Talk:Attachment disorder

Archived discussion

Hi, Dwiki here. I archived the prior discussion as the article was reverted to a point before any of this discussion occurred for reasons of copyright infringement. The discussion is archived here ---> --Dwiki 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should not have been reverted. There is and was not copyright infringement as the previous talk page discusssions showed. The minor material that was "copyrighted" was posted with permission. DPeterson^talk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, from the archived page the hold of the copyright stated:

The material previously deleted was not "stolen" as it is covered under fair use provisions of the copyright code. But, more to the point, I hold the copyright to that article and I am allowed to use it as I see fit...although I have edited it some here. Dr. Art 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

JonesRD_talk 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not permitted under fair user provisions, as it was entirely pasted into this article. If you are the author, however, you need to not only "allow" its use but release the document under the GFDL - see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you are willing to take this step, the content is permitted. As for whether or not it's a good choice to place so much content into an article that espouses a particular point of view, that's up to the custodians of this article. I'm not willing to invest the energy into this article that it needs, but its largest problem with the pasted content is that the pasted content was a POV essay. The net result is two years later, the article still uses non-neutral language, making assertions that things "should" happen, when it is clearly only the opinion of the author. In this respect, the addition borders on original research. This is the tone of an essay, not a Wikipedia article, and thus, why is it in here in the first place? Good luck. --Dwiki 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission has already been granted by the copyright owner, Dr. Becker-Weidman, per the quote JonesRD provided. DPeterson^talk 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable editing this article if I knew that Dr. Becker-Weidman had specifically released the document under the GFDL. There's a procedure for recording this as the case here. It's important to make sure Dr. Becker-Weidman understands the terms of that license and what he allows to occur to the text once it falls under that license. --Dwiki 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that he did as described on the talk page in the archive. DPeterson^talk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it. Could you please indicate where? Also, was it properly documented as per the procedure indicated in the link I posted before? --Dwiki 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... as was pointed out on the AfD page, also worth considering here is the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. --Dwiki 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no Conflict of interest here. Giving permission to use material is allowed under GFDL.DPeterson^talk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article has merit and should stay. JohnsonRon 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission Granted

To be clear, I previously gave permission for my article from my website to be used and licensed the contribution in 2005, or whenever it was posted, under GFDL,

Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU

Free Documentation License".

Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears up that point. RalphLender^talk 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

'NO' This is an article that has had a great deal of discussion and editing and addresses an important topic in psychology and mental health treatment. References and sources cited clearly bear this out. DPeterson^talk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

delete?

do not delete this. rate it C or D but don't delete it.

harlequence

Article controversy

Wikipedia is not a place to republish entire articles - Wikisource is thataway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means articles should be summaries. The article that's being copy-pasted here is far too detailed, written in an inappropriate tone and reads as an apparent diagnosis/treatment guide. That's not what Wikipedia is for. FCYTravis 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Others disagree with you on this point, so a better approach than wholesale deletion would be to improve the article by judicious editing. This would lead to a consensus, which had been achieved on this page previously. Wholesale deletions are not constructive or consistent with Wikipedia editing practices. DPeterson^talk 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Travis. The article reads like sheer PR.--DorisH 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both points of view here. Rather than engage in a revert war...which is just not productive, I will restore the section deleted and make some edits to improve it. I invite other editors to contribute to improving this article by cooperative editing. MarkWood 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

'Note that the aricle is being considered for deletion and "blanking" of the article or large sections of it is prohibited.' MarkWood 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• MarkWood makes a good point...don't blank the article...edit to improve it...BTW, I like the edits you've made in the article MarkWood, it is much improved. JonesRD_talk 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There, judicious editing done. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of main and important points, not detailed guides listing every single bullet-point symptom and instructing on treatment therapies from a single POV. Furthermore, I've removed the puffery language like "leading theory" and whatnot, unless sources can be provided for those statements. The article in question is also written in an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. "Attachment is fundamental to healthy development, normal personality, and the capacity to form healthy and authentic emotional relationships (O'Connor & Zeanah). How can one determine whether a child has attachment issues that require attention?" - That block is entirely useless here. We can't assert that it's fundamental. We can't ask questions in the text. We can't tell people to go see a licensed health care provider if someone's exhibiting XYZ symptoms. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The entire article is written that way, and hence is not appropriate. Please do not reinsert the text in question, because it's not an encyclopedia article, it's a how-to guide. If you want the whole unedited article on the Web, Wikisource is thataway. FCYTravis 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at some editing here and added a citation. DPeterson^talk 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a few additional references and done some editing to clarify a few things. As an article that discusses a "disorder," suggesting that an individual seek professional consultation regarding that person's specific situation seems quite legit. If a person (parent or teacher, for example) has a concern about a child's behavior that is a legit basis for seeking guidance. Seems very appropriate to me. SamDavidson 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• What it seems to you is not relevant. Please see manual of style and neutral point of view. We are not a how-to guide. FCYTravis 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please see articles such as Common cold. The "symptoms" section is a bit more than a paragraph, sourced and written from a dispassionate voice. This is how this article should look. We do not need to go into excruciating detail. FCYTravis 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your complete deletion rather than editing as you suggested is really an abuse of editing. As an administrator, you should behavior in a manner more consistent with Wikipedia practices. JohnsonRon 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This for example:

What are the subtle signs of attachment issues?

