Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 2

POV concerns

This article appears to be an essay. Consider the following sections:

• An analysis of the actual theoretical basis of Attachment Therapy would be inappropriately lengthy )see mercer, 2003), but there are clear connections between AT and such psychoanalytic outliers as Fernczi, Groddeck, Rank, and Reich,all of whom emphasized the role of very early experience and considered physical interaction part of therapy.

• In every case, the evidencepresented has failed to meet the criteria for evidence-based treatment (see Mercer, 2002). The most serious problem of these studies has involved the confounding of variables created by self-selection of treatment and comparison groups.

• From the recently-deleted "Conclusions" section: Attachment Therapy, with the characteristics described above, are not appropriate otr effective mental health interventions for children. It should be noted that most conventional psychotherapies for children work with social relationships and with parent-child interactions and thus are effective techniques for dealing with problems of attachment where they exist.

All of this appears to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original research policies. WP:OR says this kind of writing is probably not acceptable: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source... I'd suggest that someone who knows more about the subject clean it up to make it more balanced. Aplomado ^talk 22:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that no article on Wikipedia can reject a dangerous or inappropriate practice-- that "pseudosymmetry" is a requirement?

As for sources, in this case, I, the author, am a reputable source, and I have cited my own work. I just didn't finish typing out all the references yet. Jean Mercer

Wikipedia can't "reject" anything. It's an encyclopedia, not a place to publish essays that draw conclusions. If there are people out there who say that this is a dangerous practice, then you can point that out and cite it using verifiable sources. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or essays. You can include information from public and verifiable work, but you cannot draw conclusions from them. Aplomado ^talk 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This page should be completely deleted. It is written by a member of a fringe group, ACT whose leaders include mercer, sarner, and rosa. They are not interested in a NPVO. Alternative pages exist that address issues surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of children and teens, those with attachment issues, attachment disorder, and resarch in the area of attachment. DPeterson 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether Wiki could reject things-- I asked whether an article can do so, or whether the principle to follow is pseudosymmetry, the practice of appearing to present a balance of information when no such balance exists.I am a legitimate scholar and can provide a good deal of evidence to that effect, as i believe Mr. Peterson will see if he consults Google, which he should do before dismissing my comments. I would like to inquire of "Aplomado" why it is acceptable for an article to state that a practice has an evidentiary basis, but not acceptable for me to state that it does not? Surely both statements draw conclusions, although they don't stress that that's what they're doing. Jean Mercer

The problem with what you're doing is that you're saying Source A says this (which is acceptable), Source B says this (which is acceptable), so therefore I come to Conclusion C (not acceptable). If you have a source that can back up your conclusion in the same way you backed up your premises, then this would be acceptable. You can't cite yourself, I'm afraid, unless you have a published work to that effect.

Also, as DPeterson noted, "attachment therapy" has already been addressed at "Attachment disorder." Is there a reason why we need a seperate article? Aplomado ^talk 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In Attachment therapy is already in existance. One final point, mercer is not a licensed mental health professioal nor a clinician, so while mercer may have some knowledge, mercer is not a professional therapist with experience in this area. DPeterson 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have completed the reference list, as I said I would do when i had to stop yesterday. As you will see, where I cite myself, the material has been published, so the statements may be original to me, but they are not original to this article.

Now, Mr. Peterson, I must say that your arguments are not at all what I expected them to be. You say that there is already a discusssion of Attachment Therapy, but the only treatments discussed as far as I can see are Theraplay and DDP. You also take my comments on the connection between Bowlby's theory and Attachment Therapy and comment on them with respect to DDP. This would seem to indicate that you acknowledge DDP to be a form of Attachment Therapy as I've defined it in this article. If this is the case, I wonder whether you want to continue to defend these forms of treatment. If it is not the case, you will surely have to acknowledge that the topic of Attachment Therapy is not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia and that therefore there is a reason for this article.

Perhaps the best way to proceed here would be for you to state your definition of Attachment Therapy and to say whether you consider DDP to belong to the group of treatments as I have defined them here or as you define them yourself. That should help establish some rationale for inclusion or exclusion of the topic. Jean Mercer 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been largely taken over by Attachment Therapy proponents to whitewash their unvalidated practices. Please refer to the article on Quackwatch, the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, and childrenintherapy.org for accurate information. Particularly helpful are the latter's quotes pages where Attachment Therapists say more about how abusive AT is than any critic could. -- Health Consumer Advocate 8/31/06

The article is much improved now that a broad range of people have had an opportunity to edit and comment. I disagree with the previous comment. While the APSAC task force has many importnat things to say, it does not support the previous commentor's thesis. Quackwatch and Advocates for Children in Therapy are two closely related fringe groups that lack credibility, unlike APSAC. DPeterson^talk 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To correct an error in the comment by the previous editor, the APSAC Task force did not comment on "Attachment Therapy." 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. I hope this helps clarify the issues and clear up any misunderstanding or misconceptions. DPeterson^talk 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the article

Isn't there a procedure for requesting the deletion of an article? Just blanking it, as "DPeterson" did, is an act of vandalism. (He has, I believe, committed other acts of vandalism, and has been warned.)

Yes, there is a need for a separate article. Attachment Therapy (note the proper name) is a separate phenomenon, especially in the United States. It is the subject of white papers and position statements by professional organizations. In addition to therapy, it encourages certain readily distinguishable child discipline (or parenting, or "teaching") techniques. It has been noticed by the media, prosecutors, and legislatures (including Congress).

Dr Mercer's original attempt at an article may indeed be more of an essay than an encyclopedic article, and consequently needs some work. I, and possibly others, would like to do that, but it should remain up for that purpose. I think the notices placed by Aplomado do more than enough to alert readers to the article's tentative editing state. We should be allowed to work on it.

I also want to protest the personal attacks here by DPeterson, who is possibly a sock puppet of Dr Becker-Weidman (they at least share the same IP address, 68.66.160.228). Attacking anyone's affiliations is specifically mentioned as a personal attack. Attacking anyone's right to comment or edit based on their alleged lack of clinical experience is diametrically opposed to Wiki philosophy. I (and separately, Dr Mercer) have had to put up with such boorishness elsewhere, but I'm going to have zero tolerance for it here, and will protest it immediately to Wiki administrators.

