Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:03, 31 July 2007

Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ARCHIVES

• Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 1
• Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2

Archiving

Nice one Sarner. The only problem is there's already an archive 1. The last lot should archive 2! Fainites 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Now we need links to the previous 2 archives. It's just work, work, work isn't it? Fainites 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, amateurism will out. The overhead with Wiki is incredible sometimes. I think this creates the current talk page. I was working on the links when I heard about the problem. Apparently my "move" to Archive 1 was successful -- it just appended it to the previous one (making a really big one)! I'll let someone wiki-proficient sort that all out. I didn't know the other archive existed -- no one posted a link on it to the then-existing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarner (talk • contribs)

I've requested that Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 be moved back to Talk:Attachment Therapy. After that, I'll just restore my original cut/paste archive that DPeterson reverted. It wasn't clear from the discussion then that I had already made a second archive. shotwell 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

• Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 → Talk:Attachment Therapy — Improper (but accidentally so) talk page archiving: not a subpage, there was already an archive 1, and the first archive was a cut/paste archive. This talk page is currently being used for a lot of evidence during arbcom, it'd be nice if the page history were straightforward. —shotwell 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) shotwell 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems from the pages' histories that:-
    • At 21:27, 13 May 2007 User:DanielCD cut-and-pasted about 65,373 bytes (about an eighth part of the page) from Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 1.
    • At 00:10, 22 June 2007 User:Shotwell cut-and-pasted 598,565 bytes from Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 (598,565 bytes), which has not been edited since.
    • At 01:04, 22 June 2007 User:DPeterson reverted User:Shotwell's delete in Talk:Attachment Therapy, thus changing User:Shotwell's cut-and-paste into a copy-and-paste, and making Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 a redundant duplicate. Afterwards, new discussion happened in Talk:Attachment Therapy.
    • At 14:44, 23 July 2007 User:Sarner moved Talk:Attachment Therapy to Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 the proper way, leaving Talk:Attachment Therapy as a redirect, which afterwards was gradually enlarged into a discussion page with new discussion.
      • So, please: Do you want me to delete Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2 and move Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1 to Talk:Attachment Therapy/Archive 2? Or what? What histmerging to you want me to do? Anthony Appleyard 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

•  Done Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Intro by DPeterson

In my view, DPeterson's recent edits in the intro are not useful. A reference to "rebirthing" here makes "rebirthing" seem like a synonym for "attachment therapy," which it is not. Rather, it is one form of attachment therapy. In addition, I don't see any reason to highlight ACT and Quackwatch at the outset like this. The external links at the bottom are quite sufficient in this regard. ACT is only one of many organization that are critical of attachment therapy, so it looks odd to emphasize them so much. StokerAce 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have mentioned in my version of the intro that sometimes rebirthing is used in AT, but rebirthing is clearly a separate therapy in it's own right. Is it a form of AT or is it used by Aters? Rebirthing may well be a pseudoscience, but it's a different pseudoscience to AT. The media understandably conflate the two. I also agree about not highlighting ACT and Quackwatch in the opening. It's supposed to be a brief description.Fainites 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that somewhere on their site ACT give a number of defining characteristics of AT. Perhaps a version of this could go in the definition section. Fainites 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the placing and length of lack of precise professional meaning, removed rebirthing and references to ACT and Quackwatch, but kept the point that attachment disorder is also an ambiguous term. This was in my earlier proposal but somehow got lost.Fainites 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The book by ACT and their website all discuss rebirthing, in particular in reference to the Candace Newmaker case. Since all that is referenced in the article, rebirthing is appropriate. DPeterson 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep the record straight, the book Attachment Therapy on Trial is not a publication of or by ACT. The book was published by Praeger, a venerable imprint with professionally refereed titles and no financial connection with ACT whatever. The book was not a vanity publication and received rigorous editorial review in keeping with the publisher's high reputation, though a few minor errors nonetheless crept in. Larry Sarner 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly discussing rebirthing and claiming rebirthing and AT are synonymous are not the same thing. Secondly ACT on their website specifically explain why they have not included rebirthing in their list of AT therapies. Thirdly, this article is not called "ACT's definition of Attachment Therapy". Fainites 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing may be a kind of attachment therapy, or related to it; it just doesn't make any sense to mention it as a synonym in the first sentence. StokerAce 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that proper rebirthing practioners campaigned against rebirthing being outlawed because of the activities of ATers who were doing their own version, not recognised by rebirthing therapists. A sort of half-baked adoption of bits of someone elses therapy. Fainites 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it is a synonym, as StokerAce points out, and a term used along with other AKA's for AT. Therefore, it belongs in the list of AT AKA's like the other terms. The disamgiguation page can clear up any confusion of the term with other uses of the term. DPeterson 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. I said it was not a synonym, at that you were using it as a synonym improperly. It may be an example, but it is not a synonym. StokerAce 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to make it clear what AT is. AT and rebirthing are not synonymous. The form of rebirthing used in AT is well known because of media attention but that does not make the two terms synonymous. Synonymous usually means 'having the same or similar meaning'. It's like saying age regression is synonymous with attachment therapy. Its an important part of it but its not synonymous.Fainites 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also corrected DPetersons statement on the disambiguation page that rebirthing is a term used for attachment therapy. Sources please DP. Find me a good source that says attachment therapy and rebirthing are interchangeable terms rather than merely a variant of AT. Here's what Chaffin says:

"Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that appear to change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy,” “compression holding therapy,” “corrective attachment therapy,” “the Evergreen model,” “holding time,” or “rage-reduction therapy” (Cline, 1991; Lien, 2004; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Welch, 1988). Popularly, on the Internet, among foster or adoptive parents, and to case workers, they are simply known as “attachment therapy,”" Do you see? This form of rebirthing is an attachment therapy, but attachment therapy is not rebirthing. Chaffins passage is currently in the definition section. It could go in the opening I suppose. It's not that long.Fainites 00:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Variants are synonyms. You've made the point, thanks! DPeterson 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Variants are not synonyms. I don't really understand what's going on here. Why do you want "rebirthing" in the first sentence anyway? It just makes the article confusing and unclear. StokerAce 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

StokerAce has hit the nail on the head. Frankly, all references to "rebirthing" should be collected into one section, entitled something like "Confusion with Rebirthing". It's my view that "rebirthing" is only used as a straw man by Attachment Therapists to distance themselves from a notorious death. The term entered the AT lexicon because the press picked up on it in the Candace Newmaker case; it made good, sensational shorthand at the time. (In fact, "rebirthing" was just the script for the holding therapy for the day Candace was killed.) As the title of our book on the case suggests (Attachment Therapy on Trial) it was principles and practices of AT and not "rebirthing" responsible for Candace's fate. Obfuscating that fact has served the interests of Attachment Therapists by confusing and misleading the public. Clarity on the point in this article would be a valuable public service by Misplaced Pages. Larry Sarner 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. 'Spud' is a synonym for 'potato' but 'chip' is a variant. All chips are potatoes, but not all potatoes are chips. Now that it is clear that DPeterson has simply misunderstood the meaning of the word 'synonymous', and has had it explained to him, is it agreed that rebirthing should not be in the first line as an alternative word for attachment therapy? Nor should the disambiguation page imply this? Fainites 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Yes rebirthing is a strawman. Although the other techniques are not nearly as likely to kill people they still are harmfull. FatherTree 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing is an AKA as described. The ACT lit discuss it and the Candace Newmaker case/crime was all about rebirthing...the ACT book is all about that too. RalphLender 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources please. Not just saying 'they discuss it'. So what if they do? A source saying they are synonymous, interchangeable or whatever. Fainites 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've simply named it 'attachment therapy' which is what the article is about and then included Chaffins list of 'variants'. That should satisfy DP as apparently variant and synonymous are synonymous, and it is also fully sourced. Please do not revert properly sourced edits DP. I've also removed the totally unecessary mention of ACT and Quackwatch from the intro. The intro is supposed to be a brief description of the subject. The distinction between the AT form of rebirthing and 'proper' rebirthing can be made in the definition section or somewhere.Fainites 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See Also trimming