1. Sensitivity to rejection and to disruptions in the normally attuned connection between mother and child
2. Avoiding comfort when the child’s feelings are hurt, although the child will turn to the parent for comfort when physically hurt
3. Difficulty discussing angry feelings or hurt feelings
4. Over-valuing looks, appearances, and clothes
5. Sleep disturbances, not wanting to sleep alone
6. Precocious independence - a level of independence that is more frequently seen in slightly older children
7. Reticence and anxiety about changes
8. Picking at scabs and sores
9. Secretiveness
10. Difficulty tolerating correction or criticism

is completely irrelevant to the topic attachment disorder.--DorisH 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking this page, or large sections of it may be considered vandalism and are not allowed...as I mentioned on your talk page, you may not be aware of that, but please discontinue such behavior now that you are aware. JohnsonRon 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...and...? We are eagerly waiting for a response that gives a reason for your repeated insertion of Becker-Waidmans PR-material?--DorisH 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that blanking large sections of an article can be seen as vandalism and you should take note of that. A much better approach, Doris, would be to collaborative try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war. While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors. DPeterson^talk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that inserting a how-to-guide from another website is inappropriate and you should take note of that. A much better approach, Peterson, would be to collaboratively try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war. While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but... :D)--DorisH 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing large sections of text that are copy-pasted in from an external source and which are written in an entirely unencyclopedic tone is hardly vandalism. I have repeatedly pointed out that the sections in question are unacceptable, because they speak from an active voice and presume to assert facts not in evidence without attribution. You are attempting to enforce the wholesale addition of material, and that won't fly. The text in question has been GFDLed, which means, guess what, anyone gets to bend, fold, spindle and/or mutilate it. That's what Wikipedia's about - not copy-pasting a clearly-polemic pro-single-POV article into a text box and claiming it can't be touched. As for the "other editors," they're transparently single-purpose accounts which conveniently show up every time you need them to create false consensus for your POV on attachment-related articles, so you can dispense with the charade. FCYTravis 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia policy clearly states that such blanking can be considered vandalism. You, you have made your point...but there are many others who disagree with you, therefore blanking is in appropriate. A better approach is to edit the article to improve it, not just hack away at it. Building consensus and collaborative editing is a corner-stone of Wikipedia. In fact, other editors here have begun to edit the sections in ways that take your view into account. You should either let that happen, or help. You are misrepresenting my views here FCYTravis. I am not saying that the article or sections cannot be touched...only that it be improved, as other editors have begun to do in a collaborative and cooperative fashion. Your last comments meet the criteria for Personal Attacks and should stop. It is not construtive. As an administrator, I'd expect better of you. DPeterson^talk 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Open questions for discussion

• The following unsourced section:

What are the subtle signs of attachment issues?

1. Sensitivity to rejection and to disruptions in the normally attuned connection between mother and child
2. Avoiding comfort when the child’s feelings are hurt, although the child will turn to the parent for comfort when physically hurt
3. Difficulty discussing angry feelings or hurt feelings
4. Over-valuing looks, appearances, and clothes
5. Sleep disturbances, not wanting to sleep alone
6. Precocious independence - a level of independence that is more frequently seen in slightly older children
7. Reticence and anxiety about changes
8. Picking at scabs and sores
9. Secretiveness
10. Difficulty tolerating correction or criticism

is completely irrelevant to the topic attachment disorder.--DorisH 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see articles such as Common cold. The "symptoms" section is a bit more than a paragraph, sourced and written from a dispassionate voice. This is how this article should look. We do not need to go into excruciating detail. FCYTravis 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• What it seems to you is not relevant. Please see manual of style and neutral point of view. We are not a how-to guide. FCYTravis 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bulk of article is a copy-pasted copyrighted article taken from here. It was sort-of covertly added here. There has been no assurance Dr. Becker-Wiedman has released this article under the GFDL. In addition, this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places. I think it would be better to just start over from scratch as this is such a controversial topic, and both sides seem quite entrenched. --Dwiki 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions still open for discussion

1. The following unsourced section: What are the subtle signs of attachment issues? Sensitivity to rejection and to disruptions in the normally attuned connection between mother and child, Avoiding comfort when the child’s feelings are hurt, although the child will turn to the parent for comfort when physically hurt; Difficulty discussing angry feelings or hurt feelings; Over-valuing looks, appearances, and clothes;Sleep disturbances, not wanting to sleep alone;Precocious independence - a level of independence that is more frequently seen in slightly older children; Reticence and anxiety about changes; Picking at scabs and sores; Secretiveness; Difficulty tolerating correction or criticism; is completely irrelevant to the topic attachment disorder.--DorisH 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Please see articles such as Common cold. The "symptoms" section is a bit more than a paragraph, sourced and written from a dispassionate voice. This is how this article should look. We do not need to go into excruciating detail. FCYTravis 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
3. What it seems to you is not relevant. Please see manual of style and neutral point of view. We are not a how-to guide. FCYTravis 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Bulk of article is a copy-pasted copyrighted article taken from here. It was sort-of covertly added here. There has been no assurance Dr. Becker-Wiedman has released this article under the GFDL. In addition, this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places. I think it would be better to just start over from scratch as this is such a controversial topic, and both sides seem quite entrenched. --Dwiki 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Mentioned on AfD by me before: Attachment disorder understood in the medical scientific sense, as used by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists is duplicated at Reactive attachment disorder. The current article is at best an article on Attachment problems. It is questionable if an article on attachment problems is encyclopedic.--DorisH 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Attachment Disorder" is not the same as Reactive Attachment Disorder. RAD is a psychiatirc diagnosis (DSM-IV-TR). Attachment Disorder is a loosly used ill-defined term used in the popular literature and, as such, deserves an encyclopedia article.DPeterson^talk 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the specifics are useful. If you look at other articles on mental disorders there is usually the detailed statement of the DSM criteria. In this instance, this is not a DSM diagnosis, but is a term used across the internet...so more details are better than fewer. JonesRD_talk 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The section sums up some of the common criticism of this article by DorisH and FCYTravis. It serves the purpose of documenting what people (those two) criticize, since changes cannot be made.

