User talk:Fainites/archive 3

Reactive Attachment Disorder

That's a good part you did about prevalence. Just keep in mind that if diagnosis is not very clearly defined, no estimate of prevalence is going to be especially accurate. Even saying it's rare doesn't really convey much.

A question that crosses my mind--- did someone at some time use this term , Reactive, to differentiate from an attachment disorder that was not a reaction to experience? Analogous to AIDS versus genetic immunodeficiencies? If there was once supposed to be another form of attachment disorder, I never heard of it. But otherwise why say Reactive at all? After all, every way of developing attachment is a reaction to experience. This is a puzzlement.Jean Mercer 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was connected with the belief that autistic children were unattached because some of them avoided eye contact. But at that time autism was thought to be "reactive" too, so i don't know if that helps.Jean Mercer 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that you moved the Erikson stuff to Attachment Disorder-- and that's fine with me, because even if you could make a convoluted argument that Erikson's trust concept is equivalent to attachment, the paragraph that was in the RAD article didn't make any sense and should just disappear. It could be replaced by something better worked out,if anyone wanted to deal with it. Jean Mercer 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage saying it didn't seem to fit in AD either, so I've left it on the RAD talkpage itself for consideration. If there is a comparison between the trust concept and attachment, it probably belongs on the atteachment theory page. After all, Bowlby wasn't working in a vacuum. Fainites ^barley 08:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Attachment article structure

Hi, please see my response to your questions on my talk page. Steve carlson 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test siggy. Fainites ^barley 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy closed

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't quite understand the jargon but the result is very good.

I have criticised this page in the past and returned to find it amended for the better.

I gave up because of the odds against me and I am glad to see I am not the only person with reservations.

I understand the 'Attachment' page is being rewritten which is a good thing.

However I would like it noted that the attachment theory was NOT invented by Dr Bowlby.

He was responsible for the theory of Maternal Deprivation which he expounded in 1951.

As you will see from the page I have created this theory drew a great deal of criticism.

There was no easy progression from this theory to the attachment theory.

Because of the criticism he received he was forced to go away and rethink his ideas.

It was not until late in the 1960's that we get his next serious work which was about attachment BUT he did not invent this theory. He turned to it. This explains the gap in his publications from 1953 to 1969.

He could see that he had made a MISTAKE and had to come back with something else. It is to his eterenal discredit or his pride that he never admitted his mistake!

It is very easy to see the consequences of his MISTAKE by looking at some of the comments about his work on the www.

Many people still believe maternal deprivation and the attachment theory are the same.

If it would help I can provide a list of the significant errors made by Bowlby's theory of MD taken from, Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect.

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller 23:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article ratings

I believe anyone can make comments about the article's qualification for Good Article status. I know that anyone can make comments when articles are nominated as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so it stands to reason that Good Article would be the same. If comments are made by an unregistered user, particularly one without a substantial edit history, I don't think those comments would be given much credence. I would encourage you to join in and make comments. It is a great way to gain experience, although sometimes the results are painful! Regards, --Mattisse 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi automatic peer review

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

MORE ATTACHMENT!

Dear Fainties,

You have a very good feel for the subject and the changes you have made are a vast improvement.

If you take a look at the pages I have created on 'maternal deprivation' and 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter' I have identified major differences with the Attachment theory.

Although you may not believe others no longer think in terms of MD part of the problem you have found in keeping track of the changes to these pages is that many people still do - please take my word for it.

What is more is that they believe they are the same thing ie mothers are naturally better parents than fathers.

Thank you for your interest

KingsleyMiller 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I have also just completed a page on the Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents, not without its hicups!

Dear Fainites and Jim,

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

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

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

kipKingsleyMiller 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Company!