I have trimmed three cross-references that are left over from prior versions, but have no value in this one. While Stanley Greenspan is a reputable researcher, he has not developed an "Attachment Therapy", whatever definition may be applied to that term. Since Stephen Barrett's connection to this subject is only through Quackwatch, a link to him is padding. Finally, Theraplay is a completely unvalidated therapy, not mentioned in the body of the article, and like DDP quite un-notable, so to include it here is, in my opinion, mere advertising. Larry Sarner 04:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or is Theraplay an attachment therapy? Most other articles on subjects covered by Quackwatch just have a 'see also' type link.Fainites 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Theraplay is commercial pop psychology from the late 1970s and a contemporary of the early attachment therapy. At first it wasn't associated with Cline et al, but it informally clambored on board the AT bandwagon when Welch and others started to make a real splash in the next decade. It is another unvalidated treatment used on kids with "attachment difficulties" no more interesting than DDP is. I would delete the Quackwatch link, too, as not significant with relation to this topic. Going to either the Theraplay and Quackwatch articles on Misplaced Pages will yield little or no additional information than the present article for the reader pursuing knowledge about AT. That's the standard I personally apply for "See Also" links. The Wiki "community" could easily have other ideas about it. Larry Sarner 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch has information on AT and so is relevant. DPeterson 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. Neither the Quackwatch nor Stephen Barrett article have any reference to the topic of this article. Sending readers to those articles for additional information on AT is a deliberate waste of readers' time. I have removed the links from the article. Larry Sarner 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether Quackwatch has an article on AT on its website or not is irrelevent. It's absurd to have them in the intro.Fainites 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch references AT: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chlibrary.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mhindex.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/at.html Therefore it is a valid reference and notable for inclusion. DPeterson 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

QuackWatch and Barrett discuss AT and so their material is quite relevant and should be included. I don't see what is your objection to the inclusion of this very relevant and appropriate material that cleearly meets the wiki verifiablilty standard.

I object to including Quackwatch in the intro, firstly at alland secondly as an 'advocacy group'. You have not answered my question as to the reason for affording Quackwatch, who carry articles on just about every controversial or unvalidated treatment under the sun, such prominence in this article. It's just Quackwatch! Not the APSAC report or the like! Fainites 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting perfectly good material. It might be considered an act of vandalism. The material is releveant and verifiable. Consider following wiki dispute resolution processess instead of merely reverting DPeterson 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rewrite of introduction

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

I have removed a list of "variants" added to the introduction, as I believe it is cluttering and a digression. In my opinion, the list should find a home elsewhere in the article, or be omitted altogether. Larry Sarner 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that a phrase, "with no precise professional meaning" had been added to the introductory sentence. (I didn't get an "edit conflict" when I made my changes, and just realized the revert I had not intended.) On reflection, though, the qualification is unnecessary since the description of AT as a "popular name" excludes any professional use. Larry Sarner 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re 'variant' and 'no precise professional meaning', the first is part of an APSAC quote that is already in the definition. The second is not really needed. It was put in by me as a (failed) attempt to stop DP et al fillingup the intro with lists of books/orgs etc who don't define AT. Fainites 08:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional details added

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

You mean you have added back in for the nth time the same old material that other editors consider unecessary or inappropriate.Fainites 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The material added is verifiable, factual, and meets wikipedia standards. You and your group continue to revert without consideration or discussion of the merits. You have reverted without explaination or basis for the N to the nth. time and appear unwilling to engage in wikipedia CONTENT DISPUTE resolution discussions or processes. RalphLender 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed ad nauseum for weeks as you very well know. Your edit summaries implying it has not are misleading. Also, we're in the middle of ArbCom on all this right now including accusations of breach of policies in relation to content. That is dispute resolution. In addition, when you keep adding back in old material you don't seem to notice that other editors have sometimes rewritten parts of it. This results in unecessary duplication of points. Fainites 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact Tags

Fact tags are being constantly inserted under the rather feeble pretence that page numbers are needed. Whilst page numbers are recommended for quotes, a number of quotes properly contain the page numbers within the refs where they should be. Where a source is extensively quoted this is a little more difficult. It is however a completely inappropriate use of fact tags which of course appear as saying citation needed, particularly as the editor concerned claims to have the sources and therefore, if editing constructively and co-operatively, could insert the page numbers himself.Fainites 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers are used with quotes. That is a common convention and allows the interested reader to easily find and check the quote. RalphLender 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Put them in then instead of adding citation tags. I may have time to dig them up later this weekend.Fainites 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proponants

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

Variants

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

Since the fuller (but way incomplete list) appears later in the article, I think it is cluttering to repeat it in the intro. However, in the interest of comity, I will now try to come up with shorter wording for this (sub)topic which can satisfy us all (I hope). I also hope that Orangemarlin will let my other formatting stand if he continues his objections to my stance on the variant list. Larry Sarner 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch "See Also"

