Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article

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

Refs fixed Fainites 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the Cline ref is doing the same thing.Fainites 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite the "problems" with references, nicely done. I can agree with what is up there so far. SamDavidson 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you say about para 3 in the treament section which is a repeat of the definition section? (aprt from the line about capital letters) Fainites 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Section

Prevalence

('SUGGESTION': Begin with the original statment: "There are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of these therapies or of how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" or "rebirthing as it is also known. However, they are sufficiently prevalent...continue as you did.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 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 (remove particular therapiesSamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) replace with "rebirthing" That is what is banned in law. SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC).)(its a quote! You can't replcae words you don't like in a quote.Fainites 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) 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 (LEAVE OUT NAMES...WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE THIS IS TOO CLOSE TO SLANDERSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (Hage, n.d.-a; Keck, n.d.)’. p83 (nonsense. Its a direct quote from Chaffin, a publically available document. These papers are specifically cited by Chaffin et al.Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, they use a direct quote and don't put it in your own words...lets see how that looks.SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(It is a direct quote, inside quotation marks.Fainites 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

A particular

What is your basis for saying this is a "particular concern?" It is just a section of the report. What word did they use to express this, did they use the word concern? SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (P&G say 'this version is not discernably related to attachment theory, is based on no sound empirical evidence and has given rise to interventions whose effectiveness is not proven and which may be harmful'. Chaffin says '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.' amongst other things. I would have thought 'concern' was a mild paraphrase.Fainites 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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 p186). 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.'p83 (need page numberSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) 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’.p78 (need page numberSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) 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.p85 (need page number or quoteSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

The report of Chaffin et al, which contains proposed guidelines for therapies, was endorsed by was endorsed by the American Psychological Association’s Division 37 and the Division 37 Section on Child Maltreatment. (leave out...already cited...or cite all the guidelinesSamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (Leave out...cited in last paragraph...SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) (the previous mention was in relation to a position statement. Here it is being said that The APA specifically endorsed Chaffin. Its on the front page of Chaffin.Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) The report and its adoption should be in the paragraph with the list of other organizations and standards...not here. SamDavidson 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Prior and Glaser (2006) state ‘The practice of holding therapy is not confined to the USA.’(page number needed here. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) And give an example of a center in the UK practising ‘therapeutic holding’ of the 'across the lap' variety.p263.

The advocacy group ACT claim "Attachment Therapy is a growing, underground movement for the 'treatment' of children who pose disciplinary problems to their parents or caregivers."

There are no reliable statistics on how many professionals actually practice "Attachment Therapy" as described in this article. However the practices it often involves are now prohibited by a large number of professional organizations such as the following: American Psychological Association30, National Association of Social Workers31, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 32, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 33), and the American Psychiatric Association. 34. Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. (ADD:Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article.)SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (whats your source for saying there are very few? Why would ASPAC have commissioned that huge and no doubt expensive taskforce if there were very few?Fainites 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice.

Needs more work and editing...a bunch more. SamDavidson 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

What is the source for saying there are very few, or, its very rare? Is there a better source than the Taskforce on prevalence? Fainites 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of citations

The recent edit by Davidson to add a reference and clean up a line or two are fine with me. I think this is an improvement and I support it. DPeterson^talk 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice...I agree. JonesRD_talk 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The passage from Chaffin is in fact 99% quotation, with a small paraphrase, as was made clear above. I have now made it a full quotation. The citations Chaffin et al give are part of the quotation. It is from the passage on non-controversial and accepted treatments. I assume you do in fact have Chaffin if you're trying to edit this site? Including Becker-Weidman in this passage as if Chaffin had quoted him in this passage is utterly misleading. This would be misleading if Becker-Weidman was merely unknown as he is not cited in this context by Chaffin. In view of the fact that he is specifically quoted on three occasions in the report to illustrate their criticism of aspects of attachment therapy its so misleading its beyond funny and into the surreal. I can give you the full quotes if you wish.Fainites 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the material was well written and so I have restored it. However, if you strongly disagree, we should seek consensus among other editors. The paragraph as written is not a paraphrase of Chaffin and so stands as well sourced and adequately referenced. DPeterson^talk 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the paragraph is not a paraphrase of Chaffin; its a direct quote. The only difference was that the word 'traditional' was removed at the very beginning. To insert another reference that Chaffin does not cite into a passage from Chaffin wherein he cites three other notable attachment experts is misleading to the highest degree. What on earth is your motivation? Consensus is hardly the point. It would be misleading to add other references into a decent paraphrase. Its rank intellectual dishonesty to add it into a direct quote.Fainites 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As written, the paragraph is not a quote or paraphrase of Chaffin or any other particular author. It should stay as is. It appears three editors favor the improvements/editsDPeterson^talk 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the consensus version which consisted of a long direct quote from Chaffin (except for the word traditional) and included Chaffins citations. As you do not seem to have Chaffin, here is a direct copy taken from the report below;

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability,parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’sphysical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safeand predictable environment support the developmentof healthy ttachment. From this perspective,improving these positive caretaker and environmentalqualities is the key to improving attachment. Fromthe traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapyfor children who are maltreated and described as havingattachment problems emphasizes providing astable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive,nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard,2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004)." p 77.

Otherwise, what was the point of discussing and reaching consensus on the talkpage? As for citing Becker-Weidman as if Chaffin cited him in support, I am a little puzzled. The only mentions of Becker-Weidmans work I could find in Chaffin was these:

"Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachmentdisorders and that more traditional treatments areeither ineffective or harmful (see, e.g., Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b; Kirkland, n.d.; Thomas, n.d.-a)." p78

"Similarly, many controversial treatments hold that children described as attachment disordered must be pushed to revisit and relive early trauma. Children may be encouraged to regress to an earlier age where trauma was experienced (Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b)" p79

"Some proponents have claimed that research exists that supports their methods, or that their methods are evidence based, or are even the sole evidence-based approach in existence, yet these proponents provide no citations to credible scientificresearch sufficient to support these claims (Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b). This Task Force was unable to locate any methodologically adequate clinical trials in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature to support any of these claims for effectiveness, let alone claims that these treatments are the only effective available approaches. Most of the data offered on these Web sites is so methodologically compromised that the Task Force believes it could not support any clear conclusion." p85

Did you want to include any of this? I am happy to provide any more excerpts of Chaffin if you wish. My preference however would be to stick to the subject in hand and prioritise Chaffin, Glaser etc. Fainites 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Three of four editors prefer the version up there now. As far as the other quotes go, that is old and Chaffin recognized that in a response to a letter to the editor. There are not three or four empirical studies that were not in Chaffin's hands when the article was written in 2000-2002. I suggest leaving this alone and seeing what others think. No one owns any articles and we have to go with consensus. DPeterson^talk 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin is not old. I also have their reply to Becker-Weidmans objections which is even more recent. The Chaffin version was agreed by consensus on this talkpage. Or are we not bothering with consensus on the talkpage any more? Presumably if you don't consider yourself in anyway bound by consensus on the talkpage, neither is anybody else and you won't object to me editing the article how I wish? It is misleading to include Becker-Weidman within either a paraphrase or quote from Chaffin as if Chaffin had included it and it is nonsense to cite Becker-Weidman as if he were a mainstream proponent of traditional attachment theory and therapies when he is specifically criticised by Chaffin for being the reverse. I do not see the necessity for him to come into this article at all. Fainites 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The APSAC report was written in 2002 or so and did not include any material from 2005, maybe not even 2004, or later. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you have yet again interfered with my edits, presumably to make them less easily readable by others. For I think what must be about the seventh if not the eighth time, please leave my edits alone.Fainites 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to keep your comments on the talk page consistent. When you don't indent, it is very hard to follow threads of conversations...This is the Wikipedia convention...Following this convention makes following threads easier to follow. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin is older, it was written in 2000 or 02 or so. It did not include materials from 2005, 2006, or 2007, which are the publication dates for the Becker-Weidman empirical studies. Chaffin is not being quoted here. The version above is not a quote, therefore you are just wrong on that point. It seems that at least three of four editors are happy with this versioni. Remeber, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

a)Becker-Weidmans studies are simply later follow ups of the same group of children, or do you not have these sources either? His claim to be evidence based was specifically criticised by Chaffin et al following open correspondance with him after the releas of the report. To include him in a list of proponents of traditional attachment therapy as if Chaffin had so included him is flagrant intellectual dishonesty. It also doesn't do Becker-Weidman any favours. Does he know you're doing this kind of thing? I wouldn't thank you if I were him. You're making him look like a charlatan!

b) Chaffin cites papers published in 2005 and websites from August '05, and there is also the follow up paper from later in '06 after the publication of the original report in February '06. You're unsourced assertion that it was written in 2000, or even 2002 is therefore entirely wrong.

c)Also your constant petty wrist slapping admonishments about 'owning' the article are misplaced. WP:OWN is about articles, not talkpages. I have sought entirely to achieve consensus on the talkpage and only made any edits to the article in order to include the consensus version. It is you who have then almost immediately made a travesty of the agreed article, yet you admonish me! Also, I do in fact own my edits on the talkpage, with which you frequently interfere. Funny! Fainites 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Becker-Weidman studies are empirical studies, one a one year followup, the other four years later. Chaffin does not dispute evidence-basis of studies because the studies were published 'AFTER' his article! Furthermore, Craven & Lee, 2006 (using 2004 data, not the 2005 & 2006 much stronger studies, found the material "evidence-based." DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taskforce did it's work in 2002, etc and was published in 2005. It did not reference the current studies. And, regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talkin about the article not the talk page, read my comments above to verify that. The edits are about the article. You seem very unhappy with the relatively small changes made that all editors, except you, prefer. It is that to which I am referring the comments regarding ownership. Not me, but at least three editors. I suggest that you do not own this article and that changes made by a consensus of editors be abided by. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus.DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting the article stay as it is for now and seeing if any other editors chime in. So far three prefer the current version and you do not. Lets let it sit and see what develops. I do understand you feel very strongly, but engaging in an edit war is not productive. We'd made excellent progress on 95% of the article by building collaboration and consensus. DPeterson^talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Count me as the "fourth" who supports the edits. I think these, while slightly minor, are improvements. The section is clearer and the cites added are relevant to support the statement regarding attuned and sensitive parenting being important. Let's keep these improvements. MarkWood 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's let cool heads prevail. I'd suggest the version up there stay and that DPeterson and Fainites take a break, take a breath, and see what other's have to say. RalphLender^talk 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear your reasons for altering a cited quotation from a verified and credible source and then including the studies that are part of the series that were specifically criticised by that report, as if they supported the report or were cited in support by the report. Can you explain how this fits with policies on the use of sources? (Or indeed common sense). It would be even more interesting to hear why 4 other editors so swiftly support what is plainly a misleading edit in violation of all policies. To what end? Fainites 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'Please' Let's keep a cool head here and avoid any hint of Personal Attacks. I'd suggest taking a day or two to cool off and let other's comment. It is difficult when you've put so much work into an article to see other's editing it in ways you may not approve but in ways that a consensus supports. As I read the report and the comments, the report did not criticize the articles since the articles were published after the report was prepared and subsequently published. RalphLender^talk 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Good advice. I'll abide by it. DPeterson^talk 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I came across AT from my research into hypnotherapy. From the diffs I think there is no problem with the current version (DPeterson et al's version). The line is in quotes and the words are in order and it holds the correct meaning. Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to leave it a while it should be left with the consensus version. By the way, here are the Becker-Weidman citations from the first report "Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-a). Attachment therapy: What it is and what it isn’t. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from www.attachmentdisorder .net/Dr._Art_Treatment.htm Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-b). Dyadic developmental psychotherapy: An attachment-based therapy program. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from www.center4familydevelop.com/therapy.htm"

Here is what Chaffin et al said in November 2006 in reply to Becker-Weidmans letter about, amongst other things, his new study;

"Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encouraging to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is an important first step toward learning the facts about DDP outcomes. We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts. The published study was not available until after the Task Force report was in press, so its findings were not discussed in the report. The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)."

here are the refs they cite; Becker-Weidman, A. (2005). Reader’s response to “Coercive restraint therapies: A dangerous alternative mental health intervention.” Medscape General Medicine, 7(3). Available at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516359 Becker-Weidman, A. (2006a). Attachment disorder checklist. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from www.center4familydevelop.com/checklist.htm Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b). Letter to the editor. Child Maltreatment, 11(4), 379-380.

