User talk:KingsleyMiller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, KingsleyMiller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco 09:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Helper,

Somehow I have 2 Usernames;-

User:KingsleyMiller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KingsleyMiller


User:KipMiller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KipMiller

Would it be possible to have just one?

Could I keep Kingsley Miller?

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.104.119 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Dear Fanities and Jim, Neil

Just to say I am very pleased with my pages on;-

°Professor Sir Michael Rutter °Maternal deprivation °Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents

I should just like to thank you for your help and to say, despite the considerable improvement, the new page on attachment still needs sorting. Nevertheless many thanks.

kip Also copied to Jean Mercer

Dear Fainties,

You have a very good feel for the subject and the changes you have made are a vast improvement.

If you take a look at the pages I have created on 'maternal deprivation' and 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter' I have identified major differences with the Attachment theory.

Although you may not believe others no longer think in terms of MD part of the problem you have found in keeping track of the changes to these pages is that many people still do - please take my word for it.

What is more is that they believe they are the same thing ie mothers are naturally better parents than fathers.

Thank you for your interest

KingsleyMiller 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I have also just completed a page on the Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents, not without its hicups!

[edit] October 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. NeilN 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you. One point: comments should be left on talk pages like User talk:NeilN and not on user pages like User:NeilN. Happy editing! --NeilN 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents

A tag has been placed on Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Yourname 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've saved your article from deletion temporarily, but it is still at risk. I've removed the unsupported claims you made, and non-encyclopaedic/promotional bits like opening hours. The article has no references, and therefore does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is up to you to establish notability, not for other contributors (of any nationality) to guess. If you wish to claim that the the department is world class, etc., provide independent sources for this.
Incidentally, bots cannot tag for deletion - contributors will tag for deletion if an article is unsourced, non-neutral, an advert (including promotion of non-commercial concerns), or non-notable. As originally written, NHS or not, this article fell at every hurdle, and is still defective. Jimfbleak 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, the article was clearly not intentionally promotional, and had enough content to be worth saving. Jimfbleak 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment therapy

Hi Kip. Many thanks for the kind words! As you can see from the arbitration it was an extremely lengthy and time consuming business to free all the attachment related pages from the grip of the sockpuppets and after some initial rewrites, many editors are just taking time off! The attachment article was just cleaned up a bit but I'm not sure if much work's been done since. The articles that were almost completely rewritten were Attachment therapy, attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic developmental psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy. In about a dozen other articles, advertising material was removed.

If you look on the AT talkpage you will see that the person who did a good article review said it was too jargony and read like a psychiatric text. I suppose we should be flattered by that in some ways. Back to the drawing board though.

I don't think Bowlby claims to be the first in that way. I think the difference with Bowlby was the understanding that it was primarily an evolutionary adaptive strategy. The thing about 'maternal deprivation' was something previously observed but not necessarily entirely understood. Assumptions would have been made in those days about the respective positions of Mothers and Fathers but its been a long time now since anyone thought primary attachment was just a mother thing. It depends on who is the primary caregiver as I understand it. The person you really want to talk to about all this is User:Jean Mercer who edits under her own name and is a prof. specialising in child development. Fainites barley 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The other important thing about Bowlby was the recognition that it really did matter who an infant was with. Before that it was thought that as long as any old carer was nice and cleaned one end and fed the other that was fine and it didn't matter who it was. The fact that he originally assumed it was Mothers is just a reflection of the social mores of his times (an indeed of most times). Fainites barley 11:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images

To put images on the left, just add |left to the existing image wiki. Jimfbleak 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Just to say I have updated my User page. If there are any problems please contact me either via Wikipedia or my YouTube homepage.

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.179.31 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All,

I have now got 2 User names and would appreciate just one.

Can anybody help?

kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.253.7 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia Guidance - Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites

There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re complaint, Fainites comment

Have a look through the policy/WP pages links I put on your other talkpage. You could try the administrators notice board WP:AN, WP:ANI or you can ask for an WP:RfC (request for comment) on the talk page. RfC is the usual forum for content disagreements I believe. If you are complaining about breaches of policies then I think you try ANI or AN. What you are actually supposed to do is try and discuss things on the talkpage though. I don't know which is the right one as a) I haven't made complaints against anyone myself other than in arbitration and b) I don't know what the nature of your complaint is. Fainites barley 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


WP:DR gives some helpful advice. Fainites barley 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re complaint, kip comment

Thank you for this. I have asked for a 'truce' regarding your amendments to the 'maternal deprivation' section to John Bowlby. I have also posted Jean Mercer regarding the complaint.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I need the copy of the JB copy you quote so that I can find it in the library. Which edition? (Southampton University has an extensive collection)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re complaint, Fanities comment

I'm using the 1997 reprint. paperback - published by Pimlico. Each volume is about £13 but might be cheaper from Amazon or second hand. I would also advise you Kip to read Wiki policies before you start firing off complaints - but thats up to you. As for your fathers rights campaign - i think you'd do better by making sure Bowlby is properly understood rather than setting him up and knocking him down as an Aunt Sally on maternal deprivation which nobody has used for decades. But again - thats up to you. Fainites barley 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re complaint, kip comment

Fanities, 1.Which edition (not reprint) is it? What is the name and the last date cited in the copy?

2.Can you give me some idea about your own qualifications when discussing this subject, please?

3.For this complaint I need to know your role, if any, with Wik. Are you an Administrator or do you have any connection with Wik? KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Try and keep comments pertaining to the same subject in date order and in one thread then things are less likely to be missed. Only use headings for a fresh topic. No I'm not an admin or anything like that. I'm a mere humble editor.

In relation to the book - its a reprint of the second edition as far as I can tell. It contains the original preface and then a preface to the second edition. He says the reason for a revised edition is because major developments in the thinking of biologists and because of more research etc in the last 15 years, He then sets out which bits have major revisions. On a cursory glance through the refs the last one would be about 1982 which seems about right.Fainites barley 09:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re complaint, Jean Mercer comment

I don't understand the nature of the complaint. Can you not outline your reasoning on the discussion page?

Actually, in my opinion there is no need for this Maternal deprivation article, because the substance could easily be included in the Attachment theory discussion. I can't imagine many readers coming to Wiki and looking up Maternal deprivation, but plenty will look up Attachment theory. However, if the present article is to exist, it should be accurate, and the edits that have been made seem to me to have improved its accuracy.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re complaint, kip comment

1.As above can you give me some idea about your own qualifications when discussing this subject, please?

Regarding the complaint I dispute the accuracy of the amendments but also that they have not been made in 'good faith' therefore there is no point in pursuing the topic in the discussion pages. In my view the alterations are making the pages worse not better so I was forced to call a TRUCE in accordance with Wik procedures - I will need to give a more detailed comment later.

I should be grateful if you would give some sort of answer to the above question.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget - if you make a complaint - to let those you are complaining about know so they can respond. WP:DR Fainites barley 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see aboveKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No I mean provide a message and diff to the posting of it. Also you have here put comments out of time like an introduction. This makes it difficult for others reading the page to see who said what in reply to what. If you interpose a comment between two that are already there, as a short reply, then you indent it by starting off the line with several colons. Fainites barley 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I make no claims to expertise or non-expertise about anything. I can read a book though. It is matter for individual editors whether they wish to edit in their own names giving their qualifications or whether they do not wish to claim any sort of expert status. Don't forget Wiki is about fairly representing properly sourced and notable information in encyclopaedic fashion. It is not a soapbox nor a forum for people to express their personal views in articles although people often do on talkpages. Fainites barley 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU AN 'ADMINISTRATOR' OR 'EDITOR'. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH WIK?