1. many people on the archived deletion debate think the article needs a rewrite

:I only see one or two, while there are several who disagree with you. JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can see only one or two how come three have reverted to the start of a rewrite by Dhartung during the last few days? The history shows numerous attempts at rewrites, the archived talk-pages also shows several suggestions.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. definition unclear

Yes, it is unclear since it is not a term defined in the DSM or other such text.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

...this is the point where you should suggest a viable definition.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. relationship to reactive attachment disorder

Addressed: not related, not a DSM diagnosis as is reactive attachment disorder...read comments above.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder also includes the equivalent definition in the ICD, the uninhibited form is called attachment disorder.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. questions as to whether an ill defined phenomenon such as attachment problems should have an entry in an encylcopedia

'Already addressed above. Terms and concepts in popular culture do deserve an article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

should Bowlby be drawn into this then? The critics of popular psychology should also be included.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. tone: use of questions, suggestion to go and see a therapist.

'What is the problem with questions or suggestions of seek professional help?'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia because we are trying to write an encyclopedia. Therefore the articles, all articles, including this one, have to be written in an encyclopedic tone.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. content is how-to-guide

'How so? I don't see that.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

f. i. instead of giving a summary of the symptoms it presents itself as a sort of how-do-I-diagnose-my-kids-myself.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. lacks references

'extensive references are cited in the article.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the article would have to be plastered with {{cn}}--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. extensive description of 'symptoms' (whose property of being symptoms is also disputed)

'What is wrong with this when we are discussing an ill-defined term? State your objection clearly, please.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the comparison with the common cold, for instance as ignored above.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. spam-links at the bottom

'????'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

link to Becker-Weidmans site--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. content could be considered spam, as it quoted almost verbatim from one of the spam-links.

'How so? Please explain in detail to make yourself clear.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of this was on the deletion-discussion. It was one of the reasons it was listed. Among others, the nature of this piece of writing being authored by a proponent of attachment therapy, point to a conflict of interest which is obvious to people who have experience with pr-work, and also many ordinary consumers. The absence of criticism, the absence of the description of the opposite view are always signs of a pr-text. WP:COI is highly critical of people making any edits at all to articles that they have a financial interest in, let alone write and publish an entire article on Wikipedia.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. pov-problems: does not quote literature that critizes the assumption that the described behaviors that are unwanted by parents and therapist actually constitute a disorder or even a problem or an 'issue'

'Not a POV issue. Article references much material in professional peer-reviewed materials.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the article lacks a section criticism.--DorisH 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. does not provide a worldwide view

Respond and discuss in a manner that addresses the listed issues.--DorisH 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'DorisH, you need to explain may of your quesitions and state clearly your concern or objections. Most of these have already been addressed in previous sections here or in the archive. I suggest you read the archive to find the answers to your questions and that you detail what are your concerns.JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that my comments above are helpful in explaining things. You'd asked for an expert RfC in clinical psych and that is my background/training. JohnsonRon 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify your credentials then?--DorisH 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And my background is also in psychology and clinical work. I have a Ph.D....Since you requested comment. Do you, Doris, have an advanced clinical degree? DPeterson^talk 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify your credentials then, as per the current proposal by Jimbo? I for my part am most certainly not going to give you any personal details on myself. A verfication of both of your credentials could be done if you want that. It would also clear up the concerns of your [WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. Are you involved with some sort of therapy for perceived or real attachment disorders? Does your income depend on some sort of therapy for this? Are you employed by someone who provides these services? --DorisH 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response or comment does not seem consistent with Assume good faith; furthermore, implying negative motivations, as you do, is not only not assuming good faith, but borders on Personal attacks; perhaps. One does wonder about your affiliations given your diatribes...but I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner. DPeterson^talk 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strange reaction indeed... But interesting. Your opinion that the proposal borders on personal attacks has not been mentioned yet on the discussion page of the proposal. I recommend you mention it there. It won't change anything saying it here. Your reaction of course gives rise to further scepticism. So do you not want your credentials verified and taken into consideration now? In case your claims to a PhD are false it might be best for the two of you to confess right now. Searching for both of your names did not turn up any results, but that does not necessarily say you are pulling an Essjay (as they say now around here).--DorisH 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you'd want to lead by example? Your reticence to disclose your background and expertise, raises further skepticism and make one wonder about your affiliations. But as I said previously, I will continue to put that aside, Assume good faith, and try to work with you to build a consensus by editing and improving this article and the others we both seem interested in, in a collaborative and cooperative manner. Since, what we all what is an improved encyclopedia and articles. Maybe if we spent more time working on the article and less time slinging mud, we could produce a good result faster. I recommend that approach. DPeterson^talk 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Be constructive and stop blanking the article

Doris, your comments here are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices. Personal Attacks are frowned upon. Assume Good Faith means tyring to work together and not being nasty. To repeat my earlier comment,

A much better approach, Doris, would be to collaborative try to edit the article and build consensus, not create and continue an edit war. While your views may be in the minority here, you will find that your suggestions will be respected if you Assume Good Faith and act to collaborate with others rather than fight other editors.

I encourage you to try this approach and try to work with other editors in a collaborative manner. DPeterson^talk 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is vandalims to remove another's comments on the talk page. You have been warned a few times now about blanking pages and now about removing other's comments. Please stop. DPeterson^talk 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Doris, please do not disrupt this talk page by copying comments verbatim and then making a new section. Comments and additions belong in the section to which they relate. Creating a "new" section merely to "bury" comments you may not like is not consistent Wikipedia policy and practices. Your last comment above should be at the end of the previous section and you should not have merely copied the comments you like, create a new section and then add your comments. This is disruptive to the flow. Please stop. You have been asked to stop being disruptive by several other editors now. DPeterson^talk 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'DORISH, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF SECTIONS.'JohnsonRon 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why are you changing the chronological order by moving this section down here? Could you answer that question please?--DorisH 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

POLL on Section in Dispute

I suggest we see what a poll can do to help resolve the dispute...at least let's see how editor's feel and see if that can lead to be a better outcome JonesRD_talk 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE SECTION IN DISPUTE

1. _

KEEP SECTION IN DISPUTE WITHOUT CHANGES

1. _

KEEP SECTION IN DISPUTE BUT EDIT

1. YES JonesRD_talk 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes I will begin by creating a new section below and suggest we go paragraph by paragraph until consensus is reached. MarkWood 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
3. 'Support'DPeterson^talk 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree RalphLender^talk 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections to Edit

First Paragraph

Attachment is fundamental to healthy development, normal personality, and the capacity to form healthy and authentic emotional relationships[1]. How can one determine whether a child has attachment issues that require attention? What is normal behavior, and what are the signs of attachment issues? When adopting an infant, will attachment problems develop? These and other related questions are often at the forefront of adoptive parents’ minds.

