Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 2

message: The focus of the talk page should be on material in the article, not on persons or personal attacks. If an editor is engaged in self-promotional actions (as may be the case as described above) then that should be brought to the attention of an administrator for action. JonesRD 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. WP:CIVIL is not optional. JPotter 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All such self-promotional references should be removed. SamDavidson 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  DPeterson 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the above comments may not meet Wikipedia standards in that they include what appear to be personal attacks.  I'd suggest removing the comments.  What do others think?  I'd leave a comment on the individual's talk page, but that person is an anon user with no prior posts.  DPeterson 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as individual's names are not mentioned, actually claims about/against individuals that are not verified, opinions belong on talk pages.  But I agree, personal attacks do not belong here and are not consistent with the Wikipedia policy of civility. JonesRD 11:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time For Civility/Self-Promotion is against Wiki policy

message: 1. The links to other articles are consistent with the [[Wikipdedia: Manuel of Style], "The use of links to other Wikipedia articles, for example, Ant, is encouraged. Use the links for all words and terms that are relevant to the article. The purpose of internal links is to allow readers to easily and conveniently follow their curiosity or research to other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere — for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page."  and does not meet the criteria for "over-linking."
2. The Also see section also belongs.  The purpose of that section is to provide a convenient location for the reader to find relevant and related links without having to search the entire article.
3. The statement, "A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies." is accurate.  The citation would be the ACT webpage.  ACT clearly states that there is no place for "Attachment Therapy" in treatment.  (note they use the term "Attachment Therapy" and not Attachment therapy or attachment therapy, so their defination is specific to that term.  
4. The statement, "label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as Attachment Therapy and attempt to discredit those therapies." is supported, for example, by ACT's criticism of EMDR, affective attunement, Theraplay, therapeutic parenting, developmental attachment therapy, dyadic developmental therapy, dyadic developmental psychotherapy, which are not coercive restraint therapies and, some of which, have a clear evidence base.  
However, at this point it would be best to involve others in this discussion and see what other editors think about this. DPetersontalk 13:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have continually failed to provide any source for the assertion that they "label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as Attachment Therapy and attempt to discredit those therapies." They, in fact, specifically state that there are "conventional therapies" used to treat such disorders, and provide clear differentiations they believe exist between Attachment Therapy and acceptable practices - such as the use of force, coercion, threats, fear and denial of child's concerns. FCYTravis 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for changes to edits 

message: Wouldn't it be worthwhile to add information about some cases like the Cassandra Killpack death  to this entry?  Possibly in a "Criticisms" section?  I'm afraid I don't have the time to add something like this myself right now, but I was surprised that there wasn't something like it here already. -- HiEv 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That case would fit better in the article on Child Abuse in the section there on notable cases.  The reference you cite describes parent inflicted child abuse. DPetersontalk 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it could fit in several sections, but in this case the abuse and death was due to an attempt to follow Attachment Therapy practices.  The point would be to make people reading the article aware of the potential dangers of Attachment Therapy in the course of a fuller understanding of the subject matter.  Any article should give a good complete overview of the subject, and that means including both the supporting arguments and the criticism, if there are any good ones.  I think that "death" is a pretty important fact that potential users should be aware of and could help prevent further deaths, so I believe that adding this kind of information would improve the article. -- HiEv 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While your conclusion may be true, the newspaper articles don't clearly support your conclusion that in this instance the parents were acting as you say (following "attachment therapy").  In fact they had no professional working with them or advising them. DPetersontalk 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notorious Cases

message: As a childhood victim of so-called "attachment therapy," I, too, beg you not to remove this article.  People need to know what they're getting into when they subject their children to this horrible, insane business.  Y'all don't want to know some of the stuff that was done to <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">me by a particular psychiatrist in the 70's who had adopted these quack beliefs,  in the name of forcing my behavior to conform to expected norms.  I was thrown to the ground with huge adults sitting on my back (I fainted once because I could not breathe), I had my hair pulled, was forced to sit in isolation for long periods of time, was berated over matters that were completely opaque to me, was repeatedly forced to witness punishments of other children...all the while, as I found out as an adult, my little sister was being threatened with the same (although she was allowed to imagine that I was suffering even worse punishments than I really was) if she did not behave herself; she spent her childhood terribly frightened that the punishments visited upon me might be inflicted upon her as well.  One day I remember I was made to pretend to drive an invisible shopping cart around an invisible grocery store, and kept being "held" in punishment for "running into" invisible items, and this in front of an entire therapy group of children and their parents.  Another day I was forced to witness a lengthy hair-pulling episode--the therapist was pulling a little girl's hair because she had had a fight with her father in the lobby and he apparently had yelled out a loud curse word which she was being forced to repeat in front of the group but would not because she was embarrassed, and she was crying and crying and crying (a few years later, I heard this little girl had gotten pregnant and run away from home).  
I am not kidding.  Although some of the particular practices that were inflicted upon me and the other children in my "therapy" group may have changed in the intervening decades, the overall philosophy of breaking the child's "bad behavior" (I would say "breaking the child," really) by the application of weird, horrendous, often irrational aversives is still the same, and yes, sometimes it kills, as I have heard (and I wonder how many children have committed suicide years later as a result of this treatment, which can be devastating to the self-esteem as it was to mine?).  This is "attachment therapy."  It is quackery and child abuse, pure and simple, and it is horrifying.  It teaches the child all about power and who has it (adults, who can use it any way they want) and who doesn't (children, who must conform, succumb, and submit), it teaches children that the world is all about the necessity for absolute conformity to irrational authority, it teaches cruel treatment, it teaches about evil, and I don't think it teaches any children to love their parents any better!  
I think a neutral point of view specifying the current state of research into this matter and citing various authorities about its nature and consequences should be sufficient to awaken confused parents to what they're getting into.  This is not a "low priority article"!  And thanks to Dr. Mercer. Songflower 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a "low priority article"!

message: "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, APSAC, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry.
To the best of my knowledge the above organizations do not prohibit attachment therapy. Many State Boards actually certify it. 
need cites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.232.53 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: both those groups have position papers on the subject RalphLendertalk 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again the American Psychological Association does not take stances on types of therapies. And your reference is for the Utah Social Workers not the National. If you say there are very few give a cite. You cannot use personal research. 69.211.150.60 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cites have been added that these various national professional organizations have positions against coercive interventions.  RalphLendertalk 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks fine to me as it is with all the citations added to support the stmts.  As described in this article, AT is rare thing.In this article, AT is: "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." DPetersontalk 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence I can find that any governmental body or rregulated bodies are sanctioning the techniques described in this article.  DPetersontalk 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence that practitioners of this 'Attachment Therapy' are getting in under the wire as it were and actually being used by official bodies such as adoption agencies out of ignorance? Somebody must be funding the practice. It's unlikely to be private clients only, surely.Fainites 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no evidence that meets Wikipedia standards of being verifiable or attributable to a reliable source that I can see. DPetersontalk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that ACT is a pressure group and therefore likely to be a little excitable, but is all the information at  completely wrong? 'Attachment Therapy' wouldn't be the first pseudoscientific therapy to worm it's way in, despite the general stand taken against it.Fainites 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anybody from ACT explain why Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are named on the ACT site as Attachment Therapy by another name, and why for example EMDR (on which extensive research has been done) and NLP are named in a sort of 'guilt by association' list and derided as quackery on the same page? If it is alleged DDP and Theraplay are Attachment Therapy by another name, where is the evidence ? If there is none, this article should make it clear.Fainites 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACT is an advocacy group with a specific agenda and so may be extreme in its statements.  Unlike an encyclopedia article, they do not need to cite sources or use reliable information.  They seem to tar any treatment that is used for those who have experienced a history of trauma and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or disorders of attachment with the same brush.  There is no evidence that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, NLP, or EMDR are "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article.  If you'd like to take a stab at clarifying that, please do so below in the section marked for that purpose.  I am only suggesting you do it here to avoid an edit war with those who may disagree since you can see there is a long and extensive history of conflict around this article. I'd be glad to work with you on this.DPetersontalk 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list including EMDR etc is a sort of 'guilt by association' list (to completely different therapies) that hardly seems worth bothering with. I am however, more interested in their list of "Attachment Therapy' by another name. Would I be right in thinking that the 'link' with DDP is Hughes. What's the supposed link for Theraplay? I'm sorry if this has all been gone over before. I just think that it's equally important that desperate parents don't either accidently walk into 'Attachment Therapy' or miss valid therapies because they're wrongly listed as AT. I'll give it some thought.Fainites 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it important to address all misconceptions (EMDR, Theraplay, etc.).  The link may just be that any treatment that proports to be useful for treating disorders of attachment is defined as "Attachment Therapy" by this group.  But who really knows what is their thinking!DPetersontalk 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like they're saying that these therapies are all 'Attachment Therapy' masquarading under different names. That's quite a big thing to say. If they're wrong on any of the therapies in the list it is quite undermining of their credentials. If however, they are right on all of them, that is equally important. It's quite a big piece of research. I must say, however, including EMDR (which is evidence based in parts) and Feldenkrais (which makes no scientific claims), just because they're in 'Quackwatch' (a dubious enterprise), does not inspire confidence. Fainites 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just looking at Hughes site, he makes it very clear that he did previously advocate some techniques which might come within the description of AT, but now does not, and indeed has developed a therapy that specifically excludes these techniques. If ACT are naming DDP as AT by another name, should this page not deal more specifically with this issue? Are there therapists still following the old, pre-DPP Hughes methods? As for Theraplay, I can't find anything that suggests any link to AT type techniques or beliefs.Fainites 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely, there is no relationship between "AT"(as defined in this article) and Theraplay or Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy or EMDR or other mainstream evidence-based treatments.  ACT really seems to be a fringe group.  None of its leaders are licensed mental health professionals.  Clearly Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay and EMDR, etc as described in the relevant peer-reviewed publications and texts are not AT as defined in this article...I do think the article states that too in the treatment characteristics section...so that's already addressed in the article. RalphLendertalk 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that the article seems to be more of an attack on ACT and a defense of eg DPP than an article about Attachment Therapy. If I were a parent and had read about Candace Newmaker or Foster Cline and then read this article, I'd be puzzled. If I then went to the ACT site for more info, I'd see a list of therapies described as AT 'by another name' which includes DPP and Theraplay, and a list of 'adjunct' therapies alongside, like EMDR and Feldenkrais. This is all next to links with stories about starved and bullied children! I don't think this article is doing it's job which is to inform, on the basis of verified and credible evidence. If 'Attachment Therapy' as described by ACT exists, it should be described in this article, with evidence, as it is a serious matter even if it is 'fringe'. The article should also clarify what it is not given the allegations by ACT. I appreciate that the article states that ACT tar all sorts of therapies by association,  but at the moment the article gives the feeling that because AT is not mainstream, we'd like to all pretend it doesn't really exist.Fainites 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the article reads as, "an attack on ACT and a defense of eg DDP than an article about Attachment Therapy."  Why are you focusing on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when it is mentioned with equal weight with several other mainstream evidence-based approaches?  Specifically those other approahces mentioned equally are: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993). I think the article does a decent job of trying to describe and define an ambigious term with no clear definations.  It also does a good job, by using material from professional peer-reviewed publications, of describing how those previously mentioned approahces are not AT.  Finally, the article does a pretty good job of describing AT and does so in a manner that it is clear what are the distinctions between AT and Parent-Child Psychotherapy, Floor Time, Theraplay, Circle of Security, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, etc.  But, if you have specific ideas for additions to this article please make those below in the section created for that so that other editors can comment and a consensus can be built.  DPetersontalk 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say 'eg DDP', not 'just' DDP! I will give amendments some thought and post them below.Fainites 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Actually I was thinking of rearranging the existing article first, then adding more material. Fainites 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so why don't you either describe what you are thinking of doing...or just put your proposed changes in the section below and then other interested editors can comment.  That would be the best approach.  RalphLendertalk 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I support that approach.  Let's have suggested changes made in the next section and then those interested can improve the material and then it can be added to the article.  This is a great way to build agreement. SamDavidson 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cites needed 

message: (I have in fact substantially rewritten the article. I haven't added a ref section here. Everything cited is reffed. The main cites are Chaffin, Speltz, Prior and Glaser and ACT. We could also include actual refs to Zaslow/ K=Cline/Hughes etc if necessary)
This is a great start.  I added references and a see also list, among other edits to add material and make some suggestions.  I removed some material that may appear to be too POV and/or that are without referecnes to support the statements.  DPetersontalk 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed amendments to article

message: (Added capsDPetersontalk 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the changes above.  They should be retained.JonesRDtalk 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is important to clearly demonstrate that this is a very very vague term with many divergent meanings. JonesRDtalk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to present all relevant views in a NPOV.  What is your objection to ACT?  They have spend a lot of time on this issue and written lots of material.  If changing the order helps, that's fine with me...After all, we do have to create a consensus here.  No one editor owns the article, right? DPetersontalk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, in some ways, this is an article about "smoke."  This is an ill-defined term that means many different things to many different groups and is not a term used in the clinical literature (not in the AMA's CPT book, not in Bergin and Garfields seminal text, etc.).  So, the article should make clear throughout that this is an ill-defined term. DPetersontalk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, therefore we need an article that clearly delineates this ambiguity and the many facets to the disagreements or confusions that exist. JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ACT seems to have the clearest description of this very vague term.  Yes, include this. JonesRDtalk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ACT does provide a clearly worded description of this vague term.  Why not use ACT, given their work in this area?  What is your objection of this group and it's work? DPetersontalk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I have no objection as such to ACT. Pressure groups like ACT are important. I just think this subject goes beyond ACT, otherwise why are the ASPAC commissioning reports from swathes of experts in the field? Why do Prior and Glaser devote the better part of a chapter to it?Fainites 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why not include the ACT material.  Please clarify your objection so that I can better understand.  Also, we need to be careful about using older references...Remeber that a text published in 2004 probably was submitted in 2002 and may have material from only up to 2001 or so. DPetersontalk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, using old materials can be dangerous.  Even the APSAC report is from 2005 and based on information that is 2004 and earlier...three years old now.JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: remove the above paragraphJonesRDtalk 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to be very very careful here.  I'd recommend just leaving it out. DPetersontalk 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to leave out actual names.Fainites 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A substantial rewrite of the above paragraph will then be needed.DPetersontalk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: This section is very good as it is...I support keeping it unchanged.JonesRDtalk 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  DPetersontalk 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, remove "traditional."  I also agree that the paragraph as edited is better and relies on more current data.JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are already there. All the citations are from professional peer-reviewed publicataions and thus support the statement to which the list applies. DPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (actually they're not sufficient citations. This article doesn't have a proper wiki ref section at all yet. One ought to be able to click on a little number which takes you to the full name of the article or source. If you then 'google' or use an appropriate library for the source you should be able to find it, including PMID and IBSN numbers. They need to be verifiable in this way for readers etc to check the validity of the sources. We can do all this when we've sorted the wording. I did it for you for the main sources on the EMDR site DP! Fainites 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the full citations are in the reference list for the cites in the article.  The link between the two may be missing, but my point is that there is sufficient evidence in the article and reference list now.  do you disagree?DPetersontalk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked the list and all those references are present and in reputable professional journals.JonesRDtalk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Delete above lines.JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (You need some basis to delete properly sorced and verified editsFainites 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis for deleting it is that it repeats the material in the previous paragraph, but that para has more methods listed.  Therefore the previous paragraph is better.DPetersontalk 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the prev. paragraph better too. Let's go with that. JonesRDtalk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, delete above linesJonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (POV is about editors or material from unverified, non-credible sources. It's not POV when it's from a relevant, appropriate source. I agree it's perhaps confusing here and may be better in another section.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the previous paragraph includes all the therapies in one simple paragraph...lets try to keep the article focused and short, not wordy.  Since each of the methods has at least one professiona peer-reviewed publication next to the name, each one has a citation that meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPetersontalk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, delete.  The material adds no value to the article and appears inflamatory and not NPOV JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (How can it possibly be 'POV'? I suggest you look at the policy. It's a quotation from a peer reviewed report to the ASPAC! A verified, credible source, completely on the point of this article!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, leave out material, like bio material, about the Center, unless you have verifiable and reliable sources that that is their 'CURRENT' practice.  It's best just to leave it out. DPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep this. JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeDPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above edited paragraph is good. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Saying 'therefore there are very few practitioners' is a) not a logical conclusion of the previous paragraph and b) is OR.Fainites 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Delete the following lines...not relevant here. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this prev section should go for the reasons already stated. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'd be happy to rename the section, but the point being made by Chaffin and Glaser is a substantial part of their report.Fainites 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better approach would be to edit it down to a much briefer quote. DPetersontalk 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''proposal by Fanities for new article PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS VERSION''''

message: There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy," and it is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach.  However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject.  While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean.  ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor."  ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy." They have the most clear set of definations for this term, so we should put the details here. DPetersontalk 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is important to clearly demonstrate that this is a very very vague term with many divergent meanings. JonesRDtalk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to present all relevant views in a NPOV.  What is your objection to ACT?  They have spend a lot of time on this issue and written lots of material.  If changing the order helps, that's fine with me...After all, we do have to create a consensus here.  No one editor owns the article, right? DPetersontalk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, in some ways, this is an article about "smoke."  This is an ill-defined term that means many different things to many different groups and is not a term used in the clinical literature (not in the AMA's CPT book, not in Bergin and Garfields seminal text, etc.).  So, the article should make clear throughout that this is an ill-defined term. DPetersontalk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, therefore we need an article that clearly delineates this ambiguity and the many facets to the disagreements or confusions that exist. JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ACT seems to have the clearest description of this very vague term.  Yes, include this. JonesRDtalk 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ACT does provide a clearly worded description of this vague term.  Why not use ACT, given their work in this area?  What is your objection of this group and it's work? DPetersontalk 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I have no objection as such to ACT. Pressure groups like ACT are important. I just think this subject goes beyond ACT, otherwise why are the ASPAC commissioning reports from swathes of experts in the field? Why do Prior and Glaser devote the better part of a chapter to it?Fainites 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why not include the ACT material.  Please clarify your objection so that I can better understand.  Also, we need to be careful about using older references...Remeber that a text published in 2004 probably was submitted in 2002 and may have material from only up to 2001 or so. DPetersontalk 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, using old materials can be dangerous.  Even the APSAC report is from 2005 and based on information that is 2004 and earlier...three years old now.JonesRDtalk 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of Attachment Therapy

message: In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’  (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently  promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics such as ‘The Center’ in the Pacific northwest. Do you have a citation to support these last accusations?  If not, it should be removed.DPetersontalk 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: remove the above paragraphJonesRDtalk 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to be very very careful here.  I'd recommend just leaving it out. DPetersontalk 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to leave out actual names.Fainites 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A substantial rewrite of the above paragraph will then be needed.DPetersontalk 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd go with the shorter version suggested.JonesRDtalk 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: history and underlying principles

message: Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’. 
Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders. 
DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.
Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.
:This section is very good as it is...I support keeping it unchanged.JonesRDtalk 17:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  DPetersontalk 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attachment Disorder

message: Traditional use of the term "traditional" is irrelvant.  It is Attachment theory. DPetersontalk 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remove "traditional."  I also agree that the paragraph as edited is better and relies on more current data.JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are already there. All the citations are from professional peer-reviewed publicataions and thus support the statement to which the list applies. DPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (actually they're not sufficient citations. This article doesn't have a proper wiki ref section at all yet. One ought to be able to click on a little number which takes you to the full name of the article or source. If you then 'google' or use an appropriate library for the source you should be able to find it, including PMID and IBSN numbers. They need to be verifiable in this way for readers etc to check the validity of the sources. We can do all this when we've sorted the wording. I did it for you for the main sources on the EMDR site DP! Fainites 06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the full citations are in the reference list for the cites in the article.  The link between the two may be missing, but my point is that there is sufficient evidence in the article and reference list now.  do you disagree?DPetersontalk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked the list and all those references are present and in reputable professional journals.JonesRDtalk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Delete above lines.JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (You need some basis to delete properly sorced and verified editsFainites 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis for deleting it is that it repeats the material in the previous paragraph, but that para has more methods listed.  Therefore the previous paragraph is better.DPetersontalk 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the prev. paragraph better too. Let's go with that. JonesRDtalk 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, delete above linesJonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (POV is about editors or material from unverified, non-credible sources. It's not POV when it's from a relevant, appropriate source. I agree it's perhaps confusing here and may be better in another section.Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the previous paragraph includes all the therapies in one simple paragraph...lets try to keep the article focused and short, not wordy.  Since each of the methods has at least one professiona peer-reviewed publication next to the name, each one has a citation that meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPetersontalk 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, delete.  The material adds no value to the article and appears inflamatory and not NPOV JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (How can it possibly be 'POV'? I suggest you look at the policy. It's a quotation from a peer reviewed report to the ASPAC! A verified, credible source, completely on the point of this article!Fainites 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, leave out material, like bio material, about the Center, unless you have verifiable and reliable sources that that is their 'CURRENT' practice.  It's best just to leave it out. DPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep this. JonesRDtalk 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeDPetersontalk 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment characteristics

message: This intro para is better.  It clearly defines the issue and subjectDPetersontalk 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above edited paragraph is good. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Saying 'therefore there are very few practitioners' is a) not a logical conclusion of the previous paragraph and b) is OR.Fainites 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Delete the following lines...not relevant here. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this prev section should go for the reasons already stated. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'd be happy to rename the section, but the point being made by Chaffin and Glaser is a substantial part of their report.Fainites 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better approach would be to edit it down to a much briefer quote. DPetersontalk 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevalence

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

message: The term has little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, ) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods. (this proceeding sentence doesn't quite make sense here because the whole point of Chaffin is that he is attempting to define and describe the issue. I think we need to amalgamate these two section more carefullyFainites 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of Attachment Therapy

message: In a paper for the APSAC by Speltz (2002) the roots of ‘Attachment Therapy’ are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
Speltz cites Martha Welch and ‘holding time’  (1984 and 1989) as the next significant development. Mothers were instructed to hold their defiant child, provoking anger and rage, until such time as the child ceased to resist at which point a bonding process was believed to begin. Similar techniques were subsequently  promoted by Foster Cline and associates at the Attachment Centre at Evergreen, Inc. (now renamed the Institute For Attachment and Child Development) and duplicated elsewhere in other clinics such as ‘The Center’ in the Pacific northwest.
According to Prior and Glaser (2006) ‘there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)’. 
Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles as follows;
“In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated’.
Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which ‘purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy’ by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the ‘across the lap’ type holding therapy, described as ‘not restraint’ by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but ‘being held whilst unable to gain release.’( why did you remove the rest of this paragraph? Its verified, credible and properly sourced and cited. Fainites 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: history and underlying principles

message: Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al).
( I'm not to sure about this list business. I put the list in from Prior and Glaser and you have your list here, but I'm wondering if this isn't all a bit unwise. This article is about the OTHER therapies. Should we in fact like Chaffin confine ourselves to describing the characteristics of mainstream treatment rather than getting involved in lists, every entry in which will need to be independently and credibly verified and about which there are bound to be disagreements about who's in and who's out.Fainites 09:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment characteristics

message: There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, as defined in this article, "Attachment Therapy" involves the use of practices prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association[], National Association of Social Workers[], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children,  American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [])
,  and the American Psychiatric Association. [].  Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters.  Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.
by Chaffin et al state,
‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure
sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional
organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and
Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’.
( I think it makes more sense to put Chaffins views on prevalence first and then list the organisations and states that have outlawed it afterwards. However, Chaffin does make the point that just because people regulate against it doesn't mean it goes away. What is the source for saying it is 'rare'? I think Chaffin is the best source we have on prevalence. Also, why have you removed Prior and Glaser on the UK? and why have you removed Chaffin on polarization?Fainites 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevalence

message: This is a really good start!.  I'll be interested to see what other editors think and the read their suggested additions etc.  I'll make mine above in the prev section. I encourage other editors to review the above material and make their suggested edits and changes to it so we can build consensus.  DPetersontalk 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  I will add my comments above to keep everything in one place.JonesRDtalk 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on suggested changes

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

message: "Attachment Therapy", ”attachment therapy,” holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or ‘’corrective attachment therapy’’ is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder, which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear.  A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.  The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’.  Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing therapy.  Care should be taken to distinguish between this subset of therapies and more mainstream therapies which may also be loosely described as attachment or attachment disorder therapy. For the purposes of this article, the term used to describe this subset is ‘Attachment Therapy.’
Attachment Therapy is a term with little commonly agreed upon meaning in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. It is not a term that is found in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (2006), nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach.  However, the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy does offer guidance on this subject.  While this group is not a professional mental health group in the same manner that the American Psychiatric Association or American Psychological Association or National Association of Social Workers are, and none of the leaders are licensed mental professionals or clinicians, they do offer some ideas for a description of what this term can mean.  
The advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT)..’ as ‘…a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [
The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, ) does not use the term "Attachment Therapy," but has disapproved of coercive and intrusive methods of treatment as inappropriate for treatment while approving a broad range of effective treatments for children with disorders of attachment that do not use coercive methods.  The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006) describe it as follows:
"The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”
Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a combination of ‘loose’ diagnosis of attachment disorders and a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing. They also cite age regression as ‘key to the holding therapy approach.’ p265. 
ACT states, "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." In discussing Attachment Therapy they state, "there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." 
ACT further defines "Attachment Therapy" as, "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." ACT’s site contains descriptions of the more extreme versions of these  attachment therapies, including a link to the transcript of the ‘rebirthing’ process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." 
JonesRDtalk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of Attachment Therapy

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

message: :Actually this might be a great consensus builder.  If the material were reordered to put Chafin first as Fainities wants, then it would be a nice tightly focused article that defines, or attempts to define, this vague term.  The entirel Chafin report is really about a broader set of issues.  Put their relevant quotes first, and then the others.  This way all the material about "other treatments" can be avoided, and a lot of other material can be left out. DPetersontalk 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I reread it, I think it flows well.  The Chafin material is up there and so are other sources.  ACT is quoted, as it should be along with the other sources so we get several descriptions.  DPetersontalk 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that Chaffin is about a 'broader set of issues'. If that's going to be the basis of editing of this article, then the only solution is to have two articles. One which is called Attachment Therapy with capitals and deals with the ACT side of things only and another which tackles the whole issue of the 'attachment therapy' controversy as per Speltz/Chaffin/Glaser etc. You guys presumably wouldn't be interested in editing that article so you could concentrate on the ACT one here. Then we can disambiguate 'Attachment Therapy' and 'attachment therapy'.Fainites 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the issue of ACT's 'list', that's actually quite a big topic in itself. This is the list; Z-therapy- rage-reduction therapy- Theraplay- holding therapy-attachment holding therapy-attachment disorder therapy-holding time-cuddle time-gentle containment-holding-nurturing process-emotional shuttling-direct synchronous bonding-breakthrough synchronous bonding-therapeutic parenting-dynamic attachment therapy-humanistic attachment therapy-corrective attachment therapy-developmental attachment therapy-dyadic attachment therapy-dyadic developmental psychotherapy-dyadic support environment-affective attunement-some of these are just so vague they're not individual therapies at all. Most of them however (I have actually looked them up!) look like a true bill. The two most controversial inclusions here are Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I don't really want to get involved in DDP's ongoing feud with ACT, but the point is, none of the other therapies in Glasers list or the current articles list apart from these two are in this ACT list. I don't therefore see how we can say (in the introduction no less) that ACT have labelled nearly all treatment's as attachment therapy. I've tried to think of a way of wording it in a more encyclopaedic way but it's a bit tricky.Fainites 12:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACT and Quackwatch also take aim at EMDR and some other therapies.  Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay has professional peer reviewed research (meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable) to support it as being effective and the descriptions of it in the various articles and books are clearly consistent with the other treatments.  It looks like they just took a bunch of words and there them together...what is the basis for their labeling these as intrusive and problematic?  What methods does ACT label as acceptable?  I don't see any listed on their site. So, it probably is accurate to say they label nearly all...DPetersontalk 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know I also take issue with their 'list of shame' of other therapies offhandedly condemned as quackery. I'm also no fan of Quackwatch. However, there is no reason why they should list acceptable therapies. That's not their thing! But none of the therapies named by Glaser are in their list. I managed to find examples of most of whats on ACT's list. Also their beef with Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy is set out pretty plainly on their page on Hughes. Basically they say a leopard doesn't change it's spots, whereas Hughes himself in various places makes it clear that he has discarded 'attachment therapy' type methods and developed a new therapy that he clearly means to be congruent with attachment theory. Whether he has suceeded or not is not for us to say unless we can find verified or credible sources to speak authoritatively on this point. Also I have seen a study on theraplay which makes it plain that it is in some respects 'intrusive' but this was not being said in a perjorative sense. Maybe ACT have other sources, or maybe they just picked up on this. The point I'm making is that it is a big piece of work to decide whether various therapies are 'evidence based' or congruent with attachment theory or all the professional codes and something that really needs to be dealt with individually for each therapy. Chaffin avoided specifically naming therapies. I think we should too, or we get into difficulties about what is and what isn't evidence based. Wiki can't accept self-report for evidence base or compliance with codes of professional conduct.Fainites 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to decide whether anything is evidence based.  We only need to list sources that meet the Wikipedia standard for being WP:verifiable.  If the source makes a statement and it is verifiable, then we can use that statement.  The list of therapies and citations is consistent with Wikipedia standards for being verifiable.  But, anyway, lets stick with getting the article written and focus on the intro paragraph and move along. OK?DPetersontalk 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have to ascertain if they're evidence based if we are going to say they are evidence based. eg on 'Circle' we can say Prior and Glaser say it's evidence based. On Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy we can't say it's evidence based just because it's proponents say it is. We could only say it claims to be evidence based unless we can find a verified and credible source that says its evidence based. As you know, 'evidence based' has a fairly specific meaning in science and doesn't just mean it's published a peer-reviewed study. This is why I think it's fairer and wiser to do what Chaffin et al did and not start listing therapies as evidence based. It's all too complicated and it's not necessary for the scope of this article. Fainites 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the material is published in professional peer-reviewed journals (and that these are all empirical studies) means they are evidence based.  Therefore, the material should be included.  My reading of the comments above, is that most editors, so far, agree with this view and so the mateiral should be included. JohnsonRon 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Having a peer-reviewed study is not the same as 'evidence based'. A peer reviewed study is a verified and credible source for Wiki purposes so we can cite it. There's alot more than that to calling a therapy 'evidence based' which is a term used in the scientific world, not a 'Wiki' term. This is set out in many places but for now I'll just give you Chaffin;"In general, we believe that designating a treatmentas evidence based is a job for an independenttreatment review panel (e.g., AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration [SAMHSA], Office forVictims of Crime Task Force, Cochrane Collaborative,etc.) applying accepted and established scientificreview criteria. The fact that most editors agree is irrelevent if most editors are in fact, wrong.Fainites 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres another bit of Chaffin for you;"Moreover, the sides do not agree on the rules for determining the risks and benefitsof psychological treatments or how questions about risks and benefits should be resolved. Critics" (of attachment therapy) "tend to rely on the well-established and accepted principlesof clinical science. Central to the clinical science perspective is testing outcomes using rigorous scientific research designs and methods that control for well-known confounds such as spontaneous recovery, the placebo effect, patient expectancy effects, investigator effects, and other forces that may influence the perceived outcomes of any clinical intervention. Critics tend to rely on scientific peer-review of research findings, publishing results in the scientific literature for wider scrutiny and review, and independent replication of findings before labeling a treatment as efficacious with an acceptable level of risk."Fainites 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The materials and statements meet Wikipedia standards for being verifiable and that is all that matters here.  The articles are published in PROFESSIONAL PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS and that makes the material evidence based as it has had blinded independent professional review.  Regardless, the material and statements are verifiable and so can be included.  Since wikipeidis operates on consensus, it is VERY RELEVANT to a discussion if there is consensus and most editors agree on a point and on the inclusion or exclusion of an item.  That's how Wikipedia works.  You just are not the final decider and you have not "veto" power if the consensus is against your view.  Wikkipedia is sort of ruthless  that way. JohnsonRon 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not objecting to citations from peer reviewed journals. I'm objecting to the use of the term 'evidence-based' which does not mean 'published in a peer reviewed journal'. Presumably if you agree relevent citations from verified and credible sources you don't object to everything Chaffin et al say on the subject of 'attachment therapies' claiming to be evidence based when they are not going in? Fainites 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If the material has been peer-reviewed and the article is empirical in nature, then it is, by definition, evidence-based.  You may have some other definition or criteria in mind, but that is not the only view.  Other views are valid and acceptable.  So, the various treatments, if they have evidence-based articles to support the efficacy of the approach, can be cited as such.  Again, we can disagree, and see that other editors think and then what will go into this article is the consensus, even if the consensus is not what you, or I, prefer...This is how Wikipedia works. JohnsonRon 13:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Wikipedia is not a democracy and there are rules about sources. Chaffin et al is a verified and credible source and they have a great deal to say on the subject of attachment therapies claiming to be evidence based. You will not be able to remove such evidence by 'consensus'. So both views will have to go in, yours (if you have a source for it) and Chaffins, and Prior and Glasers, and any other verified and credible source. I'm quite happy to put in all views. Fainites 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. I find it surprising that this needs to be said. There is a strong difference between "some papers concerning this therapy made it past a referee" and "this therapy is evidence-based".  shotwell 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 'YES' It is fine for Chaffin et al to be included and the other references to evidence-based material.  Empirical evidence in a peer-reviewed professional publication is evidence-based...so including both is fine.  Again, we'll see what other editors have to say and the consensus will determine the outcome. JohnsonRon 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wiki policies will determine the outcome. That includes sources and NPOV and all the policies designed to achieve a measure of accuracy and common sense. Lets go over this again. Peer reviewed studies are appropriate sources to be referred to in Wiki. Science/therapies etc being 'evidence based' is a completely different thing. For a newish therapy to be accepted as evidence based it needs (amongst other things) to have been the subject of rigorous clinical trials and it's results need to have been replicated by others (which means it's methods, theories etc must have been fully explained) and then be accepted as evidence based by the wider scientific community. Not being evidence based doesn't mean a therapy is crap! It can take a long time to become evidence based and some never do. What propnents of new therapies usually hope is that their propsals are sufficiently sound, and their preliminary studies are sufficiently promising for others in the field to want to attempt to replicate their findings, thus hopefully leading towards 'evidence based'. Describing therapies as evidence based when they are plainly not probably has the opposite effect so it's quite important not to bandy these words around lightly. My proposal to get away from this problem is not to list any therapies at all in this way. It's not necessary for the article. The article is about 'attachment therapy' ie, as described. We can put in what Chaffin/Glaser etc say about what mainstream therapy as opposed to attachment therapy is, and the underlying principles, but it is not necessary to then try and list all the therapies that are considered evidence based and such a process would be fraught with difficulty. (We could I suppose contact the bodies listed by Chaffin and ask them for lists of what they have verified as evidence based)Fainites 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the material is fully within wiki policies.  The references are clearly WP:verifiability.  The sources and statement meet wP:NPOV as NPOV.  And the citations are accurate.  You present one view...which is fine.  Evidence-based does mean that there is scientific evidence for a statement.  In this instance empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals is evidence-based support.  I really don't understand what is the AX you are grinding here.  Publication in a professional peer reviewed journal is clear evidence of acceptabnce by a wider scientific community.  The material should be included as written and the consensus here seems to be for it's inclusion.  JonesRDtalk 22:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against including the material. Peer reviewed sources are includable. Its the naming of therapies as 'evidence based' when they are not that I object to. This has a specific meaning within science. Chaffin is very specific on this point. If therapies are to be quoted as evidence based that needs to be from a verified and credible source, not self report or OR. If therapies are put in as evidence based on a self report then it is inevitable that what Chaffin has to say about that claim will also be cited, and properly so under Wiki policies. I repeat that one way out of this dilemma is not to attempt to list therapies as evidence based or not in this article, it being entirely unecessary.Fainites 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The therapies are evidence based for the reasons I, and others, stated above.  You seem to be assuming that only your view is correct and that is just not so.  The therapies are evidence based.  Chaffin may be specific, but that is not the end all and be all in this regardd.  The citations are from a "verified and crredible source; peer reviewed blind reviews in professional publications.  These are not "self-reported," but independent studies.  So, we just don't agree and the final decison will be based on whatever consensus develops here based on all reviewer comments.  As I said before, you do not own this article nor have veto power if the consensus is against you.  JonesRDtalk 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop altering my edits. We are writing an encyclopaedia. There are policies and aims. Are you suggesting that if enough accounts could gang up and vote on one site to say that eg the Bible was first written on an Amstrad in Wrexham in 1979 and there is no record of it's existence before that date that everybody would have to accept that 'consensus' ?Fainites 10:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 'NOT alterning your edits.  Indenting to keep threats togther if just format and is makes all this easier to follow.  Randomly placing comments makes it impossible to follow the tread of the conversation. Your example is interesting, but silly.  It is a RED HERRING as "they" say.  Wikipedia operates on consensus and when then large marjority agree, that is the tack to be taken.  Agreement does not have to be 100% and that is not what 'CONSENSUS' means anyway.  wikipedia articles are built on consensus. JonesRDtalk 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Threads don't need to be indented to be 'kept together'. They follow on from each other, only in your case, more and more thinly.Fainites 22:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the "form" uses on Wikipedia Talk pages and the convention suess.  Please WP:Assume good faith and try to avoid 'No Personal Attacks'.  Your sarcasim is not conducise to developing consensus or a collaboration.  JonesRDtalk 02:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: 'LETS COMMENT IN ONLY ONE PLACE.  THE FIRST VERSION IS THE BEST PLACE TO DO SO...ALL MY COMMENTS ARE THERE.  WE CAN BEGIN LOOKING AT THIS SECTION BY SECTION.  SEE MY FIRST STAB AT CONSENSUS BELOW'JonesRDtalk 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...see my comments above.DPetersontalk 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments in your first version...this still does not address what was said.DPetersontalk 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: amended proposed new article

message: There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy", with or without capital letters. It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, nor is there any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating ‘This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds.’
The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006), having said 'The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions', attempt to describe this subset  as follows;
"The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” (If this is a direct quote, we need a pg #DPetersontalk 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments in your first version...this still does not address what was said.DPetersontalk 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of Attachment Therapy

message: You'v not included all the comments and suggestions from above.  DPetersontalk 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: history and underlying principles