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ARE A WIK EDITOR WITH NO FORMAL QUALIFICATION IN THE SUBJECT OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See my answer above - including my advice on keeping threads of a discussion in one place so replies are not missed! Fainites barley 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'll tell me how to e-mail you, I'll send you a copy of my CV. If you don't care to do that, you can check out two of my books:

Mercer, J. (1998). Infant Development: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mercer, J. (2006). Understanding Attachment: Parenting, Child Care, and Emotional Development. Westport, CT: Praeger.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm wondering why you say "even toddlers need fathers"-- do you think infants don't?Jean Mercer (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what a formal qualification in Maternal Deprivation would be. Fainites barley 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a formal complaint against the Wikipedia editor known as 'Fainites barley' and the contributor Jean Mercer made by Kingsley Miller and to be decided by arbitration according to the policies and procedures of Wikipedia

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 fromCambridge 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

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

Kip you need to put your complaint in the right place. Have a look at WP:ARB to see how an request for arbitration is made if you think this warrants arbitration. If you look at WP:DR though as I suggested and look at the various forms of dispute resolution you will see that arbitration is a DR of last resort after all other methods have failed. Also - please could you number your points so they can be replied to if that is required. Oh - and editors and contributors are the same thing. Fainites barley 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

?Jean Mercer (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

COPY

[edit] Complaint Re; Maternal Deprivation

Dear Jean,

Sorry I have not got back to you earlier regarding my complaint.

I have contacted a Wikipedia 'Clerk' known as 'Thatcher' who has informed me that, "There is no difference between 'contributors' and 'editors'. You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles". As you are aware I made a point of clarifying this issue with Fainites on several occasions and he led me to believe that he was working for Wikipedia as an editor. Why he should seek to confuse the issue I do not know and I can only assume that Fainities is some sort of fantasist who enjoys the power Wikipedia gives him. For example he has stated that Mary Ainsworth wrote 'The Deprivation of Maternal Care - A Reassessment of its effects', in the Wikipedia page on John Bowlby, but this is not so and I should be very grateful if you could clarify whether you still support him?

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

PS I have just completed a new video clip on YouTube, 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5kRNb5ILs

Please can you state any criticisms you may have about the inaccuracy of the piece. I am seeking to do an updated version of 'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby' on YouTube. I already have the comments made by Fainites and your contribution would be greatly appreciated.

    • There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors." You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles. He probably is more familiar with procedures, style, content guidelines and such, which may give him more de facto input, but he does not have more authority de jure. [[User

talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 78.149.143.239 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint and your accounts

Hey Kip/Kingsley, I hope I can help with some of your problems:

1) Your complaint - I didn't understand where the issues are, I'm trying to follow your off-site complaint, but without wikilinks, or at least url's it's a little difficult. I'll see what I can do though to understand the problem. No promises that I'll get it and certainly no promises that if I do I'll be able to do anything about it, give me a little time.

2) You posted to my page without logging in, so it was a little hard to find my way even to here. Be careful about logging in the future so that other editors can see who you are (it isn't required, it's just very helpful).

3) I notice that you have two accounts and that you want to have only one. There isn't really a way to merge the accounts because of edit histories, etc., but you can create a redirect from one account to the other. If you'd like me to do this for you you'll have to log in as Kip Miller and post to User talk:KipMiller your desire to have the page redirect to here. Without you logging in as KipMiller we can't do it because there's no way to verify that both accounts really belong to you. Other than this one purpose, you should only use the one account you want to have as your main account. Also, do you want the messages on the other account's talk page moved here (probably the best thing for now)?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, Doug.

Many thanks

kip

[edit] Query

Kip, I tried to answer your questions on my talk page.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kip,

I've always thought contributors and editors were the same thing on Wiki, but I'm much more interested in content than in style, so i could well be wrong.

I'm embarrassed to say that I can't help with the video, because I don't know what I did with our speakers. I don't normally listen to things with the computer. If you could give me a transcript of the voice-over, I could look at it, but other than rooting through the closet I'm not sure what else to do.

Now, to get down to the "reassessment" I think the issue here may have to do with the particular volume you consult. I have a Penguin edition that includes assessment chapters by Ainsworth. But I also have the Schocken edition (1966). This is called "two volumes in one" and begins with Bowlby's "Maternal care and mental health." The second volume is "Deprivation of maternal care: A reassessment of its effects." There are papers in this volume in the following order: Prugh & Harlow, Andry, Mead, Wootton, Lebovici, Ainsworth. However, on the cover, these authors are listed alphabetically, and Ainsworth therefore appears to be listed as senior author. Ainsworth's paper is entitled "The effects of maternal deprivation: A review of findings and controversy in the context of research strategy." So, in this somewhat confusing situation of reprints and republications,I don't think we need to attribute differences to deliberate efforts to mislead.

You would probably find the Andry paper of interest, as he examines a number of issues about paternal deprivation, but he seems to think JB was a Kleinian, so i don't know what that was about. Lady Barbara Wootton gives it all(attachment theory) a brisk send-off as nonsense, and provides some interesting evidence to support her view.

Best regards, JeanJean Mercer (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Jean,

Did you edit the page on Bowlby to show Ainsworth as author?

kip78.149.164.211 (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Please see maternal deprivation talkpage for the substance of this discussion. Fainites barley 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rearranged some material to put it in a more chronological/developmental form. I think the involvement with evolutionary and ethological concepts should go earlier than details of his later published works. Fainites barley 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No you have not.

You have altered the content as a result of my complaint.

Where are your sources?

You have not included sources because they lie in the complaint.

You are a complete and absolute disgrace!

You have sought to confuse the theory of Maternal deprivation with the Attachment Theory

STOP YOUR VANDALISM!

89.242.80.51 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip, you said you were going to arbitration. I gave you the links on WP:DR and how to make a complaint. I waited nearly 2 weeks and there's no sign of any dispute resolution process. User:Thatcher131 has looked at your complaint and said he can't see anything inappropriate in it at this time [1]. There is no requirement on anybody to stop editing pages because they disagree. A truce can be agreed when all parties seek dispute resolution and can see they have reached stalemate. You, however, have consistantly refused to discuss anything on the talkpages - preferring instead to go straight for personal abuse, allegations of ulterior motive and bizarre conspiracy theories. You made inapproapriate edits to other peoples talkpage posts and then demanded a 'truce'. You have been given as much leeway as you have because you are a newbie but your behaviour has breached a significant number of policies. As I said before - if you wish to make a complaint of breaches of policies or seek some form of dispute resolution - then by all means get on with it. I am perfectly willing to discuss content on the talkpage or answer all of your elements of complaint if required. But you might like to ask yourself how easy it is going to be for other editors to assume good faith in respect of you when you never seem to hesitate to assume the opposite with anyone who disagrees with you. Fainites barley 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip its not necessary to keep copying bits of other peoples talkpage comments over other talk pages. Just provide a link - otherwise it gets very confusing for people to follow. Fainites barley 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version of maternal deprivation and attachment theory significantly confused the two and misrepresented both Rutter and Bowlby. In maternal deprivation Bowlby mentions the first 6 months of an infants life. In attachment theory, attachment behaviours develop after around 7 or 8 months. Further, monotropy and imprinting are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. The alleged 'significant differences' between maternal deprivation and attachment theory that you have set out on Rutters page and the maternal deprivation page and to a lesser extent here, from Rutters 1995 paper, are in fact, as is clearly stated in Rutters paper, developments in attachment theory, not distinctions from maternal deprivation. Your repeated statement that Bowlby is famous only for maternal deprivation and that he is not the author of attachment theory is frankly bizarre. Fainites barley 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fainites|barley|nonsense