I think that is fine. The article responds to the questions. However, if there is strong sentiment, at least the first line should remain and the last part after the reference can be deleted. What do other editors think? MarkWood 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add "considered by most psychologists to be" - otherwise, Wikipedia is establishing a value judgement. I agree that the available literature is strongly supportive of the theory, but we can't consider it to be undisputed fact. FCYTravis 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are to qualify the statement, then it should be a bit broader...how about, "considered by various mental health professionals," Since not only many psychologists, but psychiatrists, marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, and social workers would also agree? I think we are close here...how about para 2? DPeterson^talk 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Attachment is the base of emotional health, social relationships, and one's worldview (Zeanah, C., 1993). The ability to trust and form reciprocal relationships affects the emotional health, security, and safety of the child, as well as the child's development and future inter-personal relationships. The ability to regulate emotions, have a conscience, and experience empathy all require secure attachment. Healthy brain development is built on a secure attachment relationship.

First of all, the full citation should be given: Zeanah, C., (Ed.) (1993) Handbook of Infant Mental Health, Guilford Press, NY. If other citations are "necessary" then Bowlby can be cited for the second line and third lines and Dr. Siegel (The Developing Mind) can be cited for the third and fourth lines. But I think that is over kill...what do other editors think?DPeterson^talk 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is fine as is. JohnsonRon 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

With the reference it is fine. RalphLender^talk 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Para 3,4,&5

Children who are adopted after the age of six months are at risk for attachment problems. Normal attachment develops during the child's first two to three years of life. Problems with the mother-child relationship during that time, orphanage experience, or breaks in the consistent caregiver-child relationship interfere with the normal development of a healthy and secure attachment. There are wide ranges of attachment difficulties that result in varying degrees of emotional disturbance in the child. One thing is certain; if an infant's needs are not met consistently, in a loving, nurturing way, attachment will not occur normally and this underlying problem will manifest itself in a variety of symptoms.

When the attachment-cycle is undermined and the child’s needs are not met, and normal socializing shame is not resolved, mistrust begins to define the perspective of the child and attachment problems result[2]. The cycle can become undermined or broken for many reasons:

Multiple disruptions in care giving Post-partum depression causing an emotionally unavailable mother Hospitalization of the child causing separation from the parent and/or unrelieved pain. For example, stays in a NICU or repeated hospitalizations during infancy. Parents who have experienced their own relational trauma, leading to neglect, abuse (physical/sexual/verbal), or inappropriate parental responses not leading to a secure/predictable relationship Genetic factors Pervasive developmental disorders Caregivers whose own needs are not met, leading to overload and lack of awareness of the infants needs The child may develop basic mistrust (Erikson), impeding effective attachment behavior. The developmental stages following these first three years continue to be distorted and/or retarded, and common symptoms emerge. It is very important to realize that when one is trying to parent a child with attachment difficulties one must focus on the cause of the behaviors and not on the symptoms or surface behaviors. Furthermore, the following behaviors can be indicators of a variety of problems. A child exhibiting several of these behaviors should receive a comprehensive evaluation by a licensed mental health professional to determine the cause of these symptoms. Many of these symptoms can be seen in children who have experienced complex trauma [3], attachment difficulties and other issues.

Superficially engaging and charming behavior, phoniness Avoidance of eye contact Indiscriminate affection with strangers Lack of affection in a reciprocal manner Destructiveness to self, others, and material things Cruelty to animals Crazy lying (lying in the face of the obvious) Poor impulse control Learning lags Lack of cause/effect thinking Lack of conscience Abnormal eating patterns Poor peer relationships Preoccupation with fire and/or gore Persistent nonsense questions and chatter indicating a need to control Inappropriate clinginess and demandingness

Inappropriate sexuality

Para 3 looks fine to me The list of "causes" also looks fine. The list of "symptoms" is one I've seen a lot on the web, I suppose if a source is cited those could be ok too? JohnsonRon 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for web-based sources, you could use the following:

[1]

[2]

DPeterson^talk 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More

The rest of the material looks ok. There are references to support various statements so I don't have a problem with the suggestions above or with the rest of the article as written...but if someone wants to make other suggestions, I'm game. RalphLender^talk 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of unrelated links

I noticed that this section was added by an anonymous user, and then deleted without any discussion.

• American Professional Society on Child Abuse warnings about Attachment Therapy
• "Be Wary of Attachment Therapy" by Shannon-Bridget Maloney, on QUACKWATCH
• Advocates for Children in Therapy
• A collection of quotations by Daniel Hughes -- the apparent inventor of the term Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
• Library of documents critical of Attachment Therapy; includes video clips

Although it was just a list of links without any text to explain or reference them, I believe these links are a good start to making this article more NPOV and adding a proper criticism section.Ziiv 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

