Talk:Attachment disorder

message: Hi, Dwiki here.  I archived the prior discussion as the article was reverted to a point before any of this discussion occurred for reasons of copyright infringement. The discussion is archived here --->
--Dwiki 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not have been reverted.  There is and was not copyright infringement as the previous talk page discusssions showed.  The minor material that was "copyrighted" was posted with permission. DPetersontalk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, from the archived page the hold of the copyright stated: The material previously deleted was not "stolen" as it is covered under fair use provisions of the copyright code. But, more to the point, I hold the copyright to that article and I am allowed to use it as I see fit...although I have edited it some here. Dr. Art 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not permitted under fair user provisions, as it was entirely pasted into this article.  If you are the author, however, you need to not only "allow" its use but release the document under the GFDL - see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.  If you are willing to take this step, the content is permitted.  As for whether or not it's a good choice to place so much content into an article that espouses a particular point of view, that's up to the custodians of this article.  I'm not willing to invest the energy into this article that it needs, but its largest problem with the pasted content is that the pasted content was a POV essay.  The net result is two years later, the article still uses non-neutral language, making assertions that things "should" happen, when it is clearly only the opinion of the author.  In this respect, the addition borders on original research.  This is the tone of an essay, not a Wikipedia article, and thus, why is it in here in the first place?  Good luck.  --Dwiki 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd feel more comfortable editing this article if I knew that Dr. Becker-Weidman had specifically released the document under the GFDL.  There's a procedure for recording this as the case here.  It's important to make sure Dr. Becker-Weidman understands the terms of that license and what he allows to occur to the text once it falls under that license.  --Dwiki 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that he did as described on the talk page in the archive. DPetersontalk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm missing it.  Could you please indicate where?  Also, was it properly documented as per the procedure indicated in the link I posted before? --Dwiki 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no Conflict of interest here.  Giving permission to use material is allowed under GFDL.DPetersontalk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article has merit and should stay. JohnsonRon 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived discussion

message: To be clear, I previously gave permission for my article from my website to be used and licensed the contribution in 2005, or whenever it was posted, under GFDL, Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME. 
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document 
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; 
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. 
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU 
Free Documentation License". Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that clears up that point. RalphLendertalk 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission Granted

