Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 3

message: Nice one Sarner. The only problem is there's already an archive 1. The last lot should archive 2! Fainites barley 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested that Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 be moved back to Talk:Attachment Therapy. After that, I'll just restore my original cut/paste archive that DPeterson reverted. It wasn't clear from the discussion then that I had already made a second archive. shotwell 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: *:Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 → :Talk:Attachment Therapy  — Improper (but accidentally so) talk page archiving: not a subpage, there was already an archive 1, and the first archive was a cut/paste archive. This talk page is currently being used for a lot of evidence during arbcom, it'd be nice if the page history were straightforward. —shotwell 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about deleting Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 and moving :Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 there, as you suggest. Thanks for your help and sorry for the confusion.shotwell 06:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Wikipedia:Requested moves

message: In my view, DPeterson's recent edits in the intro are not useful.  A reference to "rebirthing" here makes "rebirthing" seem like a synonym for "attachment therapy," which it is not.  Rather, it is one form of attachment therapy.  In addition, I don't see any reason to highlight ACT and Quackwatch at the outset like this.  The external links at the bottom are quite sufficient in this regard.  ACT is only one of many organization that are critical of attachment therapy, so it looks odd to emphasize them so much. StokerAce 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to keep the record straight, the book Attachment Therapy on Trial is not a publication of or by ACT.  The book was published by Praeger, a venerable imprint with professionally refereed titles and no financial connection with ACT whatever.  The book was not a vanity publication and received rigorous editorial review in keeping with the publisher's high reputation, though a few minor errors nonetheless crept in. Larry Sarner 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Variants are not synonyms.  I don't really understand what's going on here.  Why do you want "rebirthing" in the first sentence anyway?  It just makes the article confusing and unclear. StokerAce 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: StokerAce has hit the nail on the head.  Frankly, all references to "rebirthing" should be collected into one section, entitled something like "Confusion with Rebirthing".  It's my view that "rebirthing" is only used as a straw man by Attachment Therapists to distance themselves from a notorious death.  The term entered the AT lexicon because the press picked up on it in the Candace Newmaker case; it made good, sensational shorthand at the time.  (In fact, "rebirthing" was just the script for the holding therapy [i.e., attachment therapy] for the day Candace was killed.)  As the title of our book on the case suggests (Attachment Therapy on Trial) it was principles and practices of AT and not "rebirthing" responsible for Candace's fate.  Obfuscating that fact has served the interests of Attachment Therapists by confusing and misleading the public.  Clarity on the point in this article would be a valuable public service by Wikipedia.  Larry Sarner 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent points. Yes rebirthing is a strawman. Although the other techniques are not nearly as likely to kill people they still are harmfull. FatherTree 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Intro by DPeterson 

message: I have trimmed three cross-references that are left over from prior versions, but have no value in this one.  While Stanley Greenspan is a reputable researcher, he has not developed an "Attachment Therapy", whatever definition may be applied to that term.  Since Stephen Barrett's connection to this subject is only through Quackwatch, a link to him is padding.  Finally, Theraplay is a completely unvalidated therapy, not mentioned in the body of the article, and like DDP quite un-notable, so to include it here is, in my opinion, mere advertising.  Larry Sarner 04:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch has information on AT and so is relevant. DPetersontalk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true.  Neither the Quackwatch nor Stephen Barrett article have any reference to the topic of this article.  Sending readers to those articles for additional information on AT is a deliberate waste of readers' time.  I have removed the links from the article.  Larry Sarner 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: AT is not mentioned in the Quackwatch article. It is absurd to have Quackwatch in the introductory paragraph. The only purpose is to try and assciate it with ACT. They are irrelevent to an article on AT. What is your justification for according such prominenece to Quackwatch? Fainites barley 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of the three above references, the first is a bibliographic reference to ATOT, and the second is merely a cross-link to the third.  The third is a very good article on AT, and as such may be worthy of an "external link" (which I would support), but alone it hardly makes the grade for including the Wikipedia article on Quackwatch in the "See Also" section. There is no justification made at all for listing the Stephen Barrett article in "See Also". This is starting to appear like a deliberate effort to have future readers of this article waste their time visiting off-topic articles. Larry Sarner 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply astonishing. RalphLender said something similar on Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy. shotwell 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, DP should stop reverting the reasonable omission of See Also links to articles which are off-topic. I should think that attempting to waste the time of Wikipedia readers by misdirecting them with off-topic links would be considered vandalism. DP or RL should give links to sections where AT is discussed in the Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles; failure to do so is an admission that their claim of relevance is false. Larry Sarner 05:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that the "External Links" has a link to the Quackwatch webpage in question, so readers of this article can get to the relevant material directly.  This would render the "See Also" link to Quackwatch redundant, even if it was relevant (which it isn't). Larry Sarner 06:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also trimming 

