that the original title might lead people to believe their was an evidence base. All this is in the GAR. Fainites barleyscribs 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

Over the years, I have come across several examples of overt bias on the part of Wikipedia editors, global warming being one of the most obvious. This article, however, has got to be the most biased, uninformed, article that I've seen on Wikipedia. The entire article is dominated by opponents of attachment therapy, who wholly ignore the fact that the treatment measures given as typifying attachment therapy are mostly ones which have not been used by reputable attachment therapists in many years.

Earlier in this talk page, it is suggested that the claims of protagonists don't count. Wouldn't a reasonable POV policy then require that the claims of antagonists be disregarded as well? Of course, that would leave little more than a stub page.

--Kfander (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may modify the article as you see fit with the appropriate reliable sources. If you read this Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1, you may get a feel for various views other editors have of the article, in addition to those expressed on the talk page. I, personally, am not familiar enough with the subject matter to comment on what can legitimately be covered by "Attachment therapy". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The descriptions - and indeed much of the article - is sourced from the Taskforce report, dated 2006. Also reference works from 2003, 2005 and 2006. It is also sourced from the latest "Handbook of attachment" (the attachment bible) which is 2008! This doesn't really consign AT to the realms of history. I have included (from the Taskforce) a passage to the effect that more recently leaders in the filed (particularly Hughes) have altered practices and there has been a move away from coercive techniques. However, this is not the same as saying as you say that these measures have not been used in many years. If you have some sourced information to add, by all means do so. Anyone can edit. I should add though that conflating any form of therapy based on attachment theory (such as Circle of Security) with attachment therapy as described here doesn't address the issue, but if you can think of a clearer way of distinguishing between the two in the lead then feel free to suggest it! Fainites barleyscribs 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Also this [7]Fainites barleyscribs 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

autismholding therapy

Richer, J. (1987) The Treatment of Children with Autism, paper given at the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Specialist Section, Royal College of Psychiatrists Annual Conference, 26 September.

Rutter, M. (1999) ‘Autism: two-way interplay between research and clinical work’, Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, vol.40, pp.169–88.

Rutter, M., Andersen-Wood, L., Beckett, C, Bredenkamp, D., Castle, J., Groothues, C, Kreppner, J., Keaveney, L., Lord, C., O'Connor, T.G. and the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study team (1999) ‘Quasi-autistic patterns following severe early global privation’, Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, vol.40, pp.537–49.

Tinbergen, N. and Tinbergen, E. (1983) (eds) Autistic Children: New Hope for a Cure, London, Allen and Unwin.

Welch, M. (1983) ‘Appendix I: Retrieval from autism through mother-child holding therapy’, in Tinbergen, N. and Tinbergen, E. (eds).

Autism-Europe, Code of good practice on prevention of violence against persons with autism, 1998.

Grandin, Temple An inside view of autism. Available on-line from: www.autism.org/temple/inside.html

Howlin, Patricia Children with autism and Asperger syndrome: a guide for practitioners and carers. John Wiley and Sons, 1998.

Joliffe, Therese; Lansdowne, Richard, & Robinson, Clive, Autism: a personal account. In: Communication, Vol 26(3) December 1992.

Siegel, Bryna, The world of the autistic child. Oxford University Press, 1996.

Breaking Down the Wall of Silence: The Liberating Experience of Facing Painful Truth by Alice Miller

Jirina Prekop

Jean I'm just working through the history of the use of holding therapy for autism. It didn't last very long as a new exciting cure before being pushed out of mainstream but it still goes on in some places. What I'm wondering is, to what extent is it relevent to the history of attachment therapy, or the history of autism "cures" on the autism page, or whether there is another article in it? It seemed to have been based on the now discredited notion that autism was caused by a failure of attachment - holding promoted attachment - therefore holding "cured" autism. I suppose once it was known autism had nothing to do with attachment the "diagnosis" of attachment disorder arose to take its place. I'd like to be able to put this in context in this article.Fainites barleyscribs 12:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Good questions. Although people like Kanner attributed autism to cold mothers, I don't know that they made a connection to attachment-- not nearly as well-known an idea at that time as it was by the 1970s. My guess is that Tinbergen, Welch, and Zaslow were the major proponents of holding as a treatment for autism, and the connection with attachment, and that this connection was not much discussed by others. Even Bettelheim thought of autism as a defensive posture in reaction to hostile treatment by the parent, not as a lack of attachment.