message: 'NO' This is an article that has had a great deal of discussion and editing and addresses an important topic in psychology and mental health treatment.  References and sources cited clearly bear this out.  DPetersontalk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Wikipedia is not a place to republish entire articles - Wikisource is thataway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means articles should be summaries. The article that's being copy-pasted here is far too detailed, written in an inappropriate tone and reads as an apparent diagnosis/treatment guide. That's not what Wikipedia is for. FCYTravis 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others disagree with you on this point, so a better approach than wholesale deletion would be to improve the article by judicious editing. This would lead to a consensus, which had been achieved on this page previously.  Wholesale deletions are not constructive or consistent with Wikipedia editing practices. DPetersontalk 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * MarkWood makes a good point...don't blank the article...edit to improve it...BTW, I like the edits you've made in the article MarkWood, it is much improved. JonesRDtalk 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There, judicious editing done. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of main and important points, not detailed guides listing every single bullet-point symptom and instructing on treatment therapies from a single POV. Furthermore, I've removed the puffery language like "leading theory" and whatnot, unless sources can be provided for those statements. The article in question is also written in an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. "Attachment is fundamental to healthy development, normal personality, and the capacity to form healthy and authentic emotional relationships (O'Connor & Zeanah). How can one determine whether a child has attachment issues that require attention?" - That block is entirely useless here. We can't assert that it's fundamental. We can't ask questions in the text. We can't tell people to go see a licensed health care provider if someone's exhibiting XYZ symptoms. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The entire article is written that way, and hence is not appropriate. Please do not reinsert the text in question, because it's not an encyclopedia article, it's a how-to guide. If you want the whole unedited article on the Web, Wikisource is thataway. FCYTravis 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have added a few additional references and done some editing to clarify a few things.  As an article that discusses a "disorder," suggesting that an individual seek professional consultation regarding that person's specific situation seems quite legit.  If a person (parent or teacher, for example) has a concern about a child's behavior that is a legit basis for seeking guidance.  Seems very appropriate to me. SamDavidson 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What it seems to you is not relevant. Please see manual of style and neutral point of view. We are not a how-to guide. FCYTravis 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please see articles such as Common cold. The "symptoms" section is a bit more than a paragraph, sourced and written from a dispassionate voice. This is how this article should look. We do not need to go into excruciating detail. FCYTravis 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and...? We are eagerly waiting for a response that gives a reason for your repeated insertion of Becker-Waidmans PR-material?--DorisH 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that blanking large sections of an article can be seen as vandalism and you should take note of that.  A much better approach, Doris, would be to collaborative try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war.  While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors.  DPetersontalk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have to agree that inserting a how-to-guide from another website is inappropriate and you should take note of that.  A much better approach, Peterson, would be to collaboratively try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war.  While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but... :D)--DorisH 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing large sections of text that are copy-pasted in from an external source and which are written in an entirely unencyclopedic tone is hardly vandalism. I have repeatedly pointed out that the sections in question are unacceptable, because they speak from an active voice and presume to assert facts not in evidence without attribution. You are attempting to enforce the wholesale addition of material, and that won't fly. The text in question has been GFDLed, which means, guess what, anyone gets to bend, fold, spindle and/or mutilate it. That's what Wikipedia's about - not copy-pasting a clearly-polemic pro-single-POV article into a text box and claiming it can't be touched. As for the "other editors," they're transparently single-purpose accounts which conveniently show up every time you need them to create false consensus for your POV on attachment-related articles, so you can dispense with the charade. FCYTravis 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia policy clearly states that such blanking can be considered vandalism.  You, you have made your point...but there are many others who disagree with you, therefore blanking is in appropriate.  A better approach is to edit the article to improve it, not just hack away at it.  Building consensus and collaborative editing is a corner-stone of Wikipedia.  In fact, other editors here have begun to edit the sections in ways that take your view into account.  You should either let that happen, or help.  You are misrepresenting my views here FCYTravis.  I am not saying that the article or sections cannot be touched...only that it be improved, as other editors have begun to do in a collaborative and cooperative fashion.  Your last comments meet the criteria for Personal Attacks and should stop.  It is not construtive.  As an administrator, I'd expect better of you.  DPetersontalk 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article controversy 

message: *The following unsourced section:
What are the subtle signs of attachment issues? 
# Sensitivity to rejection and to disruptions in the normally attuned connection between mother and child
# Avoiding comfort when the child’s feelings are hurt, although the child will turn to the parent for comfort when physically hurt
# Difficulty discussing angry feelings or hurt feelings
# Over-valuing looks, appearances, and clothes
# Sleep disturbances, not wanting to sleep alone
# Precocious independence - a level of independence that is more frequently seen in slightly older children
# Reticence and anxiety about changes
# Picking at scabs and sores
# Secretiveness 
# Difficulty tolerating correction or criticism
is completely irrelevant to the topic attachment disorder.--DorisH 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Open questions for discussion

