User talk:Fainites

I wish to make a formal complaint against the editor known as Fainites barley for using Wikipedia to wage an 'editing war' against my contributions regarding the role of fathers as parents through the following pages, (1) The Maternal Deprivation controversy in 'John Bowlby', (2) The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory, (3) the Critique of The Strange Situation Protocol in 'Attachment in children' and the (4) Critique of the Strange Situation in 'Attachment measures'.

In July 2004 I was given the right by Lord Justice Thorpe, Vice President of the Family Division, in the Court of Appeal in the UK to publish the County Court judgments from the family proceedings in my own case because of my, "History of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships". By contrast in these pages Fainites barley has shown 'bad faith' which is defined by Wikipedia as (1) deliberate disruption just to prove a point, (2) playing games with policies, and (3) vandalism. It should be remembered that whilst I am a contributor to Wikipedia, Fainites barley is an Editor and that lately he has dismissed my contributions with sarcasm and rudeness, so much so, that I have felt that I have no alternative but to make this formal complaint.

Under the heading of 'disruption to prove a point' on the discussion page for 'Maternal deprivation', Fainites barley has taken a phrase out of context to misrepresent my point of view. In the first instance he stated that I believed the theory of 'Maternal deprivation' and the 'Attachment theory' are the same when a cursory look at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' will tell you that the opposite is true. 'Fainites barley' has taken a single phrase from a ten minute video clip to deliberately cause disruption to these pages..

On the second occasion 'Fainites barley' states, "You've put this in the intro. Kip. 'The notion that fathers are necessarily less competent ....' Where does Bowlby say this?" Fainites barley 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I responded, "Please do not make any further such comments until after ARBITRATION as they bring Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fainites barley still goes on, "Kip - this is silly. You have asked for my sources and I have given them. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for sources - and there are several requests for you to provide yours. Everything in an article should be sourced. As for arbitration - I suggest you read WP:DR first. Fainites barley" 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I reply, "The source is cited and the reference is given. Once again you have taken a phrase out of context and as an editor you are bringing Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fainites barley has again deliberately caused disruption to try to prove a point but instead of correcting himself - goes on to try to find something else to complain about. Again I should stress the point that I am only a contributor to Wikipedia and Fainites barley is the Editor.

I wish to cite two further examples of Fainites barley 'bad faith' so that the Wikipedia arbiter can be clear about this aspect of the complaint. I am concerned about the way Fainites barley has sought to remove the video clips I have published on YouTube from the pages of Wikipedia.

In the discussion page on Wikipedia called 'Attachment measures' Fainites barley states, "Also like you I find some YouTube videos really useful but I have been told that we are not supposed to link to them. Its a real pity as there are two really good ones of attachment therapy in action that would say more than a thousand words on the att. therapy page, here[1] and here, [2]". Fainites barley 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But I state, "Who has told you not to link to YouTube? Wikipedia policy states the opposite. Please see my User Discussion page. KingsleyMiller (talk)" 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites barley replies, "Well its fantastic if you can! Where is the policy that says this?" Fainites barley 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I again repeat my question, "Who told you there was a blanket ban on connecting to YouTube?" KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fainites barley replies, "I can't remember now who told me about the YouTube. I'll have a search". Fainites barley 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As a result of this search Fainites barley states without reference to myself, "I have removed the videos as they were not, as I originally assumed, videos of the Strange Situation Procedure or similar but YouTube videos made by Kip expressing Kips personal views on attachment theory and the SSP. I'm sorry Kip but Wiki works on notable sources. I don't think you count as a notable source. (No insult intended. Neither do most Wiki editors, including me)". Fainites barley 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These video clips are objective and informative. From the beginning Fainites barley knew they were produced by myself and I cite this as another example of Fainites barley 'playing games with policies'.

