Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 19 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)

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

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

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

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

Others Comments

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Aplomado 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Attachment Therapy" vs. "attachment therapy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appropriate References

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

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

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

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

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