message: According to Chaffin et al 'although focused primarily on specific attachment therapy techniques, the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these techniques, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents. The controversy deepened after the death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker during a therapy session in 2000 (Crowder & Lowe, 2000), and a number of child deaths occurring at the hands of parents who claim that they acted on attachment therapists’ instructions (Warner, 2003). Criminal charges have been brought against some attachment therapists and against parents who claimed to be using what is known as attachment parenting.'
'Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004).' (Chaffin et al p77).
Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. 
See comments in prev version....listing names and using very old date (Welch 1998, for example) may not reflect current practice.  I suggest leaving all that out unless you can verify that this is the current practice eight or ten years later!!!!!DPetersontalk 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment characteristics

message: It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these therapies but they are sufficiently prevalent to have prompted reactions as outlined by Chaffin et al as follows;
‘The practice of some forms of these treatments has resulted in professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents of the controversial attachment therapies. There have been cases of successful criminal prosecution and incarceration of therapists or parents using controversial attachment therapy techniques and state legislation to ban particular therapies. Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001). Despite these and other strong cautions from professional organizations, the controversial treatments and their associated concepts and foundational principles appear to be continuing among networks of attachment therapists, attachment therapy centers, caseworkers, and adoptive or foster parents (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’.
A particular concern of both Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser is the use of the Internet to advertise these therapies and the use of unscientific and 'wildly inclusive' lists of 'symptoms' (Prior and Glaser). According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain. Posting these types of lists on Web sites that also serve as marketing tools may lead many parents or others to conclude inaccurately that their children have attachment disorders.' Many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm. Descriptions of children are frequently highly perjorative and 'demonising'. According to Chaffin et al 'Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful’. They also express concern over claims by therapies to be 'evidence based' or indeed the 'only' evidence based therapy when the Task Force found no credible evidence base for any such therapy so advertised.
The report of Chaffin et al, which contains proposed guidelines for therapies, was endorsed by was endorsed by the American Psychological Association’s Division 37 and the Division 37 Section on Child Maltreatment.
Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’ And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the 'across the lap' variety.
The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers." 
There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" as described in this article. However the practices it often involves are now prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association30, National Association of Social Workers31, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 32, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 33), and the American Psychiatric Association. 34. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice.
Fainites 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevalence

message: A lot of this is very good.  However, it is difficult to read it since it does not address all the concerns raised in the previous version.  I suggest we stick with that one since it has all the relevant comments until consensus is reached.  Maybe go section by section and create a new section below this for the consensus sections.  I'd suggest beginning at the beginning.DPetersontalk 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed that you've changed my post. Please don't do this! Talk pages should not be refactored. It's my post. I shall now have to replace it as it was, either by posting my version AGAIN or by reverting your edits of my post. Do you have any preferences? You can always insert italicised suggestions.Fainites 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too difficult to follow the "new" "new" article by Fainites.  So, I agree, let's stick with commenting on the first Fainites and DPeterson proposals and go line by line to get a consensus among those and the current article. I'll take a stab by suggesting a first new section below. JonesRDtalk 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll keep my comments to the first version so that if it is deleted, we don't loose comments.  Also, this way, all the comments and suggestions will be in one place and not spread over the ballpark.DPetersontalk 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we allowed to delete items from the talk page?  If so, I'll be glad to delete one of my versions to simplify things.  DPetersontalk 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never mess about with talkpage contributions. It's meant to be a record. However, what we can delete is the reference list that keeps being put in. It's only being copied from the main page so we all know where to find it to look something up. I really don't understand why it keeps appearing here.Fainites 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the reference list has more materials on in than are in the article. Also, it is helpful to see the full citations.DPetersontalk 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only once surely. Whats the point of filling up the talkpage with the same list over and over again. This is the talkpage! Fainites 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought that it should be part of an proposed article since it is different than what is in the article...otherwise, by that logic, whatever is the same in a proposal as is already on this talk page would be left out...there seems to be at least one section that has not had any disagreements; at least among those few editors who have commented so far.DPetersontalk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything in the article must be properly sourced and referenced. All of my edits are sourced. It's silly to keep listing the same sources. When we have an agreed version the ref list naturally follows. I have already said that this ref list is not properly set up. Fainites 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only list names and dates, not the citation.  Furthermore, as you pointed out, this page is to be a record and so we should not delete any entries.  DPetersontalk 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Revised article

message: This page is getting too long.  I'd suggest deleting the "new" new version above, and one of the two DPeterson versions and then working on the last section in this page to discuss each paragraph.JonesRDtalk 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we allowed to delete items from the talk page?  If so, I'll be glad to delete one of my versions to simplify things.  DPetersontalk 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should never mess about with talkpage contributions. It's meant to be a record. However, what we can delete is the reference list that keeps being put in. It's only being copied from the main page so we all know where to find it to look something up. I really don't understand why it keeps appearing here.Fainites 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the reference list has more materials on in than are in the article. Also, it is helpful to see the full citations.DPetersontalk 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only once surely. Whats the point of filling up the talkpage with the same list over and over again. This is the talkpage! Fainites 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought that it should be part of an proposed article since it is different than what is in the article...otherwise, by that logic, whatever is the same in a proposal as is already on this talk page would be left out...there seems to be at least one section that has not had any disagreements; at least among those few editors who have commented so far.DPetersontalk 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything in the article must be properly sourced and referenced. All of my edits are sourced. It's silly to keep listing the same sources. When we have an agreed version the ref list naturally follows. I have already said that this ref list is not properly set up. Fainites 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only list names and dates, not the citation.  Furthermore, as you pointed out, this page is to be a record and so we should not delete any entries.  DPetersontalk 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SUGGESTION FOR THIS PAGE

message: "Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual.  A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.  The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’.  Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.
In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”  (We need a page number if this is an acutal direct quoteJonesRDtalk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a small change.  I don't see how we can not have both references in.  The first reference describes how ACT defines many trts as AT while the last para is a cautionary para that also needs to be present.  So, we are not saying the same precise thing twice.  I think it reads ok and suggest we leave it as is and move on the the next section...Alternatively we could do nothing, wait a week or so and see what others think before closing this section and moving on to the next section....Now that I put it like that, it is probably best to leave this as is for a week or so and see what others think...but I am certainly willing to continue working with you on the next section, if you wish. DPetersontalk 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK we'll leave it for a bit. I don't mind having both sentences in although I think it's unecessary but I don't think it reads OK. I think its disjointed and confusing to have a bit of the controversy slap bang in the middle of what is meant to be a description. I don't understand your reason for wanting it there. Saying 'it reads OK' is not a reason. It would 'read OK' if it were moved to join the other ACT sentence. Anyway, lets move on.Fainites 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe a week or ten days would allow sufficient time.  To exaplain my thinking a bit more on this question.  It seems that the conecept or definition of Attachment Therapy is not only vague, but is fraught with controversary.  Therefore, that belongs in the description of the term.  The three leaders of ACT are vocal spokespersons on the subject and have produced a lot of material, therefore, their words or salient.  Since the two lines about ACT are pointed in different directions, I'm not sure joining the two lines would work. Regards. DPetersontalk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not pointing in different directions. If the controversy is too complicated to explain in one simple line then it's too much for the intro. The intro should not create terminal confusion for the reader. We should say simply what AT is, and then outkine briefly the main controversy. At the moment, the main controversy cuts the description in half. I don't understand why you're so keen to keep it as I'm not proposing removing any lines.Fainites 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support replacing the existing article intro with the intro proposed above.  I the material in this intro about the disagreements and ACT is fine.  Let's move on, if we can.MarkWood 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first reference lays out ACT's position.  The second reference is part of a cautionary statement.  Having both is fine, it's only two lines, and it really does not dilute anything here.  If anything, it lays out the disputed points.  Since ACT is such a major contributor to this debate I don't think two lines is over the top.  I support the intro section as above. MarkWood 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the two lines for the sake of compromise even tho' it's clearly POV. It's the obfuscation created by it's position that is nonsensical. It's about time this article grew up and away from the feud with ACT and concentrated on it's subject. I've added a tag at the top in the hope of attracting more editors. Fainites 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is POV to have material included by a group that has written so extensively on the subject...if anything, excluding their views might be seen as POV.  Feud with ACT?  I don't understand.  Including their material hardly seems to be indicative of a feud with their view and materials.  DPetersontalk 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nonsensical reply. You know very well I am not talking about excluding their views. I am talking about moving a wrongly and confusingly placed sentence about 2cms. What is you reason for wanting to leave that sentence where it is?Fainites 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on...let's try to keep the dialogue WP:Civil.  Again, what is the feud with ACT you reference?  I think the material is relevant and belongs...there are two points being made in that section...I don't understand your vehemanceDPetersontalk 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me. Go ahead and use it. SamDavidson 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. JonesRDtalk 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I agree with the prev two comments.  It's ok to use. RalphLendertalk 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Intro

message: It's fine apart from the Quackwatch ACT bit. We're saying the same thing twice in two paragraphs in what is meant to be a brief descriptive opening which is stylistically horrible. I invented the second form of words to be used instead of the first, not as well as. It sounds wierd to say the same thing twice in different words. The first bit doesn't fit at all where it is in the opening paragraph and is merely confusing. It gives the impression that the word 'treatments' in the following sentence refers to the 'treatments' described by ACT which I don't think is the effect you meant to achieve but the opposite. The opening paragraph should be a brief description of it's subject. There should be no more than one brief description of a main controversy. I don't mind if you take out the first sentence or amalgamate it with the second or replace the second but as an example of encyclopaedic English we can't leave it as it is.Fainites 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a small change.  I don't see how we can not have both references in.  The first reference describes how ACT defines many trts as AT while the last para is a cautionary para that also needs to be present.  So, we are not saying the same precise thing twice.  I think it reads ok and suggest we leave it as is and move on the the next section...Alternatively we could do nothing, wait a week or so and see what others think before closing this section and moving on to the next section....Now that I put it like that, it is probably best to leave this as is for a week or so and see what others think...but I am certainly willing to continue working with you on the next section, if you wish. DPetersontalk 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK we'll leave it for a bit. I don't mind having both sentences in although I think it's unecessary but I don't think it reads OK. I think its disjointed and confusing to have a bit of the controversy slap bang in the middle of what is meant to be a description. I don't understand your reason for wanting it there. Saying 'it reads OK' is not a reason. It would 'read OK' if it were moved to join the other ACT sentence. Anyway, lets move on.Fainites 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe a week or ten days would allow sufficient time.  To exaplain my thinking a bit more on this question.  It seems that the conecept or definition of Attachment Therapy is not only vague, but is fraught with controversary.  Therefore, that belongs in the description of the term.  The three leaders of ACT are vocal spokespersons on the subject and have produced a lot of material, therefore, their words or salient.  Since the two lines about ACT are pointed in different directions, I'm not sure joining the two lines would work. Regards. DPetersontalk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not pointing in different directions. If the controversy is too complicated to explain in one simple line then it's too much for the intro. The intro should not create terminal confusion for the reader. We should say simply what AT is, and then outkine briefly the main controversy. At the moment, the main controversy cuts the description in half. I don't understand why you're so keen to keep it as I'm not proposing removing any lines.Fainites 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support replacing the existing article intro with the intro proposed above.  I the material in this intro about the disagreements and ACT is fine.  Let's move on, if we can.MarkWood 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first reference lays out ACT's position.  The second reference is part of a cautionary statement.  Having both is fine, it's only two lines, and it really does not dilute anything here.  If anything, it lays out the disputed points.  Since ACT is such a major contributor to this debate I don't think two lines is over the top.  I support the intro section as above. MarkWood 15:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the two lines for the sake of compromise even tho' it's clearly POV. It's the obfuscation created by it's position that is nonsensical. It's about time this article grew up and away from the feud with ACT and concentrated on it's subject. I've added a tag at the top in the hope of attracting more editors. Fainites 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is POV to have material included by a group that has written so extensively on the subject...if anything, excluding their views might be seen as POV.  Feud with ACT?  I don't understand.  Including their material hardly seems to be indicative of a feud with their view and materials.  DPetersontalk 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nonsensical reply. You know very well I am not talking about excluding their views. I am talking about moving a wrongly and confusingly placed sentence about 2cms. What is you reason for wanting to leave that sentence where it is?Fainites 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on...let's try to keep the dialogue WP:Civil.  Again, what is the feud with ACT you reference?  I think the material is relevant and belongs...there are two points being made in that section...I don't understand your vehemanceDPetersontalk 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me. Go ahead and use it. SamDavidson 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. JonesRDtalk 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I agree with the prev two comments.  It's ok to use. RalphLendertalk 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: The article says "The American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC) (Chaffin et al.,2006, ) does not use the term 'Attachment Therapy'", but then links to an abstract that uses the term. Using the citation in this way will probably confuse an ordinary reader. The article goes on to say that they use the term 'attachment therapy' without capitals. This wins the "ridiculously trivial distinction" award. Is there a difference between the definitions of 'Attachment Therapy' and 'attachment therapy'? shotwell 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that ACT specifically uses the term Attachment Therapy while more mainstream groups use the term attachment therapy.  It seems to be a salient point in the debated literature that we should keep consistent with in our writing here. DPetersontalk 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of the Chaffin report is to address the whole phenomenon of what is, according to them, popularly known as 'attachment therapy'. They have it with capitals in the title, but so what? They clearly do not limit themselves to with or without capitals. ACT happen to use capitals but are clearly discussing the same issue, as are Prior and Glaser who use capital A, small case t. There is nothing remotely confusing about this. Attempts to prioritise this merely obfuscates the subject, as does so much of the existing article. The most obvious way to deal with it is to list the variations in the opening sentence, something I proposed many inches above. It is an ambiguous term, not because different authors may or may not use capitals, but because it may loosely be used to cover mainstream therapies as well as this subset. That is why the opening paragraph needs to make it very clear what the article is about. That is why interupting the description s given by the prime authorities in the field with a loose sentence about a controversy is inappropriate and obfuscating.Fainites 09:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I figured as much. The current revision puts a rather large emphasis on ACT's writings. This obscures the broadly accepted research by the likes Chaffin. The artificial distinction concerning capitalization doesn't help. shotwell 10:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this should be an easy article to write as there are so many good quality up-to-date sources. Chaffin et al were commissioned to write their report and the many authors contain a very fair chunk of the known experts in this field (people like Zeannah for example). It's a comprehensive review of what was obviously percieved to be an issue. It wasn't the first either. Speltz, an APSAC advisor wrote a history and description for the ASPAC a couple of years earlier. Chaffin have included a comprehensive list of guidelines. Alot of associations now have guidelines but I haven't yet researched which ones are pre Chaffin and which ones are a consequence of Chaffin. There was alot of correspondance after Chaffin came out with those who took issue with Chaffin. The report on the issues raised and the response of the authors is also published in Child Maltreatment. The Prior and Glaser book was only recently published over here in the UK. It's from the Royal Psychiatric Research Unit. Glaser is a big noise over here in child psych. There are concerns that AT is making it's way into the UK. Glaser also deals with what treatments are evidence based. Of course it takes along time to become evidence based as your studies have to fufil the criteria and need to be replicable by others and you need the wider scientific community to acknowledge your work as evidence based. It's very difficult to do RCT's on children. We're very lucky on this article to have so many good authorities. The problem is getting them into the article in a coherent form. I don't have problem with using ACT's material but they are not the primary source. Fainites 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we cannot leave out the ACT material as they have written the most on this subject and have the largest inventory of materials about the subject.  For example, their definition is probably the most clear and specific of all those floating around.  This article is about what is Attachment Therapy; it's definition, maybe some history, and a description in context of its component parts.DPetersontalk 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Please don't interpose your comments on the talk page when another editor is replying to the first editor as you did at 12.31 above. Also, what do you mean by 'more mainstream groups'? Do you mean mainstream as in not targeted by Chaffin as in the subset or a more mainstream version of AT?Fainites 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fainities and others that the ACT material should be included.  Since the article is about AT, all views about what this is should be represented.  I don't follow the dispute about "mainstream,"  but, regardless, Speltz's article in the APSAC advisor (not sure he is an "Apsac advisor"), the Chaffin paper, Glaser, and ACT material all have a place here.  We don't need to belabor points...let's just make the points clearly and to the point...making a concise, complete, and relevant article. RalphLendertalk 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we all accept that we are writing an article about the phenonmenon of a subset of non-mainstream therapies as described by Chaffin, Glaser and ACT whether we or they use capital letters or not? Fainites 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't that been clear?  As I read all the various editors comments, that seems to cearly be the focus here.  The article is about what is this thing called A(a)ttachment T(t)heray, and all the other names it goes by: rebirthing, holding, coercive restraint therapy. RalphLendertalk 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been clear in the past but if it's clear now then jolly good! Fainites 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  It seems clear from reading the comments in this section, at least. I don't have a lot of time to devote to idle chatter, so I do hope you, I, and others who wish to contribute, can focus on writing and gettinig some level of consensus. RalphLendertalk 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  APSAC & 'Attachment Therapy' vs. 'attachment therapy' 

message: "Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual.  A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[].  The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’.  Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.
In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”  . p77(We need a page number if this is an acutal direct quoteJonesRDtalk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't done. We're not agreed. It's not fine. I could live with that disputed sentence in an appropriate place even though it's OR, POV and inaccurate (although it's not as bad as it was) but it's absurd to have an attack like that in the middle of the introduction. The point it's trying to make is better made in the last sentence, ie, be careful of ACT's list. Chaffin does a much better job of discrediting some of those therapies than ACT. Shall we put him in instead? We can't deal with all the controversies and arguments in the Intro. and we certainly shouldn't be prominently taking sides with out of place POV statements there.   Fainites 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how others feel about this.  Remember, no one owns this editing and concensus means consensus among most individuals who have an interest here.  Attack?  The intro does a very good job of sketching out, briefly, the controversaries and arguments that are later expanded upon. DPetersontalk 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am waiting to see how others feel. MarkWood was indicating it was all sorted. Fainites 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think EVERYONE should wait and see what other editors think and what may be contributed. DPetersontalk 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''INTRODUCTION READY?''''