This was published in the November 2006 issue of Child Maltreat. If you wish to include in the article a discussion about criticism of Chaffin et al and why Becker-Weidman thinks they are wrong, then fine. What you can't do is pretend by misleading edits that Chaffin et al cited Becker-Weidman in their report as if he was one of the mainstream authorities on which they relied. This is misleading, and, as I have pointed out before, doesn't do Becker-Weidman any favours. Verified and credible sources have to actually be source for what they are attached to. Becker-Weidman is not a source for Chaffins description of traditional treatments for attachment disorders. Altering Chaffins quote by a few words to pretend it's not a quote doesn't make it OK! Fainites 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpose your comments in the body of mine as it makes it difficult for others to follow. I have put my edits back together as they were originally posted. Fainites 11:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have not commented on the evidence above that Chaffin et al clearly considered Becker-Weidmans 2006 study in their follow up published in November 2006 and still considered it to be not evidence based. Do you now agree it is misleading to insert Becker-Weidman into material that derives from Chaffin, as if they were all singing from the same hymn sheet? Fainites 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that these other's comments responded to your questions and concerns...but you moved them out of context, so it is hard to follow...So here they are again (RalphLender^talk 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)):

No, the Becker-Weidman studies are empirical studies, one a one year followup, the other four years later. Chaffin does not dispute evidence-basis of studies because the studies were published 'AFTER' his article! Furthermore, Craven & Lee, 2006 (using 2004 data, not the 2005 & 2006 much stronger studies, found the material "evidence-based." DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taskforce did it's work in 2002, etc and was published in 2005. It did not reference the current studies. And, regardless, this is irrelevant to the discussion. The citations are verifiable per wiki DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am talkin about the article not the talk page, read my comments above to verify that. The edits are about the article. You seem very unhappy with the relatively small changes made that all editors, except you, prefer. It is that to which I am referring the comments regarding ownership. Not me, but at least three editors. I suggest that you do not own this article and that changes made by a consensus of editors be abided by. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, no one owns any article. Consensus can evolve over time. I suggest leaving this as is and seeing if other editors have thoughts one way or the other. I understand that you've put a lot of time and effort in the edits, but you have to let of the material and allow others to edit the meterial if consensus calls for that or if your thoughts are not part of the consensus.DPeterson^talk 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest letting the article stay as it is for now and seeing if any other editors chime in. So far three prefer the current version and you do not. Lets let it sit and see what develops. I do understand you feel very strongly, but engaging in an edit war is not productive. We'd made excellent progress on 95% of the article by building collaboration and consensus. DPeterson^talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the Taskforce report did not include any of the Becker-Weidman empirical studies since the report was prepared in the early 2000's, was submitted in 2004 or 2005 and so did not include the several empirical studies by Dr. BW in peer-reviewed professional journals. In addition, the Craven & Lee meta-analysis/review cites the 2004 Dr. Becker-Weidman material as evidence-based. The later studies are much much stronger. RalphLender^talk 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence above, that Chaffin cites studies and websites from 2005, and cite Becker-Weidman 2004 show that your claims are untrue. Further, their reply of November 2006 shows that they had clearly and specifically considered his 2006 study. You do not deal with this. Why? Do you not have it? I am quite happy to e-mail it to you. Its really very clear.Fainites 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quick questions

• What methods or adjuncts are used with AT?
• Why exactly do certain bodies refuse to use AT or criticise AT?

And of course, where can I find the relevant literature if any? Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main source is a report by the Taskforce set up by the ASPAC (American Society for the Prevention of Abuse against Children). There is a link provided in the notes and refs section (unless it has been removed. Originally this article provided a link in German!). It was compiled by a very substantial number of the experts in the field of attachment and various aspects of child development. It criticises the theory and practice of 'attachment therapy'. It has been specifically endorsed by some professional bodies and it set out a comprehensive set of guidelines. It was published end 05/early 06. Thereafter there was some published open correspondence with those who felt unjustly criticised, to which there was a reply later in 2006. Most of this reply relates to Becker-Weidman, who is specifically criticised by the report on three counts, claiming an evidence base when there is none, overblown advertising on the internet, and use of 'age-regression techniques'. He is not criticised for using coercive or restraining methods but he is quoted as an example of the very 'attachment therapy' the report is dealing with. The argument here is about the fact that a consensus version of the article contained a quote from Chaffin et al about the characteristics of traditional and established therapies for attachment difficulties, by way of contrast to 'attachment therapy', and included citations to two papers. The supporters of Becker-Weidman who edit this page firstly inserted a paper by Becker-Weidman into the quote to make it look as if Becker-Weidman was an authority cited by Chaffin et al in support of their conclusions, rather than someone criticised by them as an 'attachment therapy'. They subsequently altered the quotation from Chaffin et al so it was no longer exactly a quote, and included Becker-Weidman again, to make it look as if he is a mainstream contributor in line with those quoted by Chaffin it al. Fainites 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way its not clear which version you were looking at. The DP version does not have the line in quotes in its more recent manifestation. It is my version which has the first paragraph of 'treatment characteristics' in quotes as it is a quote from Chaffin (who did not include Becker-Weidman here).There is also a recent book by Prior and Glaser, also in the refs, which covers the whole topic of attachment disorders pretty comrehensively.Fainites 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Many professonal organizations oppose rebirthing and coercive forms of Attachment Therapy. Fainities implication that these forms of "treatment" include Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, is just not true. The Chaffin report was written and published before the several empirical studies demonstrating the effectiveness of DDP for the treatment of children with Reactive Attachment Disorder were published in professional peer reviewed journals. A more current report by Craven & Lee (2006), using a brief summary report on Dr. Becker-Weidman's research, which at the time did not report on the data from the control group, did label the treatment as evidence-based. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, Fainities version is not the consensus version as five editors now prefer the version that SamDavidson put up to the one Fainities worked so hard on. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection is to the pretense that Becker-Weidman was cited by Chaffin as if he was a mainstream contributor of whom they approved when in fact the reverse was the case. I have not mentioned Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy above. I see no reason why 'names should be named' in this article at all. It was not me who inserted Becker-Weidman. However, if you are going to include Becker-Weidman in this article, it has to be on a factual basis. Your consistant attempts to include him in lists of 'evidence based treatements (earlier on the talkpage) or as if he was cited as mainstream by Chaffin are misleading and unaccaptable. He may well achieve 'evidence based' one day. There may come a time when Chaffin et al are forced to eat their words, but that is not the current position! Your misleading statements on this page about Chaffin et al having been written on 00/02 and about them not having had access to his recent study, in the light of their November 2006 publication, do not help. I am quite happy to send you my sources. I assumed you had them as you make such confident claims about them, but as so many of your confident claims are wrong, perhaps you don't. Why are you so keen to misrepresent Becker-Weidman? Does he know you're doing it? 'Consensus' doesn't mean its OK to pervert sources.Fainites 12:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. You may well be right. But I think the consensus group is acting in a calm and reasonable manner. I believe you might also bring yourself to that same level of calm. My first question hasn't been answered. From my reading, AT seems to be thought of (by specific sources) as possibly coercive mishmash of many influences and minor tweaks. Please put me right if I'm wrong. Its synonymous with rebirthing and other such cathartic methods and involves eye contact and holding and so on. Is there any information about this somewhere? Maypole 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Fainites has been calm and reasonable and very patient. FatherTree 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Fainites 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AT main purpose?

Hello again. I think this is an important question. There seems to be some evidence of the validity of rebirthing/AT or whatever synonym. Is its main purpose for treating mental behavioral disorders specifically? Maypole 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to treat behaviour problems in adoptees mostly. FatherTree 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing is not synonymous with attachment therapy, but sometimes is used by some attachment therapists. Rebirthing is also used for adults. There is Wiki page on it I think. Try also Singer in 'Crazy Therapies' who has a very entertaining chapter on rebirthing as used on adults. Attachment therapy is a form of therapy used for treating children with supposed attachment disorders, usually, as Father Tree says, adoptees or similar. It varies from one extreme including coercive and restraining techniques, obedience training and sometimes rebirthing, to the other end where it is non coercive, but still comes under the definition of attachment therapy because of the underlying theoretical principles and some practices. What is the evidence you mention for the validity of rebirthing? I'd be interested to see it. You say 'from my reading'. What are you reading? Fainites 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Is also called" means synonymous according to my dictionary. I'm reading the article. It looks like some people consider AT to be valid. I see from a brief search on the web that AT is synonymous with just about all the other names in the lead section. What I would like to know here though is whether AT is used to treat behavioral or mental problems. Any answers to my original question? Maypole 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the term attachment therapy in its broadest sense means any therapy used to treat attachment disorder. But in the general market place it refers to coercive therapies. It is a marketing name. FatherTree 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Father Tree is right, but this article is about the subset of non-mainstream therapies commonly referred to as 'attachment therapy'. It encompasses a variety of techniques. The most common is 'holding therapy'. It is absolutely not synonymous with rebirthing. Many attachment therapists do not use rebirthing and some do not use coercive or restraining techniques. Rebirthing became the famous one because of deaths of children. Sometimes in the media the terms are used interchangeably, but this is an encyclopedia. Chaffin et al explain very clearly what it encompasses and what is commonly meant by the term. It is used to treat alleged 'attachment disorders'. That is in itself a controversial term. One of the criticisms of AT is the use of lists of 'symptoms' on the internet so parents self diagnose problematical children as having an attachment disorder and then seek attachment therapy when neither the diagnosis, list nor therapy is in any way validated. Have you found the source for Chaffin et al yet? In the notes and refs section there is a direct link to Pubmed so you can download it from Sage. I can post the Chaffin definition here for you if you like. Fainites 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We ought at some point, if the article ever gets to the point where it's allowed to say what AT is, to put in a paragraph of what its proponents say in it's defence. Chaffin cover this pretty comprehensively aswell. Fainites 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Many "Attachment Therapists" don't use rebirthing, or holding, etc. etc. This is a very ill defined term. But rebirthing and holding are terms also used for AT on the web and in various articles. DPeterson^talk 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of References and edited paragraph (Chaffin quote)

I'm getting a little lost. Could someone please clarify for me what the Chaffin quote dispute is all about? Where exactly is the passage in question? StokerAce 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above. it's the first paragraph under 'treatment characteristics'. Fainites 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chaffin quote is not in dispute. The paragraphs were edited by another editor and the consensus is that version is preferred. There is no dispute with a "Chaffin quote." The paragraphs describe the importance of attuned and sensitive parenting. DPeterson^talk 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Chaffin quote is not in dispute then presumably it can remain in the article, as a quote, with it's genuine citations, without extraneous and misleading citations being added.Fainites 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit is an improvement in that is is broader. RalphLender^talk 13:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The line reads:

Improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is a key to improving attachment. From this perspective, treatment for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, attuned, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005 Nichols,Lacher & May, 2004, Chaffin, 2006).

This is a statement with a number of verifiable citations. RalphLender^talk 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my take on the issue is that the current version is very confusing. It could be interpeted, by those unfamiliar with the issues here, to mean that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy (this was not the intent, of course). By citing to Dr. Becker-Weidman in a section on "treatment characteristics" on the "attachment therapy" page, it looks like this is what he does. While he used to describe his therapy with this term, he no longer does (as I understand it). Alternatively, the passage could also be interpreted to mean that his work has been endorsed by Chaffin, which it has not. Dr. Becker-Weidman has contributed to these discussions in the past, so it would be interesting to get his views here. StokerAce 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The original passage was Chaffins statement on the characteristics of therapies that were not 'attachment therapy'. This is the full passage.

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004)"

What has happened is that firstly Becker-Weidman was inserted into Chaffins list of authorities for the passage. When it was pointed out how grossly misleading this was, the quote was altered in various ways to change its meaning and effect and Becker-Weidman was again inserted as a reference. The problem with this is that it creates an entirley misleading impression. Chaffin et al do in fact criticise Becker-Weidman in the context of being a proponent of attachment therapy. They do not use the word 'attunement'. To amalgamate two opposing positions into one passage and run all the references togather is utterley misleading and confusing. Also, whats the point? This isn't rocket science! The Chaffin quote is perfectly straightforward. Prior and Glaser also describe non-attachment therapy therapies. Why try and mix it all up with Becker-Weidman who is specifically criticised by Chaffin? If you want to cite Becker-Weidmans opinions on what proper therapy is, fine, but why mix it up with othersources veiews in this misleading way? I also would like to get Becker-Weidmans views on this. It concerns me that he is being misrepresented in this way. If anybody thought he was party to this kind of thing it could damage his credibility.Fainites 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the section was edited and rewritten, it is not a quote and does not misrepresent...In fact is is much improved and, as the other section indicated, most editors prefer this clearer more fully sourced version. DPeterson^talk 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited Treatment Characteristics Section

It appears that a significant number of editors prefer the version by SamDavidson. Consensus supports this version. Fainities concerns are understandable. Anyone who has put a lot of work into a work feels some ownership of that material. Wikipedia works on consensus and that may change over time. As I read it the following editors prefer the version in place:

1. "The recent edit by Davidson to add a reference and clean up a line or two are fine with me. I think this is an improvement and I support it. DPetersontalk 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

2. "Very nice...I agree. JonesRDtalk 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC) "

3. "Support Count me as the "fourth" who supports the edits. I think these, while slightly minor, are improvements. The section is clearer and the cites added are relevant to support the statement regarding attuned and sensitive parenting being important. Let's keep these improvements. MarkWood 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

4. "Hi all. I came across AT from my research into hypnotherapy. From the diffs I think there is no problem with the current version (DPeterson et al's version). The line is in quotes and the words are in order and it holds the correct meaning. Maypole 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) "

