Thanks Joe. I think it's already there. This is at the top of the article:
This article is about an alternative form of behavioral intervention. For
commonly accepted therapies based on John Bowlby's attachment theory, see
Attachment-based therapy (children)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment-based_therapy_(children)> .
Now that I take another look at that language, I see one problem I can fix.
The linked article has been renamed to eliminate the word "(children). I'll
fix that. Still, even with the current header (hat?), no one is using it.
I suppose another problem is that the search engines are entrenched in
identifying the Attachment therapy article as the one readers want.
Mark
On Sunday, February 9, 2025 11:13:02 AM (-08:00), Joe Mabel wrote:
> You can always do some sort of hat note: "see also", "distinguish", etc.
>
> JM
>
> On 2/9/2025 10:45 AM, Mark Baumann wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > In my world of attachment theory and in Wikipedia articles, there is
sometimes confusion about a general and specific topic when both use the
same or similar words. For example, attachment therapy is a specific
modality of treatment, and attachment-based therapy are a collection of
various attachment-informed therapies.
> >
> > This has created a big problem for Wikipedia users. Attachment therapy
is a based on a distortion of attachment theory and is soundly regarded as
a fringe and abusive form of therapy. The problem is that most people
interested in learning about the various attachment-based therapy
modalities land on the Attachment therapy article, which gets 5,000 visits
per month. The primary article people should be interested in is the
Attachment-based therapy article, which gets 300 visits per month. Another
article likely of interest is Attachment-based psychotherapy, a particular
form of attachment-informed therapy, and which gets 400 users per day.
> > There's a similar problem with Attachment parenting (generally not a
great specific model, but a fantastic topic), and Biopsychosocial model.
Both of those are minor specific models, and both represent a larger
concept.
> > For the Biopsychosocial model article, I resolved the problem by
reorienting the article. A guy named George Engel created "the
biopsychosocial" model in the 1970's. It was a brilliant idea to help the
medical community think beyond the human body as a mere machine. But he
died and the model floundered, while other models started using the generic
BPS phrase. The original article was only about Engel's model. I changed
the article to talk about both, and left in info about Engel's model and it
being part of the history of the development of BPS models. One question I
have, was that a fair thing for me to do?
> >
> > The Attachment therapy article can't be so easily modified in the same
way. It seems like a nicely written article, more or less, it's long and
acknowledges the therapy's shortcomings and has a good bit of history on
the specific therapy.
> >
> > One solution is to delete and redirect the Attachment therapy article
to Attachment-based therapy. There is already a section on "attachment
therapy" in the latter article and I could import more info from the
Attachment therapy page. But, is that too dramatic a solution?
> >
> > It's a serious problem since attachment-based therapies are a very
good thing for humanity, but everyone asking Wikipedia about it is only
going to the worst form of an attachment-based therapy.
> >
> > Can anyone point me in a useful direction for how to most elegantly
resolve this problem?
> >
> > Mark Baumann
> > [email protected]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list --
[email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list --
[email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