message: Let's see what various editors think about this paragraphy and see if we have a consensus, or at least a broad and large group agreeing, even if not all agree. DPetersontalk 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't done. We're not agreed. It's not fine. I could live with that disputed sentence in an appropriate place even though it's OR, POV and inaccurate (although it's not as bad as it was) but it's absurd to have an attack like that in the middle of the introduction. The point it's trying to make is better made in the last sentence, ie, be careful of ACT's list. Chaffin does a much better job of discrediting some of those therapies than ACT. Shall we put him in instead? We can't deal with all the controversies and arguments in the Intro. and we certainly shouldn't be prominently taking sides with out of place POV statements there.   Fainites 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how others feel about this.  Remember, no one owns this editing and concensus means consensus among most individuals who have an interest here.  Attack?  The intro does a very good job of sketching out, briefly, the controversaries and arguments that are later expanded upon. DPetersontalk 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am waiting to see how others feel. MarkWood was indicating it was all sorted. Fainites 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think EVERYONE should wait and see what other editors think and what may be contributed. DPetersontalk 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COMMENTS ON INTRO AS WRITTEN

message: Editors: is the second section acceptable for inclusion now?  Please limit your comments to yes or no and one or two lines.  Longer comments can go above. DPetersontalk 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Ralph! You're back! You were the one that put in the quote about ACT calling rebirthing AT.  DP's been defending it for you but he hasn't been able to show us the exact quote of hwere it comes from. Please can you give us the exact quote and source so we can resolve this problem.Fainites 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The support is provided above via the links.  However, your suggestion below is also fine, "ACT identifies rebirthing as a form of AT."  I'd support that. RalphLendertalk 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See my comment in number 2 above. RalphLendertalk 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll change it unless anyone else objects.Fainites 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Without the change, however, I do not think the second section is "done". shotwell 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I like, "ACT identifies rebirthing and holding therapy as terms for "Attachment Therapy."...so can we go with that?DPetersontalk 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm just extremely pedantic, but that is still not correct. I would agree with "ACT identifies rebirthing and holding therapy as types of attachment therapy". How's that sound to you? shotwell 07:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They use rebirthing and holding as terms for AT...what is the difference between writing this is AKA that and this is a type of that.  A pine is a type of tree and pines are AKA trees.DPetersontalk 12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry DP but with all due respect you've missed the point. They do not use rebirthing and holding as terms for AT. They identify rebirthing and holding as forms or types of AT. In other words not synonymous. Ralph, Shotwell and I can see a clear difference. If you can't what is your objection to Shotwells version going in? Fainites 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that my reading is that the terms are used at terms for AT.  rebirthing and holding therapy as types of AT and are AT.  JohnsonRon 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for a direct quote from a verified and credible source showing that ACT treat the terms rebirthing and AT as synonymous. Fainites 11:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes have already been provided as links to their page and a reading makes it very clear that ACT treats the terms as synonymous.  'KEEP'JonesRDtalk 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links given show the opposite to what you claim on rebirthing. Still waiting for a direct quote that ACT use Rebirthing and AT as synnonymous. Happy to accept an actual quote.Fainites 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the links show that they see all these are similiar terms for similiar procedures.  As I said before, we may disagree, so we'll just have to go with the consensus that develops and follow that; which seems to be that the terms are all similliar and used by ACT as largely the same.  Remember, although you wrote a lot of this, you do not own the article, nor do you have veto power if the consensus is not your view. JonesRDtalk 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ===history and underlying principles--Third section===
Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
('DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH' JohnsonRon 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (WOW! Speltz is old, 2002.  I think this section should not be here.  Incuding such a large amount of material that is probably seven or more years old (and 18 to 16 in two other cases) is just bad...it may even be an inaccurate represesntation of what those people are doing now.  Either delete it completely, or cite the current works of those involved.  I'd suggest just leaving it out.  The paragraph really is unneeded.JohnsonRon 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a history section. See title above.Fainites 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Third Section

message: Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
('DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH' JohnsonRon 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (WOW! Speltz is old, 2002.  I think this section should not be here.  Incuding such a large amount of material that is probably seven or more years old (and 18 to 16 in two other cases) is just bad...it may even be an inaccurate represesntation of what those people are doing now.  Either delete it completely, or cite the current works of those involved.  I'd suggest just leaving it out.  The paragraph really is unneeded.JohnsonRon 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a history section. See title above.Fainites 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: history and underlying principles--Third section

message: #'YES'Just delete it and move on. JohnsonRon 17:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I don't see the comments that way.  We certainly should give others a chance to comment.  While you have written the material underdiscussion here, you do not OWN it and there must be broad and generally agreement, but no one person has a veto.  Maybe if you put something in the clearly indicate that the statements are based on material over a decade and half old and that this may not reflect current practice it could be ok...See, now, that would be a good compromise. JonesRDtalk 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material comes from an article that specifically states it deals with the history. It all states it comes from this article. How much clearer can it be? Speltz writes the article which deals with the history. We cite and quote Speltz. Speltz is a verified and credible source. it's not rocket science! Fainites 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the fourth time of asking, please don't mess around with other peoples edits. Fainites 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am merely formating so that your comments are in the proper form...indentented and with the thread they apply to.  I think a good compromise would be for you to clearly indicte that the statements are based on material that is fifteen or more years old and that it may not reflect their current practice.  That seems like a reasonable request.  What is your problem with doing that?  If you just don't have the time, then let's just leave it out. JonesRDtalk 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it clearly states that Speltz is describing the history and development that should be sufficient. Fainites 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't mess around with or refactor my edits.Fainites 10:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not '"MESSING AROUND"' or "refactoring" your edits.  It is custom and form to keep the threads of a conversation together on a talk page by progressivly indenting the comments.  Makes it easier to read.  Placing comments randomly and all over the place makes it impossible to follow a conversation here.  It isn't sufficient since I and others find it misleading.  Why not just add a line.  Why object to a little suggetion that would build consensus here.  Compromise is an important value on wikipedia.  Remember, although you did write a lot of the above, you don't own it and it is 'CONSENSUS' that will the the ultimate decider of what goes in or does not and what is edited how. JonesRDtalk 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make it easier to follow discussion threads if we stick with the Wikipedia practice of indentation. DPetersontalk 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can appreciate your unhappiness with how this has developed and the outcome.  We don't have to all agree to move forward.  It seems we have five editors in favor of deleting the paragraph in question so that constitutes a consensus on that. DPetersontalk 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE ON DELETING THE PARAGRAPH DISCUSSED ABOVE

message: Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
According to Speltz, "a decade later, Martha Welsh (1984, 1989) described a technique for children with attachment problems called holding time. Mothers were instructed to take hold of their defiant child at these times, holding them tightly to the point of inducing anger." p 4. "Foster Cline (1991) and associates at the Attachment Center at Evergreen, Inc. (Evergreen, Colorado) began to promote the use of the same or similar holding techniques with adopted, maltreated children who were said to have an attachment disorder (not to be confused with DSM-IV’s reactive attachment disorder)." p 4.
According to Prior and Glaser (2006) "there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)." p263. 
Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles of Attachment Therapy as follows;
“In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated." p 78 
Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which "purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy" by Myeroff et al (1999). The methodology of this study is heavily criticized. This study covers the "across the lap" type holding therapy, described as "not restraint" by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but "being held whilst unable to gain release." 
Prior and Glaser also state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach: "present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." " p265. Chaffin et al also cite "encouraging children to regress to infant status" as a feature of these therapies (p83) and include "age regression" as a technique to avoid in their guidelines at p86. 
Fainites 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: history and underlying principles--Third section

message: ===Attachment Disorder===
Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’. 
Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders. 
DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.
Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.
Please do not alter this and then vote on a Bowdlerised version. This is my post. Comment below or in italics.Fainites 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Fourth Section

message: Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘two discourses’ on attachment disorder. One science based, found in academic journals and books with careful reference to theory, international classifications and evidence. They list Bowlby, Ainsworth, Tizard, Hodges, Chisholm, O’Connor and Zeanah and colleagues as respected attachment theorists and researchers in the field. The other discourse is found in clinical practice, non-academic literature and on the Internet where claims are made which have no basis in attachment theory and for which there is no empirical evidence. In particular unfounded claims are made as to efficacy of ‘treatments’. 
Attachment disorders are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10. DSM describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood, divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type. The ICD classification describes two types, Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood and Disinhibited Attachment Disorder of Childhood. Both classifications are under constant discussion and both warn against automatic diagnosis based on abuse or neglect. Many ‘symptoms’ are present in a variety of other more common and more easily treatable disorders. 
DSM and ICD are limited and some researchers in the field of attachment such as Zeannah have proposed alternative diagnostic criteria to describe broader disorders of attachment but the exact parameters are not yet established.
Chaffin et al and Prior and Glaser describe the proliferation of alternative ‘lists’ and diagnoses, particularly on the Internet, by proponents of Attachment Therapies that do not accord with either DSM or ICD classifications and which are partly based on the unsubstantiated views of Zaslow and Menta (1975) and Cline (1991). Neither do these lists accord with alternative diagnostic criteria as proposed above. According to Chaffin et al 'These types of lists are so nonspecific that high rates of false-positive diagnoses are virtually certain.' Prior and Glaser state that many of the behaviors in the lists are likely to be the consequences of neglect and abuse rather than located within the attachment paradigm.
Please do not alter this and then vote on a Bowdlerised version. This is my post. Comment below or in italics.Fainites 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attachment Disorder

message: # Probably ok Let's see what other editors have to say. DPetersontalk 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''COMMENTS ON FOURTH SECTION PROPOSAL''''

message: The following represents the consenus on the first three paragraphs.  I think we can now agree to put this into the article and replace the first three paragraphs 
"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual.  A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[].  The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’.  Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.
In a report for the ASPAC, Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.' They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.”  . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article.
Defination of Attachment Therapy
There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy". It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change.  There is not any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al (2006) describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating, "This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds." p85 
The report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Problems (Chaffin et al 2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) attempt to describe this subset  as follows:
"The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions." p83  Chaffin et al also state, "encouraging children to regress to infant status" as a feature of these therapies and as a technique to be avoided. p83
Speltz (2002) in a paper published in the APSAC newsletter APSAC Advisor and describe ‘corrective attachment therapy’ as follows:
"… the holding therapies included in “corrective” attachment therapy do not address safety needs. They differ in that a therapist or parent initiates the holding process for the purpose of provoking strong, negative emotions in the child (e.g., fear, anger), and the child’s release is typically contingent upon his or her compliance with the therapist’s clinical agenda." p4.''
Prior and Glaser (2006) describe ‘Attachment therapy’ as a variety of treatments offered to desperate carers of troubled, maltreated children which often include variants of holding, eg holding time (Welch 1998), therapeutic holding (Howe and Fearnley 2003), rage reduction therapy (Cline 1991) and rebirthing.  They state, 
"There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Moreover, Bowlby (1988)explicitly rejected the notion of regression, which is key to the holding therapy approach:  'present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." p265. 
The advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy define, "Attachment Therapy (AT).. as …a growing, underground movement for the treatment of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. AT practitioners allege that the root cause of the children’s misbehavior is a failure to 'attach' to their caregivers. The purported correction by AT is — literally — to force the children into loving (attaching to) their parents ...there is a hands-on treatment involving physical restraint and discomfort. Attachment Therapy is the imposition of boundary violations - most often coercive restraint - and verbal abuse on a child, usually for hours at a time...Typically, the child is put in a lap hold with the arms pinned down, or alternatively an adult lies on top of a child lying prone on the floor." [ They state "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation."  The group identify rebirthing as a form of Attachment therapy.
History and underlying principles
Speltz (2002) states that the roots of "Attachment Therapy" are traced to Robert Zaslow in the 1970’s.  Zaslow attempted to force attachment in those suffering from autism by creating pain and rage whilst enforcing eye contact. He believed that holding someone against their will would lead to a breakdown in their defence mechanism’s making them more receptive to others.  Speltz point’s out that these ideas have been dispelled by research into autism and that, conversely, techniques based on behavioural principles have proved effective.
According to Prior and Glaser (2006) "there is no empirical evidence to support Zaslows theory. The concept of suppressed rage has, nevertheless, continued to be a central focus explaining the children’s behaviour (Cline 1991)." p263. 
Chaffin et al describe the underlying principles of Attachment Therapy as follows;
“In contrast to traditional attachment theory, the theory of attachment described by controversial attachment therapies is that young children who experience adversity (including maltreatment, loss, separations, adoption, frequent changes in child care, colic or even frequent ear infections) become enraged at a very deep and primitive level. As a result, these children are conjectured to lack an ability to attach or to be genuinely affectionate to others. Suppressed or unconscious rage is theorized to prevent the child from forming bonds with caregivers and leads to behavior problems when the rage erupts into unchecked aggression. The children are described as failing to develop a conscience and as not trusting others. They are said to seek control rather than closeness, resist the authority of caregivers, and engage in endless power struggles. From this perspective, children described as having attachment problems are seen as highly manipulative in their social relations and actively trying to avoid true attachments while simultaneously striving to control adults and others around them through manipulation and superficial sociability. Children described as having attachment problems are alleged by proponents of the controversial therapies to be at risk for becoming psychopaths who will go on to engage in very serious delinquent, criminal, and antisocial behaviors if left untreated." p 78 
Prior and Glaser cite the one published study which "purports to be an evaluation of holding therapy" by Myeroff et al (1999). This study covers the "across the lap" approach, described as "not restraint" by Howe and Fearnley (2003) but "being held whilst unable to gain release." 
Prior and Glaser also state, "There are many ways in which holding therapy/attachment therapy contradicts Bowlby's attachment theory, not least attachment theory's fundamental and evidence-based statement that security is promoted by sensitivity. Present knowledge of infant and child development requires that a theory of developmental pathways should replace theories that invoke specific phases of development in which it is held a person may become fixated and/or to which he may regress." p265.
DPetersontalk 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''CONSENSUS VERSION FOR PARAGRAPHS ONE, TWO, AND THREE'''

message: #GREAT! Ready to be added for all the reasons cited previously. RalphLendertalk 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Consensus Version for Paragraphs 1-3

message: Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Prior and Glaser (2006) describe evidence based treatments, all of which revolve around enhancing caregiver sensitivity, or change of caregiver if that is not possible. Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security  and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, among the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.
According to O’Connor and Zeanah (2003 p235) "The holding approach would be viewed as intrusive and therefore non-sensitive and counter therapeutic". Chaffin et al (2006) describe how the conceptual focus of these treatments is the childs individual internal pathology and past caregivers rather than current parent-child relationships or current environment, to the extent that if the child is well behaved outside the home this is seen as manipulative. It was noted that this perspective has its attractions because it relieves the caregivers of responsibility to change aspects of their own behavior and aspirations. Proponents of the controversial therapies emphasize the child’s resistance to attachment and the need to break down the child’s resistance. Often parents are required to follow programmes of treatment at home, for example, obedience-training techniques such as "strong sitting" (frequent periods of required silence and immobility) and withholding or limiting food (Thomas, 2001). Also requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs and barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker. 
The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions." Pg 77 (Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area,) “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 (Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues.) “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.
ACT’s site contains descriptions of Attachment Therapy, including a link to the transcript of the rebirthing process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker at the hands of her unlicensed ‘therapists’. According to ACT "Attachment Therapy almost always involves extremely confrontational, often hostile confrontation of a child by a therapist or parent (sometimes both). Restraint of the child by more powerful adult(s) is considered an essential part of the confrontation." 
DPetersontalk 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the only bit in para.3 that's about treatment characteristics is the bit about holding therapy. The rest is partly a repeat from earlier in the proposed article which doesn't need repeating, but if you look carefully DPeterson you'll see that you've included bits and pieces of various commentaries from earlier parts of the talkpage. Ralph's missed this aswell. In relation to the 'list', I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. I meant no list at all, not from Chaffin or Glaser. Just the bits where they describe what proper therapy is so I think we can agree on that Fainites 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I see all in this section as a description of the characteristics of the treatment called Attachment Therapy.  How is this material a repeat of what is in sections 1-3 above?  I don't see the same quotes or lines in both.  Again, since this is such a vague term, some overlap will occur, but I don't see it as substntial.DPetersontalk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting no treatments or therapies be listed at all? DPetersontalk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the following would be deleted: Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, among the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.???DPetersontalk 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. For now it is enough to to quote what Chaffin, Glaser etc. say about the characteristics of non-AT therapy if you see what I mean. Fainites 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other point " Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area" and "  Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues." are bits of talk page commentary! Fainites 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph should list the various therapies that are not coercive...or list none. RalphLendertalk 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It's ok to leave out all therapies, not my preference, but acceptable.  I also think the last two paragraphs can and should stay...so that would that be an acceptable compromise for you? In the interests of building consensus, since most editors, so far, are accepting the leaving out of the listing of therapies and the inclusion of the last two paragraphs, I can go along with that; in the spirit of collaboration. DPetersontalk 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry DP? Are you seriously saying you want to keep odd ungrammatical remarks from the talkpage accidently included in paragraph 3, in the article? I'm all in favour of compromise but compromise is usually about the substance of the content, not accidental edits! Have you read it? Fainites 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My lack of clarity, sorry.  I put what I think are the comments in () and those ought not be included.  Is this better?  If I missed something, just note that, and use the same format to mark it, ok? DPetersontalk 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PROPOSED: Treatment characteristics Fourth Section

message: #_Yes As is it is just fine...let's keeping moving on. RalphLendertalk 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the only bit in para.3 that's about treatment characteristics is the bit about holding therapy. The rest is partly a repeat from earlier in the proposed article which doesn't need repeating, but if you look carefully DPeterson you'll see that you've included bits and pieces of various commentaries from earlier parts of the talkpage. Ralph's missed this aswell. In relation to the 'list', I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. I meant no list at all, not from Chaffin or Glaser. Just the bits where they describe what proper therapy is so I think we can agree on that Fainites 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I see all in this section as a description of the characteristics of the treatment called Attachment Therapy.  How is this material a repeat of what is in sections 1-3 above?  I don't see the same quotes or lines in both.  Again, since this is such a vague term, some overlap will occur, but I don't see it as substntial.DPetersontalk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting no treatments or therapies be listed at all? DPetersontalk 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the following would be deleted: Based on meta-analyses by Bakermans-Krananburg et al (2003) covering 70 published studies for assessing sensitivity, 81 studies on sensitivity and 29 on attachment security and many further randomised intervention studies involving over 7,000 families, among the methods singled out to have shown good results were 'Watch, wait and wonder' (Cohen et al 1999), manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, (van den Boom 1994 and 1995), modified 'Interaction Guidance' (Benoit et al 2001), 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy', (Toth et al (2002) and 'Circle of Security' (Marvin et al 2002). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.???DPetersontalk 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. For now it is enough to to quote what Chaffin, Glaser etc. say about the characteristics of non-AT therapy if you see what I mean. Fainites 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other point " Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area" and "  Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues." are bits of talk page commentary! Fainites 13:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph should list the various therapies that are not coercive...or list none. RalphLendertalk 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It's ok to leave out all therapies, not my preference, but acceptable.  I also think the last two paragraphs can and should stay...so that would that be an acceptable compromise for you? In the interests of building consensus, since most editors, so far, are accepting the leaving out of the listing of therapies and the inclusion of the last two paragraphs, I can go along with that; in the spirit of collaboration. DPetersontalk 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry DP? Are you seriously saying you want to keep odd ungrammatical remarks from the talkpage accidently included in paragraph 3, in the article? I'm all in favour of compromise but compromise is usually about the substance of the content, not accidental edits! Have you read it? Fainites 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My lack of clarity, sorry.  I put what I think are the comments in () and those ought not be included.  Is this better?  If I missed something, just note that, and use the same format to mark it, ok? DPetersontalk 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FOURTH SECTION: TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS SECTION

