Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 23 July 2017

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus after ignoring new users. Jaranda 04:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

I tagged this recently-created article as original research since it appeared to be an essay in which the author draws conclusions; i.e., he was using Misplaced Pages to publish a paper. It appears that I have walked into a war between two (or more) people interested in this particular medical field. See Talk:Attachment_Therapy, User_talk:DPeterson, Talk:John Bowlby and Talk:Attachment_disorder. One side believes the article should be deleted and redirected to Attachment disorder, and the other side feels that it merits its own article. Hopefully the Misplaced Pages community can provide some consensus here and settle this. Aplomado 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Suggestion Perhaps we should make an appeal on WikiProject Medicine for Wikipedians who are both experienced editors and medical experts Bwithh 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made an appeal on the wikiproject talk page Bwithh 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep May demonstrate original research but this is a real form of therapy. Related, but weighty enough to be a seperate article. Needs clean up, not deletion. Dgies 07:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There material on this subject is fully described in the pages Attachment therapy Attachment disorder, and related pages. Furthermore, the person who initiated the page, mercer, is a leader of a fringe group, ACT, or actively involved in it, and has had a book printed regarding this "issue" from which financial interest is derived. Finally, the article is clearly biased and represents an attempt to publish an essay. DPeterson 14:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article provides information that is not included under any other topic. The other discussions of various attachment issues do not refer to physical restraint or other intrusive practices, or to the role of adjuvant treatments, or to the history of these interventions, all of which are considered in the article under discussion. Popular material on Attachment Therapy presents a picture that may lead the public to search for information in Misplaced Pages, and it would be a service to provide this information in a concise but complete form rather than adding material to other topics and making the reader search for it. I am the author of the draft under consideration, and I can present as my credentials a doctorate in psychology, many years' work in developmental psychology and infant mental health, and publication of a number of the articles cited in the draft, which is not "original".As for the more substantive issue here, whether Attachment Therapy is an independent topic, I note that the American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC)appointed a task force to consider "Attachment therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems" (report published in the journal Child Maltreatment, 2006, Vol. 11, pp. 76-89). The report referred to "a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects... the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these practices, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents" (p. 77). I put it to this group that if APSAC considers this "subset" to be worthy of investigation by a task force, the "subset" is a topic separate from other considerations of attachment or of Reactive Attachment Disorder. It is to this subset that I applied the term Attachment Therapy, a label frequently used by "subset" practitioners and one likely to be known to members of the public who might be searching for information. I would like to continue with the page I drafted and to edit it to reflect the comments of the APSAC task force as quoted above.Jean Mercer 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion Delete This article reads more as propaganda. I'd recommend adding material on physical restraint or other intrusive practices to the relevant pages. Redirection to those pages, as occurs if you try Attachment therapy would work fine. Use of Misplaced Pages to publish is not really appropriate. SamDavidson 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Dr. Mercer and the APSAC Task Force agree in both their examination and estimation of Attachment Therapy. A synopsis of Attachment Therapy for Misplaced Pages by Dr. Mercer should be welcome. HealthConsumerAdvocate 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 'Should be deleted' as a one time user with no history of edits. 'The previous "keep" was deleted after it was noted that might be a surrogate. It was deleted by someone in the Denver Colorado area. It was suggested that only those who sign in should post. This and other "keep" posts look quite suspicious now. DPeterson 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete'I can see no purpose in developing this article since it's contents either duplicate material found elsewhere or that should be put elsewhere. Furthermore, I don't think an article should be a forum for a group, such as ACT, to present their views and opinions and exclude others. MarkWood 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete'I agree with the points raised by the others who wish to see the page deleted.JonesRD 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Question' Since Mercer and Sarner share a financial interest (together they published at least one book) and are also leaders of the group ACT, is it fair to consider their comments and ideas and "votes" as separate? I'd like to know what the Administrators think...or what other disinterested parties have to say. Thank you. JonesRD 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe they should be allowed a vote. Sandy 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote so it's not really an issue. Aplomado 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • But if they have a financial interest in the topic and also leaders of a "fringe group" (meaning not accepted or used by mainstream professional groups such as APA, NASW, or APSAC, then would that effect the weight applied to their arguments and their credibility? DPeterson 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Attachment therapy itself may be bogus, and the entire article may be a mess, but the therapy warranted a study in a medical journal, so the solution is not to delete the article, rather to clean it up and reference it. That will at least serve the purpose of warning others who seek info that it has been studied, and may be bogus. The article may be a problem, and the therapy may be a problem, but it has been medically studied, and Wiki should report that accurately, and with references. If there are problems with the group pushing this therapy, that should also be dealt with in the article via information from reliable sources. PMID 16382093 Sandy 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

|*'Comment' It is important that contributors sign in...we don't really know who is the above contributor and if the "keep" suggestion is new or just a repeat and continuation of a previous users comments...which I suspect may be the case. It is also becoming confusing as sandy and mercer put up comments that they then later delete, move, and change...reading through the history one sees this and I am concerned that relevant material of others may have also been deleted?

It does not matter the amount of money involved, but the fact of a financial interest among mercer, sarner, and sarner's wife, rosa is the salient issue. In addition, mercer and sarner are leaders of the group ACT, which is another set of ties and financial interests as the ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy) website shows (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/).

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 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)'

'delete' I've read the comments here and on the bowlby talk page and the various associated articles mentioned. There is no reason to keep this article. Related material in on other pages. The narrowness of the dispute means that, as described above, it should be in context and, as such, would be better as a section in the article on attachment disorder. If there is concern about individuals looking up attachment therapy, there is already a redirect from that term and there could be a redirect from Attachment Therapy too. This would better serve readers of Misplaced Pages. JohnsonRon 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

'DELETE'The material and reasons stated make the point clearly and I agree that the article is unncessary. In particular, I think DPeterson's points are well stated and I must agree. RalphLender 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

'DELETE...COMMENT'While this may not be a primary reason for deletion, inclusion of this page would become a needless forum for such fringe groups as ACT and its leaders to state a point of view and then invite rebuttal and then reverts by the "opponents" in the ACT camp, etc. etc. Alternativly to have two sections in which each side could put their material would then create an "article" that is neither an article nor informative in the sense of presenting information in as neutral a manner as possible. JonesRD 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

'DELETE' I agree with all the previous points raised for deletion. These points are very cogent. I find the argument of DPeterson very convincing: The APSAC report does not describe Attachment Therapy, it uses the term attachment therapy without capital letters. There is already a redirect for this term. They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, the 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' is to include a reference and brief description of the controversy on the previously mentioned page with a link to the APSAC report for details.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.