But was the failure of this idea related to the invention of attachment disorder? The original version of attachment disorder ("Reactive attachment disorder of infancy and early childhood") was in fact characterized as a feeding disorder. You seem to be thinking of holding as a cure without a disease, and you may be right that its practitioners were seeking a suitable problem. Unfortunately, the practitioners did not publish detailed accounts of their thinking-- even the Tinbergens' 1985 book, although long and full of speculation, never really fills in the blanks about why holding ought to accomplish anything, or why autism ought to be related to attachment. (Nevertheless, the concept was floating around. In Marguerite Sechehaye's book "Diary of a Schizophrenic Girl", the girl was seen as needing mothering care from the therapist, although the word attachment wasn't used.)

One possible connection with holding is that Lovaas's original treatment for autism was quite rough, using shocks and slaps to try to "break up" persistent autistic behavior, then rewards for more appropriate behavior. Lovaas soon decided that the punitive part was not working and stopped it-- but I wonder whether that treatment helped establish a [temporary] association between autism and rough stuff.

To go back for a moment to holding for autism and the move to attachment disorder-- an alternative, or additional, factor might have been that everything came to be about attachment, and with attachment as the universal explanation, all disorders readily became attachment disorders.

Maybe the place for this discussion is in connection with material about Lovaas? Jean Mercer (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was looking at the 1983 Tinbergen which contains an appendix by Welsh of the same date. Tinbergen relates autism to a "failure" in the bond with the mother caused by "traumatic influences" of the early environment. These include things like a difficult delivery, 1 weeks separation when mother or child is in hospital, moving house under the age of 30 months when the parents are stressed etc etc . He doesn't say these things inevitably cause problems - but that combinations of them can put the "child and mother on the wrong track from the start". He sees it as an essentially emotional or motivational disturbance. Welsh is more straightforward. She just says "Autism is caused by faulty bonding between mother and child". What I was thinking was - its a short step from this to believing that the theory and the cure can also apply to any disturbance in a relationship between mother and child as you say. If holding could cure the ultimate failure in attachment, ie autism, then it could cure a not-very-good attachment also. From this could come the next step to thinking it could create attachment where none existed or could exist before, ie with an adopted child. Once you add in the idea that all problems with children are essentially attachment problems the thing becomes simple.
I had got the impression that this line of thinking was not necessarily linked to the inclusion of RAD in DSM/ICD. Attachment therapists were using the diagnosis of attachment disorder rather than reactive attachment disorder until comparatively recently.Fainites barleyscribs 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean yes - was it a cure looking for a disorder - but also - there is a kind of "affirming the consequent" type logic about it too. Speltz clearly traces a connection from Zaslow to Cline and then Welsh thrown into the mix.Fainites barleyscribs 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Jirina Prekop still seems to be current. Fainites barleyscribs 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I find this article to be very biased against attachment therapy. But then, I can see that this is due to the fact that it is based on a false assumption that attachment therapy involves forced holding, whereas I am not familiar with any attachment therapist still using this outmoded technique today. For some reason, the self-appointed guardians of the subject on Wikipedia have chosen to differentiate between attachment therapy and attachment-based therapies, while that differentiation is not generally used elsewhere, except as forced by those who may want to make sure that no one falsely thinks they are doing forced holding. While there may be an odd exception existing somewhere, attachment therapists have not practice forced holding for quite some time now. Just as psychiatrists do not generally perform lobotomies or use electro-shock therapy these days, attachment therapists no longer utilize forced holding. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

In looking through the history of this article, I can see that my radkid.org site has been removed and re-added several times, with even a couple of references to it being added to the external links by a banned user. That site is mine and mine alone, and I did not add it to the external links section, nor do I employ anyone to promote my site. For one thing, if this article is about a therapy (misleadingly entitled attachment therapy) using forced holding, that is not a therapy that I support personally, or on my site. However, if the site has been added to the external links section, that would be because someone found it to be a worthy reference, not as a self-promotion. Indications that the site has been added by banned users or that it is being removed as a self-promotion are incorrect, and shed a bad light on my site, which I neither added or asked to be added here.