5. I liked the old version and like this one even more. RalphLender^talk 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

6. I would agree that I prefer this version and would like it to stay. JohnsonRon 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC) RalphLender^talk 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership is not the problem. Distortion and perversion of sources is the problem. And as I keep asking; for what purpose? Fainites 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should really assume good faith here. I'm happy to see if there are any omissions or inaccuracies. Surely there are other editors around who can help you doublecheck also. One thing I find strange about the article is the lack of these multitude of odd techniques that are allegedly being used as AT. What is the actual list of methods or techniques? Maypole 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a real problem is that there is no clear defination of "Attachment Therapy." There is no actual listing, as there are for other reputable approahces, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Theraplay, Object Relations, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, etc. etc. RalphLender^talk 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thats the discrepancy I see. AT may use these well founded methods but from the article the criticism seems to me to be that it also uses all sorts of other unvalidated or quite wild treatments. If so then it really should be ok to have them more clearly in the article. If some practitioners use only kosher methods then thats wonderful for them. If a lot of AT practitioners use flaky methods then its a shame for the good ones. If critics lump everyone together then thats their view. I guess its just one of those things the good ATs have to put up with as a career characteristic anyway. Maypole 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I think the following should be added:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.</bockquote>DPeterson^talk 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

Regarding:

There is no generally accepted definition of "Attachment Therapy"[citation needed]. It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. There is not any specific text that describes this "treatment" approach. Chaffin et al (2006) describe the polarization between the proponents of ‘Attachment Therapy’ and mainstream therapies stating, "This polarization is compounded by the fact that attachment therapy has largely developed outside the mainstream scientific and professional community and flourishes within its own networks of attachment therapists, treatment centers, caseworkers, and parent support groups. Indeed, proponents and critics of the controversial attachment therapies appear to move in different worlds." p85 [2]

Doesn't the sentance following the citation tag answer that? What I mean is that the rest of the paragraph describes how generally accepted texts do not use the term and the article as a whole seems to make the point that there are varied definations of this term. What do others think? RalphLender^talk 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well no, it just means that book doesn't list it. You need an actual statement of a good source or two who says there's no general definition. Actually there may be one below in the main section of the article thats more likely. But it really could be either cut, sourced, or just placed with the main statement. Maypole 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement,

They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies[citation needed], particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article[citation needed].

, doesn't the first line provide a citation and page number that supports the statement, as might, [1]. What do others think? RalphLender^talk 15:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the encyclopedic way would be simply to state the term AT plus all the other terms it is known as in the literature. If there are any people who says its poorly or vaguely defined then add their view with the source. Its pretty simple I think. But who says "care should be taken when considering the many...."? To me it looks like an odd bit of unnecessary argument. The article would be more convincing without it no matter if you are pro, against, or anywhere in between. Maypole 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. Do you think you could make a suggestion for rewording each line, below? RalphLender^talk 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on it this weekend. Maypole 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely that the best definition will be the one in the Taskforce report as it was their remit to report on the whole subject. Their definition therefore should be prioritised. We must make sure we don't obscure what this article is about by pretending it's about nothing definable or 'smoke' as a previous editor put it. I've also added a fact tag to the statement that ACT label a large number of treatments as AT. I have their list and in fact they don't label any mainstream or evidence based treatments for children at all as AT.Fainites 16:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Fainites 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They label EMDR and that is a mainstream and evidence based treatment cited by many prominent therapist in the field of trauma treatment as useful. RalphLender^talk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not commonly agreed upon definition of this term, the Taskforce has one, ACT has another, other groups have others...It is a slippery term without consensus. That is what makes this article so complex to prepare. RalphLender^talk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's quite simple to put in Chaffins definition, Prior and Glasers definition and ACT's definition, and any other credible, verified and authoratitive source, without obfuscation, such as an untrue claim that about ACT, or long lists of irrelevant organisations put in because they don't define it. As for EMDR, that is not labelled as attachment therapy. ACT have two lists. One they say is attachment therapy by another name. It contains no mainstream, evidence based treatments, although one or two treatments in it might quibble about their inclusion on the list. The other list is of adjunct therapies, including EMDR, all of which are labelled quackery. It does not improve clarity at all to muddle the two lists up.Fainites 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well EMDR is another story. From my science based hypno-therapies background EMDR is considered highly dubious and theoretically pseudoscientific. Does it work? Well what is "it"? The treatment may "work" but its certainly not the EMDR that's doing the job. OK like I said its another story. Treating "attachment" doesn't seem to be regular at all in clinical psychology. And attachment theory is quite unrelated to what is going on in this article (which is why I mentioned the EMDR case - mechanism of action (theory) is crucial in science). In hypnotherapy there have been many pretenders with funny names. Its not like the collection of names that refer directly to AT though. The AT labels really do seem to be synonymous. Certainly by the looks of the web and the sources anyway. I'd just place them as synonymous. Thats how the majority view (science oriented bodies) seems to treat them. Maypole 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, EMDR is another story. It is accepted by most prominent researchers and clinicians and professionals in the trauma treatment field (Van der Kolk, The National Child Trauma Center, Briere, Lieberman, etc) as an important component of trauma treatment and as evidence based treatment. But, regardless of this debate, this underscores that the ACT list includes some mainstream treatments and other treatments that have a clear empirical basis of support. And, most to the point, this "treatment" of Attachment Therapy is not defined in the mainstream and usual sources for such definitions. RalphLender^talk 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not confuse the two lists though. The list of attachment therapies contains no mainstream therapies. It would probably be too big a task to try and deal here with the second list which I think they just copied from Quackwatch and mention in passing as adjunct therapies. As for AT not being defined by mainstream sources, thats the whole point isn't it? According to Chaffin it exists outside the mainstream, on a different plain eg "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"." You've already quoted the Chaffin version above.Fainites 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Both list contain mainstream treatments with emprical evidence to support their efficacy. RalphLender^talk 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same as being mainstream or evidence based. Anyway, my preferred version for an intro would be: "Attachment Therapy", or '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. In a report for the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, (ASPAC), Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects......popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 [2] 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’. [1] Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing. The more comprehensive definitions then appear in the definition section. Fainites 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the following, which is the current consensus version. The lists of ACT contain mainstream evidence-based treatments with empirical bases for their efficacy.

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. However, because the term has no common meaning, or generally accepted meaning, in the professional community, its actual definition is unclear. The term is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual. A number of advocacy groups, such as Advocates for Children in Therapy and Quackwatch have undertaken to label a large number of treatments for children with disorders of attachment as "Attachment Therapy" and attempt to discredit those therapies.[[2]]. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. According to Prior and Glaser (2006), ‘these therapies are not based on an accepted version of attachment theory and there is no objective evaluation of them’. Many professional bodies and some American States have outlawed rebirthing.

In a report for the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, (ASPAC), Chaffin et al state 'controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects.'

They attempt to define this subset of therapies (see below) and state that 'popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,” although these controversial therapies certainly do not represent the practices of all professionals using attachment concepts as a basis for their interventions.” . p77 Care should be taken to distinguish between the subset of 'therapies' covered by this article and more mainstream therapies, particularly as what is and what is not described as an 'Attachment Therapy' within the meaning of this article is controversial and advocacy groups such as ACT and Quackwatch include a broadly defined range of therapies in their description of Attachment Therapy, some of which are not coercive or intrusive as described in this article.

RalphLender^talk 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the consensus version, for now...consensus can change, further discussion is probably a good thing. RalphLender^talk 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. . Keep Current versionI prefer the version in the article as it stands now. JohnsonRon 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
2. . AGREE DPeterson^talk 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

#. I Agree for all the reasons previously stated. MarkWood 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Underlying Issue

As with many of these discussions, there seems to be something beneath the surface here, but it's not always easy to figure out what it is. My guess is that it's the following. DPeterson et al. are trying to make sure that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy does not get lumped in with Attachment Therapy/attachment therapy. That seems fine to me. I just think it would be better to do it more explicitly and with some detailed comparisons. The way it is being done now is very confusing. In fact, as I've said, I could see how people would read the existing version to mean that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy. Here's my suggestion. Create a separate section explaining that some definitions of attachment therapy have been quite broad, and have implied that various practices (including DDP) are examples of AT. The section could then explain how DDP is different and why it should not be considered part of AT. It doesn't have to be a long section at all, and could link to the DDP page. I think this would be clearer than the current version and (perhaps) less controversial. StokerAce 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really any underlying issue here. However, for the sake of consensus and moving your suggestion forward, the way to do that would be to add in the following paragraph that was deleted from the current version. 'However' if that is the path to be followed, we should really move slowly and carefully as the current version is largely consensus and a new consensus would have to be built...that is how the old version was edited and the folloing paragraph deleted:

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.

DPeterson^talk 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the paragraph you provided contains only assertions. What does the attachment therapy in the Chaffin report involve? What do DDP and the others involve? The differences really need to be spelled out. StokerAce 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph has links and citations to support the statements. I also urge you to Assume Good Faith. Your comments about underlying motives leads me to remind you of the following:

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Do you realize that the edit summaries in all caps are the section headings that they were replying under? Neither User:Sarner nor User:StokerAce created those sections. shotwell 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) FYI, they are both from the Denver area, when I've done and IRC check on those instances where they neglected to sign in. RalphLendertalk 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An "IRC check when they neglected to sign in"? Are you saying you've seen them on IRC? If so, I don't understand the "neglected to sign in" part. Are you trying to say that you've seen comments from both parties on wikipedia made while they weren't signed in and you did an IP check? Can I ask how you know that the IP's were related to either person? shotwell 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC) from [[3]], and that one could assume some "underlying" purpose in your edits given your history with this subject to eliminate any references to DDP and to portray it in the same light as ACT protrays many other treatments. So, let's just Assume Good Faith here. The above paragraphs would be fine, or leave the article as is, which is also fine. Remember that now I think it is 6 other editors prefer the Treatment Characteristics section you are disputing. DPeterson^talk 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Six other editors prefer the Treatment Characteristics section as written, see above: [4] DPeterson^talk 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my point. I'm not accusing you of bad faith. I'm saying that what you've written does not achieve what I think you're trying to achieve. And I'm suggesting a better way to do it. It doesn't read that way to you because you know something about the field. But for those who are unfamiliar, it will be confusing. Feel free to ignore me. It doesn't bother me if the current version could be read to imply that Dr. Becker-Weidman practices attachment therapy. If you don't care either, that's fine. One other thought. If you are concerned that ACT lists DDP on their page, why don't you just contact them and ask them to take it off? I'm sure they would. Unfortunately, I am not Larry Sarner. Otherwise, I'd just take if off myself. ;) StokerAce 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

you may be right about that, and I apologize if I missed the point..sorry. Well, if you are not satisfied with the para's above, what would you suggest as an alternative? I don't think it makes sense to single out Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay...it belongs in a listing of the various other therapies that don't meet the definition of AT as described in this article...as the first para above seems to state....The first paragraph lists the therapies and the references that support the statement that the treatments are consistent with attachment theory, attunement, etc. etc. DPeterson^talk 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's no need to single out DDP. I just mentioned it because I thought it was your concern. The main problem I see is that I don't think most people will get the difference between "attachment therapy" and "attachment theory." As a result, when you say that DDP etc. are consistent with "attachment theory" on a page about "attachment therapy," I think some people might confuse the two and associate DDP etc. with "attachment therapy" (especially given that Dr. Becker-Weidman used to call his treatment "attachment therapy.") What I would do is try to explain the features of "attachment therapy" (according to Chaffin, for example) and then describe the features of DDP etc. as a comparison. How does DDP work? What does the therapist do? You can't explain the whole thing obviously, but some examples would be helpful.