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

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

message: Fact tags are being constantly inserted under the rather feeble pretence that page numbers are needed. Whilst page numbers are recommended for quotes, a number of quotes properly contain the page numbers within the refs where they should be. Where a source is extensively quoted this is a little more difficult. It is however a completely inappropriate use of fact tags which of course appear as saying citation needed, particularly as the editor concerned claims to have the sources and therefore, if editing constructively and co-operatively, could insert the page numbers himself.Fainites barley 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers are used with quotes.  That is a common convention and allows the interested reader to easily find and check the quote. RalphLendertalk 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Tags 

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

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

message: I have been trying to eliminate the cockroach reference to Wikipedia's article on Quackwatch for a few days now.  It was originally put in by certain editors (who shall remain nameless) who thought that they could discredit this article by association.  (I think they are wrong in that view and the association is actually a helpful one for this article.)  However much I like the Quackwatch article and association, it remains that the Quackwatch article contains no "further reading" on this topic and is a misdirection for readers of this article.  Given my own association with Quackwatch, if the shoe were on the other foot and I were pushing for inclusion of the link, I think I could be fairly accused of advertising!  IMHO, the link here really does need to go.  I'm willing to listen to reason and evidence to the contrary. Larry Sarner 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attachment therapy is not mentioned in the Quackwatch article and Quackwatch is not mentioned in the AT article. To what are you referring?Fainites barley 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch "See Also" 

message: ATTACh was listed as one of the "professional" organizations prohibiting "some practices" by its members.  While it is even arguable whether ATTACh has really done this, it is nevertheless a fact that ATTACh is not a professional organization in the same sense as the others in the list are.  Prominently on its home page (www.attach.org), ATTACh describes itself as a "coalition of professionals and families", which contrasts to the others (e.g., APA, ApA, APSAC, NASW) which do not have lay people able to decide policy.  ATTACh is actually a trade organization founded to promote AT, or at the very least an advocacy group in its behalf.  There's nothing wrong with being either or both of those things (as I well know), but for the offered purpose of the present list, the group's positions are not pertinent.  Larry Sarner 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Position statements against using coercion or restraint as a treatment were issued by mainstream professional societies (American Psychiatric Association, 2002) and by a professional organization focusing on attachment and attachment therapy (Association for Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children [ATTACh], 2001)."
presumably there is a distinction here between 'mainstream professional societies' and professional organization', but as ATTACh seems to be considered the home of attachment therapists, the fact that they've issued a statement against coercion is surely worthy of note. Fainites barley 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTACh is not organization of professionals pertinent to stated purpose of list 

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

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

message: There's many cite links that look like this:
:* (Chaffin et al, 2006, p78 Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | ).
:* (Chaffin et al, 2006, p83 Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | ).
:* (Chaffin et al, 2006, p78 Chaffin, M. et al (2006) Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | ).
etc
Quick tip how to do these better:
* You dont need to name refs unless ONE footnote will have MULTIPLE mentions in the article, in which case it works like this (note the "/" for 2nd and further mentions):
:: The report by Jim http://jim.com also states this, this, and this,
* Page refs can go in the footnotes as well.
Most of the cites in this article can probably be better written like this:
:* text text textChaffin, M. et al, 2006, p78 Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 |  more text text text
which will render like this:
:* text text text[1] more text text text
:* [1] Chaffin, M. et al, 2006, p78 Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment problems. | Journal= Child Maltreatment 2006;11;76| pages=77 | DOI: 10.1177/1077559505283699 | 
Likewise cites like this:
:* "rage-reduction therapy" (Levy & Orlans, 1998[3]; Lien, 2004[4]; Welch, 1989[2]; Cline, 1992[5]).
can be fixed to read like this:
:* "rage-reduction therapy" [3][4][2][5]....
(Also several cites seem to have inconsistent page numbers.)
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite links 