If there is self-promotion here, it is on behalf of those opposed to attachment therapy, who have continuously misrepresented it within the article, and whose external links are included. This is anything but a neutral article, but I am not going to involve myself in the Wikipedia Wars that have allowed special interests to dominate the POV of far too many Wikipedia articles. --Kfander (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it has been a contention for "some time" that attachment therapists do not do "forced holding". Everybody denies it, but it goes on every day. And many proponents play semantic games about whether the practices are actually restraint. More importantly, though, as the article was forced at length to go on about, attachment therapy is much more than just restraint. It is a whole philosophy, treatment approach, and set of techniques/diagnoses, used on children. If there is any bias in the article, it is toward giving an accurate and complete account. It is that accuracy and thoroughness which gives an impression of bias to those who practice or support it. And, BTW, as its history shows, the article was started by proponents of attachment therapy as a promotional vehicle. They eventually lost the ensuing edit war when they were unable to document their assertions. Larry Sarner (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You have raised this before Kfander and been asked for sources. The current article (barring the banned user stuff) is almost entirely sourced from scholarly, peer reviewed articles and works published by notable publishers. The Taskforce report was published in 2006 as was Prior and Glaser. Enhancing attachment is 2005. The latest edition of Cassidy and Shaver is 2008. I could go on. All these sources raise concerns about "attachment therapy". If you have any decent sources to add feel free to do so but there's not much point just saying all the scholarly stuff published in the last few years is now totally out of date (which seems inherently unlikely) but produce nothing more recent. I have included the part from the Taskforce about recent moves away from coercion and the (very) recent ATTAch statement on the point. Do you think this should have more prominence? What do you want the article to say? That Nancy Thomas' recent edition says don't do holding "for legal reasons" but then advocates "cuddle time"?Fainites barleyscribs 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The banned user by the way was banned for running about 7 or more sock puppets to "own" and control all the attachment related pages and a dozen or more besides plus other activities. He shouldn't be editing at all. This does not stop you arguing a case for the inclusion of a link you think appropriate. See WP:EL.Fainites barleyscribs 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Further, the reason why a distinction is made between "attachment therapy" and attachment-based therapy" is that "attachment therapy" as it is popularly known is not in fact based on attachment theory, as attested to by serious commetators such as Michael Rutter, Mary Dozier, Vyvyan Prior, Danya Glaser and the whole of the Taskforce which includes people like Zeannah, O'Connor, Ziv, Berliner etc etc etc Fainites barleyscribs 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Kfander. This article is run by a group of zealots from Advocates for Children in Therapy and their supporters. I found that out when I contacted Jean Mercer/Gene Lester about treatment for my child (adopted from Russia) and he told me that attachment therapy would harm my child....wrong!!!!!. Their bias shows. the comment above, "attachment therapy as it is popularly know is not in fact based on attachment theory," is a lie and they know it. (Look at the material on the website of ATTACh, https://www.attach.org. They talk about attachment therapy and it in no way reflects their distortions. PAMom (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

PAMom (not that is necessarily what you are or where you're from), you have said on another discussion that Mercer knows you, but you obviously don't know her, or you wouldn't be calling her "he" and raising that deliberately offensive "Gene Lester" canard all over the place. The language you used in your latest edit summary (i.e., "vandalized"), the insistent, irrelevant references to "Lester", the use of the old DPeterson editing tactic of stubborn insistence on your POV edits without evidence or citation, and that you have assumed the task of defending edits which initially came from Buffalo, all are strong confirmations that you are really an incarnation of Becker-Weidman, or at least doing his direct bidding. Sorry — but not surprised — to see you haven't changed, "Dr Art". Larry Sarner (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well no doubt following the Taskforce report, the more sensible attachment therapists have been keen to take it on board and change practices. But you can't live down history by just pretending it doesn't exist - neither is there any evidence as yet that traditional attachment therapy practices have ended. I note that certain publications by certain practitioners are no longer available for sale through ATTACh but yet only in 2008 in the autumn, Nancy Thomas was presenting at the conference and there were blogs from conference participants describing ongoing holding therapy. Fair play to ATTACh for speaking out against coercive practices (as this article has noted) but if you are asking us to accept, in the absence of any evidence, that either -a) AT as described never existed, or that b) AT as described has suddenly disappeared overnight - then you are going to have to come up with some evidence/sources. Fainites barleyscribs 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The latest Weidman sock is User:Corkytig by the way. Fainites barleyscribs 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I'm out of date. Users User:PAMom and User:Corkytig have just been blocked indef. Fainites barleyscribs 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have made some adjustments giving more more prominence to the ATTACh statement against coercive practices by moving the "variations" section up higher and renamimg it "developments" and by including the 2006 White Paper in the lead. However, ATTACh's statement - though very welcome from the leaders in the field, does not mean all attachment therapists have given up either holding therapy, conrontation or AT parenting practices. Indeed there is a case currently going on at the moment where a murdered child was undergoing AT style parenting practices as advised by two therapists for an alleged "attachment disorder" (strict control of food, water, toiletting and clothes and having to "earn" basic necessities such as clothes and food). These extraordinary measures are justified as necessary for such an "extreme" disorder.Fainites barleyscribs 13:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Kfander - the RadKid site has one of those lists of symptoms that the Taskforce were concerned about. [8] The sources for this list on your site are Hughes, Thomas and James. Now Hughes has spoken out against various AT methods he formerly employed - and that is in the article. James is a fervent opponent of coercive therapy - however, does she promulgate such a list? The concerns about attachment therapy addressed by the Taskforce do not just relate to the use of coercive holding and noxious stimulation. The concerns also relate to the underlying theoretical basis and the process of "diagnosis" via symptoms lists published on the web which are not in accordance with mainstream understanding of attachment issues. Fainites barleyscribs 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing that AWeidman is still showing up with socks. The rapid response to this behavior is incredibly relieving. At any rate, nice work on everything. shotwell (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Extraordinary isn't it. One of the most recent was Called GeneLesterisaMan, can you believe and there are others called things like MentalHealthProf or PsychPhD.Fainites barleyscribs 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Legalities section