I have been trying to eliminate the cockroach reference to Misplaced Pages's article on Quackwatch for a few days now. It was originally put in by certain editors (who shall remain nameless) who thought that they could discredit this article by association. (I think they are wrong in that view and the association is actually a helpful one for this article.) However much I like the Quackwatch article and association, it remains that the Quackwatch article contains no "further reading" on this topic and is a misdirection for readers of this article. Given my own association with Quackwatch, if the shoe were on the other foot and I were pushing for inclusion of the link, I think I could be fairly accused of advertising! IMHO, the link here really does need to go. I'm willing to listen to reason and evidence to the contrary. Larry Sarner 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Its only a link! Fainites 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not the one fighting to keep it! As with so much, it's the principle of the thing. Larry Sarner 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic principles only need apply! Isn't just a link to the Quackwatch article on AT ok then? I'm easy either way really. My main objection was to Quackwatch being inserted into the intro. Fainites 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article. DPeterson 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy is not mentioned in the Quackwatch article and Quackwatch is not mentioned in the AT article. To what are you referring?Fainites 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson at 2.07 you made a substantial edit. In the edit summary you state restoring material that was added with sources and verificable citations. No material had been deleted; only added to improve article. This is patently untrue. You have deleted a section on evidence based interventions from Prior and Glaser and a section from the non-evidence based section dealing with Craven and Lee - the extensively discussed review you previously cited - and such evidence as there is for attachment therapy. It is simply not possible to WP:AGF.Fainites 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTACh is not organization of professionals pertinent to stated purpose of list

ATTACh was listed as one of the "professional" organizations prohibiting "some practices" by its members. While it is even arguable whether ATTACh has really done this, it is nevertheless a fact that ATTACh is not a professional organization in the same sense as the others in the list are. Prominently on its home page (www.attach.org), ATTACh describes itself as a "coalition of professionals and families", which contrasts to the others (e.g., APA, ApA, APSAC, NASW) which do not have lay people able to decide policy. ATTACh is actually a trade organization founded to promote AT, or at the very least an advocacy group in its behalf. There's nothing wrong with being either or both of those things (as I well know), but for the offered purpose of the present list, the group's positions are not pertinent. Larry Sarner 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaffin says:

"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 , 2001)."

presumably there is a distinction here between 'mainstream professional societies' and professional organization', but as ATTACh seems to be considered the home of attachment therapists, the fact that they've issued a statement against coercion is surely worthy of note. Fainites 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Base

I've expanded this section based on the sources so frequently previously discussed, namely APSAC, Prior and Glaser, Craven & Lee, Pignotti & Mercer, Myeroff and Becker-Weidman. I've put in some material relating to Hughes and his purpose regarding DDP. Myeroff and DDP are the only studies I am aware of relating to AT treatments. No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong! Fainites 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just glanced over the article myself today, for the first time in ages. Mostly I wanted to double check what sort of edits were being added, during the present 24 hour block which DPeterson's conduct led to.

I have a concern from a neutrality viewpoint on this section. The title itself ("Lack of Evidence Basis for Controversial Therapies") contrasted with the title of the previous section ("Evidence-based mainstream therapies") seems to have a considerable NPOV problem -- it suggests that lack of evidence basis is a Misplaced Pages viewpoint. Page and section titles should not breach WP:NPOV. The section itself is a bit POINTy-tasting too. I thought about it, and would like to offer an external rewrite suggestion on the following lines for consideration by all sides in the debate. I'd suggest a section roughly as follows:

1. Better title
2. What is evidence basis? Why does it matter? What are current mainstream views and trends on it?
3. What views are expressed on evidence and controversial therapies in general, and within that, on attachment therapy, by notable bodies?
4. Who else has expressed views, and characterize the debate and current positions.

==Evidence Basis and Controversial Therapies== Evidence based medicine is a term used to mean that proposed medical and psychological treatments should be tested and used, based upon rigorous testing and independent peer review of findings by the medical community and reviewers. There have been a number of reports on the evidence base for attachment therapy and holding therapies in general. A major review of evidence on Attachment therapy (among other controversial therapies) was carried out by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children ("APSAC", a mental health professionals' support group) Task Force, known as the 'Chaffin report' (2006). It noted that "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, and expressed concerns over claims by some therapies to be "evidence based" (or indeed the only evidence-based therapy), whereas the Task Force often found no credible evidence base existed for such therapies upon examination.. 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."] According to 'Chaffin', Attachment therapy is considered as one of the therapies to be well supported/poorly supported in this manner. etc....