Guess who's back, and asking for the IRS form on my talk page. I commented on this to FT2.Jean Mercer 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Same old crap. Fainites ^barley 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a thing. [1] Fainites ^barley 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

C-PTSD

Coolness. Care to lend a hand? --DashaKat 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately its not a subject I know much about. I understand it is a 'diagnosis' much favoured by attachment therapists now that all-purpose 'reactive attachment disorder' is becoming somewhat discredited. Next bandwagon to be jumped on is Developmental Trauma Disorder which I understand will be a more serious contender for inclusion in DSM.Fainites ^barley 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe-- but nowadays there have to be empirical studies showing the existence of a disorder, before it's included. The DSM committees have been warning people about this for several years.Jean Mercer 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment

from Josephschwartz i'm confused about the procedure to answer you. I can see that you've deleted by original changes and I can see why. The reference Cassidy and Shaver Handbook of Attachment should be good enough to document the necessity for distnguisihing the psychoanbaltyic attachment therpaies from attachment therapy. As a clincian myself I am concerned that the public may be misled about attachment-based psychotherapy. I know this isa charged area but I would prefer simply to have another page/article rather than make the attachment therapy article comprehensive.

Now will you get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs)

I've put an answer on your talkpage Joseph. Fainites ^barley 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks you for you comments under Talk:Lavvu - Take Care... Dinkytown 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It was what I thought. best of luck. Fainites ^barley 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Memo to self x 2

Pseudoscience

Further information: WP:UNDUE

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has described pseudoscience as follows (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience):

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

The ArbCom ruled that the following should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Fainites ^barley 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one needs to watch out for what has been called "pseudosymmetry"-- the journalistic practice of choosing one item out of a thousand scientific reports, and one item out of two pseudoscientific reports, and giving the impression that this is a balanced presentation.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As in 'the jury's still out on global warming', or 'teach the controversy' ? Fainites ^barley 09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And "pseusdoscepticism". Fainites ^barley 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Box thing

Fainites ^barley 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

books or papers

• both books and papers need page numbers, as many as you can get. Books are far easier.. you can almost always get that info from Google books. You might be able to get all the books taken care of in less than two hours; maybe even closer to one hour. Papers are trickier, but even then you can sometimes find help from the Internet (sometimes... occasionally...) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats OK. I have most of the main ones and I believe JeanMercer has access to an academic data base. It just looked clumsy to put them in. Its just that some papers are only a few pages long. Fainites ^barley 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

hey, real life is calling..

I have no time left. I have to work on my dissertation.. If you have questions, please EMAIL me (don't leave a message on my talk; I'm going to try not to check it...) when you're re-ready & I'll look at it again then... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Disorganized attachment

I think Zeanah et al say essentially the same things as Crittenden, and more recently. But, no harm if you want to add this source.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a suitable image for the RADpage but it needs a better title I think. Fainites ^barley 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RAD