What you have written above is nonsense. You have acted in 'bad faith' throughout so I have contacted an independent editor for help. Please stop making edits about things you do not understand. You are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. People are watching these pages so I will also copy it to my own TALK page.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


What is more important, that people looking up information on Wiki get a reasonably balanced presentation, or that somebody "wins"? If the argument had to do with racehorses or Icelandic history, I wouldn't worry about it, but in this case children and families can conceivably suffer from misconceptions. Let's all try to be meticulously careful about accuracy and put our energies into creating a good article. If there are disagreements, these should be stated, not wrangled about until someone gives up.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kip for the nth time, you are supposed to discuss content disputes - not immediately assume bad faith and make personal attacks. If you simply assume that everybody who disagrees with what appears to you to be a self-evident truth is acting in 'bad faith' it makes discussion impossible. You have done the same to Mvain68, me and now JeanMercer. (By the way, your previous post to JeanMercer does not appear on your page because it was removed by someone who thought it was vandalism because you had forgotten to sign yourself in. I'll put it in a text box for you). I suggest you read WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DR. I'm not trying to patronise you, but if you read those policies and the policies referred to on those pages you may be able to see a way forward. I am not going to respond any more to your personal attacks and allegations except in the context of some formal dispute resolution procedure as frankly, life is too short, but I am still happy to discuss content on article talkpages. Fainites barley 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kip to JeanMercer

[edit] Let me make this very clear

Jean,

Let me make this very clear so that there can be no doubt Fanities is acting in 'bad faith' if you read my UserPage you will see that I know what this means. You are either unaware or turning a blind eye to a significant aspect of Bowlby's career and this has given Fanities the opportunity to use your name to make changes which amount to nonsense. The pages as they stand amended by Fanities are worse than useless and give a misleading, inaccurate and erroneous impression. I wish to make changes so that they accurately reflect the research but I cannot do so whilst Fanities continues to vandalize these pages in your name. As far as 'Icelandic history' is concerned do you really think I have battled through the courts for my own benefit or for other fathers? I have earned my victories and I have met plenty of people just like Fanities along the way.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information Jean I am posting here my query to Doug an independent editor;-

Doug,

Fanities has posted the following on a discussion page. Quite frankly it is nonsense.

Can you help me make a formal complaint? I do not wish to go to arbitration because Fanities continues to edit in 'bad faith'.

Your version of maternal deprivation and attachment theory significantly confused the two and misrepresented both Rutter and Bowlby. In maternal deprivation Bowlby mentions the first 6 months of an infants life. In attachment theory, attachment behaviours develop after around 7 or 8 months. Further, monotropy and imprinting are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. The alleged 'significant differences' between maternal deprivation and attachment theory that you have set out on Rutters page and the maternal deprivation page and to a lesser extent here, from Rutters 1995 paper, are in fact, as is clearly stated in Rutters paper, developments in attachment theory, not distinctions from maternal deprivation. Your repeated statement that Bowlby is famous only for maternal deprivation and that he is not the author of attachment theory is frankly bizarre. Fainites barley 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 78.146.224.49 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug,

Can you tell me by either contacting Fanites or from this extract whether;

1. Fanities is saying Bowlby is the 'author' of the 'attachment theory'?

2. Is Fanities saying the attachment theory and 'maternal deprivation' are the same?

I am sorry to say that I feel he is acting in 'bad faith' and that only by using yourself as an intermediary am I likely to get a straight answer. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)KingsleyMiller (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes

2. No

Fainites barley 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone is acting in bad faith here. However, it might be wiser not to become involved in editing something of so much personal significance as this topic seems to have for you, Kip.

What Bowlby and his contemporaries actually said, and the context in which it should be understood, really does not depend on what court battles you've experienced, or vice-versa. I don't know about the UK, but in the U.S. there was a long tradition called the "tender years doctrine" which generally gave custody of young children to the mother; this followed, of course, on centuries during which all children of all ages literally belonged to the father, right back to the Roman father's power of death. Your apparently unfortunate court experiences emerged from societal attitudes about sex roles as well as beliefs about children's needs, a complex set of determinants that may have been reflected by Bowlby but were not created by him.

You suggest that I am either ignorant of the truth or turning a blind eye. Please consider a third possibility, that I disagree with you on some points. If there is genuine controversy, there are surely Wiki methods for reflecting this in the article, and those methods do not include name-calling or other personalities.

As for Fainites, this editor seems quite able to read the historical background and draw conclusions, with or without my name being used.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jean,

Fanities is the one not using Wik procedures that is why I am in the process of making a formal complaint.

What are the fundamental points you disagree upon. For example;-

1. Do you think Fanities is accurate in describing Bowlby as the 'author' of the attachmet theory?

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

COPY OF COMPLAINT

[edit] COPY OF COMPLAINT

Statement by {Party 1}

I have tried to edit or create pages regarding Child Psychology on John Bowlby, Maternal Deprivation and Professor Sir Michael Rutter. I have found the contents of these pages vandalized by the other parties. Despite attempts to discuss these pages the other parties have consistently shown 'bad faith'. For example editing under a false title, making false claims for the contents, making false claims regarding myself. An example of editing in 'bad faith' is at the bottom of the page on Rutter which has been changed to read 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'. This is incorrect and this change is vexatious. I have subsequently also been contacted off forum to be told there is a Wikipedia 'administrator' who is sympathetic to their behaviour. There are glaring problems with the pages on Child Psychology which suggest there is a systemic problem.

[edit] Sorry - not much help here

Kingley/Kip, Sorry to take so long getting back to you. I really don't understand your complaint, the whole problem is beyond me. You need to post diffs showing the edits that you take issue with, that would help a lot. If this is a dispute over content, consider either a Third Opinion or mediation. If this is a personal dispute where there are issues of incivility that predominate, please consider WP:WQA or WP:ANI. All of these will require diffs though to be able to help.

As for your userpages, I can't connect the two pages unless you log in under the other username and make an edit, preferably to that usertalk page saying that you want the pages merged and that you are no longer going to edit under the other username. You could do this yourself, but still you would need to log in under the other username so we knew you were the owner of that account.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification - Request for appeal - Wikipedia Sexist Editing in Child Psychology

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_extlink.png External link (remember http:// prefix)

KingsleyMiller (initiator)

Other Parties;

Jean Mercer

Fainites

BOTH CONTACTED KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement for clarification made by KingsleyMiller

I have challenged the decision in the above case but received no notification of the result. (I have been contacted off forum again by another person who claims they were also banned as a result of Fainites and Jean Mercer - Each e-mail claims that Jean Mercer is not a 'true' expert - The second e-mail has gone as far as naming FT2 as the administrator who protects them). The original application was that the editor known as Fainites is acting in 'bad faith' according to the Wikipedia procedures. The original decision found that bad faith was 'not clearly demonstrated'. But in the statement subsequently made by Jean Mercer she quoted something that I was alleged to have said, "That the study of maternal deprivation is identical with attachment theory". In the appeal I was able to show that Fainites had deliberately caused this confusion by taking my words out of context and in a another example deliberately changing the heading of a section. These are only a few examples given because of lack of space demanded by the Wikipedia process but there are many others. I described Fainites as an 'Edit Warrior' on behalf of John Bowlby and the discredited theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'. This theory was that mothers are more important to young children than fathers. All the research shows that fathers are just important to children as mothers and to find against this appeal would put Wikipedia on the side of sexist editors in Child Psycholgy such as Fainites. (For the sake of clarity I also reproduce the appeal statement here with the revised links since further editing by Fainites ).