And I was serious about asking ACT to take DDP off their page. I'm not sure the differences between the two sides are as great as some seem to think. I would explain how DDP works and make clear that it does not involve the practices they are concerned about. If you do that, they will hopefully take it off and it would be the first step towards detente and an end to these edit wars (well, a temporary truce, at least). StokerAce 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but not my place. If Dr. Becker-Weidman felt the need to do that I suspect he would or will. The material on their site and the way they write does not suggest this advocacy group is a reasonable as you hope they may be. Nice wish, though. DPeterson^talk 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple statement that these treatments (list) are consistent with attachment theory and not consistent with the definition of AT in this article would suffice:

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. DPeterson^talk 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, for the record, I side with Fainites on this one. StokerAce 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So, the section can remain as is for now, unless others wish to add that para. I will start a new section to see about that. DPeterson^talk 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the original consensus version was the quotation from Chaffin which forms the first part of your paragraph above so there is nothing new about that. It has in fact been repeatedly removed from the article despite being a quotation from a verified and credible source. The current version in the article is utterly misleading as it implies that Chaffin et al and Becker-Weidman are ad idem on AT. The second part of your proposal is an old list from the article that was removed by consensus. Why is it being resurrected now? What is the point of it? Fainites 14:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also e-mailed ACT some time ago to query their inclusion of DDP and Theraplay in their list but got no reply. It seems to me that Becker-Weidman clearly considers the criticism of him (and by implication DDP) to be unjustified and he says as much in his open correspondance with the Taskforce. They didn't agree. The argument will rumble on for ever. We can't take sides. I think there is room in this article for a section on the border areas if you really want one, ie the B-W/Chaffin dispute and what other critics have said. What we can't do however is pretend that Chaffin and Becker-Weidman and Hughes are on all fours when they're plainly not. Personally I don't see the need to name any names in this way.Fainites 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change and as several editors have pointed out...no one owns any article or section...consensus rules. The current version is not misleading as it is not a Chaffin quote or paragraph. I'm not surprised you did not get a response from ACT. They are an advocacy group with a specific agenda and a somewhat radical point of view. The APSAC report is quite consistent with the Hughes, Jernberg, Hughes, etc. materials. The citations are verifiable and meet the wikipedia standards for inclusion. JohnsonRon 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not overide Wiki policies about verifiability, credibilty and authoritativeness of sources. We cannot describe therapy's as 'congruent' with theories or policies on their own say so or on our say so. That is OR. We can say such and such a therapy claims to be congruent, if we have a source where they say this.Fainites 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The material appears consistent with Wikipedia policies, such as its being verifiable. The citations support the statements that the therapies are congruent with the underlying theories; those are the sources. I won't repeat all the other excellent arguments infavor made by other editors, but I do concur with those points. MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Add the following paragraph to Article

It's been suggested that to clarify what is and is not acceptable practice, that the following paragraph be added to the article. Please voice your comments below:

Attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). (Chaffin et al). Treatment and prevention programs that use methods congruent with attachment theory and with well established principles of child development (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) include: Alicia Lieberman (Parent-child Psychotherapy) (Lieberman & Pawl in Infant Mental Health, 1993 )(Lieberman 2003), Stanley Greenspan (Floor Time), Daniel Hughes (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy) (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) (Hughes, 2003), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin (Circle of Security) (Marvin & Whelan 2003), Phyllis Jernberg (Theraplay), Daniel Schechter (Clinician Assisted Videofeedback Exposure Sessions) (Schechter, 2003), and Joy Osofsky (Safe Start Initiative) (in Infant Mental Health, 1993.

IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS TO THE ARTICLE

1. 'YES' As suggested by others, this clarifies what is not covered by AT as defined in this article. DPeterson^talk 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. 'Yes to the first part which is almost an exact quotation from Chaffin et al, with the exception of the first word and should therefore be acknowledged and made plain as such, so that it cannot have extraneeous material added to it to make it look as if Chaffin et al said something they didn't.
3. 'No' to the second part which has no place in section of this article which is about the treatment characteristics of 'attachment therapy'. There is a place for describing the characteristics of non-attachment therapy therapies by way of contrast with 'attachment therapy'. There is no necessity whatsoever for a list which is bound to be arguable, incomplete and controversial. Further the list is OR. It does not come from Chaffin, or Prior and Glaser nor any other authoritative source and therapies cannot be included on self report. In addition it contains a therapy that is specifically criticised by Chaffin et al as an attachment therapy and therefore according to them would certainly not be 'congruent'. Also, Prior and Glaser say that Hughes' therapy is nothing to do with attachment. What is the point of creating a list that is in the first place unecessary, in the second place OR, and in the third place contains information that the sources we do have would disagree with? This does not clarify what is and what is not acceptable practice, it obfuscates it. Also, from an encyclopaedic point of view, lists are boring to read and this article contains too many.Fainites 14:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
4. . 'YES'The material is not Chaffin's, and is excellent as proposed. The therapy is not "specifically cirticised by Chaffin at al as an attachment therapy," In fact their material does not include the results of the several empirical studies by Dr. Becker-Weidman because the Task Force Report was prepared before publication of those evidence-based studies. The material meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. JohnsonRon 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
5. . 'Yes, I agree' Again, I won't repeat the points already made and for the sake of brevity, only say I concur with those points. MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I Agree JonesRD_talk 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been argued above. The new study by Becker-Weidman was specifically considered in the November 2006 follow up. The material is only not Chaffins because about two words were altered to create a misleading impression that Chaffin and becker-Weidman were at one. Why? Fainites 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no Chaffin citation, so it is not Chaffin material. Dr. Becker-Weidman appears to have published several empirical articles in journals that were not considered in the APSAC-Chaffin et. al. report because the report was prepared before publication of those articles. The preferred version above does not mislead, 'INCLUDE IT.'MarkWood 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an exact quote from Chaffin. becker-Weidmanwas misleadingly inserted. A few words were altered to make it not look like a quote from Chaffin. Why? Becker-Weidman is not particularly notable. Why this obsession with getting him in the article? Also, as you know, Chaffin et al specifically considered Becker-Weidmans new studies in the follow up report in November 2006 and did not change their views. That is why it is misleading to mix becker-Weidman up with Chaffin as if they were jointly citing something.Fainites 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quote. Why are you so anti becker-weidman? This really seems like a cause with you and your partners as you e-mail back and forth...I just don't see the point. The paragraph is fine and many others think so. So, let's just move on. The lines are not quotes and are better sourced this way. There is no mixing up of Chaffin and Dr. Becker-Weidman. Your stance on this is so similiar to ACT's, why are you not bringing in their material as well? The lines make no statement of being Chaffins, so this is really a non-issue. Let's move on. MarkWood 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed article I drafted contained no mention of Becker-Weidman at all. Its you who keep inserting him into the article. You're missing the point. The lines were a direct quote of Chaffin. They were slightly altered and Becker-Weidman was inserted. How can that be 'better sourced'. It's not sourced at all! As for anybody elses stance being the 'same as ACT', you keep misrepresenting Becker-Weidmans position. Anybody who can read sources can see that.Fainites 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above seems to have the support of a number of editors. I also wonder what is the difficulty you seem to have with Dr. Becker-Weidman. You are not raising concerns about the other authors in the above consensus paragraph. Each treatment listed has at least one verifiable source; meeting wikip. standards. DPeterson^talk 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

But you never cite Craven & Lee though do you. You just try and insert Becker-Weidman into Chaffin! It's not me that keeps trying to include B-W in this article. As for the other authors, B_W is the only one specifically criticised by Chaffin and specifically described, in November 06 as not evidence based. Fainites 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Craven & Lee is another example...I can certainly add it if you wish. No, you keep repeating the same incorrect point. THe Chaffin article is using old data. The article was prepared in 2003 or so and when published did not include the empirical and evidence-based artiles published in professional peer-reviewed publications in 2005 and 2006. But, that is really not the point, the paragraph is not Chaffin or is it attributed to Chaffin. It is a paragraph that a consensus of editors prefers. DPeterson^talk 20:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Per consensus (five of six) above, I added this into the article. MarkWood 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys have Chaffin or do you have some different version to me? My version includes material from 2005. My follow up report talks about Becker-Weidmans 2006 material. It's in the November 2006 issue of Child Maltreat. I am quite happy to post again all the excerpts, or e-mail my sources to anyone. If you say Chaffin was written in 2000/02 (see earlier) or 2003, (your latest claim) please give us the source for this extraordinary statement! If you say Chaffin et al did not refer to Becker-Weidmans recent study in their November 2006 follow up, please give us the source for this claim, bearing in mind that they say "The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)". This has nothing to do with consensus. Fainites 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the agreed upon paragraph is good and adds to the article. JohnsonRon 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reply does not address any of the major factual errors in your statements, unless you believe 'consensus' actually can decide black is white. Two cheers for democracy! Fainites 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no factual errors and this has been extensively discussed above and previously, so I won't repeat previous material...just take a look at the above material and you will find a relevant response. I understand you may disagree, but let's move on as the consensus is not in your favor and does not see it your way...happens sometimes. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sifting the essay from the fact

I have been working through the article and it seems to me that its quite an essay. There is a lot of argument going on even in the article. For example, the last paragraph is making some unsourced comments about "Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions.". I had a look through the NPOV article and it seems we could probably do with just moving those argument parts out of the article and putting them in the talkpage for people to work on and source. Part of the difficulty for anyone reading this article is trying to sort the editor's arguments from the source's arguments. I really think this will help. I'll get the ball rolling with the last sentence of the article. Here it is:

"Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions."

First I believe we need sources for it. Maypole 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I am in favor it it! DPeterson^talk 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back the paragraph only because I do not want to see "edit wars" begun. I think, given the contentiousness of this topic it is best to propose suggestions here on the talk page, see if a consensus exists or can be developed and then make the changes. I support your suggestion, but am not sure others do or what their thinking may be. Is that ok with you? DPeterson^talk 02:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine for now, but remember it seems that you just restored some rather odd unsourced argument into the articleMaypole 05:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know and I'm happy to delete the material, I think...but I just want to be sure we give others a chance to commnent and avoid hot tempers or rash actions. I'm not disagreeing with the substnce of what you are suggesting. I am merely suggesting a slower process to build consensus. P.S. thanks for your work here. DPeterson^talk 12:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, there is some very good stuff on prevalence of AT in both the Chaffin report and Prior and Glaser which should go in the article. There is no source I have found for saying it's 'rare' but there don't seem to be any statistics at all. The Chaffin report was commissioned because of growing concerns and publicity about various notorious cases. Would you like me to e-mail you a copy.? It might be a good idea for you to read the earlier talkpage. You will see that every single one of these arguments about unsourced material has been argued before so you don't need to go really slowly to build consensus as the arguments are familiar to most of the existing editors. Also, be wary about 'going slowly to build consensus'. I did that for weeks, posted the consensus version and it was almost immediately altered to include stuff previously agreed to be left out. Fainites 14:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You can get a copy at: [5] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it seems that AT therapy is very popular. Just from seeing the amount of advertizement for it on the internet. Can you send me a copy also? Maybe a list of the number of members of attach.org etc would show the number of people practicing it. FatherTree 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[www.Attach.org] has a White paper, cited in this article, against the use of coercion in treatment, so that is another good source. You can read their brief position at [6] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats attachorg? Is that ATTacH or whatever that organisation is that uses part capitals? Didn't they used to be the home of attachment therapy but have now tried to position themselves away from it? We could get ourselves into a bit of a complicated minefield here. Sticking to sources is safest. By the way, if you or Maypole want a copy of Chaffin, you'll have to eable your e-mails or e-mail me. Fainites 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[www.Attach.org] has a White paper, cited in this article, against the use of coercion in treatment, so that is another good source. You can read their brief position at [7] DPeterson^talk 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DP please don't interpose your comments between other editors when one editor has already replied to another as it interrupts the flow of conversation. You can always say 're your comment above' or something. Fainites 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the site, this is 'ATTACh' which I believe is controversial as they have positioned themselves away from coercive therapies, but are seen by some commentators as actually part of 'attachment therapy'. Another controversy too big and unresolvable for this litle page! Fainites 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your 'bias' here now. That helps me understand your position on all these issues. Calling ATTACh controversial when it is a national professioal organization that has the support of many prominent people in the field shows a bias...almost similiar to ACT. They have a White Paper that clearly prohibits coercive treatments or methods and are in alignment with other similiar professional organizations such as APSAC, NASW, APA, AACP, etc. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is version of "Prevalence" I proposed earlier;

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.)."

(WHY SO MANY QUOTES FROM JUST ONE SOURCE? THE OTHER VERSION IS BETTER THIS THIS REGARD AS BEING BROADER IN SCOPE. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

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.’ (DON'T SEE WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH HOW WIDE SPREAD IS THE PRACTICE.MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)) 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. (THIS ISN'T ABOUT HOW WIDE SPREAD IS AT MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

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.p263.