Similarly I made a contribution to the content page on 'Attachment in children' to the effect that far reaching claims are made on behalf of the Strange Situation Protocol. Fainites barley removed these comments because he said they were 'weasel words' again without reference to myself.(# (cur) (last) 15:31, 23 February 2008 Fainites (Talk | contribs) (34,773 bytes) (?Critique of The Strange Situation: Weasel words - who makes far reaching claims? Its always been primarily a research tool) (undo)).

In defence for my contribution I should like to state people believe that it is possible to predict how a child's personality will develop into adulthood based on the Strange Situation Procedure. I describe those who profit from such an idea as 'mountebanks' because as the video clip explains there are serious concerns about the validity of the procedure. These are not 'weasel words' and these reservations should to be voiced not simply for the benefit of parents who participate in this procedure but also their children.

I have included these last two examples of Fainites barley's 'bad faith' because they go to the heart of my concern. I do not believe Fainites barley wants to allow me a 'voice' in these pages on Child Psychology because he has his own ideas about fathers as parents.

This can be seen in the way he has edited other Wikipedia pages. for example before my contribution there was no mention of the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' on the John Bowlby Wikipedia page.

This is an incredible oversight because nobody is more associated with this theory than John Bowlby. So how can such a theory be missing?

One explanation is because the pages in Wikipedia on Child Psychology are dominated by feminists who do not believe fathers can make good parents. John Bowlby believed that mothers were far more important than fathers to their children but any examination of the research on the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' will show that this is not the case. This is an inconvenient truth.

However Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though John Bowlby never really believed in the theory at all, or if he did it was, at most, only as a passing inclination and he has removed the word 'controversy' from the heading.

The revised contibution reads, "The first volume of Bowlby's trilogy "Attachment", started in 1956 and published in 1969 made it clear that he was not saying that attachment was confined to natural mothers as was popularly supposed, or indeed to women, and that "almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother...It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living."[6] This is a strange form of citation because if Bowlby were 'clear' on this point there should be a definite date to which the quote maybe attributed. Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though he stated this point over many years but in reality it is written in this way to disguise the fact he does not know when Bowlby made this statement.

Also to lessen the controversial impact of the claims made by Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951) he has attributed publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) to Mary Ainsworth a colleague. Further research lead to the publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) by Mary Ainsworth - a notable researcher in the field of separation.[7]. But the "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" has six more contributors not cited by Fainites barley, R G Andry, Robert G Harlow, S Lebovici, Margaret Mead, Dane G Pugh and Barbara Wootoon.

The preface of, "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" states, "Because of pressing commitments, Dr Bowlby was unable himself to contribute a paper giving his present views, but this gap has been ably filled by his colleague Dr Ainsworth, with whose paper Dr Bowlby is in full agreement". And goes on to state, "There can be little doubt that the balanced view Dr Ainsworth takes takes of the evidence and the cautious conclusions she reaches not only take the issue out of the area of controversy but also present the research worker with a series of fascinating questions whose solution in the future would go far towards settling the problem of maternal deprivation". Regarding the 'maternal deprivation' controversy the preface also states, "Some of the criticism is based on misinterpretations of his views, which have been widely publicized in often over-simplified, extreme, or distorted forms. Other criticism, however disputes the conclusions he has drawn from the evidence itself. Finally, in the ten years that have elapsed since his monograph was published, there has inevitably been further research into the problem of maternal deprivation, and the problem has come to be viewed in a wider perspective - Bowlby has himself incorporated ethological theories into his views of child development." Fainites barley editing of the section on 'Maternal Deprivation' from John Bowlby bears no relationship to the facts and it should be returned to the original version before his vandalism.

The Wikipedia page on John Bowlby refers to the 'Maternal deprivation' main page. This page was originally entitled, 'The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory.

As a result of Fainites barley editing the introduction to this page now reads, "It was Dr John Bowlby in Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951)[1] who argued that infants form a special relationship with caregivers, which is qualitatively different from the relationship which they form with less familiar people". But the essential element of this theory is that it referred to 'mothers' not 'caregivers' as in Fainites barley's version. Once 'mothers' is replaced with 'caregivers' the pages loses its meaning as far as the theory of 'maternal deprivation' it is supposed to describe and this must be the purpose of the edit.