message: #The following unsourced section: What are the subtle signs of attachment issues? Sensitivity to rejection and to disruptions in the normally attuned connection between mother and child, Avoiding comfort when the child’s feelings are hurt, although the child will turn to the parent for comfort when physically hurt; Difficulty discussing angry feelings or hurt feelings; Over-valuing looks, appearances, and clothes;Sleep disturbances, not wanting to sleep alone;Precocious independence - a level of independence that is more frequently seen in slightly older children; Reticence and anxiety about changes; Picking at scabs and sores; Secretiveness; Difficulty tolerating correction or criticism; is completely irrelevant to the topic attachment disorder.--DorisH 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attachment Disorder" is not the same as Reactive Attachment Disorder.  RAD is a psychiatirc diagnosis (DSM-IV-TR).  Attachment Disorder is a loosly used ill-defined term used in the popular literature and, as such, deserves an encyclopedia article.DPetersontalk 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the specifics are useful.  If you look at other articles on mental disorders there is usually the detailed statement of the DSM criteria.  In this instance, this is not a DSM diagnosis, but is a term used across the internet...so more details are better than fewer. JonesRDtalk 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I only see one or two, while there are several who disagree with you. JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can see only one or two how come three have reverted to the start of a rewrite by Dhartung during the last few days? The history shows numerous attempts at rewrites, the archived talk-pages also shows several suggestions.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is unclear since it is not a term defined in the DSM or other such text.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...this is the point where you should suggest a viable definition.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Addressed: not related, not a DSM diagnosis as is reactive attachment disorder...read comments above.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reactive attachment disorder also includes the equivalent definition in the ICD, the uninhibited form is called attachment disorder.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Already addressed above.  Terms and concepts in popular culture do deserve an article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: should Bowlby be drawn into this then? The critics of popular psychology should also be included.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'What is the problem with questions or suggestions of seek professional help?'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia because we are trying to write an encyclopedia. Therefore the articles, all articles, including this one, have to be written in an encyclopedic tone.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'How so?  I don't see that.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: f. i. instead of giving a summary of the symptoms it presents itself as a sort of how-do-I-diagnose-my-kids-myself.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'extensive references are cited in the article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article would have to be plastered with --DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'What is wrong with this when we are discussing an ill-defined term?  State your objection clearly, please.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the comparison with the common cold, for instance as ignored above.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: '????'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: link to Becker-Weidmans site--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'How so?  Please explain in detail to make yourself clear.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extensive discussion of this was on the deletion-discussion. It was one of the reasons it was listed. Among others, the nature of this piece of writing being authored by a proponent of attachment therapy, point to a conflict of interest which is obvious to people who have experience with pr-work, and also many ordinary consumers. The absence of criticism, the absence of the description of the opposite view are always signs of a pr-text. WP:COI is highly critical of people making any edits at all to articles that they have a financial interest in, let alone write and publish an entire article on Wikipedia.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Not a POV issue.  Article references much material in professional peer-reviewed materials.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article lacks a section criticism.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'DorisH, you need to explain may of your quesitions and state clearly your concern or objections.  Most of these have already been addressed in previous sections here or in the archive.  I suggest you read the archive to find the answers to your questions and that you detail what are your concerns.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that my comments above are helpful in explaining things.  You'd asked for an expert RfC in clinical psych and that is my background/training. JohnsonRon 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify your credentials then?--DorisH 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And my background is also in psychology and clinical work.  I have a Ph.D....Since you requested comment.  Do you, Doris, have an advanced clinical degree? DPetersontalk 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify your credentials then, as per the current proposal by Jimbo? I for my part am most certainly not going to give you any personal details on myself. A verfication of both of your credentials could be done if you want that. It would also clear up the concerns of your [WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. Are you involved with some sort of therapy for perceived or real attachment disorders? Does your income depend on some sort of therapy for this? Are you employed by someone who provides these services? --DorisH 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response or comment does not seem consistent with Assume good faith; furthermore, implying negative motivations, as you do, is not only not assuming good faith, but borders on Personal attacks; perhaps.  One does wonder about your affiliations given your diatribes...but I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner. DPetersontalk 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange reaction indeed... But interesting. Your opinion that the proposal borders on personal attacks has not been mentioned yet on the discussion page of the proposal. I recommend you mention it there. It won't change anything saying it here. Your reaction of course gives rise to further scepticism. So do you not want your credentials verified and taken into consideration now? In case your claims to a PhD are false it might be best for the two of you to confess right now. Searching for both of your names did not turn up any results, but that does not necessarily say you are pulling an Essjay (as they say now around here).--DorisH 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you'd want to lead by example?  Your reticence to disclose your background and expertise, raises further skepticism and make one wonder about your affiliations.  But as I said previously, I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner.  Since, what we all what is an improved encyclopedia and articles.  Maybe if we spent more time working on the article and less time slinging mud, we could produce a good result faster.  I recommend that approach. DPetersontalk 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions still open for discussion