Larry Sarner 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There already exits articles Attachment therapy Attachment disorder etc. This page is irrelevant and is being used as a forum for a fringe group, ACT, of which mercer and sarner are leaders. There was discussion and comment that this article was not Wikipedia appropriate. Larry Sarner continues to pursue personal attacks and is now taking his firght elsewhere since his attacks on the Bowlby page are not having the result he wants. His continued disrespect of Dr. Becker-Weidman and allegations that I am a "sock-puppet" when that has been shown to be false is clearly antagonistic and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia philosophy. It is a fact that neither Larry Sarner nor Mercer are clinicians, licensed mental health professionals, and have no clinical experience. DPeterson 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Turning a page into a redirect isn't the same as "blanking." Nevertheless, I strongly recommend that this article be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so that some consensus can be reached. Aplomado ^talk 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I'll list it myself. Aplomado ^talk 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Shameful

Well, if the article survives, I suggest that the editors here obtain a copy of the full-text of the PubMed study I included, and simply refute any misinformation with the facts. This article reads like many of its nature: they include all kinds of medical references, which may have nothing to do with the price of beans in China, but make the topic appear to have medical respectability. The way to put out *accurate* information is to get the study, and quote it. Sandy 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well then, why don't you do that? Be bold. Aplomado ^talk 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your additions are good. The reference is excellent...improves the article. DPeterson 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

Most of what was on this page is on other pages. The Also See links can bring readers to those related pages. Also tried to make this article more appropriately neutral in its point of view. DPeterson 20:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because all you did was axe 90% of the article. It would be far more beneficial if you instead added balance to the article by, perhaps, adding a criticism section that cites verifiable sources since this seems to be a controversial subject. Just chopping out large chunks of text you don't like doesn't really help the situation and is probably just going to provoke an edit war. Aplomado ^talk 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added material and tried to present additional information to present a NPOV on this very controversail topic. I believe the notices remain relevant as there is still dispute about this article (see the page comments on whether or not not to maintain the page. Since no consensus was reached on that, the page remains in dispute, therefore the notices are relevant, I think). In fact, most of the comments were against this being a separate page. DPeterson 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps). 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. In which case, the material would belong on the existing pages, attachment therapy or Attachment therapy, which redirect the reader to Attachment disorder. 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.

To include the full range of issues on this proposed page would then have to duplicate material on the previously cited Wikipedia articles or duplicate the APSAC report. A better solution would be to include a reference and brief description of the controversy on the previously mentioned page with a link to the APSAC report for details 'DPeterson 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)'

OK, I'll leave the tags up. As for the capitalization, I tried to move it to "attachment therapy", but that has already been made into a redirect page. I may at some point in the future nominate that redirect for deletion so this page can be moved there. That way we can preserve the article history.

I honestly don't see your point on "duplicate material." I have found very little of the information in this article, if any, in the articles mentioned. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out. However, I'd advise not turning this article into a redirect unless a consensus for deletion is reached, which we haven't accomplished yet. Aplomado ^talk 00:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original research tag. I put it up there originally because the author drew conclusions that were not cited, but the offending statements have since been removed so I don't think it applies anymore. I've left up the NPOV tag out of respect to the editors who still have a problem with the article, and I've left the wikify tag because the article could use some editing. Aplomado ^talk 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see--- Attachment Therapy, capital A, capital T, is something that doesn't exist any more? But it must have at one time; Hughes said so (and so did Cline, Hage, Levy, Keith Reber, etc.). So I assume there will be no problem about a historical overview of these practices, which is certainly not included in any other topic? And I also assume that everyone contributing here objects to those old adjuvant practices such as withholding food or forcing food or water consumption? Or is there a POV problem, so that you'd all like to see discussion of the bright side of child starvation? (I know at least one of you has read Nancy Thomas, because he used to have a link to her material on his web site.) Jean Mercer 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercer, your snide comments are not relevant or helpful to this discussion. Your position as a spokesperson and leader of what some might call a fringe group, ACT, Advocates For Children in Therapy, may lead you to want to tar everyone who practices what your group considers evil...but the fact is that there is no "Attachment Therapy" as a field in the CPT code book or DSM or related texts. The literature I read discusses it as "attachment therapy." Additionally, to use past and old material to "discredit" is not professional. If you feel it is ok to do that, than I suppose you might feel it would be ok to continue to raise the fact that a cancer surgeon did "radicals" as a matter of course in treating breast-cancer (ten years ago, even though that is no longer part of the practice)? You do recognize that practice and practices change, don't you? Historical reviews, when relevant, are appropriate. When used for other purposes, it is not relevant...unless the author has some specific agenda; but that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article; to argue points from a soapbox. RalphLender 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to tell us when Attachment Therapy ended? Or will you say it never existed because there was no code for it? If we could revert to my statement that this was/is a CAM practice, not in the mainstream, perhaps the intention of my original statements will be made clearer. Every edit and statement made here by certain users makes it appear more likely that they have something to gain by preventing the public from hearing any criticisms of physically intrusive treatments. A number of usernames have associated themselves with the view that there is no AT, maybe even that there never was, and therefore there's no need to discuss it-- what admirable motives could be associated with these actions? This obfuscation will certainly not bring dead children back to life, and it does make it more likely that there will be more deaths and injuries in the future. Why do it? Can you explain it either to me or to yourselves?Jean Mercer 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As a spokesperson and leader of the "fringe group" (meaning a group not recognized by such professional groups as APA, AMA, NASW, etc) you make their points very clearly. Put into a section marked "criticism" and with a "NPOV of this section is disputed" it might be appropriate; at least I would not object, unless an administrator felt it inappropriate. SamDavidson 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Others Comments

I would be interested in other contributor's and editor's comments about this topic. "Attachment therapy" is a broad name for a difuse range of interventions about which there is little agreement regading definition. For example, the AMA's CPT code book has nothing for this. In addtion, I know of no insurance company that covers "attachment therapy," primarily because it is not a "recognized" form of treatment in the same way that family therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, EMDR, and other forms of treatment are (having a recognized body of literature and practice). DPeterson 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the page may be redundant...it is now a fact of life and so I suggest focusing instead on helping make contributions so that the article is balanced, fair, and has a neurtal point of view. I have taken a step in that direction by explicitly making a distinction between "attachment therapy" as a coercive practice and more generally accepted methods. JohnsonRon 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Balnced and fair-- yes, please. Will someone kindly add some material that supports the use of physical intrusiveness and denial of ordinary physical needs? That would be most interesting. As for insurance company coverage, generally the billing states a diagnostic category such as 313.89, which is said to be treated-- in psychotherapy without medication, there would usually be no statement of the specifics of the treatment. The insurance covers treatment of reactive attachment disorder, not a specific intervention. Jean Mercer 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 'Not correct.' If you were a licensed mental health provider you'd be aware that you must state put a procedure code, such as "family therapy" on the form. In addition, the regular periodic reviews for quality and utilization purposes require detailed explainations of the specifics of the treatment and modality being used. Insurance benefits may cover the diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder, or not, and will also only cover certain specific treatments and modalities. RalphLender 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The treatment code is extremely general, as you know. "Family therapy", for example, could cover anything from Minuchin to Martha Welch. But this is of course a red herring, aimed at evading the question about a fair and balanced presentation of abusive practices.Jean Mercer 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed the specific point about periodic reviews for qualitya nd utilization purposes. Please address that issue. RalphLender

Copyediting and NPOV

I made these edits today. Most were just some copyediting, but I removed a few statements that were showing the problems of their original author. For example:

• "The term (attachment therapy) would not be applicable to generally accepted and main-stream approaches to the treatment of children and adolescents and disorders of attachment. These accepted approaches used tested techniques which are not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development. In addition, nearly all mainstream approaches for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment disorder use attachment theory."