Similarly an edit made by another contributor and supporter of Fainites barley, Jean Mercer, has changed the generally accepted interpretation of the concept of 'monotropy' in the theory of 'maternal deprivation', which is that children have an innate link to just one person, to a 'small number of other people'. But this is not the theory of 'maternal deprivation'. The reason the theory proved so popular in the first place is because it was assumed that mothers and children had an indissoluble link. To change this concept to a 'small number of other people' makes the page sound ridiculous. It is for this reason these examples of vandalism should not be ignored and the page returned to its original form.

There are extravagant claims made on behalf of John Bowlby. One such claim is that he is the, 'founder of the attachment theory'. This is not true because there were others at the time working in this area. In effect the edits have tried to nullify the controversial aspect of Bowlby's work so that his claims to this title may seem justified. To promote this idea the pages of Wikipedia have made it sound as though he never focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health and that if he did, he did not really mean to do so, or that he quickly changed his mind. To this way of thinking Bowlby never said anything controversial and therefore should be given due credit for the 'attachment theory'.

Therefore it is useful to read his actual words written towards the end of his career and published in 1986. This is taken from a publication called 'Citation Classics' in which authors are asked to write an abstract and a commentary about one of their own publications, emphasizing the human side of the research, how the project was initiated, whether any obstacles were encountered, and why the work was highly cited. Bowlby describes 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' as his Citation Classic. (CC/SOC BEHAV SCI (50): 18-18 DEC 15 1986 - Original Paper : Bowlby J. Maternal care and mental health: a report prepared on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1951. 179 p. A1986F062900001)

(You may see that Bowlby refers to Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic'. In both the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' I have included at the bottom a section entitled, 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory'. Adapted from 'Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume. 36 No 4, p551, 1995 by Professor Sir Michael Rutter - You may also be interested to know that my booklet, 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' is subtitled - A critique of the principle of 'maternal deprivation' used by courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents - Rutter called this booklet an 'interesting and informative guide', 2002). Citation Classic 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' A1986F062900001 John Bowlby, Child and Family Department, Tavistock Clinic, London NW3 5BA, England, September 7, 1986 http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1986/A1986F063100001.pdf Working as a child psychiatrist before the Second World War, I was struck by the high incidence of seriously disrupted mother child relationships during the early years among delinquent and sociopathic children. This led me to make a study of the problem and to publish a monograph 1, 2.

After the war, there was much concern about homeless children, which led the Social Commission of the United Nations to make a study of their needs. When the specialized agencies were approached for their suggestions, the World Health Organization offered to contribute a study of the mental health aspects, and, because of my known interests, the organization invited me to prepare a report. Engaged as a consultant for six months during 1950,1 Visited professionals dealing with homeless and/or disturbed children in Europe (Switzerland, France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Britain) and the US. A proposal to visit Eastern Europe was not agreed to by the authorities there.

At that date, there was little recognition in psychiatric or psychological circles that disrupted emotional relationships during early childhood could have an adverse effect on mental health, and those dealing only with adults were deeply sceptical of any such idea. Nevertheless, there was already published evidence additional to my own—e.g., from William Goldfarb 3 and René Spitz 4 —and the problem was well recognized by child psychiatric and child care agencies. In the first part of the report, I therefore reviewed the evidence pointing to a causal connection, and in the second, considered measures to prevent or ameliorate ill-effects, notably by supporting a child’s family to enable it to care for him or her and, if that was not possible, by arrangements such as adoption and fostering. For children in hospital, unrestricted visiting by parents was recommended. My report was accepted by the organization without change and published as a monograph the following spring. Reception was mixed. Those with practical experience of the problem, notably social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists dealing with children, were enthusiastic. Learning theorist psychologists were bitterly critical, pointing to the deficiencies of the data and the lack of theory to link alleged cause and effect (made good later in my work Attachment and Loss 5).

