Talk:Attachment-based psychotherapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdiestler. Peer reviewers: Pakizerc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Could you identify which part or parts of Cssidy and shaver you are relying on here please as the book itself is a compendium. Thanks. Fainites ^barley 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Should this just redirect to attachment therapy? shotwell 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this part of attachment therapy? The author of his article seemed quite keen to distinguish it from AT - but I'm not sure what it is though. I think its this lot [1] I couldn't see anything on the site that looked like AT. Sorry if people appear suspicious Joseph but there are good historical reasons! Fainites ^barley 10:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve it. Josephschwartz 12:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)joseph schwartz[reply]

a) would you like me to convert your refs into Wiki refs?

b) I'm not sure you should be putting in links to the John Bowlby centre in quite that way. See WP:COI and also policies on notability etc.

Fainites ^barley 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created ref sections etc - but this article needs to be more than an advert for one type of therapy at one clinic if it is going to survive. In fact - is there any reason why it shouldn't be merged with Attachment in adults ? Fainites ^barley 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out here. If there's an entry for attachment therapy why can't there be an entry for attachment-based psychotherapy. Why won't it survive? Joe Schwartz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephschwartz (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because at the moment it looks a bit like an advert for one clinic + journal. I think you need to expand a little what it is, theory, roots, practice etc - all from quotable, notable sources. How did it arise? Is this mainstream psychoanalysis? If not, what do mainstream psychoanalysts (if there is such a thing) think of it? Has any research been done yet, and of not why not? Who is its target audience and what does it actually do. What's its' evidence base, if any? What are the main criticisms, if any? Do you see what I mean? Also, it needs to be aimed at the reasonably intelligent and well-educated reader with no specialist knowledge. ie, they may know next to nothing about attachment theory or psychoanalysis. You can link to the attachment theory page etc but a couple of sentences on it to orientate the reader by be a good idea. Why don't you have a look round the other therapy pages - there's loads of them, the good, the bad and the ugly. See List of psychotherapies. I added yours a while back. Fainites ^barley 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - four of these after your talkpage posts ~ Fainites ^barley 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - as I understand it, the phrase 'attachment-based psychotherapy' is intended to distinguish this form of psychotherapy from 'attachment therapy'. However, with the bad publicity about attachment therapy, I have noticed some attachment therapy websites now using the term 'attachment-based' psychotherapy. In other words, the better informed the article is about the real thing, the better! Fainites ^barley 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this anything to do with your thing? [[2]] Fainites ^barley 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand?

This article doesn't explain anything about attachment based therapy. Is it just about the book? Cheers, Xme (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more than that but the original author never came back. There is a branch of psychoanalysis that tries to unify attachment theory concepts and psychoanalytical concepts which may be interesting as Bowlby and psychoanalysis weren't on speaking terms for decades, professionally speaking. I may get round to expanding this when I have a bit more time.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commerical Source

Can we please remove the overly simplistic additions cited as https://integrativepsych.co

In my opinion these do not add anything to the page, and are not substantiated by a legitimate source. 180.200.209.244 (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]