Many thanks. I'm really puzzled by the references thing though. We used to have one that looked like the one on Aspergers. Much neater. Then the GA reviewer said that because several refs had several citations with different page numbers we needed a seperate notes and refs sections so we could put in the page numbers. Which he helped us do. This meant all the papers and the books going in the refs and all the page number bits in the notes. I note that Aspergers doesn't do this at all. Is the current system that we're using OK? Most of the refs are in fact peer reviewed papers. Should all the papers go in notes and just books in refs? Fainites ^barley 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your GA pass, and I see that you were fortunate to have had the review of a fine editor, Ling.Nut (this is not typical; often editors show up at FAC having followed bad advice given them at GAN by inexperienced reviewers). Ling.Nut's advice was correct, but perhaps you misunderstood. He correctly said that page numbers are needed on book sources; they aren't needed on journal sources. There are a couple of factors here. First, technically, there's nothing wrong with doing the references the way you've done them, except that on a glance, they make your sourcing appear weaker than it actually is. At first glance, I thought you had sourced most of the article to books (which in that realm, usually means pop psychology books), and I didn't notice what I expect to find on a well-sourced medical article (which is a a lot of journal-published research; notice autism, Asperger syndrome and Tourette syndrome where sources are high-quality journal-published reviews, easy to find with one click on the PMID). The other thing is that it's not common or necessary to provide page numbers on journal articles in medical referencing. Now that you've done that, it doesn't seem to be a good use of time to undo it, but you didn't have to do that, and it's not that Ling.Nut's advice was wrong, but that I think you overinterpreted it. You could have simply used a named ref to refer to the same PMID multiple times, as done on the three articles above. Given that you've already done work that didn't need to be done, I'm not sure it makes sense to tell you to undo it. The way you sourced the article will surprise experienced medical reviewers, but once they look closer and realize you didn't source the article to pop psychology books, it should be OK. What I suggest you do is go through your References section and standardize every source as in the sample I did [2] (using the Diberri PMID template filler in the user box on my user page), because you've failed to include PMIDs and DOIs on the journal-published research, and to follow the formatting used on most medical articles. On medical articles, one expects to see a preponderance of PMIDs rather than books that anyone can publish. If you do that, the quality of your sources will be more apparent, and the fact that you included page numbers on journal sources even though that wasn't necessary won't be an issue. Please be sure to check in with me, Colin, Fvasconcellos, Eubulides or other reviewers before you go to FAC; you have a very fine start on this article, and I have never yet encountered anyone on Wiki writing a decent article in the psychology realm. I'm impressed; I don't want you to get surprises at FAC because of lack of review, so take your time and get the good reviewers on board before you go to FAC (if you want an example of what you don't want to happen, look at the FAC on Herpes zoster). Ling.Nut is a good reviewer; this was just a misunderstanding of book vs. journal sourcing and the use of page numbers in medical articles, and it's not a big problem. Just standardize the References section to include PMIDs or DOIs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I think I get it now. I wasn't meaning to criticise Ling.nut. He was excellent. I'm just having some conceptual difficulties! Probably the only 'paper' that needs page numbers is the Taskforce Report which was rather long and doesn't really count as a 'paper' in the same way. The only thing I was wondering was whether to put all the papers back in the notes leaving just the few books in the refs. Might look less repetitive. (The books by the way are either Bowlby himself, or three thoroughly pukka mainstream tomes, two of which consist of a series of papers by Names in the field.) Fainites ^barley 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

FOr now, I don't see it as a good use of your time to undo work you've already done; don't worry about the page numbers. Instead, I would focus on beefing up the WP:MOS issues, expanding all content sections to encompass the recommended sections at WP:MEDMOS, and convert your references using Diberri. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template for conversions {{cite journal | author = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | year = | pmid = | doi = | issn = }}

Fainites ^barley 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to convert to templates by hand; just go to PubMed, find the PMID number, plug it into Diberri's tool, and Diberri returns the full template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! it works! Fainites ^barley 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi All. Sorry if I offered incorrect or at best unhelpfully vague advice. For journals, you use common sense about offering a page number. That's actually what I stated on the article's Talk page. However, here on this talk page (see above) I was more cavalier (and in more of a hurry), and said both need page numbers. I screwed up then. To repeat what I said on the article's Talk: If the entire article is specifically about the topic at hand, then there's usually no reason to give a page number. Upon reflection, that would tend to cover most medical articles, since most of these are about one and only one narrowly scoped topic.
• The formatting I used provides a means for offering page numbers from books etc., but if it is is inapproapriate, it can go away...
• The old version of the reference section hasn't been vaporized. :) It still exists in the article's history and can be retrieved if need be. I will glady help in any way I can.
• Ling.Nut (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No need, the page nos aren't a big deal. More important now is to focus on filling in missing info per sections at WP:MEDMOS, to assure the article meets 1b, comprehensive of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As per your concerns about 1b, I don't remember seeing anything about this: Apparently there has been a significant increase in the number of children receiving this diagnosis. "However, many children are receiving this diagnosis because of behavior problems that clearly extend beyond the DSM-IV criteria for RAD." Hanson, Rochelle F. & Spratt, Eve G. (2000). Reactive Attachment Disorder: What We Know about the Disorder and Implications for Treatment. Child Maltreatment, Vol. 5, No. 2, 137-145. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes its in the first paragraph of 'diagnosis' but its part of the quote from Chaffin. It doesn't look as if its been fully correctly cited. Perhaps it needs to stand on its own two feet a bit more. Its complicated by the 'alternative' diagnosis issue. There are two different forms of diagnosis - one mainstream and the other from 'attachment therapy'. Fainites ^barley 10:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that estimates of prevalence are based on very little information, and as a result estimates of increased use of the diagnosis are also weak. In addition, RAD diagnoses are often accompanied by alternate or additional diagnoses presented as co-morbidities. Most children diagnosed with and treated for RAD are seen as outpatients or in private settings, where data are difficult to collect. The Hanson & Spratt statement may be quite accurate (if we could know all), but it is based on limited information.