These links are all one source and are about attachment therapy not the disorder...they would be better put into an article about attachment therapy. RalphLender^talk 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that this article mentions various forms of attachment therapy, one link to a site on the issue of attachment therapy may be appropriate. This article could also do with a little more use of the material contained in the Taskforce report by Chaffin et al. User:Fainites|Fainites]] 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see only two tangential mentions of Attachment Therapy, making the links irrelevant. Furthermore, those are all links merely different sections of the same site/group. Maybe one at most mightbe relevant. The Taskfore report is about trt not the disorder, again spurious. DPeterson^talk 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the issue of treatment is 'spurious', why is most of this article about treatments? 'Attachment therapy' is not as ill defined or as confusing as is made out here. Some treatments mentioned in this article are considered by some to be attachment therapies so if they are are in this article then the issue of appropriate treatment must be relevent. Personally I see no need to list treatments in this article, but if they are to be listed they need to be accurate and propoerly sourced. Secondly, the Taskforce Report also deals with the discourse on 'attachment disorder' and 'reactive attachment disorder' and the controversies over 'diagnosis'. The ambit and diagnosis and indeed meaning of the term 'attachment disorder' is a matter of significant controversy and debate. In this article the AAPSAC Taskforce report is cited only once and that confusingly. It is cited in support of the statement that aspects of attachment therapy are disapproved of, which is true, but the paragraph then goes on to claim that various unvalidated therapies are congruent with AAPSAC guidelines when in fact the main proponent of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is specifically criticised on three counts by the Report as part of the reports criticism of 'attachment therapy' in general. Further, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is mentioned no less that 4 times in this one small article and is described as 'evidence-based' and 'mainstream' when it is neither of these things and is relatively new, relatively obscure (other than on Wikipedia) and is at best controversial. Fainites 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only two lines about AT in the article. The article is not about treatment (read introduction to see purpose of article). Your comments have been raised before by you here and on many other pages and are unfounded. Just wait for the Mediation and stop trying to resurrect dead issues. There is a large fund of evidence to support the trts listed in this article, the citations are verifiable. Time to let mediation take its course. DPeterson^talk 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Those links don't belong here. The article is about this loose term, attachment disorder, not a DSM diagnosis, but not about treatment. Furthermore, as pointed out above, all of those links are really to the same website representing the same POV and represent undue weight WP:NPOV#Undue_weight given the purpose and scope of this article. JonesRD_talk 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above two points...the links don't belong here. MarkWood 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If this article isn't about treatment why does it include 4 references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, including one in the introduction? Fainites 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.eegspectrum.com/Articles/Articles/InHouseArticles/RAD/ also this link goes to an article on RAD not attachment disorder. And the link is to a promotional site. Should we remove this link also. We are not here to help people advertize their services. FatherTree 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of the others who point out only two references to AT in this artcicle. The initial description makes clear what the article is about, and treatment isn't it! Keep your dispute on the Mediation page and stop trying to spread it...that seems to be your pattern: if you don't "win" in one location, you just get others to tag along and try another article and then when that fails, you bring up the same issues again! Stick to the Mediation page. JohnsonRon 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your permission to edit JR. Please try and avoid personal attacks. I have raised some serious content issues on this article. None of the editors who have 'replied' have dealt with them. Fainites 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please read my comments above carefully and you will see I addressed these old and also previously addressed and resolved questions. I suggest you read my comments in this section as well as those in other sections. Since you brought the mediation case and this and other articles, you should keep your arguments there and not spread them all over the place. DPeterson^talk 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten.Fainites ^barley 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom.[3] Fainites ^barley 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson. Fainites ^barley 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of verbatim material

If the material from the Pratt publication is verbatim, quotation marks or indentation should be used to indicate where the verbatim material begins and ends.Jean Mercer 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Erikson

I haven't removed the references to Erikson, but I do not believe it's very useful to include this material; although it is common in popular discussions of attachment to throw in "trust vs. mistrust", the specific connections between Erikson's stages and Bowlby's view of the developing internal working model are difficult to state. I'd propose avoiding "mentioning" or "showing the flag" with allusions of this kind. Jean Mercer 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Symptoms

I've deleted material about the symptoms of attachment disorder. The symptoms that were mentioned are in no way related to criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder in DSM-IV-Tr, nor are they mentioned in DC:0-3-R. Jean Mercer 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic sources

I am concerned about the use of certain web sites as sources here-- reliable published material should be the source. For example, the source is unclear for the "subtle signs" section, and the meaningfulness of any of those characteristics in an infant would depend entirely on the infant's age. They do not necessarily have anything to do with attachment.

This article seems to be following the pattern, familiar from other topics, of pressing quite unconventional views as if they had an acceptable evidence basis. Jean Mercer 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Fainites ^barley 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its also interesting that the link to the attachment disorder website contains one of those very lists that the likes of Chaffin et al and prior and Glaser complain about. Looking at alot of the material in this article more closely, it looks very much like it has been written as if the non-mainstream, controversial approach was the norm. I'd be inclined to delete all the article from the 5th paragraph down and start again. What do you think? Fainites ^barley 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Material included

I don't see that any but the briefest discussion of treatment belongs here-- nor the discussion of Erikson and other background. The point of the article, I think, should be that the term is ambiguous, can refer to RAD and/or insecure or disorganized styles, and is also used in an unconventional fashion. I removed some of the introductory "theories" which were not theories at all, and had no citations to support them.Jean Mercer 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Change of Focus

Too much of this article is about attachment and not enough about attachment disorder. I think there should be a very brief overview of attachment with a link to the theory page. then the controversy over diagnosis between DSM/ICD and the other diagnosis needs to be clearly set out. Then issues relating disorganized attachment etc. I've made a start. Comments? Fainites ^barley 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about this, but I'm not at all sure about including more than a small amount about Reactive Attachment Disorder. "Attachment disorder" can be used either loosely, to talk about problems that maybe are connected with attachment, or specifically and unconventionally to mean Something Worse than RAD. There is also an alternative category system as proposed some years ago by Charles Zeanah-- and there are less-than-optimal attachment styles-- so a whole spectrum COULD be covered. How about this outline:

1) General definition dealing with social relations and problematic early social history (so, symptoms and cause)--refer to Attachment theory for description of desirable social environment and natural history of social behavior