This is original research. It's acceptable to say "such and such says this is not an accepted approach to treating people with attachment disorder" and cite the appropriate source, but simply declaring it isn't acceptable.

• "As in any profession, individuals may practice outside the scope of their training and provide "treatment" that is not ethical. Medical malpractice is a problem in all disciplines and across many domanins of practice."

The basic implication here is that an ethical cloud hangs over attachment therapy, so it is ripe for abuse. That's a judgment call and it also requires a "such and such said this" and a source.

--Aplomado ^talk 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However, Aplomado, it's an excellent judgment call. I don't know whether you are aware of the deaths and injuries that have resulted from the types of treatments I attempted to describe here under the term Attachment Therapy (which I used because the APSAC task force started a new practice of using attachment therapy, lc,lc, in a more general way.) There is a serious need for the public to know that these treatments have existed in the very recent past, and that they should be avoided in spite of seductive Internet advertising. Jean Mercer 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Inserting your comments 'out of order is very disruptive' to the flow of discussion. In the future, please add your comments at the 'end of a section or create a new section.' If you don't mind I may move your comments to the appropriate point. You may respond either here or on my talk page. A final point, advertising your group's views and agenda (Advocates for Children in Therapy) has a place, but perhaps not on this page or in Wikipedia articles. It is best done, as you have done, on your webpage. Please consider that as you make comments and suggestions DPeterson 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added citation and other material. The approaches listed as main stream all cite attachment theory as the basis for their work and congruence with many principles of child development that are generally accepted in the profession. What do you, Aplomado, think...OK?DPeterson 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but I still have a couple problems with it.

• "Attachment therapy" is not a mainstream approach to treating children experiencing attachment disoder. The term is not applicable to generally accepted approaches to the treatment of children and adolescents with disorders of attachment. Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development include: (etc.)

Saying things like "not applicable to generally accepted approaches" and "well established principles" really need a citation from a reputable organization or people are going to read over it and ask themselves "says who?"

• "Attachment therapy" treatments may be accompanied by parenting interventions that are coercive, painful or shaming.

Is there some way you can quote from some source on attachment therapy that the interventions are indeed "coercive, painful or shaming"? I see a book cite, but I don't have the book on hand so I can't verify it. Perhaps I'm too reliant on internet sources. Is there an excerpt from the book that you could include that would explain this attitude?

--Aplomado ^talk 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

APSAC report would support the idea that "attachment therapy" is not mainstream or accepted generally, as would the Amer Assoc of Child and Adol Psychiatry's report.

The treatment methods listed, such as Floor time, etc are the sources for the statement that they are congruent with attachment theory and child development principles.

There are no "attachment therapy" sources as there is no such discipline. The APSAC report talks about not using such interventions and parenting methods...The problem is that there is no such discipline as "attachment therapy" or "holding therapy" and so there really are not sources as there are for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Floor Time or Circle of Security or even Family Therapy. DPeterson 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a few citation...better???DPeterson 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think that'll be fine for now. I really would like more editors to weigh in though at some point. Aplomado ^talk 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just hope that when others contribute it is not the same group that created the problems on the Bowlby page as this topic is another area of interest to that group. DPeterson 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I added some additional references. RalphLender 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe one problem here is the distinction between "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy." Certainly most child psychotherapies today are relationship-focused, and therefore may be called "attachment therapies" for short. "Attachment Therapy" (capital A, capital T) is a term that has been used specifically for the practices I described in my draft of this page. Whereas other topics deal with the lc-lc attachment therapies, I don't see any that address the capital A, capital T group. I can't imagine that the other users in this discussion are claiming that the therapies they discuss elsewhere employ coercion and "rage reduction" and that therefore those treatments are covered elsewhere. If they are claiming this, perhaps they'd like to add material to this draft, supporting the use of holding and similar practices.

Would a change of vocabulary cover the objections that are being raised? Suppose the topic were changed to Coercive Restraint Therapies, with Attachment Therapy listed as one of the possible names? I suggest this although there is in fact a "discipline" called Attachment Therapy, with an extensive literature published primarily by small printer-ready publishing houses. It would be a simple matter to add a considerable list of references of that type.

I believe it is a mistake to simply deny the existence of these practices. The state of Georgia, for instance, is offering training to social workers that includes the Attachment Therapy belief system. The useof coercive approaches with children appears to be growing, rather than shrinking, and I believe that professionals-- and Wikipedia itself-- have some obligations to contribute to accurate public knowledge in this area. Jean Mercer 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more beneficial to note how ambiguous the term "attachment therapy" is and note what falls under that umbrella. Aplomado ^talk 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Describing how ambiguous is the term and how it is not one used generally to characterize an approach would be helpful for readers. What falls under that umbrella, then, would be unclear and stated as such, would provide a NPOV on the issue. RalphLender 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

APSAC report uses attachment therapy...there is 'no recognized term "Attachment Therapy"' (See CPT book or DSM IV or Bergin's text on Psychotherapy Outcome Research.) AT may be a term you and ACT uses, but it has no meaning in the mainstream professional literature.