[edit] Appeal Statement by KingsleyMiller

In rejecting the application Sam Blacketer states, "This is a dispute over the content of the pages, and despite extensive searching, the only violations of policy I can find is KingsleyMiller's belief that Fainites is acting in bad faith which is not clearly demonstrated". But in her statement posted afterwards Jean Mercer states, "However, in my opinion it is not correct to claim that the study of maternal deprivation is identical with attachment theory". In my postings for Wikipedia I have never claimed they are the same and I have clearly stated the opposite.

It is Fainites who has stated that I believe they are the same by taking words out of their original context and I use this example to "clearly demonstrate" to Wikipedia that he or she is acting in "bad faith". To reinforce this appeal I refer the arbiters to the section entitled the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' in the page on John Bowlby. This was posted before Jean Mercer's statement for arbitration. In this page I clearly indicate the salient differences between Maternal Deprivation and the attachment theory and I use this as further evidence in support for this appeal to show that her confusion has been deliberately caused by Fainites acting in "bad faith".

It would be incorrect to state that this example did not form part of my original application. I should also like to refer the arbiters to the specific instance of Fainites "bad faith" I gave as the heading or title, "At the bottom of the page on Rutter which has been changed to read 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'." If the arbiters follow the link they will see that Fainites changed this from, "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory". I use this example to show Wikipedia that I have never believed they are the same and that it is Fainites who has deliberately sought to confuse the two.

Fainites has only recently stated for the first time that he or she believes John Bowlby is the 'author' of the Attachment Theory. This is a minority view. Most would accept that through 'Maternal Deprivation' he contributed greatly to our understanding of 'attachment' but he did not invent the theory. I accept that Jean Mercer may have become inadvertently involved in this complaint but I should like the arbiters to consider whether Fainites is an 'Edit Warrior' on behalf of Bowlby and the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' and that by seeking to confuse the two he or she has seriously undermined the Wikipedia pages on Child Psychology. In support for this view I the discussion page for 'Maternal deprvation' and the video clip included on the Wikipedia page on John Bowlby which seems to be a thinly disguised justification for the idea of 'Maternal Deprivation'.

(I am the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' which is subtitled 'A guide to the Tender Years Theory. A critique of the principle of maternal deprivation used by the courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents'. I was given the unique right by Court of Appeal to publish the County Court judgments from my family proceedings because of my, "History of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships". Professor Sir Michael Rutter described my booklet as an 'interesting and informative guide').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

[edit] Statement by KingsleyMiller in support for the need of clarification

If it would help Wikipedia to make up it's mind about the editing of Fainites and Jean Mercer it might help to look at the page on 'Maternal Deprivation'. I created this page to compliment the section on the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' I had added to John Bowlby. 'Maternal Deprivation' is the discrete term given to the theory expounded by Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health', World Health Organization WHO (1951) that mothers are more important to children than fathers. All research shows that fathers are just as important to even very young children and if Wikipedia takes the time to consult what Bowlby actually said about this work in 'Citation Classic' you can see there is nothing vague about it. Yet Fainites introduction to the page on Maternal Deprivation' reads as follows;-

"The term maternal deprivation describes the experiences and possible negative effects on the development of children who lack a typical experience of mothers' care. As it is commonly used, this term is ambiguous, as it is left unclear whether the deprivation in question is that of the biological mother, of a specific adoptive or foster mother, of a consistent care giving adult of any gender or relationship to the child, of an emotional relationship, or simply of the experience of the types of care that is called "mothering" in many cultures".

In effect Fainites is trying to lose the link between how the term is used and Bowlby. In the same page the "Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects" was not written by Ainsworth but this is how it appeared in an earlier edit by Fainites. In fact the original work caused a great deal of controversy and Ainsworth's contribution was accepted as a 'courtesy' to Bowlby. Fainites has included Ainsworth to lessen the controversial impact of Bowlby's work and to justify Fainites claim that he is the true 'author' of the attachment theory.

Perhaps the greatest travesty to accuracy lies in the omission of Bowlby's own words about the theory and the substitution of Mercer's work. There is no mention of the 'Citation Classic' by Bowlby in any of the references. However before this page was produced I am not sure Mercer was even aware of any controversy and certainly Fainites has stated he or she had never heard of the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'. It was this omission that specifically led me to produce a video clip on YouTube, [Media:'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby'].

Any search on Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation will touch on the controversial nature of this theory but instead this page contains a great deal of unnecessary material which is only intended to confuse not help the reader.

It may help Wikipedia to seek explanations from Fainites about the reason for changing the disputed title, whether he or she still believes Bowlby is the 'author' of the attachment theory? Why he or she claims that I believe the attachment theory and maternal deprivation are the same when any cursory glance shows the opposite? Please confirm whether or not Fainites had heard of the 'Maternal Deprivation' controversy or even heard of the theory before it was posted on Wikipedia? Above all why has omitted the 'Citation Classic' by Bowlby and instead referred to Jean Mercer's work?

I hope this will help Wikipedia resolve this appeal.


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

[edit] Please calm down

I feel a need to stress to you that Wikipedia is a collaborative project based in consensus; people interested in being members of our community should be able and willing to work with others on or supporting encyclopedic content, and to resolve disputes calmly when it is reasonably possible to do so. Pursuant to those goals, Wikipedians created the five pillars in an attempt to exemplify most of the project's core ideas, policies, and guidelines.

If I may remind you of a few key provisions:

  • Wikipedia hosts free content that (generally) anyone may edit, and even encourages such editing. No one user owns a page, even if they've contributed the bulk of its text. Both of these being the case, no one individual has the ability to dictate any page's content.
  • Wikipedia's community is built upon an atmosphere of mutual respect or, failing that, mutual cooperation. We must strive to assume good faith in our dealings with other editors, especially when getting involved in disputes. It is all too easy to get sucked into the trap of calling disputed changes "vandalism," thinking of counterparts in debates as "trolls," or otherwise treating the project as a battleground, but doing so is rarely productive and only damages your ability to raise any legitimate concerns you may have.
  • Relating to the above, civility is very important on Wikipedia; personal attacks, edit warring, excessive escalation of disputes, harassment of others, and other behaviors are generally considered disruptive, and are discouraged. Good editors will work with each other to resolve disputes and achieve reasonable compromise and consensus.
  • It is important to keep a cool head in disputes, not only for your own benefit, but also because failing to do so will often result in loss of face within the community and can potentially lead to a variety of administrative actions.

You appear to be involved in a contentious dispute, at the moment. I appreciate that you may have a strong opinion on the matter, but please be open to the fact that others will not necessarily share your opinion, and are quite likely to have opinions of their own -- taking into account Wikipedia's essential neutral point of view, a healthy diversity of opinions among users is almost always beneficial.

Currently your petition for an arbitration case has been declined; this is because the arbitration committee generally focuses on matters of user behavior, not content disputes. While you have accused other users of acting in bad faith or vandalizing, you have yet to phrase those accusations in any way that makes this dire, malicious intent clear to your fellow users, and seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy concerning the on-wiki definition of simple and obvious vandalism (which quite specifically does not include content disputes). I see that you have twice tried to "appeal" this decision, but I doubt that either will be accepted by the committee because you have not addressed their reasons for rejecting the case.