2) Attachment style issue, stressing insecure and disorganized categories

3) DSM-ICD definitions

4) Zeanah's categories

5) Unconventional definition

6) Developmental changes and age issues

7) Assessment methods, including unconventional ones like RADQ

8) V. brief discussion of interventions Jean Mercer 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I hope the intro and the first 3 para's now provide a bit of a framework. Where would the details of less than optimal attachment styles be? In this article or the attachment article?Fainites ^barley 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think we need a summary of the insecure and disorganized styles here, but also a reference to the attachment article, which will show them in contrast with optimal attachment.Jean Mercer 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put some material in but haven't taken anything out. However, i don't think those lengthy comments about fruit and fanny packs (what are they called in England? Can't be that) are appropriate.Jean Mercer 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They're called "bumbags", "bum" having a somewhat different meaning over here. Fainites ^barley 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

This needs a lot more work, but I'm trying to get away from saying that an attachment disorder is a disorder of attachment.Jean Mercer 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Range of disorders

Hang on there-- where are you going to put Reactive Attachment Disorder? How about just saying that a variety of social and personality disturbances can be associated with a poor attachment history? Then we can go on to talk about items on the list. I ought to be able to put some time into this tomorrow.Jean Mercer 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about using the term "evidence based" here. It may be appropriate for certain interventions, but as O'Connor & Zeanah (2003) say: "...despite the fact that observations have figured prominently in the development of the attachment disorder concept, no established observational protocol has been validated." Certainly Bowlby's observations were very rough and clinical. this is probably why people went wild with the Strange Situation, however age-limited it may actually be.Jean Mercer 14:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look. Fainites ^barley 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean, Fain and others

You all are doing such a great job on this. All of you have more knowledge on this than I do.

But one thing I have seen first hand is where a child with what would be called 'attachment disorder' is diagnosed as having 'reactive attachment disorder' in order to get the medicaid or insurance money. Now I see a difference. RAD seems to me to be very severe. Anyhow I just wanted to mention this. I have seen many kids go through 'therapy' for what I would consider normal kid discipline problems. And they will go through the rest of their lives having been diagnosed with this 'mental disease' and the memories of the weird therapy will alway be with them. FatherTree 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one thing we're struggling with-- the range of problems (or non-problems) that come under this classification. that's something I'm about to try to work on.Jean Mercer 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've shifted a few things around and got rid of some duplication. I also created a proper ref and notes section so the cites are automatically created at the bottom with those little numbers. The existing typed ref section can have any refs editors want to keep turned into proper refs and any thing extraneous can be deleted. I have also decided to be BOLD! To this end I have deleted the essay on 'what is attachment' from E.Pratt. which is really too detailed for this article. I have also deleted the sections following, much of which was derived from Hughes and the like, as to signs of attachment disorder. This article should set out the various strands of thought clearly - not present one controversial strand as if it were the accepted mainstream view. We can retrieve any of this material if needed.Fainites ^barley 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I invited 'E.Pratt', if it was him, to come and discuss his substantial edit here but to date there has been no reply. He may just be a newbie who hasn't realised an automatic talkpage has been created. If you see this E.Pratt, please feel free to come and join in! Fainites ^barley 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JeanMercers additions are great by the way. its a joy to edit with someone who understands the subject. (Insofar as I can tell that is, with my limited knowledge).Fainites ^barley 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's great for me to have someone at hand who's mastered the mechanics. As for knowing something about the topic-- too bad we can't get Zeanah Himself to do this. (Of course, he's still trying to get his work to recover from Katrina.)Jean Mercer 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's Katrina? Fainites ^barley 20:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The hurricane-- it washed away some of Tulane University, and a lot of Zeanah's research subjects were evacuated and didn't come back.

F., may i ask you to be cautious about saying that DIR and COS have satisfactory evidentiary foundations? Unless you're well-versed in that literature-- as for me, I need to review that research, and I don't think we have defined what level of evidence is satisfactory, anyway... well, of course you can say what you like, but that part may need some reworking at some point.

Also, I'm wondering whether it might be wiser to take most of that treatment material and put it with the Attachment therapy article when we can-- defining Attachment therapy broadly as psychosocial interventions that attempt to alter social behaviors, relationships, and emotions, and then proceeding through a number of attachment-related or -focused treatments and ending with capital AT. We'll need to include a number of treatments that include work to change parents' attitudes-- it's just going to be such a big piece if we try to put all that in this article. What does anyone think?Jean Mercer 00:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't initially put those two in. They were left over from the previous paragraph which of course included DDP. I then added the ones cited as evidence based from P & G and APAC. I don't think I included DIR as evidence based did I? It would be legitimate to leave out treatrment altogether and simply have a link to the AT article. Fainites ^barley 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not clear yet what to do with alot of the treatment citations, apart from DDP and theraplay. These others, like Circle of Security etc were often added by the same people. I haven't removed them all, but they do need considering. Fainites ^barley 00:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a definition section including a brief definition of the basics of attachment, rearranged some material and expanded DSM and ICD. We have to remember that we are aiming for the reasonably intelligent/educated reader with no prior knowledge in the subject. Fainites ^barley 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

Just been looking at the article on this. It's not good! I still think though there should be a separate article for RAD as there's lots of interesting material to go in it that would be too detailed for this article. Fainites ^barley 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed a link to the attachment disorder site. A quick look at their book list shows Thomas, Keck, Hughes etc.We need to be careful about some of these links bearing in mind the history. Fainites ^barley 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

Is someone ready to provide evidence that all those treatments have good evidentiary bases? I am going to have to do more reading before I'm prepared to say that-- Jean Mercer 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I got them from Prior and Glaser and AACAP. P&G have two chapters, one called "Evidence based Interventions: Enhancing Caregiver Sensitivity" and the other called "Evience based Interventions: Change of Caregiver". The reviews include meta-analyses, particularly Bakermans-Kranenberg et al 'Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood' (2003). They include 'Circle of Security' in the chapter they say 'because of its importance' although they say the evaluation is still in progress. On change of caregiver they include Rushton and Mayes (1997) 'Forming fresh attachments in childhood: a research update'. Also Dozier et al (2001), Steele et al (2003a) and Hodges et al (2003b). I suppose its peculiar to wiki that one can use a secondary source to say thy're evidence based. Reading the papers themselves and deciding would be OR! I included them really to counteract the promulgation of DDP etc, but perhaps a better approach would be to have an article on all these interventions where all such issues as evidence base, secondary sources etc could be set out, and then the attachment articles just link to that article. 89.248.131.4 08:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Bother. Fainites ^barley 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the definition of evidence basis that the secondary source has used. I wonder whether P & G are simply referring to the existence of any type of outcome research, when they say evidence-based? What you propose in your last sentence or so is just what I hope to do with the child psychotherapy article. Jean Mercer 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Although meta-analysis is powerful, if the original work wasn't good, you just get "garbage in, garbage out." The best statistics can't compensate for weak design.Jean Mercer 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if P & G took such a cavalier approach as that. I'll look it up. Fainites ^barley 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that they're "cavalier". It's just that you do get differences of opinion on what designs are acceptable. For instance, there's a controversy right now about whether it's okay for a control group to receive no treatment, or whether a treatment must be compared to an established intervention. I'd better send away for a copy of P & G myself.Jean Mercer 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that sometimes waiting lists are used as controls. To me this seems wrong since the placebo effect should be factored in. I think in psychotherapy the control should be appointments as similar as possible to the therapy in question but using no directed technique. I think a lot of people would get better just going to an office and sitting in a room chatting with a credible professional just from the attention they are getting. FatherTree 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some research where the control group comes along to the clinic and sits in the waiting room for an hour or so (presumably reading very out of date magazines). I've also seen a comment or paper somewhere that for therapies they should test several different kinds of therapies against each other rather than have a group doing nothing as JeanMercer mentioned above. I'll see if I can find it again. It would be difficult to have professionals just chatting to people though as they be 'accidently' doing therapy just by being interested and empathic. You're probably right about the 'talking cure' though.Fainites ^barley 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the crux of the matter

A common feature of this diagnosis is the use of extensive lists of "symptoms" which include many behaviours that are likely to be a consequence of neglect or abuse, but not related to attachment, or not related to any clinical disorder at all.ref name="Prior & Glaser"

This to me is one of the most unethical and bothersome things about 'attachment disorder' Diagnosing symptoms as a 'disease' or disorder when it is simply a behavior problem. It is just to get the funds (money) as far as I am concerned on the backs of orphans. FatherTree 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The RADQ despite its name purports to diagnose attachment disorder, not reactive attachment disorder, although there's no clinical definition of attachment disorder other than RAD. The other problem with some lists is that some of the behaviours may indicate other problems that then don't get appropriate treatment because someones decided its an attachment thing. Eneuresis and encoprisis for example which could have a huge range of causes. I was wondering whether to put in links to various lists from various attachment therapists sites as examples, but on the other hand that may be advertising. Fainites (my name's not working properly. It thinks its a ref. I'll go and try it on another page.) (sorted. It was the half ref above) Fainites ^barley 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've put this and the RAD article in for good article status. Its always helpful to have some outside feedback.Fainites ^barley 09:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged the cites and refs as advised by Ling.Nut for GA on Reactive attachment disorder. Not yet filled in all the page numbers though. Fainites ^barley 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This one really does need a content review. What kind of deadline are we working with?Jean Mercer (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A point that needs careful discussion is the extent to which an attachment disorder of any kind is "in" the child, as opposed to "in" the parent's behavior or "in" the relationship (interactions between the two). Zeanah has made a particular point of the last-- that a child's behavior with one person may be disordered, but with others the same child may behave quite normally. This situation is much different from disorders like PDD, in which the child's behavior problems are essentially the same even when relationships are different.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well a reviewer could pick it up any day. Fainites ^barley 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean, hurry up and do it, if i think it needs doing?Jean Mercer (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good heavens I'd never say anything as rude as that. Fainites ^barley 20:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Just so I know, what IS the rudest thing you'd say?Jean Mercer (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• *** ** ****** ! Fainites ^barley 12:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

'elp

What is this cite error 8 I'm committing? The reference was already there, so I thought I could just do Jean Mercer (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Aah. Thats because they've been changed in accordance with Ling.Nuts method. Which Zeanah is it? Add the date and page number (if necessary) in the citation in the text and then if its not already in the references list add the full rference to the list. Fainites ^barley 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice changes. Do you think your bit about symptom lists should go into the section on diagnosis and use of lists rather than in the intro? I was thinking that the reader who didn't really know about attachment would do better to read through the earlier sections first otherwise they would no understand phrases like 'attachment related behaviours'. Fainites ^barley 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll fix these shortly.

As for your point about lists, it's awkward. There's no way to make sure that someone gets the background material first, so repetition seems to be the only way to go. Does Wiki writing ever offer a glossary? That might be the simplest way to make sure that the reader had easy access to definitions.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its best to explain tricky words or concepts as you go along, but the intro needs to be in very plain English. Suppose the intro said:

"The term attachment disorder is most often used to describe emotional and behavioral problems of young children, but is sometimes applied to school-age children or even to adults. The difficulties implied depend on the age of the individual being assessed and may relate only to interactions between two specific individuals, (e.g. Mother and one infant) thus, no general list of symptoms of attachment disorder can legitimately be presented."

Then put a fuller version in the relevant section. Lists are important because they are a main marketing tool and vehicle for the spread of misinformation and are very common on the web. Links can help with definitions. There is a Wiki dictionary but I don't know how to link to that. Fainites ^barley 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's TOO plain English-- the first sentence could refer to PDD or to bipolar disorder just as well. How about "...used to describe young children's problematic emotional and behavioral characteristics that appear primarily in the context of relationships with family or caregivers and that differ substantially from those typical of a child's developmental age. The term is sometimes applied to similar problems seen in older children or even adults...."  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Mercer (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

References

WP:MEDMOS

We've just been poointed to this on RAD. This is the recommended layout for diseases;

• Classification
• Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
• Causes or Genetics
• Pathophysiology or Mechanism
• Diagnosis (including Characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis)
• Prevention or Screening
• Treatment or Management
• Prognosis (social impact may also be discussed)
• Epidemiology
• History (not patient history)
• Cultural references
• See also (avoid if possible, use wikilinks in the main article)
• Notes
• References
• Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)
• External links (avoid if possible)

Fainites ^barley 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a medical model is useful here. Other mental health topics don't use this, do they?Jean Mercer (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I've rearranged the sections on RAD. But I think the section on theoretical framework is necessary in both articles. The 'causes' for RAD comes within the DSM/ICD definition (unusually) so they're both covered in one paragraph. Then the sections on the alternatives, ie AT is a significant point which isn't really covered by the above list. Could there be sections on Social impact, history and cultural references? Fainites ^barley 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be those sections, but much of what would go in them would be OR and highly speculative.

I'm really concerned about the implications of using this model for describing RAD. To approach RAD this way has the effect of reification of a disorder that remains questionable. As you've seen, it's far from clear whether there's a single disorder, RAD, and some problematic attachment styles, or a broad spectrum of attachment-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. How this change developmentally is still less certain. Even the inclusion of the etiology in the definition is most awkward-- RAD symptoms follow certain experiences, so... does this mean that poor caregiving causes RAD, or that children with RAD characteristics are less likely to elicit good caregiving and to be placed in institutions etc.? A poorly-understood mental illness cannot be described the way you'd describe chickenpox or anything else with predictable symptoms, cause, treatment.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the schizophrenia article has used this model. But you'll see that we have no parallels to most of the information they've used. Lots of cultural references, though, even Elvis Presley!Jean Mercer (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Elvis Presley did holding therapy remember. Fainites ^barley 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Classification's OK. Signs and symptoms is OK 'cept its in the classification. So is causes because cause is part of the diagnosis. Mechanism? That seems like the same as cause here. Diagnosis we have. Prevention we could do. Its part of 'treatment' really. Prognosis? Tricky - but there is some evidence of effectiveness of programmes and some evidence I suppose of effects of lack of treatment. It seems a bit artificial though. Its such an 'ongoing' area. Thats why AT took off. There wasn't much of an alternative until recently - but you can't go to the NHS and ask for the New Orleans programme please. Fainites ^barley 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In a way it exists because its defined in DSM and ICD. You wouldn't say that about schizophrenia. I fully expect ICD and DSM on RAD and attachment disorder to look somewhat different in 10 years time. Should there be even more of the discussion about all this in the AD article rather than the RAD article?Fainites ^barley 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status granted!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Nothing but steady contributions and improvements (history)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done to all the contributors. Stellar work!

– Anthøny 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

memo

put in page numbers for the two refs in the new material on mechanisms. Fainites ^barley 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

I believe you should remove the links to attachment therapy in this article. Attachment therapy is considered pseudoscience by its current editor and the evidence in the article does not contradict this. Discussing pseudoscientific therapies in the body of this article, along with mainstream practices, without frankly calling it pseudosciene (as it is in the attachment therapy), plus giving wikilinks, side-by-side with links to mainstream practices, is equivalent to a statement that attachment therapy is on par with medically accepted therapies. This is unacceptably confusing the general reader, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have divided up the material so that all the material relating to attachment therapy is in one section clearly labelled "pseudocientific". It would not be appropriate to remove this material from this article altogether as the "diagnosis" of attachment disorder is the main diagnosis used by attachment therapists and although some attachment therapists conflate attachment disorder with RAD, their main theorists are quite clear that attachment disorder is a specific diagnosis. This of course is not a diagnosis recognised by the mainstream - as the article makes clear.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Autism is NOT an "emotional disorder".

Misplaced comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 123.222.215.125 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a developmental disorder and rightly linked here to questions of theory of mind. Terming it an emotional disorder in the context of an article about attachment disorders risks subscribing to discredited and sexist theories blaming "refrigerator mothers" for their child's autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.255.241 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems valid. I have replaced "early emotional" with "neurodevelopmental". Anthony (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another treatment

The addition: 'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy' ,, is relevant. The references are published by reputable and well respected publishers: Norton & Jason Aronson. This seems to meet the requirements that citations be verifiable and relevant and other criteria for inclusion in an article. Sargoncommit (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK not problems reported here, I'll add it back. Sargoncommit (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

References

reference

The references added meet the standard for being appropriate.

Hughes, D., Attachment-Focused Family Therapy, NY:Norton, 2009 Becker-Weidman, A., (2010), Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential methods and practices, Jason Aronson Becker-Weidman, A., (2011), The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook,Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson

These are books published by reliable and well-known publishers and their inclusion supports and adds to the article and the statement these references were tied to. Please do not delete again without first discussing it on the talk page. Thank you. NJMSWPHD (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with these additions, please discuss it here. The additions are consistent with wikipedia policy and practice regarding sources of a reliable nature. NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

the removal of reliable sources would seem to be a violation of wikipedia policy and qualify as valdalism NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added back the material and hope that if there is a dispute we can discuss it here civilly. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314161203/http://www.patcrittenden.com:80/Preschool-assesment.html to http://www.patcrittenden.com/Preschool-assesment.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225132429/http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml to http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.patcrittenden.com/Preschool-assesment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225132429/http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml to http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227161855/http://www.circleofsecurity.org/docs/languages/08%20AHD%20final.pdf to http://www.circleofsecurity.org/docs/languages/08%20AHD%20final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attachment disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126145603/http://helpguide.org/mental/parenting_bonding_reactive_attachment_disorder.htm to http://helpguide.org/mental/parenting_bonding_reactive_attachment_disorder.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824051123/http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf to http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Attachment disorder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

One permanent dead link and uncited sources. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delist considerable uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.