Also, it seems inappropriate to be positing a mechanism when the disorder itself, if any, has not been sufficiently described.

Because there are so many problems of this kind relative to RAD, I question whether use of the MEDMOS plan is appropriate. To try to fill the gaps is deceptive, implying to readers that more is known than is the case; to leave the gaps as gaps would make a very awkward presentation. Why not simply go with the narrative more or less as it is, and include a section listing what needs to be known about RAD and asking for information to be added as it is reported? Why not use the great strength of Wikipedia by clearly stating RAD to be poorly understood, and showing a plan for future discussion as the topic unfolds? Jean Mercer (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well OK. I see what you mean. I've rearranged the sections a little in line with MedMos but haven't actually removed or changed the information. the weakness of this approach is that I think the earlier arrangement whereby there was a brief explanation of the theoretical framework before plunging into the details of RAD was better. Many people think they understand attachment but don't really. Otherwise its not much different really. Have a look. What do you think? I thought the only new section for MedMos would be prognosis. A tricky one as there's no real longditundinal studies. There may be some informed speculation though. Fainites ^barley 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the increased use of diagnosis is referring to attachment therapy notions or mainstream diagnosis. Its a view thats quoted quite frequently. Prior and Glaser give a list of symptoms that are seen as RAD when in fact they are either transformations of disorganised attachment or the sequalae of maltreatment. On the other hand, some authorities posit that RAD may in fact be the extreme end of disorganised atachment. I don't see why the article can't fairly present the current state of knowledge - ie that its pretty thin! Fainites ^barley 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my Wiki-ignorance, but isn't it OR, to come to the conclusion that there's only meager information?Jean Mercer (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? What i mean is - if there's no longitudinal studies and no research on long term effects of RAD and no papers on long term outcomes of the current lot of treatments and no treatments developed for people who 'had' RAD years ago - then why not say so?Fainites ^barley 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine with me, but I would think an original statement to the effect that there is no such empirically-based information would be OR. There's a difference between failing to say that there's evidence, and saying that there is no evidence. Just trying to follow the guidelines.

I think you mean prospective or retrospective studies-- longitudinal studies deal with developmental change with age, they're not just studies with a long time between causal event and outcome measure.

Why "barley", by the way?Jean Mercer (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

'Fainites-barley' is a form of 'fainites' (ie it has the same effect). The 'barley' part probably derives from 'parley' as in deriving from the French 'parler' (parlez-vous) and meaning to talk as opposed to fight. A rare form of Saxon/Norman linguistic co-operation. Rather like someone I once knew called 'Nigel Godwin'.