In particular, Sam Blacketer's post should be very helpful, if you're willing to think it over:

This is a dispute over the content of the pages, and despite extensive searching, the only violations of policy I can find is KingsleyMiller's belief that Fainites is acting in bad faith which is not clearly demonstrated. There does not seem to have been any administrative action taken in the pages concerned, and being an administrator grants no privilege whatsoever in editing. I would advise KingsleyMiller that, since the subject of child developmental psychology is one where there is considerable academic and popular debate characterised by many different views. It should not be a surprise to find that those different views have their supporters among wikipedia editors, and the challenge to all is to describe the debate in such a way as to encompass all views while endorsing none of them. This is inevitably frustrating to an expert who has a great deal of knowledge in their field but the way to proceed is by rigorously citing reliable sources for the opinions we describe, and debating the issues with other editors. Can I ask, has there been a request for comment from other users? Has WikiProject Psychology been asked to assist? These methods could help you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is almost always a last resort in disputes; you may wish to consider earlier steps of the dispute resolution process.

You may wonder why I'm writing all of this. That's a simpler question to answer: for your benefit. I see that you seem to be upset, recently, and I'm hoping you'll take at least some of this into consideration. Your current behavior isn't a long-term solution, I'm afraid, and I'd like to give at least one solid attempt at setting things straight.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please think it over. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Santin and the attachment theory

Dear Luna Santin,

I am extremely pleased with my application which I think went very well. However I did not appeal the decision twice as you are only allowed one appeal per decision and both Fainites and myself agreed upon one thing that 'Mediation' only works when both parties act in good faith. If you are interested you will see a video clip I have produced for YouTube on the topic.

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very importnat change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Many thanks,

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please trim your statement and replies at requests for arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has asked that all participants and commentators limit the size of their statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

This includes any replies to other statements; please also remember that statements are not meant to represent threaded discussions. If you wish to reply to a statement and are up to the word limit, I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Please trim your statement and replies, which currently sits at 1800+ words, to 500 as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Hi,

I gather that you received an off-Wikipedia email mentioning me. I thought I'd clarify.

As with most administrators, part of the everyday role is to both help users, and (if independent and I feel it necessary after warnings), to remove those who are unchangingly disruptive.

Your email mentioning me comes from a user I have banned. You are not the first to receive such a message from him. See for example this edit: [2]. It's an attempt to stir up trouble.

Some background:

In around 2005-06, a user who had run the gamut of dispute resolution was banned. He had been exceptionally disruptive on many articles, and in fact had been banned before, and was after, and was blocked by many administrators. I kept the article ("NLP") clean of him thereafter, which probably didn't please him. In June 2007, I was involved in the case of a second "edit warrior", also at Arbitration. The first one emailed the second to try to get him to stir trouble. It didn't make much difference, the second guy was already into defamation, vandalism and smearing others, so he couldn't very well do much more. He got banned by the community in October 2007.

The connection is that in the second of these cases, Fainites and Jean Mercer were involved. Whilst this does not make me "an involved admin" (my sole involvement was "against" their opponent, not "for" them), I did present the evidence that led to the person warring with them being proven a "bad actor" at Arbitration, and later banned.

This is therefore why you now have an email by someone who is probably polite, helpful, sincere... and is trying to persuade you to "war" or be aggressive on his behalf. And using a new fake name. He tried to get Jean Mercer to do the same, too, only she said no. He often emails people in disputes, offering "information" that may "help" or requesting help to fix things, or "useful evidence" that (by chance) furthers the dispute. It usually doesn't help. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

This is the real face of the guy I think you're being talked to by: [3][4][5]. He's never much cared if he gets other users who are in a dispute, into trouble, since he's banned anyway.

Best,

FT2 (Talk | email) 04:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FT2 and the attachment theory

Dear FT2,

I was only reporting what I was told and I am glad you did not feel that your previous involvement precluded you from taking part in this case.

I should like to put the same question to yourself as Luna Santin;-

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very important change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children.

I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Would I also be correct in assuming that both you and Luna Santin are women, or neither?

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to point me to the page you mean. I've long since unwatched that section of the Wiki since that dispute was already over 8 months ago (summer 2007). If you have a dispute or it's changed back and you disagree, then you should expect at a minimum, a reasoned explanation and reason why they differ, and that they are willing to discuss it reasonably. The first place for that would be the talk page; if that hasn't worked then for a simple statement of fact I'd suggest try WP:3O (Third Opinion) failing which dispute resolution.
Hope that helps? As for gender of editors, I've never asked Luna theirs and mine's not really relevant either. Going by quality of discussion, not physical attributes of editor, is better. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very difficult being an administrator

The comparison I was making is that Bowlby based his theory of 'maternal deprivation' on the sex of the parent! as you say it would be a terrible World if we could tell what people are really like by the way they look!

Hope this makes a bit of sense.

Thank you for your help with the dispute. This thread has nothing to do with 'attachment therapy' which was discussed some months ago and has nothing to do with me. This is 'attachment theory' a completely different issue.

Only if you have time I should be grateful if you would look at the discussion with Fainties at the bottom of my USER page and give me your thoughts.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have refused to discuss this source I have listed it for WP:3PO in relation to one of the several pages on which you post it. I would be happy to e-mail the source to FT2 to look at if he was willing. Fainites barley 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(I think "you" here must refer to KM, not me. It's ambiguous. - FT2)
Yes! Sorry. This is KM's talkpage. Do you want to see the source as that may be quicker than waiting for 3PO? The passage has been mentioned a number of times on various talkpages but I posted most of it on John Bowlby under "Fainites|barley|nonsense".Fainites barley 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kip. One last effort to discuss this source. Do you have pages 549 and 550 and 551? Can you please set out the passages or sentences you rely on to claim Rutter is referring to the differences between MD and AT rather than developments in AT from the 1969 publication of "Attachment and loss" to 1995. Fainites barley 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress with Fainites!

Absolutely fabulous news.

I would be unhappy with FT2 as arbiter because he or she is unable even to tell me their gender and I do not believe the above decision made by Wikipedia had anything to do with the quality of my argument - I am sorry to say that I think FT2 comments are somewhat ironic given the nature of the debate.

Please can you e-mail copies to me of the pages you mention and I can highlight the passages!

What is WP:3PO ?

Kind thanks,

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO WP:3PO Arbiter

Kip. One last effort to discuss this source. Do you have pages 549 and 550 and 551? Can you please set out the passages or sentences you rely on to claim Rutter is referring to the differences between MD and AT rather than developments in AT from the 1969 publication of "Attachment and loss" to 1995. Fainites barley 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue under dispute lies at the bottom of the page on Michael Rutter;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Rutter&diff=203163822&oldid=202474423

You will see that I originally made the heading which Fainites barley changed and I have changed back.

I have asked Fainites barley to e-mail (above) the pages he has described above so I may highlight the passages that support my original heading.

I shall ask Fainites barley to disregard the references made to the page on John Bowlby until this matter is resolved.

If there is a problem please feel free to ask for further clarification.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:3O provides extra "third party" views. Users' gender is usually irrelevant to their decisions. I'm not quite sure why it would be any different here. I'm reluctant to say "all editors will be biased if they have the wrong gender", which is what such a concern would imply (if they wouldnt be biased then their gender wouldn't matter). Then again the only questions you asked me were two things: what to do in a content dispute if someone differs with you and changes material back, and personal information about myself and another user. The first you have an answer to, the second you don't because it's not relevant. The dispute itself and articles involved I have no idea about them or the issue - I unwatched them long ago. But it's important you feel you have obtained a good balance of views. if youneed any more help on how best to handle a dispute, and which routes might save you from pointless argument or whether you or someone else is acting problematically, advising and assessing such issues neutrally is part of my roles in the community, and I'll be glad to help if I can. In the meantime - it looks like you may be making progress. Good luck if so. :) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress with Kip! (irony)

Do you mean to say you are actually prepared to discuss content? May I point out that I have asked you about this very same article on talkpages before so the progress is yours rather than mine? Does the fact that you want me to e-mail you the pages mean that you do not have the article on the basis of which you accuse me of bad faith? Can I be assured that if I e-mail you I will not be on the recieving end of a campaign of harrassment and absurd and vicious allegations via e-mail as well as all over Wiki? These are not rhetorical questions. I am perfectly happy to discuss sources - but as I have said before - it is difficult to enter into discussions with someone who simply assumes bad faith at the merest sign of disagreement. I have long suspected that you do not in fact have the whole of that article otherwise you would not be making such an elementary error. If you assure me that I will not be on the recieving end of offensive e-mails I will send you my copy of the article and perhaps we can resolve this issue once and for all ( although I suspect you will continue to see yourself as a victim of some nameless but powerful conspiracy). As for FT2 s/he is as straight as a die and I have no doubt would rap me over the knuckles as quickly as anyone else despite our having been briefly on the 'same side' in one arbitration. What difference does gender make or do you assume there is some dominating feminist Cabal? Inherently unlikely on an internet site don't you think? The mere fact that you ask for someones gender says volumes about you Kip. As for WP:3PO - its linked. just click on it and it will take you to the relevent page. Fainites barley 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straight as a dye

I have had a look at [WP:3PO] which is not linked to this page or discussion. I should be grateful if you would amend the entry accordingly

PRESENT LINK;

  1. Talk:John Bowlby. Under "Fainites|barley|nonsense. Dispute about what a source says. 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN YOU REDIRECT TO THE CORRECT DISCUSSION.

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I will be happy to discuss the other page at a later date.KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the correct discussion. You put the same edit with the same heading about "differences between MD and AT" on John Bowlby as you put on Michael Rutter (and in several other pages). This is where instead of simply asking about the source I typed chunks of it out. You claim the 1995 paper refers to the differences between MD and AT. I say it refers to developments in AT between the 1969 publication and the 1995 paper. What is the confusion? It's the same point? I linked to the John Bowlby talk page because that was where I typed out the chunks - thats all. There is no discussion on the Michael Rutter talkpage. lets just deal with the substance rather than the peripheries shall we? Are you prepared to assure me I shall not be on the receiving end of harrassment and allegations of bad faith or publication of details off Wiki and the like if I e-mail you the paper?Fainites barley 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites

[edit] This was my original query which I am seeking resolution which I describe to both administrators (SEE ABOVE)

I have changed the disputed page on Michael Rutter to the original title "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory" as it was correctly cited in the first place. This is a very importnat change as it reinforces the fact they are not the same thing ie mothers are not naturally the best carers for small children. I should be very grateful if you could tell me what I should do if Fainites changes it back again? (Please note this is not a matter of consensus but a simple case of right and wrong).

Your present LINK does not go to that page. It does not even mention the list underneath!

THIS IS THE PAGE AS IT STANDS NOW. ARE YOU HAPPY TO ACCEPT THIS PAGE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED?

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.

(1) The abandonment of the notion of monotropy. Bowlby's early writings were widely understood to mean that there was a biological need to develop a selective attachment with just one person.

(2) It came to be appreciated that social development was affected by later as well as earlier relationships.

(3) Early accounts emphasized the need for selective attachments to develop during a relatively brief sensitivity period with the implication that even good parenting that is provided after that watershed is too late.

(4) Bowlby drew parallels between the development of attachments and imprinting. It became apparent that there were more differences than similarities and this comparison was dropped later on and is no longer seen as helpful by most writers on attachment.

ARE YOU NOW HAPPY TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS?

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I have got the paper. Do you want to move on?

No. I can add to the link though in case there's any confusion. WP:3PO. The 1995 paper clearly sets out on page 550 that Rutter is describing developments in attachment theory, not differences between attachment theory and maternal deprivation. One could legitimately describe maternal deprivation as a precursor to attachment theory but it is not attachment theory. I am not particularly concerned about your Michael Rutter page - although I think it does not do him justice. He is a great man - but not for the reasons you give. I am more concerned about the misrepresentation of attachment theory and John Bowlby. I have said this before and will say it again - I think you do the cause of fathers rights no good by pursuing a patently wrong delineation of maternal deprivation and attachment theory. Maternal deprivation is an old, out of date idea from 57 years ago that has not been in current use for decades except in relation to extreme institutional deprivation. Even then - if you look at the studies done on East European orphanages after the end of the Cold War (in which Rutter was prominent and for which he is well known) you will see they refer to institutional deprivation and the many different forms it takes. There was virtually no theoretical background in maternal deprivation and there was precious little research at the time. Bowlby developed attachment theory after the MD hooha because there was no comprehensive theory relating to the development of attachment relationships in infants and small children that he considered acceptable. He spanned a range of different disciplines to do it. The result is significantly different from maternal deprivation, except in the basic premise as set out by Rutter - that the formation of an ongoing relationship with a child was as important as the provision of care, discipline and experiences. The main hooha was that psychoanalysts, psychologists and learning theory bods did not accept the basic premise that infants and small children needed real, continuous relationships for proper emotional development in real (rather than fantasy) life. This now seems like such common sense it is hard to believe. Surely one of the important points about attachment theory is that it is not gender specific. Surely you would do your cause more good by highlighting this fact rather than trying to resurrect some outdated old theory about early relationships that nobody professional uses any more in order to attack Bowlby. Attachment theory is in general use and it is generally known that it is Bowlby's baby and that it is not gender specific. if people outside the professions involved do not know it is not gender specific then surely Wiki should help make that clear, no? It is true that much of the research relates to mothers and much of the content of the original theory refers to mothers but that is a reflection of social reality over most of the world and for most (but not all) of the research. It is easy however to find the parts that make it clear that it is not gender specific as I attempted to provide for you (in the mistaken belief that you would be pleased to know that) on the maternal deprivation talkpage. How therefore does it help the cause of fathers rights to say all over the place that Bowlby thought it was mothers only when a) its not true and b) its not the case anyway? Personally I always use the phrases 'primary carer' and 'caegivers' or 'parents' when editing attachment issues although I can see that previous editors have not always followed that modern convention.Fainites barley 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt - whatever page it is on - I am asking you to set out the parts of the Rutter 1995 paper that you say show he was referring to differences between MD and AT rather than developments in AT. Subject to recieving your assurances as above I am still happy to e-mail you the paper. Fainites barley 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppose FT2 said s/he was transgendered? What would you think then? Fainites barley 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way - the strange situation procedure is not gender specific either and is often done with fathers and indeed other carers. There is some very interesting research where they did it on mothers and fathers of the same infants to see if the attachment classifications were the same for both parents. Fainites barley 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fainites disagreement for arbitration now reads;

  1. Talk:John Bowlby#Fainites/barley/nonsense. Dispute about what a source says. Copy of original edit (now removed) can be seen here Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have combined 2 disputes. Therefore I have changed this matter to;

  1. Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory Dispute about what a source says. (Fainites to provide e-mail copy of original text KingsleyMiller to highlight relevant passages)

MATTER FOR ARBITRATION IS WHETHER THE TITLE FOR THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON MICHAEL RUTTER SHOULD READ;

ACCORDING TO Fainites

Significant developments in Attachment Theory

OR

ACCORDING TO Kingsley Miller

Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory

Are you happy with the parameters of the dispute?