Like this, the evidence and criticism sections really can be shortened and changed from a stance, to a discussion and characterization of the issue of evidence basis. It could then balance and incorporate views for and against and descriptions of the evidence and aims involved, for example. It also explains that APSAC is a members advocacy/support group, which is relevant in understanding its role. The section has covered the basics in a few short sentences, and can now go on to discuss and summarize why APSAC says as it did and any other views they give, who else has opinions and what they say, minority views and submissions (with due weight), and thats it, one NPOV based discussion of evidence basis in attachment/holding therapy.

Anyhow, that's just a thought on a section that looks like it needs work from a policy perspective. FT2 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. It was bit of a hasty edit in some ways. I'm sure when ArbCom is finished other editors will be more inclined to join in and improve the article. I've changed the title. On your suggestions, this particular Taskforce was only on the whole phenomenon of AT. Also, though APSAC itself is a professional org., the Taskforce contained a large chunk of the big names in the field and is therefore by no means an APSAC commentary document as such. This is why it's such a big source. It isn't 'APSAC's view'. I'll try the footnotes thing out. Also, one of the reasons why its such a quotefarm is that direct quotes serve as a defence against POV paraphrases. Fainites 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND applies to all sides and issues. In an edit war, its very common for sections to be written "defensively" -- armies of quotes fighting armies of quotes in polarized battle (so to speak). But that's not really satisfactory. A good article isn't written that way, it tries to rise above the dispute to characterize the topic and debate, and that means somewhere along the line, much of the quote farm goes into footnotes (that way they can be checked if anyone wishes); quotes and points are not used to "win" for either side, but cited as notes, to support a balanced flowing discursive overview/summary of the topic. It's hard to do that when theres a major edit dispute, but that's the sort of shape an article should try to head for when possible. Hope that helps focus the article on what to aim more for. FT2 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Also, editors to this page might like to review the style and flow of English. For example: "The APSAC Task Force stated that proponents correctly point out that..." -> "The Task Force agreed with proponents of holding therapies, that...", maybe from a style point of view move the actual cite page notes "(APSAC, 2006, pXX)" etc into footnotes to reduce the disruption of the main text, merge some paragraphs into umbrella sentences that then refer to footnoted cites for the detail, and so on. (You might also want to footnote the bit about the report's authority, if that's so, since a casual reader referencing the APSAC article will surely not realize that, just as I didn't). A lot can be done to improve this section -- just think how you'd expect a reference article to read and it gets easy! :) FT2 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) )

i agree that accurate paraphrases is something to aim for. Fainites 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute little of what FT2 has said here. One of the recommendations was that a change of title for the section following "Mainstream Evidence-Based Therapies", to wit, "Evidence Basis and Controversial Therapies", which has been complied with as being more NPOV. That is indeed an improvement. On reflection, I would like to solicit comments about a further change of title that I think would be even more in the spirit of NPOV: "Controversial Interventions". It would also be a natural progression from the subject of the preceding section, or so I think. Larry Sarner 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Contentious editing

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

The Taskforce specifically maintained their opinion on the issue of evidence base. Also, Craven and Lee is May 2006, before the Chaffin Reply in November 2006. I've rearranged the section a bit to make more sense of the Craven/Lee - Apsac dichotomy. I hope you think the section is now a fair representation of the controversy with all relevent sources cited. I have included APSAC's words of encouragement. I hope it is also a fair representation of Hughes who makes his position pretty clear on his website and in his forward to Becker-Weidmans book. I have also included that it is a moot point as to whther or not DDP is in fact an attachment therapy, in that ACT and the taskforce clearly think it is, but Prior and Glaser do not put it in that section of their book. Again, I think this is fair to Hughes. Fainites 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The other alternative is to have a very short section which simply states that there are no 'attachment therapies' considered to be evidence based, cite Chaffin, Prior and Glaser and leave it at that. All the stuff about whether or not DDP is an attachment therapy, the status of Craven and Lee etc perhaps belongs in the DDP article. Fainites 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The material added is obviously slanderous and is POV-ACT material. I see not line in the APSAC report or response that says, we "Stand by our earlier comments." Can you show that to me? Also, DDP is evaluated as evidence-based, cat3 by Craven & Lee and that should be included, don't you think?

Taskforce

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

AT should be in caps per general usage. I'm making those changes. RalphLender 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles