Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter

Request details
The other side claim the references to 'fathers' and 'monotropy' are tendenious because they do not form his most important achievement or that Rutter has other achievements.

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:KingsleyMiller
 * User:Fainites
 * User:Jean Mercer
 * User:HelloAnnyong

What's going on?
I have already listed these 'other' main achievements in the first paragraph. Because he has so many it would be ridiculous to list every single one. However his seminal work is and remains Maternal Deprivation Reassessed 1972 which according to Dr Persaud had a 'profound' affect. Not only did it shift the focus from mothers but said that fathers were just as important.(Please see the quote from Dr Persaud on this page).

Please see the page on 'monotropy' which quotes from Rutter verbatim in particular about the role of fathers.

What would you like to change about that?
Leave the page as I have edited it.

The Fanities edit quotes Rutter's seminal work then mentions Romania later. Of course this work is also important but should be included in the first paragraph with the rest.

Rutter's major contribution lies in his reassessment of Bowlby

Discussion

 * I have added Jean Mercer as a party - subject to her agreement of course.
 * This request is a continuation of a disagreement that started on the Maternal deprivation talkpage and continued on the John Bowlby talkpage aswell as various other attachment talkpages and user talkpages. The issues have historically been broader than as set out above. I do not know if Kingsley wishes to pursue his various other claims (that Bowlby is not the originator of attachment theory, that he is only known for maternal deprivation - not attachment theory, that Rutters description of developments in attachment theory are actually descriptions of differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory and that Rutter is responsible for these, that monotropy is a feature of maternal deprivation but not a feature of attachment theory etc etc) which I think we need to decide as there is little point deciding one very small point and leaving everything else to fester. Perhaps we could discuss the ambit of the mediation.
 * The accusation of tendentiousness was not as set out above.Fainites barley 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note there is another request for mediation filed which involves the same editors on much the same issues in relation to attachment theory. Fainites barley 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please set out your objections to this page KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also added :User:HelloAnnyong to this discussion so that he or she can have the proper opportunity to explain their criticisms of the page. (Subject to their agreement, of course)KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, deal me in. My objections are to cherry-picking and inappropriate prioritizing of information, resulting in a deceptive article. By the way, as KM says below that he wants a Ph.D. involved, I am one (Brandeis University, Psychology, 1968). Jean Mercer (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Higher Education: Don's delight Dr Raj Persaud on Maternal Deprivation Reassessed -the book that changed his life

The Guardian (Manchester); Jan 21, 1997; DR RAJ PERSAUD; p. 002

THE book which had the most profound impact on all our lives is often a publication we may not even be aware of - for it must be the literature which our parents consumed as we grew up - anxiously seeking guidance on how to bring up sane children.

The child psychologist your parents religiously followed in print has, decades later, been proved entirely wrong! Even if our parents did not read popular tomes such as John Bowlby's 'Can I leave my baby?', published in 1958, this eminent British psychoanalyst shaped the way a generation of parents related to their offspring.

He was interpreted as insisting that continuity and closeness of maternal care were the only certain ways of preventing adolescent and adult psychological disturbance. The inevitable conclusion was that mothers should not go out to work. All mothers who wanted a career or a life outside of childcare worried about comments like Bowlby's: 'Mother-love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.' Then came the book which argued the primary care-giver need not be the mother, nor were her absences always hazardous - Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, published in 1972 by Sir Michael Rutter, Professor of Child Psychiatry at London University's Institute of Psychiatry. It is difficult for us to recall, before Putter's book, what a struggle it was for women to break free from the notion that spending some time away from their children inevitably resulted in 'deprivation'.

My mother left us for a year to finish her PhD in Britain, when my brother and I were both under 10. It is Putter's book which ensured she never felt guilty for temporarily leaving us, and which ensures that, today, my wife continues to pursue her career as an eye-surgeon, as well as having children. By challenging what we believe constitutes good parenting. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed has changed not just my life, but all our lives.

Dr Raj Persaud is consultant psychiatrist at The Maudsley Postgraduate Psychiatric Teaching Hospital, University of London.