message: The section sums up some of the common criticism of this article by DorisH and FCYTravis. It serves the purpose of documenting what people (those two) criticize, since changes cannot be made.
#many people on the archived deletion debate think the article needs a rewrite
:I only see one or two, while there are several who disagree with you. JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can see only one or two how come three have reverted to the start of a rewrite by Dhartung during the last few days? The history shows numerous attempts at rewrites, the archived talk-pages also shows several suggestions.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is unclear since it is not a term defined in the DSM or other such text.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...this is the point where you should suggest a viable definition.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Addressed: not related, not a DSM diagnosis as is reactive attachment disorder...read comments above.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reactive attachment disorder also includes the equivalent definition in the ICD, the uninhibited form is called attachment disorder.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Already addressed above.  Terms and concepts in popular culture do deserve an article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: should Bowlby be drawn into this then? The critics of popular psychology should also be included.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'What is the problem with questions or suggestions of seek professional help?'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia because we are trying to write an encyclopedia. Therefore the articles, all articles, including this one, have to be written in an encyclopedic tone.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'How so?  I don't see that.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: f. i. instead of giving a summary of the symptoms it presents itself as a sort of how-do-I-diagnose-my-kids-myself.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'extensive references are cited in the article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article would have to be plastered with --DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'What is wrong with this when we are discussing an ill-defined term?  State your objection clearly, please.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the comparison with the common cold, for instance as ignored above.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: '????'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: link to Becker-Weidmans site--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'How so?  Please explain in detail to make yourself clear.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extensive discussion of this was on the deletion-discussion. It was one of the reasons it was listed. Among others, the nature of this piece of writing being authored by a proponent of attachment therapy, point to a conflict of interest which is obvious to people who have experience with pr-work, and also many ordinary consumers. The absence of criticism, the absence of the description of the opposite view are always signs of a pr-text. WP:COI is highly critical of people making any edits at all to articles that they have a financial interest in, let alone write and publish an entire article on Wikipedia.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Not a POV issue.  Article references much material in professional peer-reviewed materials.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article lacks a section criticism.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'DorisH, you need to explain may of your quesitions and state clearly your concern or objections.  Most of these have already been addressed in previous sections here or in the archive.  I suggest you read the archive to find the answers to your questions and that you detail what are your concerns.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that my comments above are helpful in explaining things.  You'd asked for an expert RfC in clinical psych and that is my background/training. JohnsonRon 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify your credentials then?--DorisH 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And my background is also in psychology and clinical work.  I have a Ph.D....Since you requested comment.  Do you, Doris, have an advanced clinical degree? DPetersontalk 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify your credentials then, as per the current proposal by Jimbo? I for my part am most certainly not going to give you any personal details on myself. A verfication of both of your credentials could be done if you want that. It would also clear up the concerns of your [WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. Are you involved with some sort of therapy for perceived or real attachment disorders? Does your income depend on some sort of therapy for this? Are you employed by someone who provides these services? --DorisH 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response or comment does not seem consistent with Assume good faith; furthermore, implying negative motivations, as you do, is not only not assuming good faith, but borders on Personal attacks; perhaps.  One does wonder about your affiliations given your diatribes...but I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner. DPetersontalk 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange reaction indeed... But interesting. Your opinion that the proposal borders on personal attacks has not been mentioned yet on the discussion page of the proposal. I recommend you mention it there. It won't change anything saying it here. Your reaction of course gives rise to further scepticism. So do you not want your credentials verified and taken into consideration now? In case your claims to a PhD are false it might be best for the two of you to confess right now. Searching for both of your names did not turn up any results, but that does not necessarily say you are pulling an Essjay (as they say now around here).--DorisH 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you'd want to lead by example?  Your reticence to disclose your background and expertise, raises further skepticism and make one wonder about your affiliations.  But as I said previously, I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner.  Since, what we all what is an improved encyclopedia and articles.  Maybe if we spent more time working on the article and less time slinging mud, we could produce a good result faster.  I recommend that approach. DPetersontalk 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Doris, your comments here are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices.  Personal Attacks are frowned upon.  Assume Good Faith means tyring to work together and not being nasty.  To repeat my earlier comment, A much better approach, Doris, would be to collaborative try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war.  While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors. I encourage you to try this approach and try to work with other editors in a collaborative manner. DPetersontalk 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is vandalims to remove another's comments on the talk page.  You have been warned a few times now about blanking pages and now about removing other's comments.  Please stop. DPetersontalk 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Doris, please do not disrupt this talk page by copying comments verbatim and then making a new section.  Comments and additions belong in the section to which they relate.  Creating a "new" section merely to "bury" comments you may not like is not consistent Wikipedia policy and practices. Your last comment above should be at the end of the previous section and you should not have merely copied the comments you like, create a new section and then add your comments.  This is disruptive to the flow.  Please stop.  You have been asked to stop being disruptive by several other editors now. DPetersontalk 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'DORISH, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF SECTIONS.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why are you changing the chronological order by moving this section down here? Could you answer that question please?--DorisH 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Be constructive and stop blanking the article