We can go onto the matter dispute once this is settled.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. Please don't interfere with other editors edits. Fainites barley 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Changes

I have added the following;-

  1. Talk:John Bowlby#Fainites/barley/nonsense. Dispute about what a source says. Copy of original edit (now removed) can be seen here Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I am not prepared to discuss these matters together and revised the dispute for discussion below KingsleyMiller (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory Dispute about what a source says. (Fainites to provide e-mail copy of original text KingsleyMiller to highlight relevant passages)

Please see above regarding original query.

Many thanks

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter

Hello KingsleyMiller. How are you? We don't put "Professor" in the title. You can see other similar biographies. For example, see the biography of Simon Baron-Cohen. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Sir Michael Rutter

Dear Masterpiece2000,

I am not quite sure what you are saying. The dispute was over the inclusion in the text. You have removed the word from the main body of the text.

Who is 'we'?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

'We' means Wikipedians. Please see other similar biographies. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Professor' Sir Michael Rutter - RESTORED!

I became confused. I am not an expert on Michael Rutter. You should have included this website in the article. That would have helped other users. It's a website of KCL and it calls him "Professor Sir Michael Rutter". I have made necessary changes. You can see the biography. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Please don't edit other people's additions to the third opinion list. If you want to list something, put it at the bottom of the list. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion needed!

  1. Michael Rutter#Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory Dispute about what a source says. (Fainites to provide e-mail copy of original text KingsleyMiller to highlight relevant passages)

MATTER FOR ARBITRATION IS WHETHER THE TITLE FOR THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON MICHAEL RUTTER SHOULD READ;

ACCORDING TO Fainites

Significant developments in Attachment Theory

OR

ACCORDING TO Kingsley Miller

Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory


A very popular theory which has resonance even today is that mothers are more important to children than their fathers. This idea was supported by John Bowlby in his work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1952) which he said, " focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother'. Even at the time there was a great deal of professional disquiet about Bowlby's work which was reflected in the World Health Organization work entitled 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its effects' (1962). This included articles from a number of leading experts all critical of Bowlby except a colleague, Mary Ainsworth, whose contribution was also included as a courtesy.

Nevertheless it was Bowlby's report that proved a best-seller and was translated into 12 languages. It has given rise to the mistaken beliefs that Bowlby's theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' and the 'attachment theory' are the same thing and that mothers are more important than fathers to their children.

A very helpful explanation of what we now describe as the theory of 'maternal deprivation' can be found in Bowlby's own words in the Citation Classic (1986) in which he defends his work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health'.

In this work he also mentions Michael Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic'. This is because he produced 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed' (1972) which effectively demolished the theory. (My work 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' is subtitled, A guide to the 'Tender Years Theory' - A critique of the principle of 'maternal deprivation' used by courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents. Professor Sir Michael Rutter described this as an 'interesting and informative guide') - The point for arbitration is whether the list at the bottom of the page on Michael Rutter should read 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory' or 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'? In the article cited to verify this account Rutter analyses the key features of attachment theory and in particular the significance of Bowlby's initial writing on 'maternal deprivation' (sic) (p550). In the first part he acknowledges the contribution of Bowlby's work specifically the trilogy which he says took matters forward in 5 key areas. He goes on in the second part to say "Of course, the early specification of attachment theory did not prove correct in all details (p551). Perhaps there are 4 main changes that have taken place over the years" - It is these changes which form the differences with the attachment theory that are listed at the bottom of the page on Rutter.

The early specification of 'attachment theory' referred to in this paper by Rutter is 'maternal deprivation'. The reader be in no doubt that Rutter is specifying 'maternal deprivation' because he goes on to describe the components of 'maternal deprivation'.

(1) The abandonment of the notion of monotropy. Bowlby's early writings were widely understood to mean that there was a biological need to develop a selective attachment with just one person. (2) It came to be appreciated that social development was affected by later as well as earlier relationships. (3) Early accounts emphasized the need for selective attachments to develop during a relatively brief sensitivity period with the implication that even good parenting that is provided after that watershed is too late. (4) Bowlby drew parallels between the development of attachments and imprinting. It became apparent that there were more differences than similarities and this comparison was dropped later on and is no longer seen as helpful by most writers on attachment.

These features refer to 'maternal deprivation'. Therefore there can be no dispute regarding the meaning of the work cited.

The purpose of this list at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on Rutter is to clarify the confusion made by Fainites barley and many others. It highlights the salient differences between the discredited theory of 'maternal deprivation' and the 'attachment theory'. To claim that it shows 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory' would not be accurate because there have been many significant developments in 'Attachment Theory' before Bowlby, at the same time as Bowlby, and after Bowlby. It is also therefore neither exhaustive or definitive. Fainites barley title also suggests that these 'developments' were positive when those cited were major 'flaws' in Bowlby's original theory. It is also inappropriate because it may lead the reader to believe that these components of 'maternal deprivation' formed part of mainstream Child Psychology when Bowlby's theory was disputed even from the beginning.

Bowlby made a considerable contribution to our ideas about 'attachment' but to take the position that he was the 'author' of the theory as Fainites barley argues is untenable.

Kip


THIS DISCUSSION COPIED AND MOVED TO MICHAEL RUTTERKingsleyMiller (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Such an interpretation of the passage requires violence done to grammar and sense. More importantly however, it is simply untenable because imprinting and monotropy were not features of maternal deprivation as set out in 1951 but are features of attachment theory as set out in Bowlbys preliminary papers from 1958 onwards and final description of attachment theory in 1969/72 and 80. Ethological and evolutionary concepts are features of attachment theory, not maternal deprivation. There is no mention of ethology, monotropy or imprinting in maternal deprivation as set out in 1951.Fainites barley 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THIS DISCUSSION COPIED AND MOVED TO MICHAEL RUTTER

Fainites, thank you for your swift reply. (say whaaat?!) Has suggested the dispute be moved to the relevant page. I should be grateful if you could move this statement. Please can you also include any other arguments you wish to make on this issue before I make my reply.

Thank you,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to hijack this issue by messing about with the 3PO request, entering additional requests on exactly the same point and moving chunks of talkpage about are just a waste of time and simply clutter up the talkpages with repetitions of the same material. Most experienced Wikipedians, like the ones who deliver 3PO's, will be perfectly happy clicking around. I have linked the original discussion on the John Bowlby talkpage to the relevent sections of this page. It is completely unecessary to now move on to a third page. If, as you state, you refuse to take part in this 3PO because it deals with an edit on John bowlby, rather than an edit on Michael Rutter, even though both edits are identical in all important respects that is entirely a matter for you. Fainites barley 18:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And no - HelloAnnyong did not "suggest moving this dispute to the relevent page". Please stop wasting time with games playing. Fainites barley 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

HERE IS THE NOTE COPIED FROM THE MICHAEL RUTTER PAGE

Third opinion note Hey. There was a third opinion put out for this page. I've removed the request since there's no actual discussion going on about the topic at hand. If you have a problem with something on the page, please discuss it here first. If no consensus has been reached, then you can seek a third opinion. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I think you are both wrong the suggestion is that the discussion should take place on the relevant page and that is all that I did. I even copied what I had done to — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) to check that what I had done was correct. I do not think it is fair to say that I 'played games' or 'put words into mouths'.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3O