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

message: ===Prevalence===
('SUGGESTION': Begin with the original statment: "There are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of these therapies or of how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, they are sufficiently prevalent...continue as you did.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they use a direct quote and don't put it in your own words...lets see how that looks.SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Needs more work and editing...a bunch more. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ('SUGGESTION': Begin with the original statment: "There are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of these therapies or of how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, they are sufficiently prevalent...continue as you did.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they use a direct quote and don't put it in your own words...lets see how that looks.SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Needs more work and editing...a bunch more. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :*What methods or adjuncts are used with AT?
:*Why exactly do certain bodies refuse to use AT or criticise AT?
:And of course, where can I find the relevant literature if any? Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Fainites. You may well be right. But I think the consensus group is acting in a calm and reasonable manner. I believe you might also bring yourself to that same level of calm. My first question hasn't been answered. From my reading, AT seems to be thought of (by specific sources) as possibly coercive mishmash of many influences and minor tweaks. Please put me right if I'm wrong. Its synonymous with rebirthing and other such cathartic methods and involves eye contact and holding and so on. Is there any information about this somewhere? Maypole 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Fainites has been calm and reasonable and very patient. FatherTree 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of quick questions

message: Hello again. I think this is an important question. There seems to be some evidence of the validity of rebirthing/AT or whatever synonym. Is its main purpose for treating mental behavioral disorders specifically? Maypole 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is supposed to treat behaviour problems in adoptees mostly. FatherTree 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Is also called" means synonymous according to my dictionary. I'm reading the article. It looks like some people consider AT to be valid. I see from a brief search on the web that AT is synonymous with just about all the other names in the lead section. What I would like to know here though is whether AT is used to treat behavioral or mental problems. Any answers to my original question? Maypole 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the term attachment therapy in its broadest sense means any therapy used to treat attachment disorder. But in the general market place it refers to coercive therapies. It is a marketing name.  FatherTree 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AT main purpose?

message: I'm getting a little lost.  Could someone please clarify for me what the Chaffin quote dispute is all about?  Where exactly is the passage in question? StokerAce 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line reads: Improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is a key to improving attachment. From this perspective, treatment for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, attuned, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Haugaard, J. J. (2004a). Recognizing and treating uncommon
behavioral and emotional disorders in children and adolescents
who have been severely maltreated: Introduction. Child Maltreatment,
9, 123-130 Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005 Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (Eds.) Creating Capacity for Attachment, Wood 'N' Barnes, Oklahoma City, OK, 2005 Nichols,Lacher & May, 2004 Nichols, M., Lacher, D.,&May, J. (2002). Parenting with stories: Creating
a foundation of attachment for parenting your child. Deephaven,
MN: Family Attachment Counseling Center., Chaffin, 2006 Chaffin M. et al, (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=76-79 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 |  ). This is a statement with a number of verifiable citations. RalphLendertalk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004)" 
What has happened is that firstly Becker-Weidman was inserted into Chaffins list of authorities for the passage. When it was pointed out how grossly misleading this was, the quote was altered in various ways to change its meaning and effect and Becker-Weidman was again inserted as a reference. The problem with this is that it creates an entirley misleading impression. Chaffin et al do in fact criticise Becker-Weidman in the context of being a proponent of attachment therapy. They do not use the word 'attunement'. To amalgamate two opposing positions into one passage and run all the references togather is utterley misleading and confusing. Also, whats the point? This isn't rocket science! The Chaffin quote is perfectly straightforward. Prior and Glaser also describe non-attachment therapy therapies. Why try and mix it all up with Becker-Weidman who is specifically criticised by Chaffin? If you want to cite Becker-Weidmans opinions on what proper therapy is, fine, but why mix it up with othersources veiews in this misleading way? I also would like to get Becker-Weidmans views on this. It concerns me that he is being misrepresented in this way. If anybody thought he was party to this kind of thing it could damage his credibility.Fainites 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of References and edited paragraph (Chaffin quote) 

message: It appears that a significant number of editors prefer the version by SamDavidson.  Consensus supports this version.  Fainities concerns are understandable.  Anyone who has put a lot of work into a work feels some ownership of that material.  Wikipedia works on consensus and that may change over time.  As I read it the following editors prefer the version in place:
1. "The recent edit by Davidson to add a reference and clean up a line or two are fine with me. I think this is an improvement and I support it. DPetersontalk 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should really assume good faith here. I'm happy to see if there are any omissions or inaccuracies.  Surely there are other editors around who can help you doublecheck also. One thing I find strange about the article is the lack of these multitude of odd techniques that are allegedly being used as AT. What is the actual list of methods or techniques? Maypole 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that is a real problem is that there is no clear defination of "Attachment Therapy."  There is no actual listing, as there are for other reputable approahces, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Theraplay, Object Relations, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, etc. etc. RalphLendertalk 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats the discrepancy I see. AT may use these well founded methods but from the article the criticism seems to me to be that it also uses all sorts of other unvalidated or quite wild treatments. If so then it really should be ok to have them more clearly in the article. If some practitioners use only kosher methods then thats wonderful for them. If a lot of AT practitioners use flaky methods then its a shame for the good ones. If critics lump everyone together then thats their view. I guess its just one of those things the good ATs have to put up with as a career characteristic anyway. Maypole 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I think the following should be added: Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.</bockquote>DPetersontalk 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited Treatment Characteristics Section

message: It's been suggested that to clarify what is and is not acceptable practice, that the following paragraph be added to the article.  Please voice your comments below:  Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al).
Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.
====IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS TO THE ARTICLE====
# 'YES' As suggested by others, this clarifies what is not covered by AT as defined in this article.  DPetersontalk 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Chaffin citation, so it is not Chaffin material.  Dr. Becker-Weidman appears to have published several empirical articles in journals that were not considered in the APSAC-Chaffin et. al. report because the report was prepared before publication of those articles.  The preferred version above does not mislead, 'INCLUDE IT.'MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an exact quote from Chaffin. becker-Weidmanwas misleadingly inserted. A few words were altered to make it not look like a quote from Chaffin. Why? Becker-Weidman is not particularly notable. Why this obsession with getting him in the article? Also, as you know, Chaffin et al specifically considered Becker-Weidmans new studies in the follow up report in November 2006 and did not change their views. That is why it is misleading to mix becker-Weidman up with Chaffin as if they were jointly citing something.Fainites 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a quote.  Why are you so anti becker-weidman?  This really seems like a cause with you and your partners as you e-mail back and forth...I just don't see the point.  The paragraph is fine and many others think so.  So, let's just move on.  The lines are not quotes and are better sourced this way.  There is no mixing up of Chaffin and Dr. Becker-Weidman.  Your stance on this is so similiar to ACT's, why are you not bringing in their material as well?  The lines make no statement of being Chaffins, so this is really a non-issue.  Let's move on. MarkWood 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed article I drafted contained no mention of Becker-Weidman at all. Its you who keep inserting him into the article. You're missing the point. The lines were a direct quote of Chaffin. They were slightly altered and Becker-Weidman was inserted. How can that be 'better sourced'. It's not sourced at all! As for anybody elses stance being the 'same as ACT', you keep misrepresenting Becker-Weidmans position. Anybody who can read sources can see that.Fainites 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above seems to have the support of a number of editors.  I also wonder what is the difficulty you seem to have with Dr. Becker-Weidman.  You are not raising concerns about the other authors in the above consensus paragraph.  Each treatment listed has at least one verifiable source; meeting wikip. standards. DPetersontalk 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The evidence basis is provided by the several empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals and in the article by Craven & Lee in Research on Social Work Practice, vol 16, May 2006, 287-304...This is the most current article on the subject. DPetersontalk 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you never cite Craven & Lee though do you. You just try and insert Becker-Weidman into Chaffin! It's not me that keeps trying to include B-W in this article. As for the other authors, B_W is the only one specifically criticised by Chaffin and specifically described, in November 06 as not evidence based. Fainites 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Craven & Lee is another example...I can certainly add it if you wish.  No, you keep repeating the same incorrect point.  THe Chaffin article is using old data.  The article was prepared in 2003 or so and when published did not include the empirical and evidence-based artiles published in professional peer-reviewed publications in 2005 and 2006.  But, that is really not the point, the paragraph is not Chaffin or is it attributed to Chaffin.  It is a paragraph that a consensus of editors prefers.  DPetersontalk 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Your reply does not address any of the major factual errors in your statements, unless you believe 'consensus' actually can decide black is white. Two cheers for democracy! Fainites 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no factual errors and this has been extensively discussed above and previously, so I won't repeat previous material...just take a look at the above material and you will find a relevant response.  I understand you may disagree, but let's move on as the consensus is not in your favor and does not see it your way...happens sometimes. DPetersontalk 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add the following paragraph to Article

message: # 'YES' As suggested by others, this clarifies what is not covered by AT as defined in this article.  DPetersontalk 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Chaffin citation, so it is not Chaffin material.  Dr. Becker-Weidman appears to have published several empirical articles in journals that were not considered in the APSAC-Chaffin et. al. report because the report was prepared before publication of those articles.  The preferred version above does not mislead, 'INCLUDE IT.'MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an exact quote from Chaffin. becker-Weidmanwas misleadingly inserted. A few words were altered to make it not look like a quote from Chaffin. Why? Becker-Weidman is not particularly notable. Why this obsession with getting him in the article? Also, as you know, Chaffin et al specifically considered Becker-Weidmans new studies in the follow up report in November 2006 and did not change their views. That is why it is misleading to mix becker-Weidman up with Chaffin as if they were jointly citing something.Fainites 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a quote.  Why are you so anti becker-weidman?  This really seems like a cause with you and your partners as you e-mail back and forth...I just don't see the point.  The paragraph is fine and many others think so.  So, let's just move on.  The lines are not quotes and are better sourced this way.  There is no mixing up of Chaffin and Dr. Becker-Weidman.  Your stance on this is so similiar to ACT's, why are you not bringing in their material as well?  The lines make no statement of being Chaffins, so this is really a non-issue.  Let's move on. MarkWood 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed article I drafted contained no mention of Becker-Weidman at all. Its you who keep inserting him into the article. You're missing the point. The lines were a direct quote of Chaffin. They were slightly altered and Becker-Weidman was inserted. How can that be 'better sourced'. It's not sourced at all! As for anybody elses stance being the 'same as ACT', you keep misrepresenting Becker-Weidmans position. Anybody who can read sources can see that.Fainites 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above seems to have the support of a number of editors.  I also wonder what is the difficulty you seem to have with Dr. Becker-Weidman.  You are not raising concerns about the other authors in the above consensus paragraph.  Each treatment listed has at least one verifiable source; meeting wikip. standards. DPetersontalk 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The evidence basis is provided by the several empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals and in the article by Craven & Lee in Research on Social Work Practice, vol 16, May 2006, 287-304...This is the most current article on the subject. DPetersontalk 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you never cite Craven & Lee though do you. You just try and insert Becker-Weidman into Chaffin! It's not me that keeps trying to include B-W in this article. As for the other authors, B_W is the only one specifically criticised by Chaffin and specifically described, in November 06 as not evidence based. Fainites 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Craven & Lee is another example...I can certainly add it if you wish.  No, you keep repeating the same incorrect point.  THe Chaffin article is using old data.  The article was prepared in 2003 or so and when published did not include the empirical and evidence-based artiles published in professional peer-reviewed publications in 2005 and 2006.  But, that is really not the point, the paragraph is not Chaffin or is it attributed to Chaffin.  It is a paragraph that a consensus of editors prefers.  DPetersontalk 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Your reply does not address any of the major factual errors in your statements, unless you believe 'consensus' actually can decide black is white. Two cheers for democracy! Fainites 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no factual errors and this has been extensively discussed above and previously, so I won't repeat previous material...just take a look at the above material and you will find a relevant response.  I understand you may disagree, but let's move on as the consensus is not in your favor and does not see it your way...happens sometimes. DPetersontalk 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS TO THE ARTICLE

message: I have been working through the article and it seems to me that its quite an essay. There is a lot of argument going on even in the article. For example, the last paragraph is making some unsourced comments about "Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.". I had a look through the NPOV article and it seems we could probably do with just moving those argument parts out of the article and putting them in the talkpage for people to work on and source. Part of the difficulty for anyone reading this article is trying to sort the editor's arguments from the source's arguments. I really think this will help. I'll get the ball rolling with the last sentence of the article. Here it is:
"Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters.  Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions."
First I believe we need sources for it. Maypole 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion.  I am in favor it it! DPetersontalk 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added back the paragraph only because I do not want to see "edit wars" begun.  I think, given the contentiousness of this topic it is best to propose suggestions here on the talk page, see if a consensus exists or can be developed and then make the changes.  I support your suggestion, but am not sure others do or what their thinking may be.  Is that ok with you? DPetersontalk 02:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine for now, but remember it seems that you just restored some rather odd unsourced argument into the articleMaypole 05:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know and I'm happy to delete the material, I think...but I just want to be sure we give others a chance to commnent and avoid hot tempers or rash actions.  I'm not disagreeing with the substnce of what you are suggesting.  I am merely suggesting a slower process to build consensus.  P.S. thanks for your work here. DPetersontalk 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maypole, there is some very good stuff on prevalence of AT in both the Chaffin report and Prior and Glaser which should go in the article. There is no source I have found for saying it's 'rare' but there don't seem to be any statistics at all. The Chaffin report was commissioned because of growing concerns and publicity about various notorious cases. Would you like me to e-mail you a copy.? It might be a good idea for you to read the earlier talkpage. You will see that every single one of these arguments about unsourced material has been argued before so you don't need to go really slowly to build consensus as the arguments are familiar to most of the existing editors. Also, be wary about 'going slowly to build consensus'. I did that for weeks, posted the consensus version and it was almost immediately altered to include stuff previously agreed to be left out. Fainites 14:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get a copy at:  DPetersontalk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it seems that AT therapy is very popular. Just from seeing the amount of advertizement for it on the internet. Can you send me a copy also? Maybe a list of the number of members of attach.org etc would show the number of people practicing it. FatherTree 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It is approach we used before when attempting to reach a consensus version. All of these comments have been made before above. there is no need to keep repeating the same comments throughout another editors proposals and it makes it difficult for other new editors to see what is going on. You also removed my paragraphing which was put there to make it easier for editors to discuss seperate parts. Please don't interfere with my edits.Fainites 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not possible to see what DP had in mind when you remove his/her material.  This distorts the process. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It distorts the process to make an editors proposed version unreadable. As for ATTACh being controversial, their list of 'symptoms' contains some of the things criticised by both Caffin and Galser. As for Chaffin being too limiting a source, at least it is a source, unlike lists of therapies stated to be 'congruent', with no source, or lists of organisations, again unsourced. Here is the list of members of the Taskforce. You will see it contains many of the best known names in the field. "Byron Egeland, Elana Newman, Tom Lyon, Elizabeth Letourneau and Cindy Miller-Perrin, Mark Chaffin, Rochelle Hanson, Benjamin E. Saunders, Todd Nichols, Douglas Barnett, Charles Zeanah, Lucy Berliner".Fainites 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the process you'd suggested.  If you don't wnat comments, so be it. DPetersontalk 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Each of the therapies listed has one or more sources cited and so this is a broader and better referenced statement...as most other editors agree here and with the another section above, so if that is the consensus, than that is what will be included I guess.  All the citations in the section are verifiable and relevant. DPetersontalk 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. They are sources for what they are. They are not sources, on self report or otherwise, for being congruent with attachment theory, or Chaffins statement of traditional theories, unless there is a source that says they are. eg Prior and Glaser, who list only 4. Otherwise its either self report, or us reading them and deciding they're congruent, which would be OR. You can say they 'claim' to be congruent, but I don't think mainstream therapies do that do they?Fainites 18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the citations.  They are sources that address the point dead on.  The articles in peer-reviewed professional publications in each instance note how the treatment is based on and congruent with attachment theory.  Chaffin is not relevant to this discussion.  They all meet Wikipedia standards for being verifiable.  And, of course, this is the version that represents consensus as this time, so regardless of anyone's personal feelings, or "pride of authorship," consensus will determine the outcome and inclusion of materials.  DPetersontalk 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I didn't mean to hurt your personal feelings or 'pride of ownership' DP so apologies if I did. The point I'm making is that just because the proponent of a therapy says 'hi everyone! I'm congruent, evidence based and based on attachment theory' doesn't mean it is accepted as such. Others may disagree. On DDP there is obviously major disagreement at the highest level within the field. Chaffin very wisely didn't seek to list 'good' therapies. All sorts of people would have complained about being left out. Glaser only gave a very conservative, well established list. It's a minefield. Lets not go there. Its not necessary for the scope of this article. It's an argument for the DDP page perhaps, not here. We agreed all this before actually. I posted the agreed version and then it got perverted.Fainites 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you've put a lot of work in here and my comment that you may feel "pride of authorship" was meant to be understanding of why you may feel particularily supportive of your versions.  The treatments have citations listed to support their inclusion and meet the Wikipedia standard as being verifiable.  The listing seems relevant and it also appears to be a consensus.  My comment on pride of authorship is directed to mean that even if one feels strongly about one's work, it is the community consensus that prevails.  DPetersontalk 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do understand your committment to your work.  Your comment that "I posted the agree version and the it got perverted," I think does express your frustration, and I do appreciate that.  There was a consensus (not an agreement between one or two editors) and then a new consensus developed.  As frustrating as I know that can be, we still all have to go with the community consensus...even if one feels strongly it is "wrong." DPetersontalk 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't my work. It's just a passing hobby. I do object to intellectual dishonesty. There was a consensus. It was a passage from Chaffin which all editors knew. One editor immediately inserted a citation in the quote that was not in the original quote thus creating a false and misleading travesty of the quote which was from a verified and credible source. The motive was obviously, as is so often the case on this site, to pretend that Becker-Weidman is cited approvingly by the Taskforce when in fact the reverse is the case. The fact that you and the others then all pile in to say what a wonderful improvement this is says more about you all than I ever could. Your diffs are your record, despite your propensity for going back over the talkpage and altering things retrospectively. Fainites 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph as re-written is an improvement.  I see no intellectual dishonesty here and encourage 'ALL' to 'KEEP A COOL HEAD' and Assume good faith.  The paragraph makes no statements indicative regarding the Task Force's opinion regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman's past or present works.  JonesRDtalk 16:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sifting the essay from the fact