"Coercive Restrain Therapies" is a term mercer coined, which, again, has no meaning in the professional literature and is not used among licensed mental health professionals. If you make statements you must support them...what is the basis for stating that the use of coercive treatments is growing? Other than what is stated on the Advocates for Children in Therapy page?RalphLender 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The term "coercive restraing therapy" is not a term found in the literature on treatment, nor is it in the Bergin book. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Strange that you say that about AT, because Daniel Hughes used that term to refer to Foster Cline's methods in his 1998 book, where he spoke of those methods as acceptable if other things didn't work. The constant alteration of terms and definitions made me and others propose CRT as descriptive of the intervention, but AT is fine-- that's why I originally used it. I want this matter to be talked about because I believe the practice is harmful and undesirable. Perhaps you could explain why you don't want this message to be conveyed to the public? Or, if it's simply a matter of language, name a term that you can deal with, that covers the interventions I described in this little article. Jean Mercer 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is vital to maintain a 'NPOV' and that articles not become soapboxes for fringe groups or as venues for individuals to act as spokespersons for a particular group's point of view. Dr. Hughes recent publications provide a quite different presentation of material than his 1997 book. In addition, I don't believe the 1997 book, Facilitating Developmental Attachment describes Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray...I don't believe the name for the approach was coined till later. (Hughes, D., (2003). Psychotherapeutic interventions for the spectrum of attachment disorders and intrafamilial trauma. Attachment and Human Development 5-3, 271-279.) for a description of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. RalphLender 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hughes also has an article in the 2004 issue of Attachment and Human Development. I'll look up that citation. Hughes, D. (2004). An attachment-based treatment of maltreated children and young people. Attachment & Human Development, 3, 263–278. 'Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)'

That is more current. Practice and therapeutic approaches do change over time as new research and practice wisdom accumulates. RalphLender 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. Current references are more useful than old ones. Practices do change and that must be recognized in any discussion. DPeterson 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment Therapy" vs. "attachment therapy"

I must say that the distinction between "Attachment Therapy" and "attachment therapy" has me a bit confused. I found an explanation of "attachment therapy" by Arthur Becker-Weidman here: http://www.attachmentdisorder.net/Dr._Art_Treatment.htm. Among other things he says:

"Attachment therapy is the only form of treatment that is effective with trauma-attachment disordered children. It is the only "evidence-based" treatment, meaning that there has been research published in peer-reviewed journals. Attachment therapy is primarily an experiential-based treatment, designed to facilitate experiences of safety and security so that a secure attachment may grow."— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

Is "attachment therapy" something that Becker-Weidman still practices? Or is this an outdated page? How does the "attachment therapy" described by Becker-Weidman differ from "Attachment Therapy"? There does appear to be something called "Attachment Therapy," as this person claims to have studied it: http://www.dianefeinberg.com/; and these people claim to offer an "Intensive Attachment Therapy Program": http://www.attachmenttherapy.com/. At the same time, a U.S. Senate Resolution, while specifically critizing "rebirthing," also notes that several children have died from other forms of "attachment therapy": http://salazar.senate.gov/images/pdf/051018%20Rebirthing%20Resolution%20Res%20276.pdf (see the third "whereas" clause on page 2 of the document.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

I'm very confused. Could someone please enlighten me on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs) -- Unsigned comments are not helpful for this disucssion. This person appears to have a somewhat suspect history. In fact most of this person's comments regard mercer and so could be that person or related in some way. This contributor may just be a sock-puppet for ACT, or not, but in any event this is suspect as it mirrors language by ACT and by the leaders of ACT.

The previous discussion elaborates that "Attachment Therapy is not a used term. "Attachment therapy is what the APSAC report refers to. Your quote of the article by Dr. Becker-Weidman is on a site and appears to be many years old, so its currency and value is unclear at this time. Probably a better references are his current articles and the book he co-edited, if you are wanted to cite his current thinking and practice. DPeterson 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the comments are provocative and appear to be a soapbox harrangue. I suggest that such inflamatory comments be edited by an administrator. DPeterson 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here. I just want to better understand this discussion. I am certainly not implying that Becker-Weidman's statements on the cited page are still his view. In fact, I specifically asked whether the page is "outdated."— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

Ah, well it is outdated. Contact the site owner and this will be confirmed DPeterson 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

So, your remaining hidden does raise the spectre of your merely being a sock-puppet and spokesperson for mercer (or relative of mercer?), ACT, and other leaders of ACT; We just don't know. This practice of continually making accusations and going on and on with the same accusation is quite similiar to the tactic of other leaders of ACT on Wiki pages. DPeterson 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for remaining anonymous, due to the personal attacks that have been made as part of these topics, I'd rather stay that way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

Anyway, if someone could clarify these issues it would be greatly appreciated. Clearly, if the U.S. Senate refers to people dying in "attachment therapy," it is a matter to be discussed. The current discussion seemed to a bit unfocused, and I was hoping that by raising these issues I could get some real dialogue going. The question is, what, precisely, are "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy" as these terms have been used on the pages I linked to above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

Not U.S. Senate, but a private bill.

No, it's a resolution that was passed by the U.S. Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00276:@@@L&summ2=m& (as noted at the link, "Passed Senate, without amendment") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

I stand corrected. It refers to "rebirthing" which is a practice that no one accepts and which has no validity.DPeterson 02:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it also says: "Whereas between 1995 and 2005, at least 4 other children in the United States have died from other forms of attachment therapy;" Look, I don't mean to imply in any way that Becker-Weidman is harming children. I have no reason to think that he is, and I don't think he is. My question is just a request for clarification. What was it Becker-Weidman was talking about versus what the U.S. Senate is talking about? If it were me, and I had written a past article saying I use "attachment therapy", and the Senate later makes these statements, I would try to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

You are now misrepresenting the facts. The senate resolution speaks to "rebirthing." Show me anyting in Dr. Becker-Weidman's article or materials that promotes "rebirthing." I am sure you cannot. Your comments sound strikingly like those of sarner or other leaders of ACT. Using this forum as a soapbox is counter to the intention of Wikipedia and I encourage you to not use this as a platform to promote a provocative or fringe POV as that is not in the spirit of consensus building, which is a corner stone or Wikipedia. DPeterson 02:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the focus of the resolution is on "rebirthing." But it also says "Whereas between 1995 and 2005, at least 4 other children in the United States have died from other forms of attachment therapy;" What do they mean by "other forms of attachment therapy"? I don't know. I was just hoping someone could enlighten me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPaddress (talk • contribs) .

Just to be clear, I am not saying or implying that Becker-Weidman does anything that the Senate was referring to. I'm just trying to figure out what both are referring to when they use the term "attachment therapy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.233.237 (talk • contribs)

So, your remaining hidden does raise the spectre of your merely being a sock-puppet and spokesperson for mercer (or relative of mercer?), ACT, and other leaders of ACT; We just don't know. DPeterson 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid making accusations of sock-puppetry. Assume good faith.