message: Attachment is fundamental to healthy development, normal personality, and the capacity to form healthy and authentic emotional relationships[1]. How can one determine whether a child has attachment issues that require attention? What is normal behavior, and what are the signs of attachment issues? When adopting an infant, will attachment problems develop? These and other related questions are often at the forefront of adoptive parents’ minds.
I think that is fine.  The article responds to the questions.  However, if there is strong sentiment, at least the first line should remain and the last part after the reference can be deleted.  What do other editors think? MarkWood 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add "considered by most psychologists to be" - otherwise, Wikipedia is establishing a value judgement. I agree that the available literature is strongly supportive of the theory, but we can't consider it to be undisputed fact. FCYTravis 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are to qualify the statement, then it should be a bit broader...how about, "considered by various mental health professionals,"  Since not only many psychologists, but psychiatrists, marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, and social workers would also agree? I think we are close here...how about para 2? DPetersontalk 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: Attachment is the base of emotional health, social relationships, and one's worldview (Zeanah, C., 1993). The ability to trust and form reciprocal relationships affects the emotional health, security, and safety of the child, as well as the child's development and future inter-personal relationships. The ability to regulate emotions, have a conscience, and experience empathy all require secure attachment. Healthy brain development is built on a secure attachment relationship.
First of all, the full citation should be given: Zeanah, C., (Ed.) (1993) Handbook of Infant Mental Health, Guilford Press, NY.  If other citations are "necessary" then Bowlby can be cited for the second line and third lines and Dr. Siegel (The Developing Mind) can be cited for the third and fourth lines.  But I think that is over kill...what do other editors think?DPetersontalk 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is fine as is.  JohnsonRon 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the reference it is fine. RalphLendertalk 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Paragraph