message: Hello I have been reading the literature sent to me by Fainites. Its very helpful. I have altered my view of the whole subject accordingly. I would place the word "Traditional" in quotes. I think it is more meaningful to have it there. 
There are a whole range of views though. The literature I was sent is scholarly for the most part. That is only one aspect of the viewpoints, and it only infers the whole story. For example, Chiffrin says that the controversy has centered on the most worrying interventions. But the paper goes on to say that the whole subject is criticised because a lot of the theories are up the spout, and a lot of other unnamed unvalidated methods are used in addition. This latter aspect does need to be covered in the article. Its crucial from the science (majority) point of view because anything unvalidated is considered unethical, wrong, potentially dangerous in itself, according to the accepted wisdom of clinical practice. Wikipedia RS seems to accept all scholarly and non scholarly sources as long as they are reliable for the views being presented. So now I think its just a matter of including all the unvalidated methods mentioned in the literature. For sure, there must be some valid way of doing AT and to be fair we really have to make the distinction between the valid aspects of dealing with attachment, and dodgy and coercive methods. I think the best way would be to 
*state what AT is thought of as being without any criticism whatsoever, 
*then explain that attachment problems can be handled well using sensible methods (according to science rather than according to "AT"), 
*then state there is a huge outcry about coercive and unvalidated goings on by such and such practitioners and state those unvalidated methods and practices. It would help to characterize that type of practitioner in some representative way if possible. Avoid preaching though.
*the opening section should then follow the above structure
How does that sound to all here? Maypole 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the scholarly sources of Prior and Glaser and others are fine but they are not really encyclopedic. Look at their perspective. Either they are warning of problems, or they are saying be careful not to chuck out good stuff with the bathwater. The encyc way I think would be to do what Jim Wales recommends - to include all views and all facts as long as they are relevant and reliable enough. And be as neutral as possible. Present the neutral as possible description of AT, present what attachment is about in theory and how it can be improved according to science, then say how you can bugger it up using unvalidated methods and name all methods associated that people say are unvalidated. Also using sources describe the sort of practitioner who might inadvertently snuff a troublesome minor with his out demons out routine. So yes be as comprehensive as possible within reason. If someone says something is invalidated then thats their view. We (Wikipedians) don't have to say its unvalidated. Just that wassname says its unvalidated. Thats fair, encyclopedic, and accurate. Maypole 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would make this article way to broad.  The focus is now on the general def. of "Attachemnt Therapy" as a coercive and fringe treatment.  To call reputable treatments also AT would confuse the issue.  In fact most (all?) reputable treatments would not approve of calling the treatment AT.  Therapay would not call it AT.  Dr. Marvin would not call circle of security AT, Dr. Daniel Siegel would not call Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy AT.  Dr. Van der Kolk would not call Liberman's work AT. etc.  There are other articles that address those therapies, what is attachment theory, Bowlvy, the diagnosis of RAD, etc.  To have an article try to capture all that at once would be too diverse.  I think a narrower focus works better...but the idea certainly is worthy of continued discussion.  JonesRDtalk 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference has been for not naming specific therapies as I think its a minefield too broad for this article. If we do name them we have to say either so and so says such and such is scientifically validated, or so and so claims his therapy is scientifically validated, but so and so don't agree etc. That's why I think Chaffins and Prior and Glasers descriptions of traditional approaches by way of contrast to AT approaches is sufficient. They're not encyclopaedic in themselves, but they are good sources. I like the idea of addressing the underlying theory and history more as it's really developed from a different line of thinking to Bowlby. I think we should give a broad sourced description of AT. As there's no one definition we can include several as we have done. I think what we should also include is what attachment therapists say about their therapies. Following the Chafiin report some have gone the way of saying they're not AT and never were, some like to pretend attachment therapy doesn't exist at all, but some defend their therapies and say they're right. Sources don't have to be science only! They just have to be accurately characterised. Are you proposing to draft something and let us have a look? (Thats Maypole I mean). Fainites 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The listing in the consensus version of Prevalence, I think it is, to be clear that those are not AT as defined in this article (given that there are verifiable citations to support each one) I think is fine.  It is brief (one paragraph) and seems to have the support of most editors so far.  DPetersontalk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A broader article may confuse the issue.  The article is about AT as defined here as a coercive treatment (per ACT, APSAC, etc.).  We should keep that focus. DPetersontalk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The article is not just about coercive therapies. It is about a subset of therapies outside the mainstream known as 'attachment therapy'. Not all are coercive. I don't think the article can cover all the mainstream therapies aswell though.Fainites 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of AT, per this article is: "Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. Chaffin et al (2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) attempt to describe this subset as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988 [3]) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; [4] Lien, 2004 [5] Levy & Orlans, 1998,[6] Welch, 1988 [3])..  If these aren't coercive, intrusive, and unacceptable modalities, I just don't know what is.  DPetersontalk 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I didn't explain myself very well. They are all unaccaptable and probably all intrusive. I suppose in a psychological sense they're all coercive, but they're not all physically coercive. This talkpage has got bogged down on this before, but I think we're all clear now. Fainites 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether it is psychological or physical coercion, this is prohibited by various professional groups.  The best description and analysis of this is the White Paper by ATTACh.  APSAC prohibits coercion, but does not define it.  ATTACh in ten or fifteen pages analyzes coercion and defines is well: involving intentional dysregulation, failure to reduce dysregulation, provides a framework for ethical decision making, and much much more.  DPetersontalk 20:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is too narrow and not encyclopedic in my view and according to the NPOV article I just read. I don't think we need to make any kind of discussion in the article on the many unvalidated therapies that are mentioned by critics. We just need to say the critics state such and such are also used by ATs and they say they are unvalidated. I know someone here disagrees, but EMDR is thought to be unvalidated. I don't think we are looking for truth here, just views. The scary abusive therapies are here pretty much. But we do need to mention what other ones people worry about for being unvalidated. Thats the main science (majority) concern. I do think we should explain what is good treatment of attention problems according to science though. Thats just an explanation of something that clinical therapists do. Its not a version of AT per se. I think we can make that distinction. Maypole 02:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a clear focus makes an encyclopedia article much more clear and specific.  DPetersontalk 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All the views, reliable scholarly and non-scholarly

message: :Hi, I'm doing some copyediting and trying not to change any content. I am removing some of the "scare" quotes, as they are not really objective. But feel free to revert if I inadvertently step on any toes. --DanielCD 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the copyediting. Which 'scarequotes'? Fainites 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's anytime you put quotes around something to imply it's questionable, such as "Attachment Therapy". Another thing I've noticed is that the page numbers for the refs are in the body text. These need to go in the refs at the bottom of the page. I'm trying to stick some in without messing up the ref format. --DanielCD 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I see now. Thanks for cleaning up the refs and those damned page numbers too! I see you are a clinical psychologist. Would you like to help edit this sites content? We seem to be going round in circles at the moment.Fainites 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you could join in Daniel CD.  Your clean up is good and I appreciate it.  I see we share a mental health background...I do hope you can help calm things down here so that the focus remains on building consensus and collaboration.  cheers. DPetersontalk 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the page numbers are going where they are supposed to since so many things link to the same ref. I'm going to have to look in the Wikipedia:MOS and see how to do it properly. There must be a way to repeat refs without having to spell them out in so many places. It really cloggs up the text and makes it hard to edit. I think the first step to getting this article in shape is getting the refs standardized and the text clear. --DanielCD 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its a problem. We asked for peer review on another article and got told off for not having page numbers, but it makes no sense to have a list of page numbers when you're re-using a citation. If you find the answer you're ahead of us. The way to repeat the same ref is to just use the short form, but it often doesn't seem to work.Fainites 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose an alternative, if all else fails, is to put the page # in the text and then use the reference and short name of the reference so that you'd just see a reference # and,  "(pg. #)"  DPetersontalk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:DanielCD|DanielCD]]'s 2 cents worth

message: Hi. I made an adjustment or two in the lead. I couldn't find any information from the links of quackwatch or ACT to say that they are trying to discredit particular unvalidated methods, so I improved that statement. Also I think the suggestion to clarify the theory word from the therapy word will also be useful for making the article more readable. Maypole 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguished therapy from theory

message: While I think the recent edits (May 14) by Maypole & Fainities are ok, I urge you to first discuss changes on this talk page as the tag at the top of this page suggests: 
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Making unliateral changes, especially by relatively new editors (Maypole started 4/29/07 and has primarily limited edits to this article while Fainities has been around longer, since around 2/17/07 and has edited a broader range of articles; primarily articles about EMDR, NLP, and this article) is not a good way to build consensus.  Building agreement is important when a subject matter is as contentious as is this one.  DPetersontalk 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello DPeterson. No worries. I'm working with consensus and will continue to. I have firstly asked questions and determined what the problems are after receiving sources. I understand there are interested parties here and I'll act accordingly. Wikipedia says I should be bold. Well, I'll be bold and write in whatever NPOVing needs to be done. If someone want to restore a POV or unsourced statement or argument into the article then its on their own head. I will continue to ask questions and seek agreement but there comes a time when some phrases are so obviously in need of change that changing them really does become an obvious piece of work to do. I think all here are allowed to be bold and edit how they want. Lets just make sure its NPOV and encyclopedia oriented rather than simply consensus based. Maypole 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a new editor focusiing on just this article you may not understand that it is best to discuss changes here first...tag at the top of this page and at the top of the article.  I suggest you make your suggested edits 'here' and see what others think 'BEFORE' making a change to the article itself. Actually, editing material that represents a clear 'consensus' is not allowed and can, in some instances, actually be considered vandalism....I suspect you are not aware of all these issues as a new user...I encourage you to read the relevant Wikipedia policies...the tag at the top of the page will take you to most of those.  JohnsonRon 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello JohnsonRon. Could you direct me to the specific rule that places consensus above NPOV policy? Because it would seem a little illogical to me (perhaps because I am a newbie) to allow a particular group to say what should or should not be on the article. I thought that any information can get there if it is relevant, reliable, accurate, verifiable and so on. As it is I see no vandalism in any of my edits, at least according to the article concerned with vandalism. Again, could you please point me towards the actual rules you are using? I've looked high and low and I cannot find them. Maypole 16:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia rules place NPOV, and rules about verified, credible and authoritative sources above notions of consensus. An editor is perfectly entitled to edit OR and POV, and Maypole has discussed it here. Its nice to discuss and try and reach consensus if possible, but its a method, not a goal. Wikipedia is not a democracy (Jimbo Wales). A group does not own a page any more than one editor. Besides, 'consensus' when reached on this page has not been stuck to, so lets just stick to Wiki rules eh? and don't threaten newbies.Fainites 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, no one editor owns a page and "pride of authorship" can creep in when you've spend so much time on this topic.  As I've said before, I do appreciate that.  Also, as the tag at the top of this page says, let's keep a cool head, and avoid Personal Attacks "don't threaten newbies."  As I said, I find the edits acceptable, but it would be best to make suggestions here first, build a consensus, and 'then and only then' add the material.  This will actually be quicker and better in the long run.  DPetersontalk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I appreciate you've been working on this article since July 2006 DP and I've only been here a few weeks and Maypole a few days, but really fresh eyes on an article can help you know. Just Assume Good Faith and we'll be fine! Fainites 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I  am new to this. Why are we told to be 'bold' but then again above told to build consensus. And I see your point Fain. When people have been working on these articles for years they must feel a sense of ownership so new blood coming in has to help get a better perspective on things. I really like what you and Maypole have done lately. FatherTree 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You make it sound like the issue is between you and I, but it is not.  Many editors are involved here...some with long histories with Wikipedia and a diverse history of edits and others who are less experienced and/or who have much narrower focus.  I know you have only been contributing to Wiki for a short while and that your primary focus seems to be this article and I appreicate that investment of time and energy.  DPetersontalk 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, excellent advice.  Changes should be discussed here first to build a consensus before changing the article, otherwise in high conflict areas there can be needless further conflicts and reverts. DPetersontalk 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually DP, that's not what WP:BRD says :) Fainites 22:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow.  Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail.  DPetersontalk 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits to an article without consensus

message: According to your talk page you work with adopted children is that correct?
Why are you reluctant to answer this question? You might have insight that others do not have. Please answer. FatherTree 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Peterson, maybe you can help with this info 

message: They were very minor changes. Do some editors feel they own the article? FatherTree 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to be told why my edits were reverted. 

message: Can we get on with editing please and stop going round in circles. This may help everybody see why it's quite important to tackle the underlying theories and priciples of AT and not pretend it's all in the past or doesn't really exist. Fainites 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits should be fully discussed here first to build consensus.  AT is a fringe treatment...major professional organizations prohibit what is described in this article as AT.  Mainstream treatments (Circle of Security, Theraplay, Parent-Child Interaction, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, etc) should not be confused with AT.DPetersontalk 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to include Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as a mainstream treatment for attachment disorders, please find a verified and credible source that states that that is what it is. It will have to be a good source, bearing in mind that Chaffin criticises its main proponent on 3 grounds as part of its criticism of attachment therapies within its definition of attachment therapies, and Prior and Glaser say its nothing to do with attachment. I have found sources for Circle of Security, Leibermans Parent/Child psychotherapy and various others and put them in. You need a source, not self report or continued assertion. Fainites 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Already responded to above. Sources in the article already.  DPetersontalk 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Becker-Weidmans own assertions are not a source. Craven and Lee is not a source for saying its evidence based or mainstream. Do you really want to be lumped with Myeroff and Holding Therapy? Fainites 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed unsourced and inaccurate material. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Fainites 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles meet the wikipedia standards or being Wikipedia:Verifiability sources. DPetersontalk 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting On

message: Why does the natl assoc and the utah assoc of social workers to to the same link? Fain, can you check this out. Did DP make another mistake in the links? thanks FatherTree 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search their website you can find it...It's a statment from 2002 of the general assembly.  The ACT sources are verifiable. DPetersontalk 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find it by searching their website, why don't you put the proper link in? Fainites 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? There is a link in the article to a verifiable source. RalphLendertalk 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the source. It is the same one used for Utah. Please read it FatherTree 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the link leads to a statment by the NASW national delegate assembly. RalphLendertalk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about link #11 and #12? Did you open the pdf's on both of them? Please answer FatherTree 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I give up. Ask Fain to explain it to you. If you cannot see it is exactly the same document in both cases I do not know what else to do. FatherTree 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The link, 12, goes to a page that quotes the NASW national del assemb. RalphLendertalk 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nat assc of social workers? 

message: I've just come across this cite:
"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."
See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf
Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here. StokerAce 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Please stop attacking me and harassing me then.  I'm trying to find out if anyone can get this article and you're cluttering up the whole page.  I'm going to start a new section. StokerAce 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My friend, I think it's you who holds the grudge, having had your accusation disproved.  If I only I were Larry Sarner.  If I were, I would call up Dr. Becker-Weidman and have a peaceful chat in an attempt to resolve this dispute.  But I'm not, so all I can do is try to help on Wikipedia.  Now, if someone could get that 2007 Craven and Lee piece, that could be a big help.  StokerAce 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to Assume Good Faith here and focus on the article, not past hurts or past personal conflicts.  Personal Attacks are just not productive.  Let's focus on the article and content and Wikipedia policies. RalphLendertalk 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Craven and Lee 

message: It seems that there is a new Craven and Lee piece coming out:
"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."
See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf
Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here.  Would Dr. Lee send a copy? StokerAce 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Craven and Lee Piece 

message: Because of the contentious reverting I've protected the page. Please discuss disputes here and seek consensus. Let me or any other admin know when there's an agreement.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Will. Good move. There are a lot of questions people havn't had a chance to deal with yet. The really obvious improvements can wait also. Maypole 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  This was very necessary since the consensus version (see []) for Prevelance kept being reverted, along with other changes not agreed to by most editors. DPetersontalk 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. RalphLendertalk 14:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion of 'consensus' has been much misused on this page for POV pushing. However, even that consensus was broken immediately when consensus version was posted. Let's edit according to Wiki policies. We can try to reach consensus, but not at the expense of the policies. Fainites 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is important and is how Wikipedia works.  When only one or two editors have a strongly head position, that POV cannot be pushed onto the consensus.  The prev. section was inserted after much discussion on this talk page and represented consensus.  That is how edits should continue to go.  RalphLendertalk 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The National Association of Social Workers 7
 I want an admin to make a change for me. There is an error on a citation. FatherTree 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the citation relevant...it points to a statement by the National Association of Social Workers.  I do not support the proposed change. RalphLendertalk 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very controversial article. Edits, even small ones, should have consensus before using an editprotected request on pages that arouse such controversy. When consensus is formed, please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is fine, it leads to a stmt by the NASW national deleg. assemb. RalphLendertalk 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: I can see that RL and DP are not willing to cooperate. They will not discuss. And they are pushing their POVs. And yes DP reverted many times the other day. Where do we go with this now? FatherTree 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fain 

message: Maybe the best way to sort all this out is to get an administrator involved and/or mediation.  What do other's think?  How about discussing this here and putting a summary in the section below?RalphLendertalk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will_Beback...Thank you.  That is very helpful.  I certainly would like to at least try mediation as a first step, with a good mediator such as yourself.  That seems reasonable and is certainly consistent with Wikipeidia policy and practice regarding dispute resolution.  DPetersontalk 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with mediation is that this article has for a long time been dominated by a group with a very clear agenda. Other editors have argued with them for months and months and it just goes round in circles. To mediate there needs to be a willingness amongst all parties to compromise. Unfortunately, where there is a very clear and indeed simple agenda, compromise is extremely unlikely. I have compromised over all sorts of absurdities in order to get some information into the article, but consensus proposals reached were almost immediately broken to fit the agenda and then a new consensus claimed.Fainites 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many of the single-user-single purpose accounts may have a clear agenda, but it is still important to Assume Good Faith.  While I disagree with you that this article has been dominated by a group with a clear agenda, I respect your POV and the adamency with which you have argued your POV.  I think the poll regarding mediation will let us know where editors stand on the subject of willingness to compromise.  I certainly stand there.  DPetersontalk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, arbitration doesn't settle content disputes so if that's all there is here the ArbCom won't touch it. That leaves mediation, or one of the other suggestions I made above, or simply settling it amongst yourselves. I suggest identifying the main issues that are in dispute and that everyone say (briefly) why their proposed versions is better and the other versions are worse. That's a typical first step in mediation and you might as well do it anyway.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'd like to work with that. DPetersontalk 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll change my vote to "yes" on mediation.  But I'm not very hopeful.  Some of the recent reactions by DPeterson have been very obstructionist.  For example, when I asked above if anyone could get a copy of a 2007 article by Craven & Lee, DPeterson responded by defending their 2006 article.  Now, maybe he just mis-read my edit, but these kinds of responses (and there have been others) have made this very difficult. StokerAce 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start, regards. DPetersontalk 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''Mediation?''''