Given the extremely confrontational and coercive nature of AT treatments, I think a section on the legality thereof would be appropriate (broadly written of course, so as not to be jurisdiction-specific).

Parents are generally given very wide leeway in how they may control or otherwise force their children to do things against the child's will. But what are the restrictions?

For instance, intentional withholding of food/drink; forcible restraint for multiple hours; forcible 'rebirthing'; etc. would be considered felonious kidnapping, torture, assault and battery, etc if done to an adult... Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I always find this interesting. That people are somehow allowed to do things to children in the name of "discipline" or "therapy" that would plainly be crimes if done to an adult. Its also interesting the extent to which people who would not do these things themselves suspend judgement when it comes to parents as if its impossible to believe parents could be so cruel. And of course the parents who do these things no doubt believe its for the best. Have you ever seen stuff by the Pearls for example? They advocate whipping babies from the age of 3 months (to awaken love in their hearts I understand) and even tell you where to buy the plastic piping suitable for the purpose. Do you have any information on legal relating to attachment therapy? I know that a number of cases where the defence put forward by Cline on behalf of the parents has been unsuccessful. There is also a judgement I have somewhere where there was legal argument about whether the fact that something that was believed to be therapeutic could in fact constitute a defence to assault or something like that. I'll see if I can find it. Fainites barleyscribs 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be interesting to look at attempts that have been made to outlaw AT and related treatments, including the unsuccessful legislation in Utah. Also, many of the AT practices are countable under the NIS-4 protocol. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. A section on successful and unsuccessful efforts. The "cases" section should perhaps be more legal.Fainites barleyscribs 21:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Here it is. A finding on Whether the trial court properly rejected Killpack’s proposed jury instructions that child abuse homicide cannot result from injuries inflicted by a parent if those injuries are caused by the parent’s (a) reasonable child care choices or (b) reasonable treatment of the child’s medical condition;. This was the case where the child was forced to drink excessive amounts of water as a punishment for stealing her sisters drink.
  • In November 2001, Dr. Jenkins suggested that the Killpacks take Cassandra to a psychiatrist who could prescribe medication for her. Resisting this suggestion, the Killpacks stopped seeing Dr. Jenkins and several months later began taking Cassandra to Cascade Therapy for intensive, nonmedicinal therapy aimed at treating her behavioral problems. According to Killpack, the therapists at Cascade confirmed Dr. Jenkins’s RAD diagnosis and recommended that Killpack implement treatment ideas from a book by Nancy Thomas. The book suggested that parents could cure a child’s misbehavior by having the child repeat a particular misbehavior “in excess.” The book did not, however, specifically suggest forcing a child to drink water as a treatment for the child’s drinking-related misbehavior.Fainites barleyscribs 09:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