To IP Address 69.170.233.237, you need to sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end of your comments regardless. It's a requirement for talk pages. Aplomado ^talk 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I had seen other comments where people did not sign, so I didn't realize it was a rule. Anyway, I really would like some clarification here, so if anyone has thoughts they would be welcome. 69.170.233.237 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, I don't see anything inflammatory in the user's comments, and frankly I don't understand the implications of the terms myself. The article needs better writing to help the article make sense to a reader who is unfamiliar with the term. Aplomado ^talk 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the point. The terms have no generally accepted meaning and are not descriptive of a professionally recognized approach as, as family therapy or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are. As mentioned somewhere, in the "bible" of Psychotherapy outcome research, Bergin & Garfield's text, there is no mention of the term "Attachment Therapy." RalphLender 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty clear what was being discussed until someone edited it to make it ambiguous, presumably with the goal of supporting deletion of the whole topic. Jean Mercer 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't let that discourage you from continuing to edit. If you think those previous edits would clear things up, I would like to see them. Just make you cite verifiable sources and avoid original research. Aplomado ^talk 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate References

I see that the reference by Jean Mercer was deleted. Self-promotion is not allowed in encyclopedia articles. I agree with this deletion. SamDavidson 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point that the reference appears to be self-promotion, I disagree with deleting the reference. I think it is fine if Dr. Jean Mercer puts it in. Dr. Mercer is certainly clever enough to be able to create material in the article for which her book is an appropriate citation. Whether or not that is still self-promoting, I'll leave to an administrator to decide. While the text is more of a polemic or broad-side by the leaders or spokespersons of ACT (Mercer, Sarner and Sarner's spouse, Rosa) presenting their positions and views, it is still a published reference in the public domain. So, if Dr. Mercer wants to put the reference back, I have no objection. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the article with one's own material is very likely a conflict of interests. See: Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, where it says, "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Although this rule specifically pertains to external links, I think the spirit of the law applies here.

References also have to meet certain criteria. See: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reputable_publications and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. Aplomado ^talk 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I beleive a reference, such as was deleted by SamDavidson, represents just such a conflict and should be avoided. RalphLender 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. MarkWood 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise JPotter 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would not apply here since mercer is not a licensed mental health professional nor has mercer done any clinical practice or research in this area. But, be that as it may, can you point me to the exception for that in the Wikipedia policies, such as those Aplomado cited? Thanks. DPeterson 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources JPotter 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That reinforces the opinion of the majority of those who have posted here that the mercer citation would not re appropriate and would violate the exception when there is a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise. Mercer is not a licensed mental health professional and the text is more of a polemic for an advocacy group. RalphLender 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting approach. By the line of reasoning above, in which one can't cite one's own work, it would appear that only people who have done no work in a field can write for Wikipedia-- if they identify themselves. Those who refuse to identify themselves can of course cite themselves freely. Perhaps I should have imitated Jane Austen and signed "A Lady".

For those who are interested in my expertise, I have provided a link to my c.v. below (in a later part of this discussion). I leave it to you to judge.

In any case, all these issues are simply red herrings to conceal the fact that DPeterson & Co. want to prevent the public from having information about holding therapy,Dyadic Synchronous Bonding, Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace, or any of the flock of names I've categorized as Attachment Therapy, following Foster Cline, and, of course, Daniel Hughes.Jean Mercer 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments 'neutral' and try to 'avoid personal attacks.' This is not helpful to building conensus. A review of your CV shows you are not 'a licensed mental healh provider' and do not have expertise in the fields of child therapy or expereince in treatment or as a researcher doing research on treatment efficacy or related subjects. As such you do not fit the defination of an expert. For example, you would not be allowed to testify in those areas as your testimony would not meet the "Daubert" test. The book is really a publication by the leaders of ACT (Rosa being the Executive Director, Sarner being her husband, and you being a leader of the group). RalphLender 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth,Daubert applies only to systematic empirical research, not to a narrative discussing a case and its background. And testimony does not meet Daubert standards-- it's the evidence on which the testimony is based that has to meet them. And of course, your statements about my background are perfectly accurate, as anyone can see who looks at my c.v. However, people can look at my c.v.; your background and identity remain, shall we say in our clinical way, confidential. Jean Mercer 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you RalphLender. It is vital that comments aim to build consensus and avoid personal attacks...so a neutral point of view is more productive. Since mercer's expertise is not in this area, it would be good to continue to collect material from those who are not affilitated with ACT and who have a clinical background. If it is not true that mercer is a leader of ACT, then she should say so. In a related matter, postings and references that are promote ones book and activities in which one has a financial interest (as mercer has regarding the book and related activities) is not consistent with Wiki policy. SamDavidson 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment Therapy" vs. "attachment therapy" - One more try

My first attempt at a clarification failed miserably, so I'm going to try one more time with a slightly altered version of my question. There does appear to be something called "Attachment Therapy," as this person claims to have studied it: http://www.dianefeinberg.com/; and these people claim to offer an "Intensive Attachment Therapy Program": http://www.attachmenttherapy.com/. At the same time, a U.S. Senate Resolution, while specifically critizing "rebirthing," also notes that several children have died from "other forms of attachment therapy": http://salazar.senate.gov/images/pdf/051018%20Rebirthing%20Resolution%20Res%20276.pdf (see the third "whereas" clause on page 2 of the document.) 69.170.233.237 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone offer some thoughts on what the "attachment therapy" and "Attachment Therapy" referred to in these documents are? 69.170.233.237 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Attachment therapy" also sometimes called "holding therapy" is an 'ambiguous' term which is sometimes used to describe a form of treatment for behavioral difficulties in children suffering from attachment disorder. However, because 'the term has no common meaning', its actual definition is unclear. As such, it has 'little commonly agreed upong meaning' in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the Amereican Medial Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates For Children in Therapy have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "attachment therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. Some components of "attachment therapy" have been disapproved by a task force of the American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC). (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093). Specifically, the task force addressed coercive methods and practices as inappropriate for treatment. So, who knows what those documents mean by this ill-defined and ambiguous term. DPeterson 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I don't have a citation for the reference, but maybe someone else can provide that. Otherwise, maybe just a link to the other page may suffice. Perhaps Mercer (IP 69.170.233.237) could provide one, or other contributors. DPeterson 23:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not Mercer. 69.170.233.237 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that since you are in FL and mercer is in FL.