message: #.'Yes' RalphLendertalk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In favor of Administrative Intervention--''''MEDIATION''''

message: #.'Yes' Fainites 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will_Beback...Thank you.  That is very helpful.  I certainly would like to at least try mediation as a first step, with a good mediator such as yourself.  That seems reasonable and is certainly consistent with Wikipeidia policy and practice regarding dispute resolution.  DPetersontalk 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with mediation is that this article has for a long time been dominated by a group with a very clear agenda. Other editors have argued with them for months and months and it just goes round in circles. To mediate there needs to be a willingness amongst all parties to compromise. Unfortunately, where there is a very clear and indeed simple agenda, compromise is extremely unlikely. I have compromised over all sorts of absurdities in order to get some information into the article, but consensus proposals reached were almost immediately broken to fit the agenda and then a new consensus claimed.Fainites 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many of the single-user-single purpose accounts may have a clear agenda, but it is still important to Assume Good Faith.  While I disagree with you that this article has been dominated by a group with a clear agenda, I respect your POV and the adamency with which you have argued your POV.  I think the poll regarding mediation will let us know where editors stand on the subject of willingness to compromise.  I certainly stand there.  DPetersontalk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, arbitration doesn't settle content disputes so if that's all there is here the ArbCom won't touch it. That leaves mediation, or one of the other suggestions I made above, or simply settling it amongst yourselves. I suggest identifying the main issues that are in dispute and that everyone say (briefly) why their proposed versions is better and the other versions are worse. That's a typical first step in mediation and you might as well do it anyway.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'd like to work with that. DPetersontalk 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll change my vote to "yes" on mediation.  But I'm not very hopeful.  Some of the recent reactions by DPeterson have been very obstructionist.  For example, when I asked above if anyone could get a copy of a 2007 article by Craven & Lee, DPeterson responded by defending their 2006 article.  Now, maybe he just mis-read my edit, but these kinds of responses (and there have been others) have made this very difficult. StokerAce 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start, regards. DPetersontalk 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In favour of Administrative Intervention--''''ARBITRATION''''

message: I'm not sure that everyone understands the options here. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a dispute is handled by discussing the problems with a neutral 3rd party, and either finding a solution amongst yourselves or possibly also getting advice from the moderator. Arbitration is a binding procedure that can be involuntary. It's reserved for situations which can't be handled by ordinary dispute resolutions methods and may result in editors being restricted or even banned. A request for arbitration is neither appropriate at this time nor would it be accepted by the ArbCom. Luckily things aren't that bad here. I urge editor who have expressed opposition to mediation to rethink their choice. Mediation can be helpful and is not stressful. Another realistic options is a request for comment (WP:RFC), but due to the esoteric nature of the topic it might not get much response. Straw polls (like this one) are sometimes used to decide what the consensus is on an issue, but they have to be handled carefully. See WP:Straw poll.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will_Beback...Thank you.  That is very helpful.  I certainly would like to at least try mediation as a first step, with a good mediator such as yourself.  That seems reasonable and is certainly consistent with Wikipeidia policy and practice regarding dispute resolution.  DPetersontalk 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with mediation is that this article has for a long time been dominated by a group with a very clear agenda. Other editors have argued with them for months and months and it just goes round in circles. To mediate there needs to be a willingness amongst all parties to compromise. Unfortunately, where there is a very clear and indeed simple agenda, compromise is extremely unlikely. I have compromised over all sorts of absurdities in order to get some information into the article, but consensus proposals reached were almost immediately broken to fit the agenda and then a new consensus claimed.Fainites 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many of the single-user-single purpose accounts may have a clear agenda, but it is still important to Assume Good Faith.  While I disagree with you that this article has been dominated by a group with a clear agenda, I respect your POV and the adamency with which you have argued your POV.  I think the poll regarding mediation will let us know where editors stand on the subject of willingness to compromise.  I certainly stand there.  DPetersontalk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, arbitration doesn't settle content disputes so if that's all there is here the ArbCom won't touch it. That leaves mediation, or one of the other suggestions I made above, or simply settling it amongst yourselves. I suggest identifying the main issues that are in dispute and that everyone say (briefly) why their proposed versions is better and the other versions are worse. That's a typical first step in mediation and you might as well do it anyway.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'd like to work with that. DPetersontalk 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll change my vote to "yes" on mediation.  But I'm not very hopeful.  Some of the recent reactions by DPeterson have been very obstructionist.  For example, when I asked above if anyone could get a copy of a 2007 article by Craven & Lee, DPeterson responded by defending their 2006 article.  Now, maybe he just mis-read my edit, but these kinds of responses (and there have been others) have made this very difficult. StokerAce 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start, regards. DPetersontalk 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ...and following it is not optional or open to argument. The beginning section of this article (for a start) shows clearly the author's opinion and needs to be rewritten in an NPOV manner. I also refuse to believe that the meaning of the term "Attachment Therapy" is entirely elusive. Granted that there may be several definitions, would it not be better to give all those definitions to the reader rather than just saying "There is no generally accepted definition of Attachment Therapy" and leaving it at that.
As to the dispute - administrators are just users who can do a couple of extra things such as delete articles. The dispute resolution process is described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. But any resolution has to end up with the article in a NPOV state. Herostratus 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of attachment therapy is not really elusive at all. There are merely a few fuzzy edges that's all. I would propose removing all that stuff about how its not described in various handbooks (of course its not; its under the wire!)and prioritising the comprehensive descriptions of it given by sources. In addition the section on historical roots and underlying theory should be expanded. I also think this article lacks a section on the views of the proponents of attachment therapy, and by proponents I don't mean those who wish to pretend it doesn't exist, but proper proponents. Fainites 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth noting that much of the introduction has been written and defended by those who claim to be proponents of attachment-based therapies. The slant in this article is actually a vehicle for advertising a particular sort of attachment therapy. shotwell 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is essential, as is consensus and verifiability as principles on Wikipedia.  I agree with Herostratus that the beginning can describe what is AT and recognize that there is dispute about what is and isn't AT.  By and large, AT is defined in this article in a fairly clear manner as a coercive and intrusive approach not sanctioned by many professional organizations such as APA, NASW, ATTACh, APSAC, and AAC&AP.  It is not a "main stream" approach and is not defined in any of the standard texts on such subjects and that also deserves mention per Wiki policy.  I think that comments, such as Shotwells are not conducive to developing consensus.  Who are these proponents of AT?  What particular sort of AT is being advertised?  My concern is that Shotwell has a history of disputes on this and a number of related pages [] [] []  
DPetersontalk 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with shotwell. This article has mostly been edited in the past for the express purpose of obscuring the nature of attachment therapy. It is somewhat improved now as after weeks of argument it actually contains some information, but it is still too obscurantist. The form of alleged attachment therapy being advertised here is Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Its controversial as to whether it is a form of attachment therapy or not, but its certainly not the mainstream evidence-based therapy that its supporters are trying to portray here, whilst simultaneously trying to pretend attachment therapy is something it's not, hardly exists and is 'smoke' as one of them put it. Lists of who doesn't describe it are just absurd aswell as staggeringly boring for the passing reader. Fainites 00:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DPeterson, until now you have strongly defended the claim that AT is ill-defined. You might remember that we first dealt with this issue at Advocates for Children in Therapy several months ago. In fact, you are the one who first introduced this claim to this article  after repeatedly blanking it during an AfD. (And yes, I was talking about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy). Cheers, shotwell 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, RalphLender has been running an ANI called FatherTree against several of us here  .Good of you to let us know Ralph! Fainites 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You've obviously beeen watcvhing the contribs. Well done! But dont blame anyone were you not to do so, SqueakBox 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i wasn't watching the contribs. But isn't it good manners to let someone know if you're complaining about them to admin? Even headleyDown used to do that. Fainites 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fainites. Who's headleyDown? I can't find the name in the archives. Maypole 06:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to find the accusations of Fainites and Shotwell offensive.  You both seem to have something against Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray as does Mercer and ACT because you keep making that the point they make when that is not the point here at all.  Your description of "advertising" I just don't see or agree with. You also keep making this a Personal attack against me by singling me out when it is the issues that should be focused on and there are a number of editors with broad experience who have also commented on various aspects of the controversay and disagreements.  I continue to believe that mediation and collaboration are possible; it just takes our willingless to engage in that process and be open mineded.  I'd like to do that.  As said above, all views can be represented, they just need to have sources that are Verfiability.  DPetersontalk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly said that I am more than happy to keep DDP out of this article altogether. It's neither particularly notable, nor relevent, and even if it is an attachment therapy, which is perhaps debatable, its clearly not one of the nasty ones. Its not me that keeps putting it in. But if you are going to absolutely insist on its going in it has to be on a fair and accurate basis, not inserted into citations from the Taskforce as if they approved of it, or slipped into lists of 'evidence-based, mainstream' therapies when it isn't.Fainites 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you've just verified my previous point. DPetersontalk 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A number of editors here wish to edit from verified, authoritative, credible and relevent sources and not have them voted off by straw polls.Fainites 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also DP, re saying other peoples accusations are offensive, if you look back over the talkpage I think you'll find that the first to accuse people of sockpuppetry etc and dig up old disputes and post chunks on the talkpage, and say that everyone who disagrees with you sounds like Sarner, and post offensive warnings on peoples talkpages is usually you.Fainites 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As described in a previous section, "all view scholarly..."  All view should be presented in articles on controversial subjects.  ACT's view, etc.  The primary criteria for sources is that they be Verfiability... you may not like a source and therefore state it is not verified, not authoritative, not credible or not relevant, but if it is verifiable and related to the topic, it is then relevant.  DPetersontalk 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about not liking sources. I'm talking about misquoting them, altering quotes to subvert their meaning and 'voting' to keep it,and 'voting' to delete other editors properly sourced edits whilst 'voting' to keep your own OR.Fainites 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fainites, don't be goaded into falling off the subject. Those with the weakest arguments are generally the ones who jump off the subject the quickest and call names or point fingers. Stick to sourced views and ignore misdirection. It will serve you better. If the sources are mis-quoted, then correct the quotations. In my editing, I've found that one way to fight propaganda is to read the cited source and make sure the citation is contextually accurate. Lsi john 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Fain is not being goaded or pointing fingers. There have been many erroneous, unsourced statements that Fain has tried to correct only to have them reverted over and over again. Yes this is a controversial issue. What has been going on with these therapies has been covered up for year. Deaths have occurred. Yes many people do not want all of this to be publicly known. FatherTree 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You keep bringing that red herring up, but it has already been extensively discussed.  There is no quote and, so, no misquote.  The statement stands on its own. DPetersontalk 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is not a suggestion... 

message: These issues have repeatedly been raised, mediated, and then resovled, only to be re-raised by the same loosely affiliated group.  This group's members primarily edit this and related pages.  See: [] for a table that shows the group's members edits.  Mercer has a financial interest in the subject: she is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which promotes her book.  She recently has made a career of sorts with this group and publications sponsored/promoted by them and their postions.  JonesRDtalk 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point...it is so very tiresome.  The group drops a member, adds a "new" member...SamDavidson 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why? Issues repeatedly raised, mediated, and resolved

message: As stated above, these issues have been raised repeatedly by a loosly connected group of editors who share a POV identical with some of the advocacy group Advocates For Children in Therapy, of which some of this group are leaders.  Let the RfC [] run its source.  
The outside view of  Hipocrite [] are strongly supported by a broad and uninvolved group of editors...suggesting that this is not a "real" dispute, but is driven by an advocacy POV postion shared by a group (some of whom are leaders of ACT) JonesRDtalk 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case, I'm an uninvolved editor who can spell NLP. Beyond that, on the surface it appears to be very dry and boring. (No offense intended to anyone). So, seemingly in contrast to Jean Mercer, my interest is in making sure that the wiki process is followed, maintaining an NPOV article, and helping to ensure that no single individual (or group) is dominating/controlling/biasing an article's viewpoint. NPOV means that all (sourced) views are represented, in proportion to their representation in the related-world-community. Wiki isn't about presenting a single-truth, rather it is about presenting all relevant (sourced) viewpoints and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. Lsi john 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a 'VERY' important point and driver to this conflict...ACT has a specific agenda that it's leaders push (Mercer and Sarner) and Mercer's career seems to be being built on that. SamDavidson 19:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disingenuousness

message: Just to let you know, I now have the Pignotti/Mercer critique of Craven/Lee and Craven/Lees reply. Many thanks to the authors for kindly letting us see these. When we start actually editing this page again I shall be happy to show these for the purpose of editing this page only (as they're not yet published).Fainites 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is required for article content. Unpublished works are fine for your own research, but I would caution against using them as a basis for article content. Lsi john 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer is a leader of ACT and ACT promotes Mercer's books and so Mercer has a financial interest in this dispute as it supports Mercer/ACT positions and sales of Mercer's books. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you are specifically charging someone here with conflict of interest (which would be rather bad faith without credible evidence to support such an allegation, and therefore I'm assuming that you aren't), or are charging that Mercer is not considered a reliable source, then whether or not he has a financial interest is, in all honesty, irrelevant. Many authors have a financial interest in their field of study. That does not mean their works cannot be cited. Lsi john 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Mercer has a vested financial interest in this issue. DPetersontalk 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DPeterson, you're repeating yourself to the point of disruption. You've written this on every related page... we hear you. shotwell 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense.  Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used.  In fact, we welcome him.  Wikipedia is open to everyone.  The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed.  Let's stay focused on that.  StokerAce 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we don't actually advertise Mercers book in these articles! Fainites 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of advertising one's own services, anyone care to guess who created the DDP page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&oldid=30129994 StokerAce 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This the second line of that first draft : "First, some truths. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is the one of the only forms of treatment that is effective with trauma-attachment disordered children[1]. It is the only “evidence-based” treatment, meaning that there has been research published in peer-reviewed journals ." Sound familiar? Fainites 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things).  StokerAce 00:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit confused, excuse my ignorance. Which editor here is Mercer? Lsi john 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jean Mercer DPetersontalk 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and the last time that user edited this article was in July 2006. I see no recent comments from him in this discussion. Please take a moment to explain to me how Mercer's financial interest relates to the current editors of this article and conflict of interest. Lsi john 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not avoiding the point. I just disagree with your view. Also, if your view is right, it would seem to apply even more strongly to Dr. Becker-Weidman's materials.  Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's.  I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes Jean, I had seen that comment about your gender. That is one reason I give DP little credibility. To bring something like that up is very low. Thats when I became very suspicious of him. Yes, you are being criticized by anonymous editors for promoting yourself when they do not reveal their idenities. DP puts you down because you are not 'licensed' ? Well is he? (or she?) I have read much of your work and it is just excellent. And now those tactics of linking those who want to correct the AT article to pedophiles? How low can they go? And these are the people promoting AT? Anyone with half a brain can see what is going on here. These people are taking advantage of govt funds intended for unfortunate kids. If half the money these therapist made off these kids would go into trust funds for these kids they would all have paid for houses. Jean dont give up. I knew it was all bull when they brought up that gender thing. It just showed how little substance any of their arguments have. FatherTree 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I argree. No one would come out using their own name if they were trying to sneak self-promotion. And the other ACT people used their real names. But we do have a couple of self-proclaimed medical professionals editing here who will not say who they really are. FatherTree 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all a red herring anyway. These arguments about AT have been argued at length with no resolution for months. JeanMercer is only one editor and has made who she is and what she does absolutely plain. It is not only offensive but silly to suggest that all of the editors here who have been citing scientific reports, studies and books, and indeed trying to de-emphasise ACT, are all somehow contaminated by ACT or part of a group. Coming from a group of editors who's modus operandi is the total revert and total control of articles subject to their 'inane' (Shotwells word) polls, regardless of the evidence, that's rich indeed. Lets stop with the repetitive personal attacks and claims that its all been decided before and get on with the job - although its getting increasingly difficult to see how mediation could possibly achieve anything.Fainites 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues that keep being raised by this group are the "red-herrings," as I see it.  The group repeatedly brings up the same issues every now and then.  The table mentioned by MarkWood makes this point. DPetersontalk 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dpeterson, please take a moment to scroll up and address my question. Thanks. Lsi john 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fain, I really see little use trying to discuss this with DP et al. DP, are you Becker? If you tell us you are not that would help your credibility. I have no connection with ACT. The first time I ever heard of it when I saw this article. Jean says who she is. Why can't you DP?FatherTree 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that a leader of an advocacy group whose career is built on publications her group promotes is part of this dispute along with several "new" editors and the fact that these issues have been raised, resolved, only to be raised again by the same group is very important.  As the RfC describes, this dispute really has the smell of a witch hunt against a particular methodology or therapy. SamDavidson 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that people are using adopted kids to get a lot of money from the taxpayer to pay for worthless therapy might be a reason for some to not want information on this terrible scam that is going on in the US. Witch hunt no. Charlatan hunt yes. FatherTree 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think it is absurd for DP to question your credentials when he is an anonymous editor. As far as I am concerned every anonymous poster has zero credentials (and they do not need them since this is resource based). I could say I have a Nobel Prize. Until DP identifies himself he has ZERO credentials. I claim no credentials and feel it is deceptive to do so unless reveals their true identity has you and Linda Rosa and Larry Sarner have. So if DP want to criticize credentials he should tell us who he is. And most people think he is Becker and he has never denied that. FatherTree 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Craven/Lee etc

message: Please will all involved editors indicate here if they are willing to agree to formal mediation. We need to make a decision as to whether its to be mediation or not. Fainites 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that listed there, but it should...specifically, it might appear that the single-purpose accounts, in the above list, etc (see chart on talk page of RfC) may be meat puppets as described above. DPetersontalk 12:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure if mediation is the correct or most effective method to resolve such an issue. I'm open to anything though. At any rate, don't forget to indicate whether or not you agree to mediation. shotwell 11:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation x 2

message: In the light of the continued refusal by one 'side' of this dispute to say whether they are agreed to mediation or not, (which of course does require agreement)what do editors think about the alternative of Arbcom? Fainites 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper procedure is the file your request for Mediation first and try that before AbCom. RalphLendertalk 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you will agree to mediation? shotwell 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom

message: This "therapy" meets all of the standards of pseudoscience (or pseudo-medicine for this purpose):
#Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims--Yes.  This field relies upon research that could be at best quasi-experimental.
#Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation--Yes.  Lack of scientific method.  Most of the research assumes that it works, and will not falsify the hypothesis.
#Lack of openness to testing by other experts--Yes.   the usual assumption that data should be capable of communication to others and verifiable by confirmatory measurement. This is generally considered one of the foundations of scientific method, but it is rejected by AT writers who assert that the only valid measure of the symptoms of an attachment disorder is the mother's report.  Little or no peer-review in medical and science journals.
#Lack of progress--Yes.  Not much has changed in 30 years.
#Personalization of issues--Of course.  We just don't understand it. 
This is junk science (or therapy), and it's dangerous to those who think it actually works.  Orangemarlin 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so.  I urge you to monitor the upcoming mediation and join the "community" as matters touching on your concerns are addressed.  Contributions of this sort will be valuable as the discussion progresses. Larry Sarner 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It also claims to be 'evidence based' and by self report, based on attachment theory (which is largely evidence based)and uses scientific terms to give itself a cloak of scientific respectability. Do you have a source any where that actually names it 'pseudoscience'? The inability of others to replicate results due to insufficient detail means it is unlikely to achieve evidence based status. This is aside from the problems of its underlying theoretical base. I hope you can take up Sarners proposal. These attachment pages need more independent editors. Fainites 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would be too late.  I saw the date of the mediation, and it was in May.  At any rate, why is an arbitration required?  This is easy, all of the scientific and medical (read verifiable), peer-reviewed articles state that this is junk medicine.  I've edited lots of controversial articles with POV warriors pushing pseudoscience, and I've never seen one mediation required.  An admin should remove the protection, and this article should be re-edited with peer-reviewed citations.  Since the POV warriors supporting this pseudoscientific therapy have NO peer-reviewed citations, this should be easy.  Science and scientific method is easily found, and pseudoscience is easily uncovered.  Arbitration is a waste, but I'll contribute, because there is a moral requirement for Wikipedia to provide accurate information in the medical sciences.  I could care less of any of the Star Trek articles are NPOV or accurate, because no one lives or dies with those articles.  But if someone comes here (because of google), then they could read this POV article and assume the therapy actually does anything but destroy children.  And why is this article under the Psychology category?  It should be under whatever category we throw Homeopathy.  Orangemarlin 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to not lump together valid and emerging promising approaches with clearly prohibited and pseudoscientific approaches.  The ACT group seems to be unable to make those distinctions.  Many of the approaches labeled AT are clearly pseudoscience, without any empirical basis.  However, some approaches, such as Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, do have peer-reviewed citations, but get lumped in with the others by those who are not knowledgeable or who have a specific POV to push (the ACT group and it's leader, for example).  I agree with you that the VERIFIABILITY statement is a good one to follow and should be a guide here, especially to sort out the claims and keep the article focused on the unverifiable and pseudo-scientific approaches and not smear the valid approaches.  RalphLendertalk 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that assessment. JonesRDtalk 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the allegation here is that there are 6 editors with a particular POV and until recently there has only ever really been one or two editors at a time opposing them, with no success due to 'consensus'. So your phrase 'this is easy' might produce hollow laughter. Having something 'voted' as eg evidence based, by consensus and being told off for 'personal attack' or disruptive editing or vandalism every time you disagree does make one willing to try almost anything as an alternative. (And having material on history and development 'voted' to be out of date!) This is up for formal mediation at the moment by the way and I sincerely admire the brave soul who is prepared to take it on! If you look at the talkpages of this article, John Bowlby, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and glance through Attachment disorder and Reactive attachment disorder you will have a fair idea of the history. Also Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. A major source of dispute is over whether Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is in fact an attachment therapy or mainstream, but many articles have been totally distorted in this dispute, including trying to pretend attachment therapy doesn't really exist. The only reason why Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and its main proponent do not appear in this article at the moment is because an admin accidently protected it just after references were removed. DDP does in fact have a study and a follow up study on the same group in a peer reviewed journal and one of the big arguments is that its proponents claim this makes it evidence based and insert it as such (in more than a dozen articles on Wiki) whereas opponents disagree with this definition of 'evidence based'(ie 'a study published in a peer reviewed journal'). ACT also claim it is in fact a form of attachment therapy though this is perhaps a moot point. Other editors might not go as far as that but certainly object to its characterisation as effective and evidence based and in some articles the 'only' effective therapy. This is one of the elements of the mediation. It should be easy as there was a substantial Taskforce report and follow up reports in 05/06 on the whole thing, with all the big names involved. There was also a book published by the RPS over here as recently as August 06 for the express purpose of explaining and elucidating evidence based theories and treatments as opposed to 'attachment therapy' and the like, but getting any of this into the articles in an agreed form is the problem. Fainites 12:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. Talking of Google, why don't you try googling 'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy' and see what you get! Fainites 12:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the allegation here is that a small group with a POV of the ACT advocacy group continues to push for a large tent to label nearly all approaches as AT, as defined in this article.  Two of the leaders of ACT are involved and have financial interests in the subject and, therefore, a conflict of interest.  One is building a career as a critic of AT and two have published a book together.  DDP has several publications in peer reviewed journals and at least two empirical studies of which I am aware in professional peer reviewed journals and other literature supporting its effectiveness and promise as a treatment.  AT as defined here, does not include DDP or Ciricle of Security or a variety of other promising and evidence based approaches.  RalphLendertalk 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I made my conclusion about this therapy years ago.  Maybe it's because I trained in science and medicine that I utilize only what has been tested in a scientific manner.  I know several neurosurgeons who refuse to use bluetooth headsets.  Why?  Because they think they might cause neurological problems.  I asked if there are any studies.  No, except from the crazies.  Have they noticed more neurological issues since the advent of cell phones?  No (although no science there, I just thought I push them.)  My point is if AT crowd can verify their results without resorting to "scientific method cannot work here", then I have no use for it.  To find out it might be dangerous scares me.  People read these articles and think that "eye of newt" and "ear of bat" can cure cancer.  It's because people want what is easy.  Fainites, don't worry, I have reached my own conclusions.  And I guess I was wrong when I said "this should be easy."  Orangemarlin 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on target here.  If there is no empirical support, then those treatments should not be supported.  The problem here is that several editors seem to want to lump all treatments for children with problems caused by chronic early maltreatment under the same tent.  There are treatments defined at AT using this articles def. of AT that are unacceptable.  I think the article does make that point.  No professional group supports such intrusive, invasive, coercive approaches.  They are worse than no good (do no harm); they further damage a child who has experienced trauma.  We just don't want to say, all treatments for children who have experienced trauma are bad, ineffective, or have no evidence to support them when that is not the case.  RalphLendertalk 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article says that.  If it's a marketing problem, meaning why would you name a therapy after such a disreputable one, then someone needs to clear it up.  But it's up to you as an editor to provide clearly distinguishable and supported information on those therapies that aren't the same as the one described in the article.  I've read this before from other editors where they claim that "this one is really different" and it really isn't.  Orangemarlin 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well several editors have tried to take this article away from the feud between ACT and the pro-DDP ites but without any success. The problem is that the efforts of the pro-DDPites to position their favoured therapy as mainstream and evidence based distorts all the other information that they allow in the article. This is why this whole range of articles is so bad. Attachment therapy would be fairly easy to describe as there are many good sources, but not when the page has been controlled and edited by people who want to pretend it either doesn't exist or only exists in very extreme forms because they want to protect DDP from contamination. Actually the inventor of DDP, Daniel Hughes is a former attachemnt therapist who, after discovering attachment theory late in life, has made an effort to develop a therapy that is removed from the coercive and physical side of attachment therapy. Whether he has succeeded in breaking away altogether from the concepts underpinning attachment therapy is a point worthy of serious discussion but may be too esoteric for Wiki. (Certainly Chaffin criticises the main proponent of DDP for the use of dodgy diagnosis lists and age regression and claims for 'evidence base'. Whether or not this is what Hughes had in mind when he developed DDP I don't know). Unfortunately any attempt to get decent information into the articles or discuss serious issues about what is and what is not attachment therapy is stymied by this obsession with ACT. Its not actually ACT who started the ACT article! Fainites 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a marketing problem in that Circle of Security, Parent-Child-Interaction Therapy (Lieberman), and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy don't use the term AT to describe their approach.  However, ACT seems to list a whole broad range of therapies under the term AT as defined in this article.  Of course, ACT does have a vested interest in making the issue as big as possible as do their two leaders who are active in this dispute.  ACT has a following and puts out newsletters and e-mails to their following.  There is a group of editors who clearly have taken this ACT position and attack any reference to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy despite evidence to support its not being AT as described in this article and despite his having an evidence base of empirical support in peer-reviewed articles and in the professional lit.  These individuals just won't consider the evidence presented to them and even when listing material (like in the above post) only include material with a certain POV and material that is not empirically based...such as the polemic book by Prior that some are so fond of quoting and using.  JonesRDtalk 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way it is not true that editors here want to label all or nearly all therapies as attachment therapies. The ACT list is here . I have worked my way through as many of them as I could find and most seem to be a true bill. The therapies truly in dispute are DDP and Theraplay. None of the mainstream, conventional, evidence based therapies are in this list. ACT clearly consider mainstream therapies to be different and describe the difference here . Fainites 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an Advocacy group you, or ACT, have a specific POV that is pushed with vigor.  The problem is that there is no openness to any other view and no willingness to change...It is hard for an advocacy group to be open to new information that may contradict their view and what sells books and materials.  ACT, Mercer, Sarner, and it's supporters won't acknowledge that Theraplay or Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy don't fit their def. Mercer has built a career on this and ACT certainly has a group of loyal followers, some of whom may even be editors on Wikipedia.  JonesRDtalk 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What evidence are we talking about? There are three shoddy studies that make specious conclusions and some incoherent books pushed through publishing farms. You make it sound as if there is this great body of research behind DDP. There is not. shotwell 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The various studies meet the wikipedia standard of WP:Verifiability.  They are professional publications in peer reviewed journals and are emprical studies.  Your bias is clear in your wording.  You don't seem open to compromise or building consensus.  I hope I am wrong. DPetersontalk 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being published in a peer reviewed journal does not make a therapy evidence based. There's a little more to it than that. It isn't really possible to compromise on basic facts. Fainites 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mercer and Sarner have a financial interest in this and so have a very big conflict of interest here.  That is a major problem with their contributions and POV pushing.  Prior is a book and a polemic pushing a POV, which is fine, as far as it goes. DPetersontalk 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you would read the wikipedia policy on talk page you would see that if you use formatting properly and indent appropriately, that one can do that...and I see that you did just that on the talk page for the Attachment Therapy article where you put a whole section out of order.  RalphLender indented his comment so it is obvious it is a response to Orange's...if you'd use the indents properly you'd not have a problem here. DPetersontalk 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: On evidence based therapies; I was actually in the process of finding sources for evidence based therapies which I put in the article. You guys kept removing them and replacing them with an unsourced list that contained DDP. My sourced evidence based therapies are, by a happy and no doubt unintended accident, currently in the protected version. Chaffin did not specifically name any but did refer to the same meta-analysis to which Prior and Glaser refer in their chapter on evidence based interentions. The others I got from the APA. It's very much work in progress though and more sourced evidence based therapies would be welcome if there are any. My view is that they have to be described as evidence based by notable authorities, not just self report. Do you agree? Should we also agree what definition of evidence based is appropriate for Wiki? They're all much the same really and there's a good definition in Chaffin.Fainites 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making the same points you have before,  why not just wait till mediation takes place instead of rearguing what you have before?  Many have responded to your questions and have fully addressed your points.  I won't repeat those here.  There is clear empirical evidence that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy produces positive and measurable improvements in child behavior. DPetersontalk 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well actually you never do address the points. I'm hoping this will be resolved in mediation. Meanwhile, I am quite happy to invite other editors to consider the meaning of evidence based if they wish since it has come up in discussion. Fainites 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the points are addressed above on this and other talk pages and in the talk page archives...the arguments have been going on so long.  There is empirical evidence to support the statement that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an effective treatment for children who meet the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder as cited in the article and elsewhere. DPetersontalk 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence Based

message: By the way Orange, would you like me to e-mail you any sources that I have? You presumably have access to an academic data base, but if it helps I can e-mail you the Taskforce report, the ensuing open correspondance and the supplemental report, Speltz on the history and development of attachment therapy, Craven & Lee on their graded scheme of support for therapies, Mercer/Pignotti's reply and Craven and Lees reply to that and Prior and Glasers chapter on non-evidence based treatments for supposed attachment disorders. Fainites 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in reading them.  Thanks.  Orangemarlin 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: There is current information on this page from as recently as Msy.  Please do not archive this page until mediation is complete. DPetersontalk 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's around 600KB. It is quite typical to archive such a large and active page. The useful information is preserved in the archive and readily available. I'll just let someone else handle it though. shotwell 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. DPetersontalk 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to archive or good idea to let someone else handle it? If you believe it is a good idea for someone else to archive the talkpage, I would  wonder why you have explicitly disallowed me from doing so. On a completely unrelated note (I've had a bit of celebration scotch by now), I have proven a theorem that I've been working on for over six months. Three cheers for me! Legitimate intellectual pursuits are quite rewarding. shotwell 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to let this be until mediation is settled and then archive it. Congrats on the other. DPetersontalk 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why DPeterson raised this matter at this time.  Once a mediator was assigned, I was going to make the suggestion that s/he archive the pre-mediation talk on this page.  It takes a long time to download (on my computer/link at least), and the real issues need to be discussed de novo during mediation anyway.  Given that the prior discussion is retained in its entirety by the archive, I don't see a single reason why it shouldn't be done. Larry Sarner 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Do Not Archive.  Leave this up for now until mediation is done.  There is important material here that pertains to the mediation and the history of discissions.  I don't see why anyone would want to hide this material away or make is more difficult to get to.  Archiving it makes it more difficult to see the title of the discussions, the previous proposals, and other important things.  RalphLendertalk 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving is appropriate.  The page was too large, and took forever to load.  Orangemarlin 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like no agreement, so the status quo should remain.  RalphLendertalk 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to archive. We can label it in some detail for clarity. We could even split it up into sections for easy reference. Fainites 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't archive this.  Archiving it makes it too difficult to know what is in an arcive and to find it.  The material here should stay readily available for all.  I don't know why you'd want to hide it away?  I agree with RalphLender...seems to be no agreement on this point, so leave it as is until agreement is reached.  Once the mediation is done, then it can be archived. MarkWood 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I think it can stay as is for now. Mediation will be helped by accessibility of information. Maypole 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not matter.  I was reading on the MedCom page that formal mediation is done in private.  I've checked one of the other articles assigned to a mediator, and no traffic on its talk page at all since the assignment.  But if the mediation proceeds here on this page, there is little doubt that without archiving, this page will be a mess, especially with DPeterson being OCD about indenting.  "Accessibility of information" on this page will get vanishingly small as this page grows during mediation. Larry Sarner 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Just to let everyone know (particularly FatherTree against whom they are filed and who was not informed) that DPeterson has filed two ANI's relating to this page and RalphLender one.  and  . Fainites 08:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is more nonsense. For a person who constantly claims 'false accusation' this silly tactic is completely unfounded. He should read the descriptions of what he charges people for. And this is something also we should bring up about DP in mediation: these unending charges he files against so many people. Fain, do you have that IP comparison? FatherTree 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AN/I's are clearly focused on two issues that an administrator can address, and remedy if there has, in fact been a violation.  All other discussion is beside the point and appears to be more of a smoke screen to divert from the two issues: A violation of WP:CANVAS by canvassing and a WP:NPA by knowingly making false accusations of an editor being a sockpuppet.  Everything else is a diversion and off point. RalphLendertalk 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for listing the ANI.  I'd not known about them.  I'll take a look. MarkWood 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was merely pointing out on the ANI that Father Tree in DP's diffs asked DP if he were Becker-Weidman. Editing under a different name is OK if its done for legitimate purposes. The fact that DPeterson and AWeidman appear to have in the past shared an IP number has been disclosed in the past from old diffs I believe. Thats not the same as being a sockpuppet is it?Fainites 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking an inocent question isn't so innocent.  Continually asking this when you know it to not be true is a personal attack and you really should know better, Fainities...or are you intending to be provocative? DPetersontalk 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't used the word 'innocent' which tends to imply a sort of knowing tongue in cheek. FatherTrees question is plain and straightforward. It is what it is. He's asked it more than once. You are free of course to decline to answer it. I was making the distinction between someone with some reason saying 'are you Becker-Weidman ?' as opposed to someone saying for example 'you're a sockpuppet of Weidmans'. Fainites 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry is considered a personal attack and you seem to be crossing the line.  Your innocent exploration of this area when you know it has been investigated and is unfounded is now in the same league as FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. DPetersontalk 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exploring it. I'm replying to your points. By the way, there is a reply to your first ANI on canvassing (my third link above). Fainites 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The salient issues are FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and his abuse of WP:CANVAS.  Best to keep the focus on the primary issue and not divert with various red-herrings. DPetersontalk 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the ANI on my third link above. Fainites 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed one ANI.  It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it.  another editor filed the third one.  I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS.  If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPetersontalk 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Give the needle a shove DP. Fainites 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really should learn to be civil.  Making personal attacks are not helpful and makes me question your sincerity about the mediation process.  Best if you can at least try to keep a cool head Fainities and focus on the issues not paranoid notions; assume good faith would be good here, so just take a deep breath and let it go. DPetersontalk 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be unaware of this, but many consider it rude to constantly remind others of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. The vast majority of your recent comments have included something along these lines. It is also a tad rude to constantly question the sincerity of others in regard to mediation. shotwell 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that if those others did not continue to fling accusations or make rude statements, such as, "Give the needle a shove DP," there would be no need to remind those other editors that WP:Assume Good Faith is something to adhere to. It does seem that such a comment is rude DPetersontalk 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well DP since mediation was filed, less than a month ago, you and yours have made 11 accusations of COI and financial bad faith against Sarner and Mercer on this page, 6 on the mediation talkpage, 1 on the mediation referral page (which was removed by a mediator and replaced by you), called anybody who opposes you a 'gang' and 'meatpuppets', falsey accused some editors of being SPA's when they are plainly not and filed 3 ANI's against Father Tree without telling him accusing him of various things, in particular 'canvassing' when the diffs show it is you who canvass. In the circumstances I don't think it's me that needs to 'take a deep breath and let it go' DP. You're also admin shopping. Do you understand what the words assume, good, faith and civil mean? Why should editors put up with your constant accusations and rudeness? If anybody took them seriously you could be ANI'd practiaclly on a daily basis. Saying 'give the needle a shove' was supposed to be a pointer to you that you are repeating yourself ad nauseum. You also constantly hint in various places about giving up mediation. I asked you about this before. Are you or are you not prepapred to mediate? I would remind you lest you cite other peoples behaviour as any kind of reason, that none of the allegations made by anybody are new. Fainites 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.  It is clear that Mercer and Sarner meet the wikipedia standard for having a conflict of interest, in part because of their financial interests in this issue and this dispute and for other reasons too.  DP did not file 3 ANI's...As I read it, DP filed one, I filed one, and then DP filed one he'd thought was deleted.  I think that focusing on the issues of the ANI, that FatherTree makes false accusations of DP and others being sockpuppets when he knows better is the issue to be focused on here, which was indicated.  Now there remains the canvasing issue to be resovledStop diverting to irrelevant issues....Now, are you going to tell me to, "Give the needle a shove RL?"  Hard to see how such phrases assume good faith or are to be considered civil.  You've made your points abundantly and clearly...no need to repeat them.  The ANI's deserve to be investigated for what they state and then resolved. RalphLendertalk 21:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All three ANI's are recommended reading.Fainites 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to read all of Shellbabelfishes comments. Fainites 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think anyone interested would...always a good suggestion to read quotes in context. DPetersontalk 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever "claifity" [sic] is; not in any of my dictionaries. Also not sure what this sentence means taken in toto. Larry Sarner 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false" a quote from Shell. Am I correct in my assesment here that DP was making false accusations? FatherTree 13:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, DP's!  Can you make any sense of that sentence?!  No doubt whatever about what Shell_Kinney meant.  I would add to his demurral that Shell_Kinney -- or anyone commenting -- is not the administrator on an ANI, as baldly claimed by DPI.  DPeterson's ability to conflate sundry Wiki processes with kangaroo courts for his purposes seemingly has no bound.  Glad someone on the outside of this dispute finally called him on it.  Larry Sarner 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes there seems to be an inherent problem in wiki where one editor by using procedural tactics can completely control an article. By constantly filing official complaints against those who oppose him one can bring the system to a halt. Now there has to be a way to stop this. Of course in real life there would be the cost to file the complaint. But here there is none. This seems to be a flaw in the system. Should there be a limit to the number official complaints one individual can make? Also this is very frightening that people doing this type of almost compulsive accusing may actually be giving people therapy. I think this is the crux of the problem here. In the US there is no regualation of 'psychotherapy' as can be seen by the enormous proliferation of AT therapy which is paid for by the state, encouraged by the state even thought most professional organizations consider it harmful. There is almost an analogy here where there is no real method to prevent persons from taking advantage of the system. FatherTree 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, notice that everyone caught on pretty quickly and that DPeterson was informed he should not start so many complaints about the same exact thing. I'd see that as a sign that things can work pretty well around here. Also, I think we should avoid publicly making conclusions about each others' professional abilities -- that could get nasty all round. shotwell 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, all of the complaints have been closed. This discussion is really just dragging it on for no good reason. Let's just all agree that DPeterson made a mistake, that you should avoid drawing connections between he and Becker-Weidman (he clearly takes offense), and that we shall wait peacefully for mediation. shotwell 14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK when will this 'mediation' start and what can we expect from it? And if you look thru the histories here you will see that part of DP's tactics is to constantly take offense with any little thing and then make false accusations and delay the whole process. Why is there not a way to stop this endless obstruction tactic? FatherTree 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation will start whenever a member of the mediation committee takes our case. There are not many mediators and there are a lot of current cases. Look at the archive of closed cases to get a taste of what to expect from mediation. shotwell 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI

message: Due to the user-conduct issues which have made it impossible to proceed with any meaningful discussion, I have requested arbitration. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was protected on May 15th Will Beback due some edit warring over the inclusion of unsourced information. shotwell 09:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fact note: these two blocks relate to existing bans in place since 2006. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Policy is that pages are protected as little as possible, since page protection itself is disruptive. With the blocking of certain socks the need to protect the page may not be as acute. 
As and when protection can be removed or downgraded, please go ahead and ask for unprotection. The same applies to other pages affected by this dispute. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Now that the page has been unprotected I have taken the liberty of removing the most obvious POV and sockery and amalgamating the proposed alternative article I drafted back in April with the better bits of this article. I thought this might be a better starting point. Fainites barley 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Unprotection