Jump to content

Talk:Attachment disorder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DorisH (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 17 March 2007 (→Questions still open for discussion: minor formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPsychology Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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. DPetersontalk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)

JonesRDtalk 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

I see no Conflict of interest here. Giving permission to use material is allowed under GFDL.DPetersontalk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article has merit and should stay. JohnsonRon 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, that clears up that point. RalphLendertalk 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. DPetersontalk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. DPetersontalk 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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. DPetersontalk 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. DPetersontalk 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_disorder&oldid=115787019"