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

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

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

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

message: This article has undergone some analysis via a javascript program which spots possible MoS errors which would therefore help improve the article if these points were tackled.  Good luck with your drive to obtain GA status!  SriMesh | talk 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/October_2007#Attachment_therapy|Semi automatic peer review]] 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  The prose is technically good, but the article feels inaccessible to laypeople such as I. It reads like an extract from a psychiatric textbook, not like an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. (Is the subject even in the field of psychiatry, or is it in some other medical field? The article doesn't tell us - it provides insufficient context.) WP:MOSDEF advises that: Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia. The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings. Be sure to make use of the Wiki format and link the term if there is a relevant article.
:That advice is not followed here. After the lead, jargon such as "proximity seeking", "caregiver", "attachment needs", "holding process", "clinical agenda" is being used without explanation in short sequence - and that's just from the first section. Even though I have a university education, I simply cannot understand most of the article. It is also unclear why the article is structured the way it is. A layman would expect to be told what this is, why it's used by whom on whom since when, and maybe what parts of it are controversial and why. The section headings don't really tell me this.
:2. Factually accurate?:  I have every reason to assume it is too accurate; see above.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  The article seems to go into unnecessary details. The extensive citations from technical papers on the subject make the article appear too thorough for a general-purpose encyclopedia.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  Yes, to the limited extent I understand the article at all.
:5. Article stability?  Yes.
:6. Images?:  No images. Is there no image on Wikimedia Commons that could illustrate "attachment" or some other concept?
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Sandstein 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

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

message: Returning (briefly) to review the article since the close of the previous case, it's doing well. I'm gratified to see it has gone along the way towards GA-ship in that time. A quick review:
:* There are still some expressions that could be made more neutral. It's subtle, but does cast a "shade" over the article. For example - "who then seek to produce... a range of responses such as rage and despair which are considered 'cathartic' by the therapists" suggests albeit subtlely that this is a discredited view in the eyes of the article. Better: "who aim to produce... for the purpose of catharsis" or similar. Also "Attachment therapy, which purports to treat supposed disorders of attachment..."
:* The quote in the intro would perhaps flow better if it read "According to the Chaffin report,[REF] a major report on attachment therapies, [QUOTE]." At present the intro doesnt say what or who chaffin is, and the quote appears without prologue to the new reader.
:* "Attachment theory is an evolutionary theory whereby the child seeks...". If it's a theory, then presumably it should state "which proposes that the child seeks..."?
:* "According to O'Connor and Zeanah (2003, p. 235[7]), in contrast with accepted theories of attachment..." Needs clarifying. As a newcomer to the article that text isn't clear. According to them, WHAT, and WHAT is "in contrast" etc? (So to speak.)
:* "The website of Advocates for Children in Therapy, a group that campaigns against attachment therapy, contains descriptions of attachment therapy, including a link to the transcript of the rebirthing process that lead to the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker" -- due to obvious COI potential, I'd like to see RFC on this as a matter of transparency, to confirm that the community agrees a link to the website is appropriate. It may well be (its obviously going to be a website that has relevant material and is very focussed on the issue), and there is no objection against it if so, but it would probably be good to briefly RFC it anyway to be sure that citing ACT is transparently agreed by others to be suitable.
:* The section on theory is not bad, but can it be improved? 
:::* The paragraph beginning "Metaphors based on..." might ben efit from reworking. It's not as easy to read or flowing as well as those round it.
:::* Having edited Milton Erickson, and with some background, something doesn't feel right about the case description as presented. Can someone read up the case or link to the 1961 description, and check if this is actually a good, fair, summary of that case report (its aim, strategy and such?) Erickson is reported in most 3rd party literature as being a man of unduely high compassion; was the issue here attachment, or a prerceived need to reassert parental authority structures in the family, or a parent who had problems setting boundaries on antisocial behavior or what? Can someone double check this one.
:::* Again, a big mention of ACT - RFC for transparency if it's relied upon this much?
:::* Maybe split out 2 subsections - "theoretical background" vs. "professional views" to create 2 shorter sections from the one big one?
:* I';ll come back to the rest afterwards when these are looked at. The latter sections might benefit from restructuring, and grouping "like with like" in subsections, such as "theoretical background", "range of practices", "professional assessments" and the like, all under one umbrella section "psychological background", for example.
If help's needed let me know; I'd like to avoid getting into the content of this but I'd be willing to do a "once off" restructure and refactor of existing material if it'd help get this article to GA standard.
Good work so far :)
FT2 (Talk | email) 09:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