As for the studies, whether they've got the right name or not, it wouldn't be OR of there was a source saying there's no studies of various types. Its only OR if we say it. There's a section in the Handbook (Cassidy and Shaver) of some interest. It says - "The most important constraints on the understanding of treatment, however, are (1) the ucertainty of what is needed for the children (as distinct from the parents|) when their attachment problems derive from the past, rather than present experiences; and (2) the uncertainty regarding the benefits wih respect to reduction in psychopathology that follow improvements in attachment security." This work is 1999 and most of the current treatments have been developed since then - but there's nothing I have been able to find in respect of older children or adults who's attachment problems derive from the past.Fainites ^barley 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeanah says " given that the data base is so small and so recent, it is not surprising that intervention efforts for RAD are largely unexplored." This was in 2005. The bit from Prior and Glaser about lack of clarity about presentation over the age of 5 is already in the article I think. According to some author called "mercer" I think, "empirical studies are quite rare" and goes on to say "although poor attachment experiences have a real potential for causing poor emotional outcomes, their consequences can be different for children in different situations, and can be influenced by individuals' basic temperamental characteristics. By the time children reach school age they have developed along individual lines to such an extent that early attachment experiences are only one factor among many that determine emotion and behavior. Assessments of Reactive Attachment Disorder at that point may not be possible, as leaders in this area of research have stated.". Fainites ^barley 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Memo: 61 citations. 41 of which = papers published in peer reviewed journal. (Two of these are commentary rather than research). 11 are papers published as chapters of books edited by mainstream 'names' (such as Cassidy and Shavers 'Handbook of Attachment) etc. The books consist of 3 books by Bowlby, 1 by Ainsworth and two books on the subject in general from mainstream authors and publishers. Other cites are things like the DSM, the Circle of Security project and various assessment measure pages. Fainites ^barley 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. I'm very busy at the moment in real life. I've got so little time for Wikipedia and your substantial article looks like it deserves some careful thought. I'm currently devoting my time to rotavirus, which is nearing FAC. I had offered to review smallpox next but I suspect it has longer to go. If you are keen to go to FAC soon, then the best I could do is a general impression and some suggestions. If you have plenty other things to keep you occupied and are prepared to wait some weeks.... The topic is one I'm completely unfamiliar with (and I've no medical training whatsoever) so I'd really just be commenting on the prose. Have you tried Eubulides? He's done some amazing work on the autism articles and has access to medical journals (which I generally don't). Sorry if this is disappointing, but I don't want to promise something I can't achieve. Colin°^Talk 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Theraplay

Hi, I wanted to be complete. You may remove that edit. If you do so, then can you put it in the "see also" section, please? Bearian (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder comments

Hi there. I'll gladly have a look and offer my 2 cents, with one caveat—I'm swamped with work until Monday. Do you think you could wait a while? If you'd rather go ahead with FAC, though, please feel free to. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just thought I'd let you know I haven't forgotten :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm sorry, I've gotten an unexpected job; I'll leave some more comments at PR tonight. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've left a couple more comments. Sorry for going at this piecemeal, and I hope my comments/edits have been useful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, there's more—and no need to be depressed :) I shouldn't even be on wiki now... I'll leave you a proper answer later, I promise :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither should I ! Fainites ^barley 12:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing

Can you find anything on Wiki about Love & Logic, the Foster Cline parent-training outfit? I can't. If there isn't anything, perhaps an article is in order--- except that most of the material is on line, not in print.Jean Mercer (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a mention, Helicopter Parent but nothing else. Have you seen this [3]Fainites ^barley 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at it for a while--- I love their disclaimer! Heck, MY family values say to beat those little guys unconscious, so i guess that's okay.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Godwin

Explain what you said a couple of weeks ago, please.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fainites is OE and barley is OF. 'Nigel' is Norman and 'Godwin' is Saxon. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Nigel means Norman, or just that it's a Norman name?

How about Porky Pig for an example?

Let's Barley about something else. I wanted to put something into the RAD article but can't seem to make it work-- perhaps because there's already a citation of another article by the same authors?

The article I want to mention is

Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2006). DRD4 7-repeat polymorphism moderates the association between maternal unresolved loss or trauma and infant disorganization. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 291-307.