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." Fainites 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on one source and irrelvant quotes. Keep this section focused on the main issue: to what extent is this practiced? All professional orgs prohibit practices as defined in this article. AT or rebirthing, or holding therapy as defined is coercive an prohibited by APA, NASW, ATTACh, etc. and rebirthing is illegal in various states. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

need page # DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'need page #DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'Is this a quote or a summary?DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'what does this have to do with prevalence? Might belong in another section DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)'Again, this does not belong here. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC). same hereDPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Too much emphasis on Chaffin. There are many other sources that should be cited...see version proposed below for a more balance and comprehensive version. DPeterson^talk 14:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on one source and irrelvant quotes. Keep this section focused on the main issue: to what extent is this practiced? All professional orgs prohibit practices as defined in this article. AT or rebirthing, or holding therapy as defined is coercive an prohibited by APA, NASW, ATTACh, etc. and rebirthing is illegal in various states. DPeterson^talk 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all your interspersed comments as they make it difficult for other editors to read. You know very well that all page numbers have been given previously.It is simply not necessary to create confusion throughout another editors proposed edits with facile demands for page numbers.Fainites 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back those comments so that we can see what they are in reference to. Removing them makes it impossible to follow the comments and is like deleting another editors edits. This is the approach you proposed and have used. It worked well before and continues to be a good one for readability. Let's keep cool heads here and Assume Good Faith JohnsonRon 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is approach we used before when attempting to reach a consensus version. All of these comments have been made before above. there is no need to keep repeating the same comments throughout another editors proposals and it makes it difficult for other new editors to see what is going on. You also removed my paragraphing which was put there to make it easier for editors to discuss seperate parts. Please don't interfere with my edits.Fainites 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to see what DP had in mind when you remove his/her material. This distorts the process. MarkWood 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It distorts the process to make an editors proposed version unreadable. As for ATTACh being controversial, their list of 'symptoms' contains some of the things criticised by both Caffin and Galser. As for Chaffin being too limiting a source, at least it is a source, unlike lists of therapies stated to be 'congruent', with no source, or lists of organisations, again unsourced. Here is the list of members of the Taskforce. You will see it contains many of the best known names in the field. "Byron Egeland, Elana Newman, Tom Lyon, Elizabeth Letourneau and Cindy Miller-Perrin, Mark Chaffin, Rochelle Hanson, Benjamin E. Saunders, Todd Nichols, Douglas Barnett, Charles Zeanah, Lucy Berliner".Fainites 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the process you'd suggested. If you don't wnat comments, so be it. DPeterson^talk 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Each of the therapies listed has one or more sources cited and so this is a broader and better referenced statement...as most other editors agree here and with the another section above, so if that is the consensus, than that is what will be included I guess. All the citations in the section are verifiable and relevant. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They are sources for what they are. They are not sources, on self report or otherwise, for being congruent with attachment theory, or Chaffins statement of traditional theories, unless there is a source that says they are. eg Prior and Glaser, who list only 4. Otherwise its either self report, or us reading them and deciding they're congruent, which would be OR. You can say they 'claim' to be congruent, but I don't think mainstream therapies do that do they?Fainites 18:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the citations. They are sources that address the point dead on. The articles in peer-reviewed professional publications in each instance note how the treatment is based on and congruent with attachment theory. Chaffin is not relevant to this discussion. They all meet Wikipedia standards for being verifiable. And, of course, this is the version that represents consensus as this time, so regardless of anyone's personal feelings, or "pride of authorship," consensus will determine the outcome and inclusion of materials. DPeterson^talk 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean to hurt your personal feelings or 'pride of ownership' DP so apologies if I did. The point I'm making is that just because the proponent of a therapy says 'hi everyone! I'm congruent, evidence based and based on attachment theory' doesn't mean it is accepted as such. Others may disagree. On DDP there is obviously major disagreement at the highest level within the field. Chaffin very wisely didn't seek to list 'good' therapies. All sorts of people would have complained about being left out. Glaser only gave a very conservative, well established list. It's a minefield. Lets not go there. Its not necessary for the scope of this article. It's an argument for the DDP page perhaps, not here. We agreed all this before actually. I posted the agreed version and then it got perverted.Fainites 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you've put a lot of work in here and my comment that you may feel "pride of authorship" was meant to be understanding of why you may feel particularily supportive of your versions. The treatments have citations listed to support their inclusion and meet the Wikipedia standard as being verifiable. The listing seems relevant and it also appears to be a consensus. My comment on pride of authorship is directed to mean that even if one feels strongly about one's work, it is the community consensus that prevails. DPeterson^talk 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your committment to your work. Your comment that "I posted the agree version and the it got perverted," I think does express your frustration, and I do appreciate that. There was a consensus (not an agreement between one or two editors) and then a new consensus developed. As frustrating as I know that can be, we still all have to go with the community consensus...even if one feels strongly it is "wrong." DPeterson^talk 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't my work. It's just a passing hobby. I do object to intellectual dishonesty. There was a consensus. It was a passage from Chaffin which all editors knew. One editor immediately inserted a citation in the quote that was not in the original quote thus creating a false and misleading travesty of the quote which was from a verified and credible source. The motive was obviously, as is so often the case on this site, to pretend that Becker-Weidman is cited approvingly by the Taskforce when in fact the reverse is the case. The fact that you and the others then all pile in to say what a wonderful improvement this is says more about you all than I ever could. Your diffs are your record, despite your propensity for going back over the talkpage and altering things retrospectively. Fainites 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph as re-written is an improvement. I see no intellectual dishonesty here and encourage 'ALL' to 'KEEP A COOL HEAD' and Assume good faith. The paragraph makes no statements indicative regarding the Task Force's opinion regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman's past or present works. JonesRD_talk 16:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Prevelance Section

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[[8]], National Association of Social Workers[[9]], American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [[10]], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [[11]]) , and the American Psychiatric Association. [[12]].

Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by those organizations codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of those standards would result in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed "rebirthing," and anyone using such methods would be guilty of malpractice, which is a small problem in all professions. DPeterson^talk 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors who prefer this Version

1. _ No . It does not contain any sourced information about prevalence. AT is not synonymous with rebirthing. It contains OR. It contains an irrelevant list which nobody will read. Lists make peoples eyes glaze over. Also, AT doesn't always involve the use of practices proscribed by those organisations. Part of the essence of AT is its theoretical base. Not all AT's use coercive practices or outlawed practices like rebirthing. Fainites 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes It contains sourced material from nearly all the major professional organizations, such as APA, NASW, ATTACh and supports the statement that licensed mental healh professionals who are members of these organizations do not practice coercive treatments, which AT, as defined in this article, is. This is a nice, short, concise statement on prevelance. AT as defined here is a coercive treatment. DPeterson^talk 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
3. . 'YES' This is a concise listing of the professional standards and status. AT as described in this article is a coercive treatment. JohnsonRon 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
4. . 'Yes, include' for all the reasons stated in this and other sections. MarkWood 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
5. 'I agree' include it. JonesRD_talk 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AT is not simply coercive treatment. Chaffin discuss a number of what they consider to be attachment therapy proponents who do not use coercive methods. the coercive methods are the most concerning ones and the ones most easily banned or regulated against. Fainites 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

'ATTACHMENT THERAPY' as described in this article is a coercive treatment approach. Coercion is not allowed by APA, NASW, ATTACh, or APSAC, among others. This article is not about Chaffin or the Task Force. If you wish to write an article about APSAC, then that is the place for all your quotes and citings. A balanced article must have multiple sources, as does the proposed section above. JohnsonRon 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well being more specific I think we can't state that AT is synonymous with rebirthing unless some source says so. I think there is OR in the article and it needs fixing somehow. I havn't seen a list though. The theoretical base is interesting. I would like to know the range of theoretical parts to AT there are. There must be many as AT uses a range of techniques. I'm not going to take sides but I'm all for improving the article. It needs it. Maypole 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Chaffins attempt at definition. " "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988 [3]) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy”. The coercive elements are the most well known and the most concerning, but the theoretical base doesn't lead to only coercion. Prior and Glaser also make it clear there is a whole range of variants of AT. There's an article by Speltz in 'Child Maltreat' which traces the underlying theory and history behin attachment therapy. A small part of Speltz is in the article, dealing with Zaslows theory of supressed rage and the notion of 'catharsis'. I think the article would be improved by a more comprehensive section on historical roots and underlying theoretical principles. Fainites 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ACT uses the terms together and so does Chaffin, apparently. Looks like there is a growing agreement above on how to proceed on this question. MarkWood 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually if we use the following bits:

"The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy....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”." that seems to cover just about everything. Fainites 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. MarkWood 17:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. If this is made clear in the opening and/or the definition section we don't need to keep repeating it. Fainites 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So the above paragraph capture that, I believe. Good work. A significant number of editors concur on that. DPeterson^talk 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole passage is already in the definition section. This shortened version could go in the opening paragraph.Fainites 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. So have it in the introduction and in the definition section? It is an important point...Since most editors prefer the version above, we should probably go with that. DPeterson^talk 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition section has already been put in by consensus. Are you now going to propose we remove a whole chunk of it? To what end? This thread was about the statement that AT was also called rebirthing in the 'prevalence' section. Why would anybody want to remove the full and clear paragraph in the definition section?Fainites 18:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it could stay just as it is. And a preponderance of editors like the proposed paragraph above. DPeterson^talk 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I like the short version as a quick round up in the intro, but it's not adequate for a definityion section when the subject needs such careful defining. Do you mean the passage in the article stays as it is? Or you proposing to remove the descriptive passage in the article and replace it with a short version. Its a little soon to claim a 'preponderance of editors' isn't it? Especially on a Saturday evening. Fainites 21:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The verson above is the one being worked on and, so far, three editors prefer it just as it is. If you'd like to work to improve it, please do so by making suggstions below for what you might want added or deleted and then others can comment. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at prevalence Another attempt at 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.)."

The following professional organisations have prohibited some of the practices of 'attachment therapy' described in this article: American Psychological Association61, National Association of Social Workers62, American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) 63, Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at 64), and the American Psychiatric Association. 65.

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......Much of the available information is found on the Web sites of organizations or centers that deliver the treatment, or in-house and self-published materials. These Web sites often appear to serve as marketing tools and providing information about the treatments used.

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.p263.

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."

And please don't go through shrieking PAGE NUMBERS everywhere. If it's agreed, I can add the page numbers before it goes in. Fainites 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I, along with two other editors so far, prefer the version above just as it is. However, if you want to build on that one, that might be better way to go rather than ignoring that version that is still under discussion. I'd suggest you make specific suggestions for lines to be added or deleted and if anyone agrees, then those suggestions would be improvements that can be made. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried incorporating the parts of your version that aren't too obviously OR. Apart from that, I see no point working with your version. It doesn't address the topic and is OR and uninformative. I also see little point in working towards a consensus version when I know from recent history that even if a consensus version is agreed after many weeks of negotiation, once posted it will simply have the same old nonsense put back in and the same old crew will all say 'wow! great! Fainites 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The version above is very good and has not OR...there are relevant citations and verifiable sources. There seems to already be a consensus for this as written. I encourge Fainities to work with the consensus and Assume good faith and avoid Personal attacks. JonesRD_talk 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic in the circumstances. Fainites 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably time to add in this paragraph. DPeterson^talk 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many minor edits to this will not be consistent with the consensus here. DPeterson^talk 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the views, reliable scholarly and non-scholarly

Hello I have been reading the literature sent to me by Fainites. Its very helpful. I have altered my view of the whole subject accordingly. I would place the word "Traditional" in quotes. I think it is more meaningful to have it there.

There are a whole range of views though. The literature I was sent is scholarly for the most part. That is only one aspect of the viewpoints, and it only infers the whole story. For example, Chiffrin says that the controversy has centered on the most worrying interventions. But the paper goes on to say that the whole subject is criticised because a lot of the theories are up the spout, and a lot of other unnamed unvalidated methods are used in addition. This latter aspect does need to be covered in the article. Its crucial from the science (majority) point of view because anything unvalidated is considered unethical, wrong, potentially dangerous in itself, according to the accepted wisdom of clinical practice. Wikipedia RS seems to accept all scholarly and non scholarly sources as long as they are reliable for the views being presented. So now I think its just a matter of including all the unvalidated methods mentioned in the literature. For sure, there must be some valid way of doing AT and to be fair we really have to make the distinction between the valid aspects of dealing with attachment, and dodgy and coercive methods. I think the best way would be to

• state what AT is thought of as being without any criticism whatsoever,
• then explain that attachment problems can be handled well using sensible methods (according to science rather than according to "AT"),
• then state there is a huge outcry about coercive and unvalidated goings on by such and such practitioners and state those unvalidated methods and practices. It would help to characterize that type of practitioner in some representative way if possible. Avoid preaching though.
• the opening section should then follow the above structure