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

message: I just want to note that there are a number of mainstream treatments associated with the attachment concept--  in fact, it would be difficult to find many where attachment and relationships play no role. But not all of the "recognized" interventions for children are psychoanalytic in nature. A number of them emphasize parent training and work on parental attachment status, and others take more of a wraparound approach and attempt to deal with practical issues (e.g. parent adjudication for child abuse) as well as psychodynamic concerns. I agree that in order to define AT clearly, we need to say what it isn't, but I don't think it's accurate to stress psychoanalytically-oriented treatments as the major alternative. For example, I don't think it's accurate to identify PCIT or COS as psychoanalytic in anything but the historical sense.
If we look at AT in its first historical period (Zaslow to conviction of Watkins and Ponder, roughly), we see characteristics unshared with mainstream treatments: concern with obedience rather than insight; establishment of adult authority seen as essential step to mental health; belief that attachment begins prenatally; belief that separation from bio mother at any age before preschool period causes rage and makes further attachment impossible; belief that children with poor attachment histories will become serial killers; belief in McDonald's triad; lack of concern with developmentally appropriate practice. These features are so dramatically different from the assumptions underlying any mainstream treatment that I think we've said it all when we say "not mainstream".
It may be that discussion of these assumptions would be more informative for the reader than any attempt to list members of an alternative category.Jean Mercer 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment-based therapies 

message: I question the statement in this article that a child's safety needs are met by the occurrence of attachment. If this means that actual safety needs are more likely to be met when the child is in an actual attachment relationship with an adult, that's true. but in fact infants do not seem to be aware of safety needs until the point when they are beginning to show attachment behavior. Normally, fearfulness and attachment behaviors develop roughly simultaneously, and it may be the new capacity for fearfulness that drives the development of attachment. I just want the article to avoid the common misconception that very young infants (a few months) are frightened and need to be made to feel secure. They can certainly be distressed and uncomfortable, and need comfort which often familiar people know best how to give, but that's a different matter.
I think the confusion (in the paragraph that mentions safety needs) comes out of the wish to merge Bowlby's views and E.H. Erikson's trust vs. mistrust stage, which is not nearly as easy to do as you'd think. Jean Mercer 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment and safety needs 

message: Joe Schwartz responding to Fainites
I think the artiucle is quite good. Thoughtful and consdered. But as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, a member of the John BOwlby Centre and a frequent writer on clinical issues the question of attachment therapy doesn't engage me much except to be able to point to alernatives particularly my own so to speak, The entry now does that. I am also aware that there can be and usually is considerable tension between psychologists and psychoanalysts/ psychotherapists.   Again I think it is difficult to engage these tensions productively as each side tends to defend its turf rtaher than engage openly. I discuss these tensions in my book Cassandra's Daughter: A History of Psychoanalysis in Europe and America, Chapter 1 particularly (Penguin/Viking 1999).  
I also want to apologise for my beginners status. It can be irritating to explain things to beginners and I wish I could promise that I'll be a fast learner about the rules and procedures.But I won't be.  For example the question of references and their templates has me in a state of terror. HOW DO YOU DO IT?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment and Psychoanalysis 

message: I have left a message for Orangemarlin asking him to explain his tag as would be normal when leaving a neutrality tag. Fainites barley 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag as there's been no comeback from OM. Hopefully if he's got a particular point to make he'll come and say so.Fainites barley 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re tag 

message: No meta-analysis has been done on this material, nor is a meta-analysis any help if the basic research design is inappropriate-- so is there any point in talking about meta-analysis?Jean Mercer 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FT2 put that bit in to show what 'evidence based' meant, on the basis there was no point arguing about whether DDP was evidence based or not without the reader knowing what the point of the argument was. (Bit difficult to do a meta-analysis on two studies!) Fainites barley 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence basis 