I' m sure I did not do the Zeanah piece's reference according to the recent rules. Would you kindly check?Jean Mercer (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Which Zeanah ref is that? Where are you trying to put the Va Ijzendoorn? I'll stick it in for you. Maybe there was an edit conflict just now. 'Nigel' is a Norman name. The upper classes went in for Norman names. Reginald, Miles, Giles, Cosmo - that kind of stuff.Fainites ^barley 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done them. Fainites ^barley 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As for Porky Pig, the same would apply to Beefy Cow or Muttony Sheep. Fainites ^barley 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but the latter are not cartoon characters. Just attempting to introduce a note of levity-- there's not so much fun since Whack-a-* is over.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- no wonder your mind wanders to Normans (the Wreck of Norman's Woe-- "Norman! Whoa!").Jean Mercer (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeanah typology

No, the 2005 paper in the edited book does not say much about this as far as I can see. The best reference seems to be

Boris, N.W., & Zeanah, C.H. (1999) Disturbances and disorders of attachment in infancy: An overview. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 1-9.

This is the source cited by Reebye.

I wonder whether this typology did not get very far in replacing RAD, a)because it is difficult to apply it to children over 2 or 3; b) third-party payers still want DSM codes used.

I think DC: 0-3-R mentions this approach, but I can't find my copy at the moment.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to be engaged in rolling a rock uphill, from what i can see.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was seriously thinking of changing my name to CissyFuss (with the Fuss in small letters for the talkpage) Fainites ^barley 17:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Testing a link [4] Fainites ^barley 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RAD

Yes. I've just added some more. If you have the patience for me, I'll try to look at the rest. Sorry this is so protracted. I think it worth asking Eubulides specifically to review how you've handled the controversial stuff. Colin°^Talk 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and let me know when you've finished fiddling with the refs. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I've asked Eubulides myself. Colin°^Talk 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will read that article. I remember the Candace Newmaker story from the news. I deliberately avoided reading the sub-articles as I wanted to be like a new reader finding your article on the Main Page, or else looking it up after seeing RAD mentioned somewhere. Colin°^Talk 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RAD note

Ok, I'll do it tomorrow :) Drop me another note if I forget. Peace, delldot talk 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism

No problem-- I just altered two sentences, one for making sense, the other to be slightly more concise.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer those questions for running into edit conflicts!

1) DSM-IV-Tr does not discuss the prevalence or say RAD is uncommon, as far as i can see. Volkmar, and Richters & Volkmar, did say this.

2) The query about TOM: these statements are supported by discussion in

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E.L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.

(yes, it's really Other Press, and mentalization in this context doesn't mean The Amazing Randi.)Jean Mercer (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny - because the Taskforce say that the DSM say its very uncommon. Heres the passage : "According to the DSM, RAD is presumed to be a “very uncommon” disorder (APA, 1994), although it is a disorder currently drawing considerable attention and interest." Bother.Fainites ^barley 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Memo [5] Fainites ^barley 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disinhibited attachment disorder (DAD)

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I'm really surprised to learn that the "See also" section should contain only articles unmentioned elsewhere. That seems counterproductive, and contrary to the idea of a useful index to related topics. However, the goal of a FAC should come first, I suppose. I have been admiring your heroic efforts to improve the RAD article (and related ones) for months, and trying to help when I have the time. Concerning the DAD article, it was my intention to try to mitigate somewhat the US perspective that dominates the attachment articles, by giving a little more time and space to the ICD-10 terminology and perspective. I still think that is a worthy goal, but I won't actively object if you were to replace that article with a simple redirect to the RAD page. If you do so, please try to define DAD a little more prominently. In a rush... —Aetheling (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Emdashes and endashes

You mentioned you were having difficulties with en- and emdashes. If you are using a Macintosh, they are easy: for the endash type option-hyphen, for the emdash type option-shift-hyphen. If you aren't using a Mac... well, why on earth not?  ;-) Aetheling (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I just remembered that Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom has provided an easy way for anyone to type em- and en-dashes, and indeed almost any special character you can imagine. When you open an article or section for editing, look down below the text box in which you edit the text. You might have to scroll a few inches downwards. There you will see a huge variety of special symbols. The en-dash and em-dash are literally the first ones in the list, right after the heading Insert. All you have to do is click on the symbol, and it will appear in the text. Piece of cake. — Aetheling (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ran through RAD and found many dashes needed fixing; I'm not sure where you're getting confused. Per WP:DASH, hyphen (-), endash (–) and emdash (—). Hyphen is on your keyboard, and en and emdash can be found below the edit window, on the bold line that begins with Insert: The first is an endash (used on page ranges) and the second is an emdash (used for punctuation). More importantly, whenever you're citing a PMID entry, you can just enter the PMID into the PubMed dropdown menu on Diberri's template filler, and it will generate a correct cite journal template for you (with the correct dashes). BTW, because there are no active Psych Project members, you're going to have to actively seek editors to review the article. I suggest asking Mattisse (talk · contribs) to review and you might get some takers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. Since I'm the person who closes FACs, I have to stay neutral. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