To my surprise and disappointment, most of my psychoanalytic colleagues were also critical Freud had long since turned his back on childhood trauma as a cause of neurosis, and emphasis was now insistently on fantasy. Nevertheless, the report proved a best-seller, was translated into 12 languages, and appeared in an abridged English version 6’.

I believe the monograph has become a Citation Classic because it focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health, with far-reaching practical implications, and has given rise to widespread controversy and extensive research. For a recent evaluation in the field (by an erstwhile critic) see Rutter 7.

For my work, I have received many honours, including appointment as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire and an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University.

1. Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life (I & IT). litt. I. Psycho-Anal. 25:19-53; 101-28, 1944. 2. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life. London: Baillitre. Tindall &Con, 1946. 56p. 3. Goldfarb W. The effects of early institutional care on adolescent personality. Child Develop. 14:213-23, 1943. 4. Spitz R. Hospitalism: an enquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanal. Stud. Child 1:53-74. 1945. (Cited 360 times.) 5. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969-1980. 3 vols. 6. Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. 1953. 190 p. (Cited 155 times.) 7. Rutter M. Maternal deprivation. 1972-l978: new findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Develop. 50:283-305, 1979. (Cited 95 times.)

Kingsley Miller, 10 March 2008

SEE complaint at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html}}

[edit] Statement by other user

KingsleyMiller is an editor with a particular POV on the subject of Fathers Rights. He appears to have formed certain strong views about the respective contributions of Bowlby, Ainsworth and Rutter on the issues of Attachment theory and Maternal deprivation in relation to the respective positions of fathers and mothers. I do not think his characterisations of the contributions of Bowlby etc are correct on the basis of the available sources. This would simply be a straightforward content dispute which should be resolvable given the multitude of sources. The problem arises however because Kingsley Miller will not discuss but instead assumes that those who disagree with him are acting in bad faith in every respect and, it would appear, have sexist motives. He then resorts to personal attack and harrassment over a range of talk and other pages. It would appear that he is now in contact with banned users who are 'dishing the dirt' on myself, JeanMercer and FT2. The choice of banned users here are HeadleyDown and the DPeterson entity - or indeed both.

• "Will not discuss" but resorts to personal attack.

KM added a somewhat out of date critique of the Strange Situation Procedure from Rutter. When a relative newbie called User:Mrvain68 attempted to discuss and add more recent research, KM responded by objecting to the up-to-date material going in at all [6], accusing him of vandalism, [7] having a vested interest (apparently because he undertakes SSP's as a student) and of being a "mountebank" [8]. My attempts to get them to work together fell on deaf ears.[[9]] He made bizarre allegations like "He has set himself up as an expert on the back of this Wikipedia page. He does not want somebody like myself coming along and putting the seed of doubt in clients minds. It is bad for business." Mrvain has not edited since. This is a pity as he was clearly knowledgable and had access to up-to-date sources.

KM started pages on maternal deprivation and Michael Rutter and made changes to the John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth pages that promote his particular POV. (Background - he seems to believe that Bowlby's most dominant and famous theory is the old 1951 one of maternal deprivation but that he is not the originator of attachment theory - developed in the late 50's through to the 1980s but primarily contained in 3 books published between 1969 and 1980.) Attempts to discuss content that display any disagreement with KM's POV have almost immediately been met with allegations of bad faith.

The easiest way to see the history is to read the talkpage of maternal deprivation and the ensuing discussions on the talkpages of KingsleyMiller, Myself and Jeanmercer, with bit parts on the pages of User:Thatcher131, and User:Doug. The matter is complicated by Kips tendancy to add retrospective "introductions", comments and headings and indeed alter other peoples headings, on the talkpages. However, I shall attepmt to provide diffs.

Here [10] expresses his view on by queries about his article. Here [11] to here [12]I respond with some chunks of Bowlby from his main work to show the basis for my concern about his characterisation of Bowlbys theory. Here KM accuses me of "attacking" him and asks aggressive questions [13]. Here I try to respond and explain disagreement is not an attack.[14]. At this point KM turns to personal attack and has maintained that approach ever since.[15][16]Implying I have made up quotes and adjusted dates [17](when it appeared from subsequent requests that he didn't have the book). I have supplied him with the title, edition, page numbers and even cost through Amazon but he has made no effort to respond to this content issue.