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

message: Killpack, Tibbets, Viktor Matthey, David Polreis, Jeannie Warren, Logan Marr, should all be included. I don't know what rules guide discussion of living people. Jean Mercer 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The only connection with AT appears to be the application by her of AT techniques she'd 'picked up' before the death. She was using blanket wraps. Tying her up and gagging her with duct tape and leaving her in a basement is another thing altogether. Why is she included in AT lists of cases? Fainites barley 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable cases 

message: A possible issue has been raised on the appropriateness of inclusion of material from Advocates for Children in Therapy. This is an organisation which campaigns against attachment therapy. The Chairman of its board of professional advisors, Prof. Jean Mercer, is an editor on this page and other attachment and child development related pages and edits under her own name. Jean Mercer herself has not, as far as I can ascertain, added the ACT material. 
Some attributed material in the sections 'Treatment characteristics...', 'Prevalence....' and 'Evidence basis....'  comes from the ACT website . 
Fainites barley 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two g's in 'cloggses'. Fainites barley 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iss nott! Hey-- is your name really ffainites?Jean Mercer (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yessss! (What hass it got in itss pocketsesss?) Fainites barley 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Eisner in "The Death of Psychotherapy" has a chapter on cathartic therapies in which he covers Primal therapy, est, LGATs and what he calls Attack therapies. He traces the roots to 'direct therapy' and 'z-therapy' citing Zaslow and Rosen who he says both lost their licences. He cites the heirs of this as the 'feeling therapies' in the 70's and 'rage reduction' for children, with the use of both physical coercion and taunting and teasing. Aswell as Zaslow and Cline he cites Magid and McKelvey - as described in 1994 in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Does anyone have this? It seems to be called 'Bath H (1994), The physical restraint of children: is it therapeutic? Am J Orthopsychiatry 64:40-49 '.Fainites barley 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Due of her interest in autism, she took over Holding Therapy from Martha Welch (USA) under the personal scientific consultation of Nobel prize winner Niko Tinbergen (Oxford). She then linked this with the systemic approach of Bert Hellinger and developed it in her own terms into a medium for renewing love in the context of family bonds." 
I don't think she means 'took over'. Welch still practices. Fainites barley 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eisner 

message: This article has a long and murky history of conflict and charges/countercharges regarding WP:NPOV, including resorting to RfC and it seems perhaps also mediation (?).  The relevant archived discussion threads are long and more than a little involved. While that does not automagically disqualify it under WP:WIAGA, it raises red flags, esp. regarding potential NPOV probs. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed out arbitration in that list there Ling.Nut. See . Seven editors (or rather one editor and his 6 socks) were banned, 6 by the end of August and the last by the end of October 2007. The edit warring and fake 'consensus' run by these socks for over a year to WP:OWN articles had covered every article relating to attachment and about 2 dozen others besides. This article's mostly been pretty much rewritten since July (when 4 were banned) and the end of August (when two more went). There's been no edit warring since then. The same applies to Reactive attachment disorder, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, John Bowlby, Attachment theory, Candace Newmaker, Dyadic developmental psychotherapy etc etc etc. I did put notices on most of the pages but appear to have forgotten this one . Although other editors opposed them, it wasn't really genuinely two sides because their main aim was to promote Dyadic developmental psychotherapy as mainstream and the only evidence based cure for RAD or AD etc(and not a form of attachment therapy), and pretend that either attachment therapy didn't exist or was very obscure, limited and hardly practiced at all.Fainites barley 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Automagically' is a good word by the way. Fainites barley 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution to GA reviewers 

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