How does that sound to all here? Maypole 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds great to me. but let me make sure I've understood. Are you saying this article should attempt to cover the whole subject of all treatments for attachment disorders, or purported attachment disorders, the good the bad and the ugly? Currently the article really only attmpts to deal with the 'subset' which Chaffin describes as 'popularly known' as attachment therapy. Or are we sticking with that but being a little more expansive about what are and what aren't unvalidated methods and going into underlying theories more? Fainites 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also on sources, you can cite a source as a source. But you have to be careful for what. For example, Prior and Glaser are a source for saying certain therapies are scientifically validated. But a therapy that claims all by itself to be scientifically validated could only be a source for saying it claims to be scientifically validated. Is this correct? Fainites 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the scholarly sources of Prior and Glaser and others are fine but they are not really encyclopedic. Look at their perspective. Either they are warning of problems, or they are saying be careful not to chuck out good stuff with the bathwater. The encyc way I think would be to do what Jim Wales recommends - to include all views and all facts as long as they are relevant and reliable enough. And be as neutral as possible. Present the neutral as possible description of AT, present what attachment is about in theory and how it can be improved according to science, then say how you can bugger it up using unvalidated methods and name all methods associated that people say are unvalidated. Also using sources describe the sort of practitioner who might inadvertently snuff a troublesome minor with his out demons out routine. So yes be as comprehensive as possible within reason. If someone says something is invalidated then thats their view. We (Wikipedians) don't have to say its unvalidated. Just that wassname says its unvalidated. Thats fair, encyclopedic, and accurate. Maypole 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make this article way to broad. The focus is now on the general def. of "Attachemnt Therapy" as a coercive and fringe treatment. To call reputable treatments also AT would confuse the issue. In fact most (all?) reputable treatments would not approve of calling the treatment AT. Therapay would not call it AT. Dr. Marvin would not call circle of security AT, Dr. Daniel Siegel would not call Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy AT. Dr. Van der Kolk would not call Liberman's work AT. etc. There are other articles that address those therapies, what is attachment theory, Bowlvy, the diagnosis of RAD, etc. To have an article try to capture all that at once would be too diverse. I think a narrower focus works better...but the idea certainly is worthy of continued discussion. JonesRD_talk 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My preference has been for not naming specific therapies as I think its a minefield too broad for this article. If we do name them we have to say either so and so says such and such is scientifically validated, or so and so claims his therapy is scientifically validated, but so and so don't agree etc. That's why I think Chaffins and Prior and Glasers descriptions of traditional approaches by way of contrast to AT approaches is sufficient. They're not encyclopaedic in themselves, but they are good sources. I like the idea of addressing the underlying theory and history more as it's really developed from a different line of thinking to Bowlby. I think we should give a broad sourced description of AT. As there's no one definition we can include several as we have done. I think what we should also include is what attachment therapists say about their therapies. Following the Chafiin report some have gone the way of saying they're not AT and never were, some like to pretend attachment therapy doesn't exist at all, but some defend their therapies and say they're right. Sources don't have to be science only! They just have to be accurately characterised. Are you proposing to draft something and let us have a look? (Thats Maypole I mean). Fainites 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The listing in the consensus version of Prevalence, I think it is, to be clear that those are not AT as defined in this article (given that there are verifiable citations to support each one) I think is fine. It is brief (one paragraph) and seems to have the support of most editors so far. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A broader article may confuse the issue. The article is about AT as defined here as a coercive treatment (per ACT, APSAC, etc.). We should keep that focus. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The article is not just about coercive therapies. It is about a subset of therapies outside the mainstream known as 'attachment therapy'. Not all are coercive. I don't think the article can cover all the mainstream therapies aswell though.Fainites 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of AT, per this article is:

"Attachment Therapy", (also known as attachment therapy, holding therapy, rebirthing therapy, or corrective attachment therapy) is an ambiguous term often used to describe a variety of controversial, non-mainstream "treatments" for children allegedly suffering from attachment disorder which is itself an ambiguous term. The treatments often involve coercive and intrusive methods including variants of holding therapy or rebirthing or rage-reduction. Chaffin et al (2006), having said "The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions", (p 83) attempt to describe this subset as follows: "The attachment therapy controversy has centred most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988 [3]) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; [4] Lien, 2004 [5] Levy & Orlans, 1998,[6] Welch, 1988 [3]).

. If these aren't coercive, intrusive, and unacceptable modalities, I just don't know what is. DPeterson^talk 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't explain myself very well. They are all unaccaptable and probably all intrusive. I suppose in a psychological sense they're all coercive, but they're not all physically coercive. This talkpage has got bogged down on this before, but I think we're all clear now. Fainites 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Having a clear focus makes an encyclopedia article much more clear and specific. DPeterson^talk 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DanielCD's 2 cents worth

Hi, I'm doing some copyediting and trying not to change any content. I am removing some of the "scare" quotes, as they are not really objective. But feel free to revert if I inadvertently step on any toes. --DanielCD 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting. Which 'scarequotes'? Fainites 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's anytime you put quotes around something to imply it's questionable, such as "Attachment Therapy". Another thing I've noticed is that the page numbers for the refs are in the body text. These need to go in the refs at the bottom of the page. I'm trying to stick some in without messing up the ref format. --DanielCD 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now. Thanks for cleaning up the refs and those damned page numbers too! I see you are a clinical psychologist. Would you like to help edit this sites content? We seem to be going round in circles at the moment.Fainites 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you could join in Daniel CD. Your clean up is good and I appreciate it. I see we share a mental health background...I do hope you can help calm things down here so that the focus remains on building consensus and collaboration. cheers. DPeterson^talk 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the page numbers are going where they are supposed to since so many things link to the same ref. I'm going to have to look in the Wikipedia:MOS and see how to do it properly. There must be a way to repeat refs without having to spell them out in so many places. It really cloggs up the text and makes it hard to edit. I think the first step to getting this article in shape is getting the refs standardized and the text clear. --DanielCD 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes its a problem. We asked for peer review on another article and got told off for not having page numbers, but it makes no sense to have a list of page numbers when you're re-using a citation. If you find the answer you're ahead of us. The way to repeat the same ref is to just use the short form, but it often doesn't seem to work.Fainites 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose an alternative, if all else fails, is to put the page # in the text and then use the reference and short name of the reference so that you'd just see a reference # and, "(pg. #)" DPeterson^talk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished therapy from theory

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

Good edit. I completely agree. This particular phrase has been discussed before. I checked through the list given by ACT and most of it seems a true bill! There are no mainstream, validated therapies in their list. The controversy on this page is about DDP which may have a bit of a raw deal being included in the list. The last sentence about 'taking care' was my edit. Its a bit OR but it seems fair as DDP certainly object to their inclusion in the list and wouldn't be right to give the impression that Wiki endorses their list. Fainites 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there will be a clearer way to distinguish between good ideas and bad according to source. DPP is listed, and again it is known as an unvalidated therapy even though it may have an ongoing research base and I havn't seen any evidence for it looking like a pseudoscience. I think the article as a whole is qualified enough to include it. (There are many qualifiers in the article). The way to help though is to make sure we have all the related interventions associated with AT. Perhaps more importantly the literature seems to distinguish between flakes and legitimates so it would certainly be a good idea to say more about the behaviour/views and outlook of the flaky ones. I think thats the biggest distinction that will reduce the likelihood of any conflict (ie, the difference between alternative practitioners, and clinical practitioners). That would be fairer and more encyclopedic I believe. Maypole 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maypole, I think we need to emphasis the underlying theory and development, from Zaslow (supressed rage and catharsis), through Welch (holding time), Cline and Thomas, and the associated theoretical beliefs about developmental stages. There's alot of good stuff in Speltz about underlying theoretical beliefs and where they come from. What did you mean about the 'article' being qualified enough to include DPP. Did you mean this article or the ACT article? Also by flakes and legitimates, do you mean legitimates as in mainstream evidence based, and flakes as in AT, or are you making a distiction between legitimate AT (if there is such a thing) and extreme flaky AT? Fainites 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep the focus on AT as described in the article...a somewhat fringe approach not sanctioned by any professional organization that uses methods prohibited by many professional organizations. JohnsonRon 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not that fringe or there wouldn't have been such a fuss about it and alot of organisations have only brought out position statements after notorious cases and after the Chaffin report so this is all quite recent stuff and it's unlikely to disappear overnight. There's plenty of even barmier therapies out there still being practiced. Fainites 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it can be considered fringe as no mainstream professional organization sanctions AT as defined here. ATTACh, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, to name two, had position statements regarding this issue before APSAC did. The Chaffin report was written in 2003 and 4 and published a year later. DPeterson^talk 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see on the issue of when Chaffin was written we've gone up from 2000/02, to 2003, to 2004. Any advance on 2004? Any sources? Fainites 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in here I'd like to say that the citations in the article, including Dr. Becker-Weidman's, meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and so are both relevant and appropriate. I still don't understand the strong objections that you have. I understand Dr. Mercer's objections as she is a leader of ACT...The material is in professional peer-reviewed publications and is evidence-based, Craven & Lee identify it as such. Most importantly, the material is consistent with Wikipedia policy/standard of being a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to an article without consensus

While I think the recent edits (May 14) by Maypole & Fainities are ok, I urge you to first discuss changes on this talk page as the tag at the top of this page suggests:

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Making unliateral changes, especially by relatively new editors (Maypole started 4/29/07 and has primarily limited edits to this article while Fainities has been around longer, since around 2/17/07 and has edited a broader range of articles; primarily articles about EMDR, NLP, and this article) is not a good way to build consensus. Building agreement is important when a subject matter is as contentious as is this one. DPeterson^talk 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello DPeterson. No worries. I'm working with consensus and will continue to. I have firstly asked questions and determined what the problems are after receiving sources. I understand there are interested parties here and I'll act accordingly. Wikipedia says I should be bold. Well, I'll be bold and write in whatever NPOVing needs to be done. If someone want to restore a POV or unsourced statement or argument into the article then its on their own head. I will continue to ask questions and seek agreement but there comes a time when some phrases are so obviously in need of change that changing them really does become an obvious piece of work to do. I think all here are allowed to be bold and edit how they want. Lets just make sure its NPOV and encyclopedia oriented rather than simply consensus based. Maypole 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a new editor focusiing on just this article you may not understand that it is best to discuss changes here first...tag at the top of this page and at the top of the article. I suggest you make your suggested edits 'here' and see what others think 'BEFORE' making a change to the article itself. Actually, editing material that represents a clear 'consensus' is not allowed and can, in some instances, actually be considered vandalism....I suspect you are not aware of all these issues as a new user...I encourage you to read the relevant Wikipedia policies...the tag at the top of the page will take you to most of those. JohnsonRon 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello JohnsonRon. Could you direct me to the specific rule that places consensus above NPOV policy? Because it would seem a little illogical to me (perhaps because I am a newbie) to allow a particular group to say what should or should not be on the article. I thought that any information can get there if it is relevant, reliable, accurate, verifiable and so on. As it is I see no vandalism in any of my edits, at least according to the article concerned with vandalism. Again, could you please point me towards the actual rules you are using? I've looked high and low and I cannot find them. Maypole 16:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules place NPOV, and rules about verified, credible and authoritative sources above notions of consensus. An editor is perfectly entitled to edit OR and POV, and Maypole has discussed it here. Its nice to discuss and try and reach consensus if possible, but its a method, not a goal. Wikipedia is not a democracy (Jimbo Wales). A group does not own a page any more than one editor. Besides, 'consensus' when reached on this page has not been stuck to, so lets just stick to Wiki rules eh? and don't threaten newbies.Fainites 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, no one editor owns a page and "pride of authorship" can creep in when you've spend so much time on this topic. As I've said before, I do appreciate that. Also, as the tag at the top of this page says, let's keep a cool head, and avoid Personal Attacks "don't threaten newbies." As I said, I find the edits acceptable, but it would be best to make suggestions here first, build a consensus, and 'then and only then' add the material. This will actually be quicker and better in the long run. DPeterson^talk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I appreciate you've been working on this article since July 2006 DP and I've only been here a few weeks and Maypole a few days, but really fresh eyes on an article can help you know. Just Assume Good Faith and we'll be fine! Fainites 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this. Why are we told to be 'bold' but then again above told to build consensus. And I see your point Fain. When people have been working on these articles for years they must feel a sense of ownership so new blood coming in has to help get a better perspective on things. I really like what you and Maypole have done lately. FatherTree 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

-

I believe several admins have suggested using WP:BRD as an excellent editing guideline. The only thing I would add to BRD, would be, don't revert unless you are willing to discuss why you reverted and are also willing to help develop a compromise version where applicable. Lsi john 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent advice. Changes should be discussed here first to build a consensus before changing the article, otherwise in high conflict areas there can be needless further conflicts and reverts. DPeterson^talk 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually DP, that's not what WP:BRD says :) Fainites 22:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Prevalence Paragraph

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: the American Psychological Association [6], the National Association of Social Workers [7], the American Professional society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) [8], Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrry ("Practice Parameter for the Assessment of Children and Adolescent with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood" in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol 44, Nov 2005 and at [9], and the American Psychiatric Association. [10].

Members of those organizations are prohibited from using methods and techniques proscribed by these organizations' codes of ethics and practice parameters. Violations of the standards results in expulsion of the organization. Therefore there are very few practitioners of "AT" as defined in this article. Furthermore, several states have outlawed rebirthing, making anyone using such methods guilty of malpractice.

Although rebirthing has been outlawed in a couple of states it is legal in most of the US. And coercive therapies are legal in all states. And there is no licensing board that forbids rebirthing or coercive therapies. In fact many boards give CEUs for training in attachment therapy.

And the start of the paragraph states the number of practioners is unknown and then at the end it says that there are very few. This is a contradiction. Judging by the amount of websites that come up by googling 'attachment therapy' it seems there are very many practioners. Well at least there are a lot of website advertizing AT. FatherTree 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome new user/editor, FatherTree, to Wikipedia.

Rebirthing and other coercive methods are prohibited by the fostercare regulations in various states and counties. Can you cite a reference for the statement that "many boards give CEU's for training in attachment therapy," as AT is defined in this article, as a coercive, intrusive, practice?