Hey. You don't need to list a page multiple times on the 3O page; once is fine. Also, try to keep your comments neutral, short and to the point. Finally, sign your comments with five tildes (~~~~~) so only the timestamp shows. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Second time: stop adding extra text to the 3O page. All of those arguments and questions should be added to the talk page for the article, not on the 3O article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My signature

Please stop copying and pasting my signature! It's really distracting and it makes it look like I'm leaving comments all over the place, when in fact all you're doing is copy/pasting. Just write out my username. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Mediation is supposed to be a co-operative process. Everybody has to agree to do it and assume good faith. In the circumstances, disagreeing parties often discuss and agree the terms of reference and the ambit of the dispute. This would seem like a sensible approach here rather than scattered requests. Fainites barley 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the page on Rutter.KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child life specialist page

To begin, I'm a fan of your work on Wikipedia! I'm a relatively new user and because I value your insight, I am wondering if you could check out the page I recently created: Child life specialist. I would benefit greatly from a bit of feedback from you if you have time! Thanks for your help! Carleyj (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)carleyj

[edit] Mediation

A cabalist has suggested that all three mediations be rolled into one as they cover broadly the same issues - that one being attachment theory. I've indicated my agreement on the attachment theory mediation page. I also set out in a collapsed text box my suggestions for the ambit of the mediation.[6] They're only suggestions so any further or better ideas on this point are welcome. Fainites barley 08:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Hi there! I would like to help you out and give you some pointers.

  • Please remain civil.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Keep cool.
  • Please don't use caps lock. It's cruise control for cool not helpful and just annoying.

And if you find you can't do this:

  • Walk away form the computer for a bit
    • Walk the dog
    • Make Lunch
    • Call a friend
  • Or,
    • Play a computer game
    • Go to youtube
    • etc.

I hope you get the point of what I'm saying. Thank you! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swearing on Wikipedia

Before I carry on, I'd like to note that I have already apologised on the mediation page, and I'll extend that here now. If you were offended by my use of a swear word, then I apologise.

My use of the word was not to offend anyone, and it dismays me that you have interpreted it as some sort of personal attack. The way that I (and, I think, the community at large) sees it is that swearing as fine in a discussion as long as it is not being used offensively towards someone -- just the same rules as we might see in real life. However, I understand that different people have different tolerances, so since you expressed disdain at my use of a swearword, I have made a conscious effort to ensure I avoid using them at all where you might see it (this makes it sound like I'm a habitual swearer - I'm not, but I think you can see my point). Now,

I am sorry about any delay but I am not prepared to continue this discussion until this matter has been settled according to the appropriate procedure.

is an attitude which really doesn't help. I really don't mind you having an RfArb against me, but please don't let that (further) stall the mediation. Sometimes, you've just got to move on. Martinp23 09:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is fully my intention to leave that medcab page as soon as I see a mediation get started, if it helps. Martinp23 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Swearing.2C_mediation_and_dispute_resolution_-_Attachment_theory

You need to provide diffs showing you notified the parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment theory dispute

Hi Kingsley. I believe at this point Martin has apologised sufficiently for his swearing. I am sure he will not use such language again, and no further action should take place, nor will it take place, over his choice of wording. Continuing to press for action against Martin rather obfuscates the point of the issue in the first place. I hope you will instead now engage in the mediation process you initiated.

If you are unwilling to do so, then I will have no option but to end the mediation, as such processes only work if all involved parties are willing to participate, and are willing to accept the judgement of the mediator(s).

I would much prefer a mediation took place in a scholarly manner rather than exploring other means to resolve this issue - this is, however, up to you. Neıl 龱 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Cautious Comment

In July 2004 [Kingsley Miller] was given permission by the Court of Appeal to publish the County Court judgments from the family proceedings in his case because of his, 'history of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships'.

If the user responsible for the account KingsleyMiller at Wikipedia is Kingsley Miller the author, I think it may be very helpful for Wikipedia mediation to take this into account.

The quote above is from a very respectable body about a very important matter.

On the one hand, it suggests that a writer named Kingsley Miller is a campaigner with personal involvement in the issues.

On the other hand, it explicitly distinguishes his writing from his campaigning, likewise deeming it responsible.

In other words, we have unique reliable testimony to the character of the writing of a certain Kingsley Miller, as NPOV where appropriate.

The identity of Wiki editors is not established by reliable means. Even were this the case, editors do not contribute on the basis of qualifications. Both seem to me to be foundational principles of Wikipedia. Additionally, all editors are likewise equal in the eyes of Wikipedia as responsible for their actions, and in the evaluation of their testimony.

Having said this, I believe it is also significant that editors who do, in fact, use their real names at Wiki make themselves accountable and vulnerable in unique ways that contribute circumstantially to the credibility of Wikipedia.

I conclude from the above only that there are factors due some "weight" in mediation, how much I do not know.

I find myself having such profound sympathy with the writer Kingsley Miller, that I feel emotionally unable to involve myself with the defense of the character of the Wikipedia editor KingsleyMiller, beyond the quote above. If the two are the one man, then there is testimony from a court that disagrees with Miller about court decisions, that he is nonetheless responsible in his campaign against these very court decisions. For a court to permit its deliberations to be exposed to public scrutiny by a known critic of those decisions is, I propose, an extrordinary endorsement of the character of that critic. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Pit

Alistair,

Thank you for this note which is most accurate in almost every regard. If you wish to read the County Cort Judgments from family proceedings in a UK court the only place you can do so, is at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/CCJfIRSTJudgment.html

This is a unique privilege.

I find Alistair's points about the relative significance of comments and criticisms made on this forum also relevant.

From the judgments in the County Court and Court of Appeal you will see that in those proceedings I have never, yet, lost my 'cool' or used profanities and I am quite used to having my position endorsed in court but the judge finding for the other party.

As far as this forum is concerned others maybe interested in Lady Hale's comments to me in the Court of Appeal.

15. Sir Michael qualified the original theory of 'maternal deprivation' which had been developed by John Bowlby and expressed for popular consumption in a book called 'Child Care and the Growth of Love'. That theory was that children were damaged by separation from their mother or mother figure. Sir Michael Rutter pointed out that children were not invariably so damaged and that, in any event, other people, including their fathers, are also very important to children.

Lady Hale was voted Woman of the Year and was made the first female Law Lord. She is now Dame Brenda Hale.

I am sorry to say that far from Wikipedia providing a level playing field for this important discussion about the role of BOTH parents in the upbringing of their children editors are simply climbing onto the bandwagon created by the conduct described above which will not allow me a fair hearing.

Therefore in accordance with Neil's suggestion I am withdrawing myself from this attempt at mediation and will seek alternative methods of ensuring that research is not misused.

May I thank all those who have taken a genuine interest in this subject.

[edit] Bowlby's contribution - An Introduction to Child Development

G C Davenport, Unwin Hyman, 1988.

In any field of enquiry people will put forward ideas that seem to fit the facts. These ideas will find some support, and some criticism. For as long as John Bowlby's explanations were thought to be convincing his influence was great. His claims focused attention on the mother child bond probably more than anyone else before him. When criticisms of any theory, and the appearance of alternative explanations outweighs the earlier beliefs, so new insights are gained. Whilst all of Bowlby's claims may not be wholly correct, developmentalists owe him a great deal for inspiring so much debate and research into how children's emotions grow.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)