Those geographic IP traces are not always as accurate as they purport to be. I have seen a number of instances where the IP my ISP assigns shows up as a very different location than where I actually am. Anyway, just to repeat, I am not Mercer. 69.170.233.237 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but you are her son. You go by the previous name or mercer, Lester, and proport to be a graduate of Harvard Law. DPeterson 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly free to speculate all you want, but given what I've seen on these pages in terms of personal attacks in the past, I'm not going to identify myself. 69.170.233.237 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whoever that is who's writing, I'm not in Florida. I'm in New Jersey, where I live and work. I sign my name (although occasionally I seem to have flubbed my sign-in), I'm not afraid to have people identify me-- and if you'd all like to examine my c.v. it's at http://www.jeanmercer.org/jeanmercercv.pdf. You are in NY and your son is in FL. RalphLender 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, do you think I don't know where I live? Jean Mercer 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So what RalphLender reports is correct regarding you and your son. ok, whatever that implies.SamDavidson 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RalphLender said "NY" -- she said "New Jersey". Not quite the same thing. 74.225.124.98 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User 74.225...may be mercer's son (Miami Fla again) and she lives in NJ. OK, good to know.DPeterson 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the word you want is "purport", DPeterson.Jean Mercer 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to comment on your son? You certainly don't dispute that you, mercer live in NJ and your son lives in FL, do you?DPeterson 01:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Let's leave the material up there for a few days and see what develops. If a citation can be provided that might help. What do other editors think?DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro:

Con:

No Opinion:

DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe this issue is settled. Citations have been provided to support the material. RalphLender 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

I wonder if the following might be helpful for this topic. First, a page on the "History and Origins" of attachment therapy. Questions such as these could be answered: Who coined the term? What did it mean to that person? What was involved in the practice of attachment therapy at this time? Second, a page on the "Subsequent Development" of attachment therapy, focusing on these questions: How did attachment therapy develop over time? What kinds of practices were involved? At what point did harmful practices such as "rebirthing" enter into it? Who were some of the groups performing it? What does the term mean to those who still practice it now? 69.170.233.237 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write something and post it here and then editors can comment on the value of what you prepare. DPeterson 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am completely unqualified to do anything like that, unfortunately. I was proposing it in the hopes that someone with some expertise in this area might do it. 69.170.233.237 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, since you are completely unqualified in this area, your off point suggestions and points now are understandable. "Attachment therapy" also sometimes called "holding therapy" is an 'ambiguous' term which is sometimes used to describe a form of treatment for behavioral difficulties in children suffering from attachment disorder. However, because 'the term has no common meaning', its actual definition is unclear. As such, it has 'little commonly agreed upong meaning' in the professional literature. For example, it is not a term found in the Amereican Medial Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates For Children in Therapy have undertaken to label nearly all treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "attachment therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies. Some components of "attachment therapy" have been disapproved by a task force of the American Professional Society on Abuse of children (APSAC). (Chaffin et al.,2006, PMID 16382093). Specifically, the task force addressed coercive methods and practices as inappropriate for treatment. So, a history and origin section would have no scope and there would be no basis for that. Your questions presume that "attachment therapy" is an organized field as is Cognitive Behavioral Thearpy or, even, EMDR. If it were, your suggestions would be good ones and possible. Given the amorphous and uncertain nature of the terms involved, it is not really possible for this vague subject. DPeterson 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, DPeterson doesn't like the idea, but if anyone else would like to take it up, I really think it would be valuable here. 69.170.233.237 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

'Pro:'I have asked for assistance from WikiProject Medicine on this topic and on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, where the nature of evidence-based treatment is an issue. I would like to hold off on any decisions or editing until someone from that group becomes involved.Jean Mercer 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1.

'Con:'

'1' See my points above on why it may not be possible to answer those questions. The subject areas is ill defined, with no clear meaning to the terms and therefore no agreement. May be difficult or impossible to create material with a 'NPOV' DPeterson 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

'2' I have agree with the reasoning of DPeterson on this. The term is very vague and has no common body of knowledge or clear defination as a treatment modality in the same way that family therapy does or play therapy, for example.

'No Opinion:'

1. DPeterson 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some references to work that specifies a set of treaments by using the terms "attachment therapy" in quotation marks or Attachment Therapy with caps. I tried to remove the quotation marks that did not refer to this type of treatment. Much more editing is needed-- the references to Lieberman and so on are really irrelevant -- but the advice of the WikiProject Medicine people should be useful. I would appreciate it if people would not delete the references to my work, which followed other authors in the use of the terms. I have not deleted the previously added references, but someone should.Perhaps in writing this there should be some thought given to the potential reader who would be very confused as things stand.Jean Mercer 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-serving references cannot be included are are not a NPOV. Citing your own book, which is a merely a bit of broadside and polemic for the fringe group, Advocates for Children in Therapy, of which you are a leader is not NPOV and represents a conflict of interest as well as a financial conflict since you and your group get support form those publications. You have already been warned once about this.

The references to Lieberman are quite relevant to make a clear distinction between an ill-defined vague "approach" and other approaches that are clearly defined and unrelated. Your material could lead a naive reader to think that Lieberman and other's are using coercive and unacceptable methods since "attachment therapy" and therapy using attachment principles or based in attachment theory are so similiar. RalphLender 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Again, it is a conflict to be promoting a book in which you and your colleagues have a financial interest, as well as your gorup, Advocates for Children in Therapy. SamDavidson 16:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what it is to be rich! Rich on the royalties from an obscure book put out by a poor but respectable publishing house! You all must wish you were rolling in wealth the way we are, but you don't get that kind of money from The Old Oaken Bucket Publishing Company.... You know, in early childhood circles, your line of argument is known as "I'm rubber, you're glue...". I can only gather that you folks are determined to use any foolishness to make sure that the public has as little access as possible to the facts about physically intrusive treatments. Are you prepared to do the same thing with respect to denying "age regression" techniques? If so, perhaps a little alteration of some web sites would be in order. Jean Mercer 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to the 'salient' issue. Wikipedia 'disallows your promoting your book' since you have a financial interest in it and are directly connected with ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy)(as a leader of that advocacy group) and there is also a financial interest there. The fact that so few people have considered the text worthy of purchase that you are not getting "rick on the royalties from an obscure book," is beside the point. DPeterson 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I already responded elsewhere, as well as earlier on this page. Citing is not promoting-- if it were, I would never have cited Monica Krenner or Terry Levy, or Becker-Weidman for that matter. And I have disclosed my entire puny commercial interest. Your turn!