Can you give me a URL or resource where coercive methods are prohibitied? From my experience they are encouraged. I will try to find the reference for AT training. I thought it was common knowledge. FatherTree 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The various professional bodies listed prohibit the use of coercion in treatment and a member would be ejected...this must then be reported to a licensing body upon renewal...one of several questions routinely asked. I only counted about twenty websites when I searched and I am not sure that they all practice AT as described here: a coercive, intrusive set of methods. Twenty out of the hundreds of thousands of professionals is a tiny number...but even if that is so, as a new user you may not be familiar with the Wikipedia probibition against Original Research (OR), so a count of websites cannot be added without a reference...at least that is how I read the OR article. JohnsonRon 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But what if the licensee is not a member or the organizations you are referring to? And why would they answer truthfully? A board would not license it a person was expelled from an organization? I would estimate there are about 400 AT practioners in the US using coercive techniques. Of course none use rebirthing since the scandal. Does that number sound correct to you? I know counting of websites can't be added. But I am trying to get a feel on how other editors view these stats. Would not all practioners listed on attach.org be considered attachment therapists? Or those using Nancy Thomas techniques? FatherTree 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements that 'very few' practice it or it is 'rare' are clearly OR and completely unsourced. Chaffins conclusions on prevalence are probably about as close as we're going to get. It's prevalent enough to have caused the Taskforce to be set up. As a matter of common sense, the cases that get to court are likely to be the tip of the iceberg. It's also likely that since Chaffin, lots will have changed their names and tried to reposition themselves, but we have no sources for this yet. The plain fact of the matter is, without sources from people who've done the research, we don't know how many there are. Prior and Glaser did an internet search. I'll have a look and see what they came up with. Fainites 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, as for the bodies listed, can you give us the links to their policies to see exactly what it is they prohibit and when they did so? Thanks. Fainites 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policies are already cited in the article APSAC, ATTACh's White Paper, APA's endorsement of the APSAC Task Force Report, etc. etc. DPeterson^talk 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am trying to find out here is yes there are many rules put out by Professional organizations and by State boards but in actuality do AT practioners ever get de-licensed for practicing AT per se? The State Boards are noted for being very weak on enforcement. Do have any references about persons being de-licensed for practicing AT? I have never come across any other than the very egregious cases where they kill someone. FatherTree 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Best to keep the focus on AT as described in the article...a somewhat fringe approach not sanctioned by any professional organization that uses methods prohibited by many professional organizations. That being said, the prev. para. was built after lengthy discussions and represents current agreement. It fits very well and adds good information. JohnsonRon 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the point. AT is not fringe. At least my understanding of the word fringe. AT is the preferred and dominant form of therapy for adopted kids with behaviour problems. There are no sanctions against it either legally or by professional groups. Except in rare very extreme case usually when someone is killed. AT is very generously funded by most states. It is a lucrative profession. Much more lucrative than other forms of psychotherapy. There is little accountability. This is what I see. And I would like to see in the article. FatherTree 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the list of organisations with position statements; it needs some attention. The first one for the APA doesn't lead to a position statement and there's no link on the page it does lead to to a position statement. The second link is fine but it's Utah only. The third link is dead. There was no link for ATTACh so I've added one. The last two are fine. Could you sort out the other two links please. Thanks. Fainites 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AT is fringe in that no mainstream organization allows it as defined here. That is fringe. The Prevelance material added was developed by consensus and represents the consensus of a diverse group of editors. While you may disagree, and as I've said, I do appreciate your hard work and why it may be hard to let it go, the section represents a broad collaborative consensus. DPeterson^talk 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello DPeterson. I agree that the fringe status is an issue and needs clarifying. If there is a source somewhere saying AT is fringe then it should be included as a view. I know AT often uses many subjects classed as fringe by multiple sources, and that also should be presented. Whether Wikipedia is going to say it is fringe then thats another matter, though I do personally think it is fringe but not tiny fringe enough to warrant exclusion from WP. Its certainly a million miles away from science based accepted method. Consensus is really only a guideline for considering these matters though I do take it seriously. So perhaps we could work to present some of the sources on this matter. It would make it easier for you to argue your case towards weighting of various facts, and it would make it much easier to work towards a NPOV based consensus. We may not agree about the subject as a whole, but we can learn to recognize the existence of specific facts within a specific weight range as a group. Maypole 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you think about it logically, there is no way 'consensus' could override Wiki policies on accuracy or validity of sources. If it could, then the biggest group could always push POV unscientific theories or inaccurate depictions of events by 'consensus' There's plenty of good sources on this subject, so lets just get on with it shall we ? Fainites 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DP I've just looked at your answer above to my request for you to repair your links. Its a bit weird actually! I suggest you read what I said again. It looks as if you're saying consensus has decided to include dead links and I musn't get upset about it! Fainites 09:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We msut be very careful about editing a section that represents consensus. If there are substantative changes, then the best thing to to will be to revert to the consensus version and begin discussion again here on the talk page as the tags above suggest. DPeterson^talk 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I am having trouble with is that if AT is condemned by a few organizations why is it so popular? How does it get its funding? Now people go to astrologers. We cannot stop them if they pay for it with their own money. But why do the states pay for all of this AT therapy? How can we express in the article that even though AT is condemned by some organizations there is still an enormous amount of public money paying for it. FatherTree 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I still really don't get this! I fixed a lost link for you in your edit and alerted you to a dead link and a non-link. 'Thanks Fainites' would have been the normal response rather than remarks about how its 'hard to let go'. It's the reponsibility of each editor to provide refs/links etc for their edits. Links do die from time to time. Are you seriously arguing that there is consensus for a dead link so we have to leave it dead? Fainites 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid Personal Attacks and do Assume good faith. I do appreciate your work and have repeatedly said so. The discussions have been spirited and helpful. I do think that we have to be very careful editing a paragraph or section that represents consensus. If substantive changes are made, a better idea is to revert to the consensus version and begin a disucssion on this talk page as the tag above recommends. DPeterson^talk 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any substantive changes to that paragraph. I kindly checked your links for you! Assume Good Faith Fainites 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was merely restating what many editors, but not all, know. I did not mean to criticise you. I had two thoughts in the one note. DPeterson^talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream therapies

I've moved DP's list of 'congruent' therapies into a seperate section as it doesn't really fit into any other section. My view is that we don't need a list of mainstream therapies at all and certainly not ones that are merely 'congruent'. If we do have a list it needs to be a list of mainstream, accepted, evidence based treatemnts for recognised attachment disorders about which we need to be pretty certain, from verified and credible sources. Do we then also have a list of 'attachment therapies', or rather therapies considered by verified and credible sources to be attachment therapies? Do we outline the controversy of any therapy stuck in between as it were? Fainites 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd err on the side of inclusiveness. There may be overlap between stuff that gets into valid attachment interventions, and invalid AT and some may say some intervention is valid and others say its as whacked as David Icke on acid. Thats because there may be disagreement between certain experts/sources. Overall though its pretty obvious I think what methods are obviously valid and which are invalid/criminally irresponsible, inhumane, abusive, or just gobsmackingly bizarre. The reader will most likely work it out for themselves. What we can offer in Wikipedia terms is "all relevant views". Also remember this is an electronic medium and the reader can click on the relevant link. So at least the reader will have an informed choice. Beyond that I think we can leave it up to them. Maypole 11:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Some of them, as you say, are obvious. Both Chaffin and Prior and Glaser cite the '03 meta-analysis. Some of them are painfully obvious in the other direction. But there are some that have limited their coercive practices and finally given up on them altogether (eg Hughes) but would still be seen by critics as in the AT line of theory and practices, even though the aggressive physical stuff is no longer used. For the ones which are on the cusp, or disputed, we will just have to briefly outline the controversy with refs. I think a better history and theory section will help. As you pointed out before, AT is as much about underlying theory and beliefs as it is about about mad things like 'German Shepherd Training' Fainites 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fainities, please stop trying to make this a dispute between us. There are a number of other editors who don't always agree with your positions here on this article. DPeterson^talk 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not perceive that Fainities is trying to make a dispute. I think Fain has done a fantastic job here. The research is thorough. This new editor is really making this a great article. And I find little to disagree with Fain. Because everything is so well researched and thought out. FatherTree 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure moving the paragraph to its new location is better...not sure the editor who placed it there had that in mind. I'll take a look. Overall, it is an important paragraph. The material is well referenced with evidence-based, empirical and summary articles in peer-reviewed journals and, as such, meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. In addition, the 2003 articles are dated...based on material at least one or two years older. A better and more current source is 'Craven, A., & Lee, R., "Therapuetic Interventions for Foster Children: A Systematic Research Synthesis," Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 16, #3, May 2006, 287-304' DPeterson^talk 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you read it. That's a step in the right direction. Now, would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the errors made in this article, which concludes that both holding therapy and DDP are supported and acceptable? Here we have excellent evidence that peer review is not the ultimate step in analysis-- it all depends on who those peers are.Jean Mercer 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are writing an article you'd reported, that would constitute OR...DPeterson^talk 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm writing an article I'd reported? I don't follow you. Anyway, try reading C&L closely-- that's what needs to be done if one wants some sort of objective reality in the picture. C&L are ranking DDP with holding therapy. I would think you'd want to explore this issue.Jean Mercer 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, See: [[13]]. You state you are writing an article critical of the work of Craven & Lee, both of whom have extensive clinical backgrounds and faculty appointments at prestigious Universities in Gradute programs. DPeterson^talk 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you should check that statement about those authors a little more closely before posting it. Just a suggestion. But if you were correct, of course you would then be confirming that you think they have the authority to state that HT and DDP should be ranked as equally evidence-based. Is that what you want to do? Perhaps you'd better examine this windfall under a strong light before you approve it.Jean Mercer 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestion that Craven & Lee somehow supercedes Chaffin, Prior and Glaser etc is plainly not the case. They are looking at interventions for social workers and have devised a grading system, given that many many available therapies are not evidence based. Chaffin et al are very clear that both Myeroff and Becker-Weidman (2006) are not evidence based. Why do we have to keep going round an round in circles on this? There's nothing wrong in being not evidence based when you're new. DDP is new. What is this obsession with trying to insert DDP in with the big boys? If you're that keen on including Craven & Lee then it has to done in a completely honest basis, which puts DDP as category 3 with holding therapy! If you want to slip B-W in with Chaffin, then we will have to say that B-W is specifically criticised by Chaffin et al on 3 counts and labelled as not evidence based as of November 2006. Either leave Becker-Weidman out altogether so we can get on with editing this article or you're going to have to accept constant corrections to your misleading edits about him, based firmly on Wiki policies, if not from the current editors, then from any other passing editor who can read sources. He's not particularly notable, nor particularly relevent to the subject. Lets just leave him out. Fainites 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Mercer and others continue to single out Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Dr. Becker-Weidman, except that Mercer is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which has a specific agenda it pursues. Tha APSAC task force report could not have commented on Dr. BW's 2006 studies and articles as the report was published before that...The several empirical studies, Craven & Lee, and peer-reviewed publications clearly distinguish DDP as evidence based. This argument has been repeated many times, so I won't repeat it here as you continue to ignore the facts. As advocates, you are entitled to your position, but Wikipedia only requires material be verifiable, which all this is. Please stop changing conensus material and making substantive changes untill fully discussed on the talk page. DPeterson^talk 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why Becker-Weidman keeps being discussed is because you keep citing him inaccurately and inappropriately in the article! If you stopped doing that the talkpage would be a third of its length. We actually once agreed a consensus version that completely left him out, which you resiled from within hours by inserting him into a quote from Chaffin as if Chaffin wasa citing him in support! I for one can see no reason for his inclusion at all, but if he has to be in, he has to be in on a sourced and accurate basis. Here for the nth time is Chafiin, November 2006, on what he was criticised for, only one of which relates to evidence base, and on his most recent study;

"Dr. Becker-Weidman (2006b) believed the report misrepresented DDP and his center as an example of dangerous or coercive techniques. We have been unable to locate this representation in the Task Force report. In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the Task Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman is cited three times in the body of the report, none of which refer to coercive techniques. The first citation references his Web site’s assertion that traditional therapies are either ineffective or harmful (p. 78). The second citation references his recommendation that children be encouraged to regress to an earlier age as part of treatment (p. 79). The third citation references his assertions, which we believe are unsupported, about practicing an evidence-based treatment (p. 85). Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encouraging to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is an important first step toward learning the facts about DDP outcomes. We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts. The published study was not available until after the Task Force report was in press, so its findings were not discussed in the report. The question at this point is whether the published study might modify our original statements. In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Examining the study, it shares many of the same limitations noted in the Task Force’s evaluation of the Myeroff study (p. 85)."