They're all fixed now. Asking a content expert to review, or notifying relevant Projects, isn't canvassing unless you ask them to Support. You will have a very hard time finding content experts in that area, so it will likely be a long FAC. You may enjoy Giano's thoughts on canvassing for FA review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CE

[6] Memo re 'core competancies' [7]epidemiology [8]

Fainites, I'm still finding WP:MOS errors; it's best to approach FAC with a clean article. For example, when adding citations, you must understand the difference between WP:HYPHENs and endashes. Please see my edit summaries of corrections still needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Think they're all done now. Fainites ^barley 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites ^barley 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD

I will be glad to review the reactive attachment article. Contacting an editor you don't already know is actually a smart thing to do, so you can get a fresh perspective. Doczilla (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites, I do want to review the RAD article also, but I have been extremely busy. Maybe later this evening, or tomorrow evening. RAD is somewhat outside my zone of competence (social psychology, statistical methods), though I am really interested in the topic. If possible, we should get some clinicians to comment, not just academics like me. — Aetheling (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have left a Game Plan on how to untangle the two concepts on the talk page. Interesting musing on it, when I see patients I have no trouble switching paradigms in my head (i.e. between DSM and Attachment theory) when thinking about or discussing patients, never really put the two concepts together, bt worth teasing out anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt the mushrooms - but I'm really puzzled now. On the one hand I understand you to be saying that anything that isn't strictly RAD should be removed, yet in several places you seem to be wanting the opposite, ie re attachment in general. Am I missing something here? Fainites ^barley 13:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nod't think so. I am trying to whittle away everything which is exclusively Attachment Theory, leaveing with stuff relevant to RAD. Now RAD on its own is an articifical term, so now we then have to figure what goes back in....if that makes sense. I'll have more time in a day or two to explain. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This "when I see patients I have no trouble switching paradigms in my head (i.e. between DSM and Attachment theory) when thinking about or discussing patients, never really put the two concepts together" really puzzles me Casliber. Most people have trouble the other way around. Fainites ^barley 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A really great book to read on attachment theory is Becoming Attached by Robert Karen. Explains how it all ame about and is written in plain english. Most if not all psychiatric concepts are easy to understand if each building block which makes tehm is understood first, it is the layers of successive assumptions one has to come to terms with.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're puzzled. It means I can look at the patient in either paradigm or system and discuss or whatever, and depending on who and how I am talking to I can think in that way and not get confused. Like talking politics and football really when you are familiar with it I mean (does that make it any clearer...or not). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha now. Right. What I meant was that I can see the theoretical links between the two and they are broadly linked with a similar basic concept of attachment. However, I used DSM as a broad pigeonholing thing for diagnosing legally whether or not there is a disorder and which one it is, while attachment theory is much subtler and more descriptive. An analogy would be DSM defining whether or not a particular level or consumption of alcohol consituted alcohol dependence, whereas what I would do psychologically with someone would be to explore more subtle ideas of why, where and what they drink. I am mindful of each but can think separately easily. Does that help at all? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Back again. Sorry, saw the email briefly but can't access it from where I am. I guess if I were you I'd have let it drop but having a support there is pretty enticing. My time is pretty limited but I'll see what I can come up with to help now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I honestly intended to review it and never forgot. The fact that I hadn't gotten around to doing something I'd said I would do kept nagging at me. I just haven't had the time I expected, and I know I will not have time in the next two weeks. Doczilla _RAWR! 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest checking with people who participated in these talk pages: Category:FA-Class_psychology_articles. Doczilla _RAWR! 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Attachment Theory

Fainites, Thanks for your helpful insight and the links. Since I am quite busy with academia right now :) I often use Wikipedia as a diversion and then get caught up in it. I was however not going to let Kip's KingseleyMiller critique at the end of an objective page go *if he felt that my unbiased inclusion of other references which complemented the critique were not suitable**. Much of the Rutter quote, while having merit, is often not a concern when using the Strange Situation in research settings. It has proved the test of time and has strong psychometric properties. That is not to say that there aren't weaknesses however. Thus, at the least KingsleyMiller was acting more of a vandal then anyone else. I think the current article with the redirect is the best bet right now. Enough of my rant. Thanks for your helpful guidance. If I get time to add or restructure I will use your ideas for sure. Mrvain68 (talk)

Also, Fainities, can you inform me as to what the +/- numbers in parentheses mean when I go to my watchlist and see that my comments etc. have been either positive numbered or negatively so? I couldn't find anything on this. I am sure it has to do with something in regard to the value of my contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrvain68 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

Fainities, I am in the process of addressing a more readable form of the contemporary issues in re: the Strange Situation on the attachment measures page. In addition to the references, which are quite important, I will attempt to summarize in a sentence or two what the findings suggested. There are two particular areas that are quite important here with respect to the Strange Situation. One concerns its ecological validity, the other the issue as to whether attachment functioning is best considered continuously or categorically. Both are issues that, like anything else, have no exact answer to them, but I think I can shed some light on the issue. It is important to note, that the Strange Situation is predominately used in research, not in clinical work. I, nor any responsible attachment researcher would claim it is (although I am sure some clinicians may use it to inform their course of treatment et al.). Whereas Kip thinks I am responding in a reactive manner, I am not, but rather pointing out that, many of the questions he raises in the critique (which is a block quote) have already been addressed quite substantially by attachment researchers. Thanks again for your insight. Mrvain68 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mrvain68

Can you go to the Wikipedia page on 'Human bonding' and tell us what you think, please.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:379470 5874.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:379470 5874.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:379470 5874.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Image

I am truly sorry - I realize our image use policy is hard to understand. The policy does not allow images that have a "noncommercial use only" clause in their license. In the license agreement for the site where you got that image, they clearly state "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" That constitutes a clear "noncommercial use only" statement and therefore the image is not usable. However, an administrator initially declined my request to delete the image, so it may be a moot point. We'll see what happens. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How weird. How could this ever be commercial? Also - why is this company included in the lists of sites to go to if putting their free images on Wiki counts as commercial use? I'm even more befuddled now. Fainites ^barley 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Use on Wikipedia is not commercial, however we require content to be free licensed to be used and one nessesary component of a free license is the posibility to ut for commercial purposes and redistribute freely (See Wikipedia:Copyright). That is not the case with the default sxc.hu license. You may try contacting the photographers directly and requiest a release under terms we can accept (see WP:COPYREQ for details), but sxc.hu is not a free content source and should not be appearing on any lists of such. If it does that's simply a byproduct of anyone beeing eable to edit said list and someone confusing images that can be used free of charge for personal use with material released under a free content license (happens all the time unfortunately, it's a fairly easy mistake to make). --Sherool (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bother! I'll try contacting them then. Fainites ^barley 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD

Yeah, all the points I brought up have been adequately addressed (the discussion makes it clear that they have been). I still feel the article's a little too technical, which is why I haven't switched to a firm support. But the FAC director will see that my comments have been dealt with. VanTucky 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

On Zeanah, com'on, we've taught you how to write correct refs now, including PMIDs. <smile> I'll fix them this time, but I hope you'll lead the way on future psych articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're forgiven :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeanah

I think it's fine as it is-- you've given a clear picture of the main emphasis of his work.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)