Why do I keep up this annoying interaction? You must wonder. Well, it's that periodically I receive e-mails from people who are concerned about specific children who have been in Attachment Therapy (I believe you're familiar with the term)and who need guidance about what to do next. I also get messages from therapists who are trying to help families who have been caught up in AT-- I'm talking to one who's working with children in Massachusetts who had received periodic "intensive" visits from a fellow who lives in Evergreen, until the parents caught on that this was not a good idea. There's another noncustodial mother whose child lives in upstate New York with a stepmother who's into AT, which the mother didn't know enough about to prevent at the beginning. My goal is to try to prevent other people from having to make uninformed decisions. If they have the information and still want to have someone help abuse their children, there's not much I can do about it.

Not being a licensed mental health professional or an expert in this topic I wonder about your ability to adequately advise such individuals and why they would contact you in the first place. If you are practicing outside the scope of your licensure that might be a problem and you should be very cautious. Citing anon stories is interesting, but the veracity of what your stories is in question without sources and, frankly, is not relevant to this discussion. DPeterson 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be interesting when I write an article about what's been said here. This I can do with impunity, because of course I have no idea who you are, so I can't name you-- and my name is already known, so there's no problem about naming myself.Jean Mercer0:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do note that many of your "publications" are '"self-promotional"' letters and notes in "publications" in which you are in a deciion making role and largely are a function of your role as a leader of ACT. DPeterson 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are off point. You self-promotion is against Wiki policy. You should respond to the salient issue

You are promoting your book which you have a financial interest in and with your fring advocacy group, ACT, has a financial interest in. This is just not acceptable. Please respond to the point and side issues or red-herrings. Responding to the salient issue would do much to achieving some resolution of this problem. DPeterson 01

11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Time For Civility/Self-Promotion is against Wiki policy

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)

I agree. WP:CIVIL is not optional. JPotter 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All such self-promotional references should be removed. SamDavidson 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DPeterson 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

can you just add on to this?

Well, as an adoptive parent conned by attachment therapy, I like the article. Something needs to be done to stop the spead of these attachment therapist claiming 100% success. I had the horrifing experience of dragging my family though a group pretty much using the re-birthing process. Do any of these groups ever have success? All I see ever helping these kids tends to be the meds. they get put on.

Something in the blurb really should address the fact that there are many cons out there taking advantage of very desperate parents trying to help their adoptive kids.

PLEASE DON"T DELETE THE Attachment therapy article... I wished I'd had it to read before what all we went through. Our city even pays for adoptive families to go their. All therapy consists of is parents being held down on air mats to do that deep breathing stuff. It was very hurtful to our family. This was since 2002. These programs are all over the country. It really is a big scam. Lots of kids are getting hurt.

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)

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)

Reason for changes to edits

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. DPeterson^talk 13:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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.[1] FCYTravis 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'PLEASE VOICE YOUR VOTE BELOW ON WHETHER TO KEEP OR DELETE THE FOLLOWING:"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." (See point 3 above). Be sure to sign your name.

'For Keeping Language in point 3'

1. It is the language of ACT and what is stated on their website. DPeterson^talk 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. I added a quote and link to provide verification for this statement. The current version is excellent. In addition, I strongly object to the continued deletion of the Also see section without comment or reason. It is a valid section and must remain. JonesRD_talk 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. the language is NPOV, fair and accurate. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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 ( http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/overview.html) 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. DPeterson^talk 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. 'Agree'RalphLender^talk 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. 'agree'the quote is well documented and has appropriate citations. SamDavidson 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'Against Keeping Language in point 3'

'Neutral about either one'

Notorious Cases

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to add information about some cases like the Cassandra Killpack death [2] 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)

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. DPeterson^talk 13:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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[3]. 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)

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. DPeterson^talk 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a "low priority article"!

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 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)

songflower,

i have seen just a little of this 'attachment therapy' and was completely shocked. how this can be happening in this day is beyond me. and the money these people make doing this. i think that is the problem

""it teaches children that the world is all about the necessity for absolute conformity to irrational authority""

how well put! exactly!

email me. i am trying to change some things about this

raspor 13:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Raspor, I would email you but do not know how to access your email address...pls. advise? ThanksSongflower 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raspor

just go there and click the email use button. or go to your control box and allow me to mail you.

i am very involved in this and i want to stop it. i have seen enough of this and i have seen very little

your phrase about 'irrational authortiy' was right on

raspor 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hurry Songflower email me

i am working with a reporter in a major newspaper on this

we could really use your input

thanks

Prevalence

It seems to me that there should be a section on the prevalence of this treatment. From what I can tell, it is unusual at this point in time. Now that the Ameerican Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, APSAC, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Chilren, American Academy of Child Psychiatry, etc. all have practice protocals prohibiting "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article, none of the members of those groups and professions can use such techniques and remain members. Obviously, unlicensed persons can do what they want and there are cases of malpractice in all professions, but beyond that, it does seem that the prevalence of "Attachment Therapy" as defined in this article is probably very very low. Unless there is some strong objections, I will add such a section. RalphLender^talk 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable verifiable source for this statement? DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they were licensed individuals or members of any professional organization...but if you can point me to a reliable source that states that they were licensed mental health professionals in the state of Ohio, we'd all like to see that. DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, that is very helpful. It appears that Thompson is not a licensed therapist and that Parshall is not facing any charges. DPeterson^talk 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

https://license.ohio.gov/Lookup/SearchDetail.asp?ContactIdnt=3600351&DivisionIdnt=97&Type=L i think is see what happened raspor 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, neither one is facing disciplinary action per your links. JohnsonRon 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The links you provide only show no disciplinary actions being taken...perhaps you could provide a link to a news paper article indicating that both, or either one, have been indicted...Of course, being indicted is not the same as a guilty verdict. In the U.S. everyone is innocent unless and until 'proven' guilty. DPeterson^talk 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good citation...it does appear that both are licensed therapists...but neither one has any action pending against them with the licensing board, based on your link. However, it is important to remember that all professions experience a tiny amount malpractice, which seems to be the case hereRalphLender^talk 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The section looks good that you added, Ralph. Furthermore, your points are excellent...there are probably very very few people practicing "AT" as defined in this article.

"Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers. 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. 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."[4]

Few, if any licensed individuals or members of the professional organizaitons listed use these practices...to do so would result in their loosing their license and loosing memberhip in their professional organization.

DPeterson^talk 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I think I will add a note about malpractice to the section. RalphLender^talk 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say there are about 700 attachment therapists in the US. do you consider that a high number. and in Ohio about 70% of the funds set aside for post adoptive services go to attachment therapists. its big biz and big bucks here raspor 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You will need to provide reliable sources that adhere to the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable for each of those statements. And, don't forget that in defiing "Attachment Therapy" you should use the def. used in this article. So, can you provide reliable and

"WP:V" redirects here. For discussing particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The four types are:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Responsibility for providing citations

"WP:PROVEIT" redirects here. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:ProveIt.

