Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:52, 18 July 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

POV concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blanking the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shameful

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

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

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

Clean Up

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

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

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

The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. In which case, the material would belong on the existing pages, attachment therapy or Attachment therapy, which redirect the reader to Attachment disorder. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

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

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

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

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

Others Comments

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

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

Copyediting and NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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