message: The rest of the material looks ok.  There are references to support various statements so I don't have a problem with the suggestions above or with the rest of the article as written...but if someone wants to make other suggestions, I'm game. RalphLendertalk 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: I noticed that this section was added by an anonymous user, and then deleted without any discussion.
*American Professional Society on Child Abuse warnings about Attachment Therapy 
*"Be Wary of Attachment Therapy" by Shannon-Bridget Maloney, on QUACKWATCH 	
*Advocates for Children in Therapy 	 
*A collection of quotations by Daniel Hughes -- the apparent inventor of the term Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy 	 
*Library of documents critical of Attachment Therapy; includes video clips
Although it was just a list of links without any text to explain or reference them, I believe these links are a good start to making this article more NPOV and adding a proper criticism section.Ziiv 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the issue of treatment is 'spurious', why is most of this article about treatments? 'Attachment therapy' is not as ill defined or as confusing as is made out here. Some treatments mentioned in this article are considered by some to be attachment therapies so if they are are in this article then the issue of appropriate treatment must be relevent. Personally I see no need to list treatments in this article, but if they are to be listed they need to be accurate and propoerly sourced. Secondly, the Taskforce Report also deals with the discourse on 'attachment disorder' and 'reactive attachment disorder' and the controversies over 'diagnosis'. The ambit and diagnosis and indeed meaning of the term 'attachment disorder' is a matter of significant controversy and debate. In this article the AAPSAC Taskforce report is cited only once and that confusingly. It is cited in support of the statement that aspects of attachment therapy are disapproved of, which is true, but the paragraph then goes on to claim that various unvalidated therapies are congruent with AAPSAC guidelines when in fact the main proponent of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is specifically criticised on three counts by the Report as part of the reports criticism of 'attachment therapy' in general. Further, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is mentioned no less that 4 times in this one small article and is described as 'evidence-based' and 'mainstream' when it is neither of these things and is relatively new, relatively obscure (other than on Wikipedia) and is at best controversial. Fainites 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only two lines about AT in the article.  The article is not about treatment (read introduction to see purpose of article). Your comments have been raised before by you here and on many other pages and are unfounded.  Just wait for the Mediation and stop trying to resurrect dead issues.  There is a large fund of evidence to support the trts listed in this article, the citations are verifiable.  Time to let mediation take its course. DPetersontalk 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links don't belong here.  The article is about this loose term, attachment disorder, not a DSM diagnosis, but not about treatment.  Furthermore, as pointed out above, all of those links are really to the same website representing the same POV and represent undue weight WP:NPOV#Undue_weight given the purpose and scope of this article. JonesRDtalk 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above two points...the links don't belong here. MarkWood 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article isn't about treatment why does it include 4 references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, including one in the introduction? Fainites 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.eegspectrum.com/Articles/Articles/InHouseArticles/RAD/ also this link goes to an article on RAD not attachment disorder. And the link is to a promotional site. Should we remove this link also. We are not here to help people advertize their services. FatherTree 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments of the others who point out only two references to AT in this artcicle.  The initial description makes clear what the article is about, and treatment isn't it!  Keep your dispute on the Mediation page and stop trying to spread it...that seems to be your pattern: if you don't "win" in one location, you just get others to tag along and try another article and then when that fails, you bring up the same issues again!  Stick to the Mediation page. JohnsonRon 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need your permission to edit JR. Please try and avoid personal attacks. I have raised some serious content issues on this article. None of the editors who have 'replied' have dealt with them. Fainites 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please read my comments above carefully and you will see I addressed these old and also previously addressed and resolved questions.  I suggest you read my comments in this section as well as those in other sections.  Since you brought the mediation case and this and other articles, you should keep your arguments there and not spread them all over the place. DPetersontalk 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of unrelated links

message: I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten.Fainites barley 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DDP

message: If the material from the Pratt publication is verbatim, quotation marks or indentation should be used to indicate where the verbatim material begins and ends.Jean Mercer 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of verbatim material

message: I haven't removed the references to Erikson, but I do not believe it's very useful to include this material; although it is common in popular discussions of attachment to throw in "trust vs. mistrust", the specific connections between Erikson's stages and Bowlby's view of the developing internal working model are difficult to state. I'd propose avoiding "mentioning" or "showing the flag" with allusions of this kind. Jean Mercer 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erikson

message: I've deleted material about the symptoms of attachment disorder. The symptoms that were mentioned are in no way related to criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder in DSM-IV-Tr, nor are they mentioned in DC:0-3-R. Jean Mercer 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symptoms

message: I am concerned about the use of certain web sites as sources here-- reliable published material should be the source. For example, the source is unclear for the "subtle signs" section, and the meaningfulness of any of those characteristics in an infant would depend entirely on the infant's age. They do not necessarily have anything to do with attachment.
This article seems to be following the pattern, familiar from other topics, of pressing quite unconventional views as if they had an acceptable evidence basis. Jean Mercer 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic sources

message: I don't see that any but the briefest discussion of treatment belongs here-- nor the discussion of Erikson and other background. The point of the article, I think, should be that the term is ambiguous, can refer to RAD and/or insecure or disorganized styles, and is also used in an unconventional fashion. I removed some of the introductory "theories" which were not theories at all, and had no citations to support them.Jean Mercer 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Material included

message: Too much of this article is about attachment and not enough about attachment disorder. I think there should be a very brief overview of attachment with a link to the theory page. then the controversy over diagnosis between DSM/ICD and the other diagnosis needs to be clearly set out. Then issues relating disorganized attachment etc. I've made a start. Comments? Fainites barley 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of Focus

message: This needs a lot more work, but I'm trying to get away from saying that an attachment disorder is a disorder of attachment.Jean Mercer 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Hang on there--  where are you going to put Reactive Attachment Disorder? How about just saying that a variety of social and personality disturbances can be associated with a poor attachment history? Then we can go on to talk about items on the list. I ought to be able to put some time into this tomorrow.Jean Mercer 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Range of disorders

message: You all are doing such a great job on this. All of you have more knowledge on this than I do. 
But one thing I have seen first hand is where a child with what would be called 'attachment disorder' is diagnosed as having 'reactive attachment disorder' in order to get the medicaid or insurance money. Now I see a difference. RAD seems to me to be very severe. Anyhow I just wanted to mention this. I have seen many kids go through 'therapy' for what I would consider normal kid discipline problems. And they will go through the rest of their lives having been diagnosed with this 'mental disease' and the memories of the weird therapy will alway be with them. FatherTree 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean, Fain and others 

message: Just been looking at the article on this. It's not good! I still think though there should be a separate article for RAD as there's lots of interesting material to go in it that would be too detailed for this article. Fainites barley 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactive attachment disorder

message: Is someone ready to provide evidence that all those treatments have good evidentiary bases? I am going to have to do more reading before I'm prepared to say that-- Jean Mercer 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have heard that sometimes waiting lists are used as controls. To me this seems wrong since the placebo effect should be factored in. I think in psychotherapy the control should be appointments as similar as possible to the therapy in question but using no directed technique. I think a lot of people would get better just going to an office and sitting in a room chatting with a credible professional just from the attention they are getting. FatherTree 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen some research where the control group comes along to the clinic and sits in the waiting room for an hour or so (presumably reading very out of date magazines). I've also seen a comment or paper somewhere that for therapies they should test several different kinds of therapies against each other rather than have a group doing nothing as JeanMercer mentioned above. I'll see if I can find it again. It would be difficult to have professionals just chatting to people though as they be 'accidently' doing therapy just by being interested and empathic. You're probably right about the 'talking cure' though.Fainites barley 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment

message: A common feature of this diagnosis is the use of extensive lists of "symptoms" which include many behaviours that are likely to be a consequence of neglect or abuse, but not related to attachment, or not related to any clinical disorder at all.ref name="Prior & Glaser"
This to me is one of the most unethical and bothersome things about 'attachment disorder' Diagnosing symptoms as a 'disease' or disorder when it is simply a behavior problem. It is just to get the funds (money) as far as I am concerned on the backs of orphans. FatherTree 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes the crux of the matter 

message: I've put this and the RAD article in for good article status. Its always helpful to have some outside feedback.Fainites barley 09:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: What is this cite error 8 I'm committing? The reference was already there, so I thought I could just do Jean Mercer (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The term attachment disorder is most often used to describe emotional and behavioral problems of young children, but is sometimes applied to school-age children or even to adults. The difficulties implied depend on the age of the individual being assessed and may relate only to interactions between two specific individuals, (e.g. Mother and one infant) thus, no general list of symptoms of attachment disorder can legitimately be presented.Zeanah, 2005"
Then put a fuller version in the relevant section. Lists are important because they are a main marketing tool and vehicle for the spread of misinformation and are very common on the web. Links can help with definitions. There is a Wiki dictionary but I don't know how to link to that. Fainites barley 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'elp

message: We've just been poointed to this on RAD. This is the recommended layout for diseases;
*Classification
*Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
*Causes or Genetics
*Pathophysiology or Mechanism
*Diagnosis (including Characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis)
*Prevention or Screening
*Treatment or Management
*Prognosis (social impact may also be discussed)
*Epidemiology
*History (not patient history)
*Cultural references
*See also (avoid if possible, use wikilinks in the main article)
*Notes
*References
*Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)
*External links (avoid if possible)
Fainites barley 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MEDMOS]]

message: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
#Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
– Anthøny 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status granted! 

message: put in page numbers for the two refs in the new material on mechanisms. Fainites barley 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: memo

message: I believe you should remove the links to attachment therapy in this article. Attachment therapy is considered pseudoscience by its current editor and the evidence in the article does not contradict this. Discussing pseudoscientific therapies  in the body of this article, along with mainstream practices, without frankly calling it pseudosciene (as it is in the attachment therapy), plus   giving wikilinks, side-by-side with links to mainstream practices, is equivalent to a statement that attachment therapy is on par with medically accepted therapies. This is unacceptably confusing the general reader, in my opinion.  —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have divided up the material so that all the material relating to attachment therapy is in one section clearly labelled "pseudocientific". It would not be appropriate to remove this material from this article altogether as the "diagnosis" of attachment disorder is the main diagnosis used by attachment therapists and although some attachment therapists conflate attachment disorder with RAD, their main theorists are quite clear that attachment disorder is a specific diagnosis. This of course is not a diagnosis recognised by the mainstream - as the article makes clear.Fainites barleyscribs 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Attachment therapy]] 

message: Misplaced comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 123.222.215.125 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems valid. I have replaced "early emotional" with "neurodevelopmental". Anthony (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism is NOT an "emotional disorder". 

message: The addition:
'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy' Hughes, D., Attachment-Focused Family Therapy, NY:Norton, 2009,Becker-Weidman, A., (2010), Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential methods and practices, Jason Aronson, Becker-Weidman, A., (2011), The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook,Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson 
is relevant.  The references are published by reputable and well respected publishers: Norton & Jason Aronson.  This seems to meet the requirements that citations be verifiable and relevant and other criteria for inclusion in an article.  
Sargoncommit (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Another treatment

message: The references added meet the standard for being appropriate.
Hughes, D., Attachment-Focused Family Therapy, NY:Norton, 2009
Becker-Weidman, A., (2010), Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential methods and practices, Jason Aronson 
Becker-Weidman, A., (2011), The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook,Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson 
These are books published by reliable and well-known publishers and their inclusion supports and adds to the article and the statement these references were tied to. Please do not delete again without first discussing it on the talk page. Thank you.
NJMSWPHD (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone disagrees with these additions, please discuss it here.  The additions are consistent with wikipedia policy and practice regarding sources of a reliable nature. NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the removal of reliable sources would seem to be a violation of wikipedia policy and qualify as valdalism NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added back the material and hope that if there is a dispute we can discuss it here civilly. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: reference

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314161203/http://www.patcrittenden.com:80/Preschool-assesment.html to http://www.patcrittenden.com/Preschool-assesment.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225132429/http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml to http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.patcrittenden.com/Preschool-assesment.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225132429/http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml to http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227161855/http://www.circleofsecurity.org/docs/languages/08%20AHD%20final.pdf to http://www.circleofsecurity.org/docs/languages/08%20AHD%20final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126145603/http://helpguide.org/mental/parenting_bonding_reactive_attachment_disorder.htm to http://helpguide.org/mental/parenting_bonding_reactive_attachment_disorder.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824051123/http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf to http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified