Talk:Attachment therapy/Archive 5

Article Bias
This article seems far from neutral and rife with sensationalism. A large chunk of the "cases" are just flat out child abuse without any strong association to attachment therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.84.76 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically..? You're welcome to improve it (that's the beauty of Wikipedia :) ).--Rhododendrites (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also agree that this article is overly one sided. As a foster parent, we are actually taught "attachment therapy techniques" through the agency that do not involve half of what is noted in this article, some of which is grossly mis-represented and some what we are taught is not even mentioned here (such as rocking, snuggling and safe holding - not to mention a strict adherence against violence and physical punishment as attachment affected children respond far more negatively to this than other children). For example, techniques involving eye contact are not to "force" a child but to teach them how to make eye contact, much like you would with, say, an autistic child. And we are talking not about kids who aren't "fast, snappy and right the first time" and not "fun to be around". We are talking about children who are violent, destructive and potentially sociopathic without some kind of intervention. Believe me, if Children and Family Services is teaching this to foster parents, it can't be something that could potentially get them sued - you know by accidentally killing or hurting the kid.

I am just a foster parent who has taken some classes and has employed actual techniques (not the ones described in this article) with success, but I do not feel I am qualified to rebalance this article with any authority because I am not an expert. Even if I felt that I could expertly update this article, I have a feeling from the vitriol expressed in the article (and related articles), any changes I would make would be "edited" out anyway to accomplish an agenda.

This is the first time I have read an article on Wikipedia that made me doubt the validity of information found on Wikipedia. This article and others related to it do contain information that is accurate in the historical aspect of attachment therapy, they are blatantly biased or exclusionary against current beliefs and not demonstrative of the subject at large. A disappointment to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFC3:73D0:9483:D238:7535:32CD (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

However, in reviewing these examples, it appears that these were cases of child abuse by a parent as opposed to "attachment therapy" interventions by licensed mental health professionals, for example see: NAUIInstructor (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

balance valquez
I've added this material as a balance to valaquez: However, in reviewing these examples, it appears that these were cases of child abuse by a parent as opposed to "attachment therapy" interventions by licensed mental health professionals, for example see: --SlanWeinberg (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Either you re-added it, or you're saying that you are.
 * It is blatant WP:SYN, so removed once again. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And removed again by a different editor. Please respond if you're still interested in adding it or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My edits were removed without any discussion on this talk page. I think that is in violation of wikipedia policy and sounds like they are engaged in an edit war SlanWeinberg (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No discussion other than my comments above that is. How about acknowledge and respond to the policy concerns there, or are you giving up on adding it at this point? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I don't see how the addition of reliable sources violates any policy????SlanWeinberg (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy that has been repeatedly brought up as justification for the removal is WP:Original research. Basically, the concerns here are that the proposed addition to the article is not actually verified by the sources, but rather a synthesis derived from them. If you feel that it is properly verified from the sources, then explain how. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: SlanWeinberg and NAUIInstructor have been banned as sock puppets. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Attachment therapy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080806161320/http://cbs4denver.com:80/local/denver.rebirthing.watkins.2.786701.html to http://cbs4denver.com/local/denver.rebirthing.watkins.2.786701.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Attachment therapy. 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/20080414011820/http://www.kidscomefirst.info/Speltz.pdf to http://www.kidscomefirst.info/Speltz.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Succinct lede section needed
Is the first part of this article intended to be a lede? It seems like it's missing a lede, which would briefly summarize the content of the article and help readers know what this form of therapy is, in a glance. --Karinpower (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)