Nobody wants to put Becker-Weidman into this article to attack him. Why put him in at all? Fainites 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issues. Why do want to include Becker-Weidman, as evidence based or at all. What is your source for saying he's evidence based, according to the accepted scientific meaning of the term. What is your source for saying he's mainstream and not a mild form of AT as clearly thought by Chaffin. Why do you keep on and on saying Chaffin et al haven't seen his up-to date study when you've been given the evidence many times that they have. Consensus has nothing to do with these major issues to do with Wiki policies about sources. Fainites 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in here I'd like to say that the citations in the article, including Dr. Becker-Weidman's, meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and so are both relevant and appropriate. I still don't understand the strong objections that you have. I understand Dr. Mercer's objections as she is a leader of ACT...The material is in professional peer-reviewed publications and is evidence-based, Craven & Lee identify it as such. Most importantly, the material is consistent with Wikipedia policy/standard of being a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, read the discussion about Wikipedia policy regarding all views...this really answers your question best. [[14]] RalphLender^talk 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Its not enough for a source to be in a peer reviewed journal. It also has to be relevent and accurately cited. Chaffin et al do not support Becker-Weidman or cite him support of their statements about traditional therapies. They do specifically criticise him on 3 points in relation to practicies of attachment therapies of which they disapprove. They have seen his 2006 study. They do not consider him to be evidence based. Craven and Lee put Becker-Weidman in category 3. with Holding Therapy. Chaffin et al have the same criticisms of Myeroffs study as they do of becker-Weidmans. They say so. What is your difficulty in understanding this? On what basis do you keep removing this material from the article. What is your source for claiming DPP is 'evidence based'? What meaning of evidence-based are you using? You keep saying we must discuss and reach consensus yet you will not discuss these issues. Fainites 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The material is relevant and accurately cited. The consensus statement in the article does not proport to be a Chaffin et. al quote. Furthermore, the Task Force Report was published in, what? 2005? and was written in 2003 & 4 before being submitted for publication, so it didn't include any of Dr. BW's 2005 or 2006 material. Craven & Lee, well respected clinicians and researchers evaluated DDP, using 'OLD' data (from 2004) as evidence based...they did not look at the 2005 or 2006 empirical studies in professional peer reviewed publications. The paragraph in was consensus...just not one you liked. So, what is the basis for saying your one opinion over-rules the consensus of a significant consensus of other editors? See [[15]] as this is the answer...'all opinions belong, if verifiable'. RalphLender^talk 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson, maybe you can help with this info

According to your talk page you work with adopted children is that correct?

Why are you reluctant to answer this question? You might have insight that others do not have. Please answer. FatherTree 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Adhere to Tag regarding Changes to Article

substantative changes to the article should be discussed here first to build agreement. RalphLender^talk 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes" the change was not a substantial change it was just a clarification of the previous sentence. If my change does not belong then neither does the sentence before it. FatherTree 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Father Trees edit seemed alright to me.Fainites 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I find them unverifiable, and so do not comply with Wikipedia policies. DPeterson^talk 21:12, 15 May 2007(UTC)

Specifically what was unverifiable? FatherTree 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps DP if you could tell us which or how many states have outlawed rebirthing, as its originally your edit I believe? That should solve the matter. Fainites 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See links. (NC & CO) Building consensus is vital to the collaborative development of an article and so following the advice of the tag above is very important to follow. Discuss here in depth first, build consensus, then make changes...even if you disagree and are in the minority you really must let it go if your view does not prevail. DPeterson^talk 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be told why my edits were reverted.

They were very minor changes. Do some editors feel they own the article? FatherTree 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting On

Can we get on with editing please and stop going round in circles. This may help everybody see why it's quite important to tackle the underlying theories and priciples of AT and not pretend it's all in the past or doesn't really exist. [16]Fainites 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits should be fully discussed here first to build consensus. AT is a fringe treatment...major professional organizations prohibit what is described in this article as AT. Mainstream treatments (Circle of Security, Theraplay, Parent-Child Interaction, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, etc) should not be confused with AT.DPeterson^talk 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to include Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as a mainstream treatment for attachment disorders, please find a verified and credible source that states that that is what it is. It will have to be a good source, bearing in mind that Chaffin criticises its main proponent on 3 grounds as part of its criticism of attachment therapies within its definition of attachment therapies, and Prior and Glaser say its nothing to do with attachment. I have found sources for Circle of Security, Leibermans Parent/Child psychotherapy and various others and put them in. You need a source, not self report or continued assertion. Fainites 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Already responded to above. Sources in the article already. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Becker-Weidmans own assertions are not a source. Craven and Lee is not a source for saying its evidence based or mainstream. Do you really want to be lumped with Myeroff and Holding Therapy? Fainites 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced and inaccurate material. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Fainites 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles meet the wikipedia standards or being Wikipedia:Verifiability sources. DPeterson^talk 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

nat assc of social workers?

Why does the natl assoc and the utah assoc of social workers to to the same link? Fain, can you check this out. Did DP make another mistake in the links? thanks FatherTree 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fain can you check out those links. they are the same but DP thinks they are 2 different statements. maybe you can explain it to him FatherTree 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well its weird isn't it? The first one says NASW, and 'whereas' etc which is really a very broad short statement about restraint in general, but when you click on the 'online text' you get taken to the Utah chapter again. It's not really good enough. If there is a position statement for the whole NASW then thats the link we ought to have. I'll see if I can find anything from NASW.Fainites 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you search their website you can find it...It's a statment from 2002 of the general assembly. The ACT sources are verifiable. DPeterson^talk 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it by searching their website, why don't you put the proper link in? Fainites 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

?? There is a link in the article to a verifiable source. RalphLender^talk 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the source. It is the same one used for Utah. Please read it FatherTree 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

the link leads to a statment by the NASW national delegate assembly. RalphLender^talk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about link #11 and #12? Did you open the pdf's on both of them? Please answer FatherTree 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The link, 12, goes to a page that quotes the NASW national del assemb. RalphLender^talk 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More Craven and Lee

I've just come across this cite:

"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."

See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf

Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here. StokerAce 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It meets the Wikipedia standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability and as such is as relevant and valid as all other references and citations. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is a new Craven and Lee piece. I'm just asking what it says. Can anyone get a copy? Maybe Dr. Lee would send a draft?

DPeterson are you OK? You don't seem like yourself these days. StokerAce 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and harrassment are not condoned on Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Please stop attacking me and harassing me then. I'm trying to find out if anyone can get this article and you're cluttering up the whole page. I'm going to start a new section. StokerAce 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not harrassed you in any way nor made Personal Attacks. You have had a history of founded conflict on several pages. I've asked you to please stop. I am now asking again. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did accuse me of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=82802607&oldid=82696095 StokerAce 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue. I was not going to bring that up here, but since you did, I will respond. That went back to 2006...I see you still carry a grudge and I do note that here now. In fact, the administration involved raised that issue first:

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

DPeterson^talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I think it's you who holds the grudge, having had your accusation disproved. If I only I were Larry Sarner. If I were, I would call up Dr. Becker-Weidman and have a peaceful chat in an attempt to resolve this dispute. But I'm not, so all I can do is try to help on Wikipedia. Now, if someone could get that 2007 Craven and Lee piece, that could be a big help. StokerAce 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to Assume Good Faith here and focus on the article, not past hurts or past personal conflicts. Personal Attacks are just not productive. Let's focus on the article and content and Wikipedia policies. RalphLender^talk 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Craven and Lee Piece

It seems that there is a new Craven and Lee piece coming out:

"Lee, R. E., & Craven, P. A. (2007, in press). Reply to Pignotti and Mercer: Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are Not Supported and Acceptable Social Work Interventions. Research on Social Work Practice."

See http://www.chs.fsu.edu/college/cv/vita-rlee.pdf

Does anyone know what the article says? It may be relevant here. Would Dr. Lee send a copy? StokerAce 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2006 Article is excellent and on point. It certainly meets the Wikipedia standard of being 'verifiable', which is the primary standard for inclusion in an article. I suggest reading it as it semas some editors are not familiar with this. DPeterson^talk 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was good. So good that I'm quite looking forward to reading the 2007 piece. Perhaps Fainites can get a copy. StokerAce 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who can't get the Lee & Craven (in press), I can summarize it as saying,"don't say 'ain't' when I say 'is'." It does not address the criticisms-- a not unfamiliar situation-- but reiterates the original claims.Part of the problem is a failure to read background material even when reminded to do so, again a familiar concern.Jean Mercer 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the most important rules of science, or any type of systematic, logical investigation, is that you can't cherry-pick. In order to reach a legitimate conclusion, all information must be considered-- in fact, the effort is to find ways to reject a hypothesis, not to trawl for support.This is especially important when the goal of work is to provide support for families and for children's mental health. Mistakes can cause unnecessary suffering, whether they are mistakes of design or lack of transparency in reporting (cf. the TREND guidelines).Jean Mercer 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the writer of the letter they are responding to, your comments are not NPOV and may be OR...but in any event, are clearly self-promoting. RalphLender^talk 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in order to understand this we need the Mercer/Pignotti article and the Lee/Craven reply. I understood from what was said in this page that the Mercer/Pignotti article hadn't been published yet. Perhaps Jean Mercer could let us have a copy. Fainites 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this--- is there a way I can send it to you, Fainites, with the proviso that this is a prepublication draft, so no page numbers? I have a copy of the Lee & Craven response but I think you'll have to get that from L & C-- it's not really mine to distribute. 72.73.200.120 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)OOps, thought I had logged on-- J.M.

Thanks! My e-mail is enabled.Fainites 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone hasn't seen the original Craven Lee article which has been, in my view misleadingly, cited as saying that DDP is 'evidence-based' in company with Leiberman no less, what they actually did was set out categories. Only the first three are really relevant here. The first three are :

- Category 1:Well-supported, efficacious treatment - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at-risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for replication. - 6. At least two randomized, controlled outcome studies have demonstrated - the treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster - children. This means the treatment was demonstrated to be - better than placebo or no different or better than an already established - treatment. - 7. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the large majority - of outcome studies support the efficacy of the treatment. - Category 2: Supported and probably efficacious - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for implementation. - 6. At least two studies utilizing some form of control without randomization - (e.g., wait list, untreated group, placebo group) have - established the treatment’s efficacy over the passage of time, efficacy - over placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than - already established treatment. - 7. If multiple treatment outcome studies have been conducted, the - overall weight of evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment. - Category 3: Supported and acceptable treatment - 1. The treatment has a sound theoretical basis in generally accepted - psychological principles. - 2. A substantial clinical, anecdotal literature exists indicating the - treatment’s efficacy with at-risk children and foster children. - 3. The treatment is generally accepted in clinical practice for at-risk - children and foster children. - 4. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating - that the treatment constitutes a substantial risk of harm to - those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. - 5. The treatment has a manual that clearly specifies the components - and administration characteristics of the treatment that allows - for replication. - 6a. At least one group study (controlled or uncontrolled), or a series - of single subject studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the - treatment with at-risk children and foster children; - or - 6b. A treatment that has demonstrated efficacy with other populations - has a sound theoretical basis for use with at-risk children - and foster children, but has not been tested or used extensively - with these populations. - 7. If multiple treatment outcome studies have been conducted, the - overall weight of evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment. -

- - Both Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy (Becker-Weidman) and Holding Therapy (Myeroff) came into category three. Leiberman of course was in category one. The ground rules for category three do not in any event constitute 'evidence-based' as understood by the scientific community. Further, to cite Becker-Weidman and Leiberman in the same breath as confirmed as 'evidence-based' by this study as was done on this page is in the circumstances misleading. It is a source for what it is. DDP and Holding Therapy come into category 3. 'Supported and Acceptable'. You will note for category three the lack of any requirement for 'at least two randomized controlled trials' as in category one and 'at least two studies using some form of control without randomization....' etc as in category two. Only category one would possibly meet the definition 'evidence based' as per accepted standards as quoted by Chaffin and the AACAP (and any other scientific body). Sorry for such a long edit. Fainites 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On POV and OR, at least JeanMercer makes no bones about who she is. Everybody has a POV. It's the article that musn't have a POV. On OR, if her work is published in peer reviewed journals anybody is at liberty to cite it. What OR means is she can't go on the article and say 'I'm Mercer and I say', that's all. Fainites 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article meets the Wikipedia standard of being a reliable and verifiable source...so I don't see why the continued argument. The argument seems more to represent self-promotion ss the writer of the letter Craven & Lee are responding to, the comments are not NPOV and may be OR...but in any event, are clearly self-promoting. RalphLender^talk 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is a proper source. However, its conclusions were misleadingly presented and my attempt to put in an accurate version of its conclusions was repeatedly reverted. Also, a peer reviewed article criticising the article will also be a source. And so on Fainites 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm happy to e-mail the first Craven and Lee article to anyone if they want it. Jeanmercer has offered to send her reply and I have contacted Robert E.Lee (sic) about their reply to the reply. Fainites 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article's conclusions were misleadingly presented. This is your POV, and you are entitled to it. Getting Mercer's response or other letters probably falls under the heading of OR and is not acceptable in this encyclopedia for article. I think you should read the above discussion [[17]] which outlines that all views, if verifiable, are allowed and to be included in articles. RalphLender^talk 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Mercers/Pignottis article on Craven and Lees article is published in a peer reviewed journal, its a suitable source. What do you mean its 'OR'. I really don't understand this one.Fainites 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already made the same point. Getting Mercer's opinion and ideas would be WP:OR. The most relevant point is that I think you should read the above discussion [[18]] which outlines that all views, if verifiable, are allowed and to be included in articles. RalphLender^talk 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if its published in a peer reviewed journal.Fainites 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)