Hi Mark, This is a great question. If I understand you correctly, readers searching for “Attachment therapy” are probably looking for a page that covers the mainstream modalities and not the fringe one.
If that’s the case, you should start by gathering evidence that this is true. Search engine tests are usually informative for this kind of evidence. When you type “attachment therapy” into Google or Google Scholar without quotes and look at say the first 20 results that come up, what fraction of the sources are talking about the mainstream modalities and what fraction are talking about the fringe modality? If it’s split roughly evenly then the article on the fringe modality should be renamed to something like “Attachment therapy (Rebirthing)” and “Attachment therapy” should be a disambiguation page. If the term “Attachment therapy” is mostly used to refer to the mainstream modalities, then the term should redirect to “Attachment-based therapy”. You don’t need to perform or even envision the actual mechanics of how to move and retitle pages. Just focus on gathering the evidence and getting consensus for what content should be at what title, and then if need be you can make a request at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] for a volunteer to implement it. I’ll also watch these pages so I can help out if I have the skills and permissions. This is complicated and important stuff. Let me/us know if you have further questions. Cheers, Su-Laine > On Feb 9, 2025, at 11:23 AM, Mark Baumann <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