To order any book mentioned in Guardian Education, call 0500 600102

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (User:HelloAnnyong]

Did somebody with a PhD have a look at the page?

If so, what did they say?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

'''Perhaps I should make it clear I think it is one of the greatest accolades in child psychology to lay just claim to be the person who proved that fathers can be equally as important as mothers even to small children. I do not believe this is a tendentious claim at all and should be allowed to stand as written. '''

Rutter, M. (1991) Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (Second Edition), Penguin BooksKingsleyMiller (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note I have received a communication from the Fanities (the principal other party) which states the middle paragraph is unsourced. Fanities is completely aware of the LINK to the above extract which is the source.

To which communication are you referring? Heres me complaining its completely unsourced at 9.22 pm on 26.4.08. Heres you adding a source at 10.42 pm. You have not added a source for the statement about monotropy. A link is not a source.Fainites barley 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fainites|barley objections2
Please set out your objections to this page here so that everybody can see them please. KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see earlier posts. Fainites barley 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by HelloAnnyong
Wow. I'm not really sure how I got roped into this. Basically, my involvement started when I saw the request for a third opinion. Admittedly, I know nothing about this topic, but I attempted to give an opinion based on what I saw was original research and synthesis. But I couldn't keep up with the conversation and the constant back-and-forth postings from KingsleyMiller, so I withdrew from the discussion. It's clearly a content issue, so I tried contacting some people that are listed at the Psych WikiProject, but that never panned out. That's really all I have to stay on this subject. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - Advice please
In accordance with your advice I have set up this discussion page to find out what specific objections Fainities has to this page. I have asked Fanities several times to briefly and clearly set out his objection on this page here but I am still none the wiser. (He led you to believe there was original research (OR) involved but this is not so). In view of this response I believe Fainities objections are vexatious and would like to move to the next stage of the dispute resolution and I should be grateful if you could advise me what that might be?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? This page is a complete mess. It's entirely unintelligible. Having said that, it takes time for a case to be picked up. Give it some time. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three of these requests for mediation running at the same time covering related or similar issues and the same editors. I have tried to explain to Kingsley that mediation requires assumptions of good faith and that there should be an agreed approach as to which issues need to be mediated. Unfortunately I think Kingsley thinks these requests for mediation are mediation or discussion pages.Fainites barley 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Well, I'd suggest archiving the text on this page and starting over, this time using some of the pending cases as a template as to what this page should look like. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree HA. Unfortunately I suspect any attempt to do that would run into the same problems. Fainites barley 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall take this to indicate you do not want to share your objections here.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution - 'filibustering'
Fainities How are we supposed to mediate something if you can't tell me what it is?

This is the quote about dispute resolution between yourself and HellooAnnyong;

Once again if you have a problem with the page outline it here otherwise I will assume you have no objection and take the matter further to prevent attempts at 'filibustering';-

Many thanks,

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HellooAnnyong,

Thank you for your advice. I will refer the matter to an administrator. (I don't really see the point of starting again if Fainities won't come clean about his or her objections in the first place?)

At least the administrator will have a record of the attempts I have made at getting to the bottom of Fainities objections.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah I thought you meant objections to this page (which are that a) that its a complete mess and we should start again, and b) that the terms of reference are plainly not a fair representation of the dispute)).
 * My objections to the Rutter page in relation to content are fully set out on the talkpage - with quotes - at length - as you very well know Kingsley. As you attempt to put the same or similar material into 4 different articles, Maternal deprivation, Attachment theory, John Bowlby and Michael Rutter, my objections are also set out across 4 different talkpages. I don't propose to write it all out again here but to sum it up - misrepresentation of sources, use of OR or fourth rate sources if they support your POV whilst excluding notables sources on spurious grounds, pointy editing to promote your particular personal bugbear about Bowlby, ignoring mainstream sources provided by other editors which would indicate your POV is incorrect, failing to respond to requests for sources to support your contentions and generally threatening sanctions, shouting, personal attacks and demanding the move of the 'discussion' to a different page when faced with sources or 3PO's that don't fit your aim. Lets see if we can even get mediation started by agreeing what the main points of factual disagreement are shall we?Fainites barley 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals: Fainites barley 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)