copy of Van Bloom/Cascade charge sheet.Fainites barleyscribs 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to SS investigation into death of a foster child where AT is involved - particularly in the stuff about self-inflicted injuries. Never investigated at the time because the workers believed the AT mantra that RAD kids injure themselves and make up stories of abuse in order to get foster carers into trouble. Also - having no behaviour problems at school or elsewhere than at home is a symptom of RAD and proof positive of manipulative behaviour. Fainites barleyscribs 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A 2006 case about "collecting" children.Fainites barleyscribs 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Is the person who added the "lead too long" tag going to discuss this on the talkpage as suggested? The lead is currently 5 paragraphs. Fainites barleyscribs 12:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


memo British Journal of Social Work (2010) 40, 1534–1552 doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp078 Advance Access publication July 11, 2009 To Have and to Hold: Questions about a Therapeutic Service for Children John Sudbery, Steven M. Shardlow*, and A. E. Huntington discussion of some of the literature and small scale study on Keys in the UK. (cf documentary on Keys) Fainites barleyscribs 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dyadic developmental psychotherapy

Thank you Faintes for removing this edit. I couldn't tell what it was, so AGF, even though I was suspicious I wasn't sure what to do. I think the link to Dyadic should be removed too. One pseudo-something linking to another makes no sense to me, but maybe it should stay. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's all a bit complicated really. The guy who started DDP is an attachment therapist who has spoken out against the coercive unpleasant side of AT and changed and developed his practices. The "research" done - which is one study and a 4 year follow-up done by someone else - appears to have been done at a time before these reforms took place. However, this study is constantly used here on wikipedia and all over the internet to claim it is an "evidence based treatment" even though it fulfils none of the requirements and the APSAC Taskforce said so. No new studies have been published - just rehashes of the old study. However, the practice of DDP as per the originator, Hughes, appears on the surface to have developed somewhat. The DDP article, which used to be a straightforward advert with extreme claims written by the banned sockmaster, was re-written to get rid of the pseudoscience rubbish and false claims, and to reflect the more up-to-date version of DDP. It is probably much too big and detailed an article for a minor unvalidated therapy though. I do wonder whether it would not be best deleted. On the other hand - the wikipedia article on it is the only one which discounts it's claim to be "evidence-based". What's even more odd is that that one of the books that the socks keep inserting to promote DDP, the Family attachment therapy one, only mentions DDP once in the introduction. I'm not sure whether what Hughes does is still called DDP or not, or whether what the rest are doing is Hughes version or just AT under a different name.Fainites barleyscribs 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
With absolutely no real knowledge, but some real life experience with true believers in things that use sciencey sounding words, I'm going to say that DDP is most likely straight up AT with names changed to protect the folks who are hurting kids. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to tell when there is so much obfuscation. So much is prosletysed on websites which then change. For example, there is one paper which states that the "research" originally used to promote DDP back in 2004 was effectively pure, dyed-in-the-wool holding therapy, ie the Myeroff paper and some other "research" that was published on attachment therapy websites or self-published. These do not now get cited to claim DDP is "evidence based" but they were as recently as 2004. So what was DDP then and when did it change? On the other hand, Hughes has spoken out publically against the coercive practices used and this should be acknowledged. For AT in general there are some interesting "training videos" on the ACT website here.Fainites barleyscribs 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LindaRosaRN, 11 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

URL CORRECTIONS:


Advocates for Children in Therapy – Child advocacy group opposing attachment therapy http://www.childrenintherapy.org/index.html, retrieved 2011-09-11.


51. ^ Advocates for Children in Therapy, North Carolina Bans "Rebirthing", http://www.childrenintherapy.org/atnews/2003Aug2.html, retrieved 2011-09-11.


61. ^ a b c Advocates for children in Therapy, Foster W. Cline, http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/cline.html, retrieved 2011-09-11.


LindaRosaRN (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done,  Chzz  ►  01:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done

new edit

"Although the term attachment disorder is ambiguous" and other quotes for the article by Chaffin et. al support my addition. See the article: Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems.

Argon&Helium (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed contributions of a sock

A user active on this article, Argon&Helium, looks to have been banned as a sock puppet in a long-term abuse case:

Accordingly, I have removed the content added by this user. Regardless, this is not an area of expertise for me, so if there's consensus that parts of the user's contributions were productive, feel free to add them back in. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Speltz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_therapy/Archive_4&oldid=1136537014"