On the 5.3.08 he said he was going to make a complaint. I gave him the links to [WP:DR]] and so on. He then asked me three times if I was an administrator or an editor, to which i replied, though he accused me of not replying.[18][19][20][21] He then made a formal complaint in which it appeared he thought there was a difference between editors and contributors.[22] This appears in various places. I posted a message saying this was not the case [23] but bizarrely, he then accused me of deliberately misleading him in this issue! [24]

KM's accusations of bad faith:

His complaint which was posted on several editors talkpages in full (see below)[25]

My talkpage [26][27]

JeanMercers talkpage [28][29]

KingsleyMillers talkpage. Most of it frankly from [30] onwards - including copying in accusations also made on other pages. [31][32]

To Doug [33][34]

Maternal deprivation talkpage. I've already referred to most of it. [35][36] + accusing me of 'bringing Wikipedia into disrepute'.

John Bowlby talkpage [37][38][39]

The request for arbitration - posted on his talkpage.

The appeal of the refusal of the request.

This request. Posted on his talkpage.

And finally - this posted on the bottom of his talkpage

"ALL,

I have now been contacted separately by 2 people banned by Fainites and Mercer.

If you have more to contribute please e-mail me via YouTube or

eventoddlersneedfathers@freenet.co.uk

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KingsleyMiller"

All in all this has got beyond a minor irritation and into WP:HARRASS

Substance Dealing with issues raised:

The heading to Maternal deprivation was added by jean Mercer, not me.

The main controversy about maternal deprivation (1951) was not that it said mothers were more important than fathers. It was highly controversial in many different domains. I have set those out in the article. Not mentioning fathers much was only one criticism.

I have posted chunks of Bowlbys attachment theory from his main work on the talkpage to show he was not saying attachment was a mother thing only. Kips response was to imply I was making it up and ask questions about what book and claim I was making up publication dates. This seems to suggest he has not actually read Bowlby's main work.

I have attempted to discuss with Kip the passages from Rutter 1995 he put into several pages which he claims show differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory. i have the Rutter paper. It clearly sets out these items as being developments in attachment theory between the original publication in 1969 and this paper - not differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory. I have even typed most of the section of the paper out on the John Bowlby talkpage but got no response from Kip.

I have never said I have not heard of maternal deprivation. Kip has claimed "Attachment Theory has become synonyms with the theory of Maternal Deprivation and in many peoples minds they mean the same thing". I disgreed with this. I said I work with people who use attachment concepts all the time and have never heard anybody even mention maternal deprivation.

Kips extreme views on Bowlby can be seen plastered over a number of talkpages. He made no contribution to the criticism section however, preferring instead to edit the pages to try and show Bowlby was only really known for maternal deprivation and not for attachment theory. I set out a random selection of quotes from various good, mainstream sources who seem to think attachment theory originated with Bowlby - but again got no response.

Thereis nothing wrong with Kips 'citation classic' source as such but it is absurd to claim other editors are engaged in some kind of bad faith behaviour because this was not mentioned. Attachment theory is a huge piece of work which has now accumulated nearly 40 years of research, commentary, controversy and analysis. Its absurd to make accusations of ad faith because one favourite source is not there. Anyway - Kip did not just add the source. He removed all other better sourced information on the issue and used this source (a letter from Bowlby about why Maternal deprivation was a 'citation classic') instead. For example, Kip has added no material from Brethertons paper on the history of the development of attachment theory, for which she personally contacted all of themain players who were still alive, or indeed from attachment theory itself. It would be silly though to suggest this omission was bad faith on his part.

The idea that JeanMercer, a professor of child development, would be lead into confusion on the issue of maternal deprivation by any edit of mine is quite funny.