"WP:CHALLENGE" redirects here. For challenging closes, see Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closing.

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.

Reliable sources

"WP:SOURCE" redirects here. For how to reference sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. For the wikitext tag previously labeled <source>, see Help:Wikitext § syntaxhighlight.

What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
• Reputable newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria (see details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test).

Best sources

The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Sources that are usually not reliable

"WP:NOTRELIABLE" redirects here. For Wikipedia's own reliability, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.

Self-published sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources, Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.

"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it

"WP:CIRCULAR" redirects here. For links on a page that redirect back to the same page, see WP:SELFRED.

See also: WP:COPYWITHIN, Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents, Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.

Zugänglichkeit

Access to sources

See also: Wikipedia:Offline sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Non-English sources

See also: Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions

Citing

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)

Quoting

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.

The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

"WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

Main page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles

If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles here. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles

Copyright and plagiarism

Further information: Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Wikipedia:MOS § Attribution, and Wikipedia:CITE § In-text attribution

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright.

Neutrality

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say.

Notability

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability

If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). However, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST).

Original research

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research

The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

See also

Guidelines

• Reliable sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Citing sources

Information pages

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Core content policies
• How to mine a source
• Independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Identifying and using self-published works
• Video links
• When to cite

Ressourcen

• Backlog – links to articles that need citations added
• Template index/Sources of articles – maintenance templates for articles with sourcing problems
• The Wikipedia Library – free access to newspapers, journals, and magazines for experienced editors
• WikiProject Resource Exchange – where you can ask for help with checking an individual source

Essays

• Citation overkill
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Verifiability, not truth
• Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source

Further reading

• Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.

citations for the following:

1. 700 attachment therapists in the US.
2. in Ohio 70% off the funds set aside for post adoptive services go to attachment therapists.

RalphLender^talk 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont think i have time for that. but what i wanted to find out if you think 700 is a lot. i have talked to several ohio counties about this. they push attachment therapy aggressively and like i said most of the post adoption funds go to these therapists. its a very big biz here raspor 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Without there being reliable and verifiable citations provided, the statements and questions do not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article and its development. Original research is not valid for inclusion RalphLender^talk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article." is there a verifiable citation for this? raspor 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the basis for that statement would be that a member of any of the cited professional organizations which have practice parameters or papers opposed to the use of such coercive methods cannot be a member of that organization, that several states have outlawed the use of "rebirthing," and that the practices would be malpractice. JohnsonRon 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

so you are logically determining the fact? i thought we had to quotes sources. am i wrong about that. few states have outlawed it. it is very common here in ohio. raspor 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

cites needed

"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). 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,[does not prohibit AT ] National Association of Social Workers 3, [ this reference is to the utah social workder board. the national does not prohibit ]American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC0 4, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry, and the American Psychiatric Association. 5.[ this one is correct 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. [ AT is rarely prohibited. most state boards actually approve continuing ed courses in it ] 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

[ millions of tax dollars are spent on AT ] 68.109.232.53 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the American Psychology Association and the Natl Social Workers Org do not take a stance on AT. And AT is approved and encouraged by most States. Yes 'rebirthing' has been outlawed in Utah but everything else is still OK.

69.211.150.60 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

both those groups have position papers on the subject RalphLender^talk 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Cites have been added that these various national professional organizations have positions against coercive interventions. RalphLender^talk 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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."

DPeterson^talk 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this debate with some interest. Can I just say that I don't see why proponents of respectable therapies to deal with attachment disorders need to be quite so defensive about 'Attachment Therapy'. The issues seem quite simple. If 'Attachment Therapy' as described in this article exists then it clearly warrants a straightforward informative article. At the moment the article reads as if it's drafted by people afraid that mud might stick to any therapy designed to address attachment disorders. Clearly it is important to point out that governmental and professional organisations outlaw such techniques, but if in fact some local government bodies or regulated bodies are sanctioning such techniques that's equally important.Fainites 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence I can find that any governmental body or rregulated bodies are sanctioning the techniques described in this article. DPeterson^talk 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

No, there is no evidence that meets Wikipedia standards of being verifiable oder attributable to a reliable source that I can see. DPeterson^talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that ACT is a pressure group and therefore likely to be a little excitable, but is all the information at [5] 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)

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)

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.DPeterson^talk 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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!DPeterson^talk 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. RalphLender^talk 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been giving this matter some thought, and with all due respect to the current editors I think this article needs refocussing. It is apparent that 'Attachment Therapy' whether it is spelt with one capital, two or none, in the sense of coercive restraint therapies as described in the article is a significant problem. If it wasn't, why would all the main professional bodies and a number of states outlaw it, however it is described? Why would Chaffin be commissioned to write his report? I would propose de-emphasising ACT and attempting to focus the article on it's subject in broader terms. I would agree with the current editors that ACT are not justified in including in their 'lists of shame' various therapies, including EMDR, Feldenkrais, Theraplay and DDP. Also some items on their list, such as 'attachment disorder therapy' are far to vague and general. This does need to be made clear, but should not be the focus of this article. Fainites 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding material could be quite useful. I don't think the article is emphasising ACT; ACT had a lot of material about this subject. I think the article makes clear that EMDR, etc are not Attachment Therapy as defined in this article and does so quite well. I would certainly support adding material to this article to expand it further. I hope you will put your suggestions in the section below so that we can build on it. RalphLender^talk 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of rearranging the existing article first, then adding more material. Fainites 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. RalphLender^talk 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)``

Hooray! Fainites 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Additions to Article to clarify difference between Attachment Therapy and other Methodologies

'Pls add your suggestions below'

Proposed amendments to article

(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)

"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.’

Definitions of Attachment Therapy

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, PMID 16382093) 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.”

Speltz (2002) in a paper for the APSAC describes ‘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.

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.

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." [[6]

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." [7]

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."[8]

The group also uses the terms "rebirthing" and "holding therapy" as terms for "Attachment Therapy."

history and underlying principles

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.’

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.

Treatment characteristics

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.

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, 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).

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 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." [9]

Prevalence

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.)’.

Chaffin describes 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.’ 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.

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." The ACT site also contains a list of alleged "Attachment Therapies' by another name, some of whose proponents vehemently deny being derived from or in any way related to 'Attachment Therapy' as described by ACT or this article. The list also contains descriptions too broad to be a ‘name’ of any particular therapy such as ‘attachment disorder therapy’. Fainites 12:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on suggested changes

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. DPeterson^talk 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)