Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Attachment theory


 * Discussion not related to choosing a mediator follows

Comments

 * I'm finding it hard to sift through just what, exactly, is the dispute. "Attachment theory" isn't limited to one person, but includes a whole range of findings and concepts.  Though, like most fields in psychology, the "fundamental tenets" of a particular theory will tend to be relatively short if it's research-based, because not all findings will support the tenets.  Despite this, it looks like the "tenets" section in the Attachment theory article are extraordinarily long, so without even reading it (yet knowing personally that there are many other than Bowlby that subscribe to attachment theory), it's likely too long and not reflective of the theory as a whole.


 * I'm assuming that a primary cause for concern is the original synthesis of just what, exactly, the "tenets" are, as well as what "the truth" "must be." That's not what we should be focusing on.  Instead, we should focus on what should be avoided because it gives undue weight;  what can be verified with sources; and, what should be reworked because it's a synthesis.  At cursory inspection, you might consider renaming the section to not be so definitive and final-say as tenets to something like "areas of interest," or "research emphasis in attachment theory."  Also, the members of that section should probably be trimmed to 2-3 obvious, all-encompassing points.  Alternatively, you might consider a table-ish form to help better illustrate the points and/or compare it between other theories.


 * Also, I've seen some objections based on what's "right," "wrong," or "disproven." Technically-speaking, as long as you're not giving undue weight, credible, verifiable secondary objections could and (and likely should) be included if there's disagreement on a certain point. Just be sure to cite them and present them neutrally (e.g., avoid weasel words).  Even if something's disproven, it might have historical significance.


 * Anyway, if that doesn't help resolve the issue, please help me understand a little better by summarizing your arguments in a more concise way. Consider including diffs  Also, avoid personal attacks toward other editors, and please try to avoid insinuating the motives of others by maintaining civility.


 * -- slakr \ talk / 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Slakr,

Thank you for this comment. As you indicate this is a complicated topic. Essentially this page should be concerned with the Wikipedia page on 'attachment theory' but has been amalgamated to include other topics.

The gist of my concern lies at the top of this page. Originally much of the controversial material on attachment was unreferenced or attributed to Jean Mercer, one of the contributors.

It seems from the discussion below that Fanities and Jean Mercer have used the work of Bowlby as the basis for this information. You may not be aware that Bowlby's work was the subject of a great deal of controversy and much of his own contribution to attachment has been discredited ie it is 'wrong'. Unfortunately, again, I have found the administrators on Wikipedia are also unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work and try to edit these discussions based on only a superficial knowledge of child psychology. One assumption I have come against time and again is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' when it comes to psychology.

I am afraid that if the amendments I have suggested cannot be made the page should be deleted as this is better than providing readers with erroneous information.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Slakr. Are we going to carry on here or adjourn to a specific mediation page? If you want to understand the ambit of the dispute I suggest you read the talkpages of Maternal deprivation (to about halfway down), Michael Rutter and John Bowlby as basically the same issues come up. By the way - the material on tenets was not unreferenced. It was referenced to a book by Jean Mercer as a source.Fainites barley 16:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate an explanation of whether or not I may cite a book I wrote, which would be acceptable if someone else cited it... and if not, why not. Is there more to this than the cult of the amateur?

No doubt the tenets can be made more concise, as has been suggested, but I want to point out that attachment theory is really a rather complicated theory and can't be treated as a sound-bite. It's not actually a very testable theory, either, so regarding these pieces as research topics doesn't necessarily work well.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jean: Please be sure to read our conflict of interest guideline. -- slakr \ talk / 17:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read it, and it does not seem to me to be relevant. If the fact that I've written professionally on this topic means that I have a conflict of interest-- well, good thing Bowlby isn't around to contribute to Wiki about attachment theory. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, however, the reason we have the COI guideline is exactly for situations like this. Because you have an economic interest (i.e., your job) in the topic, you have an inherent economic interest in preserving material that may not conform with our policies.  Hence, we tend to suggest that while experts are lauded for input, it can be problematic when they self-cite. -- slakr  \ talk / 18:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that there's no process by which I can ask for my economic position to be evaluated-- and if there were, I would think it was pretty silly for administrators to be making solemn decisions about whose economic interest was being served.

My involvement with Wiki is entirely out of concern for families who seek information relevant to their children's problems. I don't care in the least whether all the computer-game stuff is accurate, but misinformation about families' lives is of great concern to me-- and should be to you too.

With respect to the present problem: I have provided primary sources for my statements. I've also cited my own book, a recent secondary source which is probably much easier for readers to obtain than the primary sources. In addition, I might point out that if I did not use my own name, no one would know that I was citing my own work.

But this is all irrelevant to the basic question: are the "tenets" I listed an accurate representation of Bowlby's attachment theory? Kingsley Miller has been complaining about this matter for some time, but has never stated specifically what he thinks is wrong. Let him state specific problems and explain why he thinks what he thinks. I've asked him to do this many times without result. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * COI. This issue has come up before. I have read the conflict of interest guidelines. It does not follow that because an expert cites their own work there is a conflict of interest. There only may be and that would depend on the context. The policy does not say that a professor of child development can't edit on child development because its her "job". There may be a point about book sales but the mischief the policy is designed to prevent is the use of wikipedia to promote a book surely. Not just any citation to it. Anyway - its pretty much irrelevent because Bowlby set out attachment theory in three preliminary papers and then in three substantial tomes and any serious work on attachment will distill much the same 'tenets' from it. I could set out the same tenets from Bowlby himself or from several other notable works if you'd rather. Or I could get jeans book and do it myself from her book.
 * My understanding of the points in issue are set out in my collapsed box above. Those seem to be the points that keep coming up on the talkpages. Its only a suggestion. All other suggestions gratefully received. (We have had three 3PO's on an issue about a paper by Rutter and the passage that contained it).
 * Are you saying you want us all to summarise our arguments here? They're rather long.Fainites barley 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is purely a procedural question, but is there any way we can clean up this page? It's a total mess, and it's hard to follow the different conversations. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. Fainites barley 07:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All,
Re; Fainites acting in bad faith and pulling the wool over peoples' eyes.

I have now made 2 requests to move on to the next stage of the Dispute Resolution. I refer to Fainites acting in bad faith and pulling the wool over peoples' eyes. An extract has come to light which may show others what I mean. In a discussion with HelloAnnyong Fainites states the following;-

However the expression "Maternal Deprivation" does not appear in Bowlby's work entitled "Maternal Care and Mental Health". Nor did Bowlby later formulate and publish a theory known as 'attachment theory'.

Fainities has deliberately turned events around.

Bowlby was firstly responsible for formulating the theory which later became known as 'Maternal Deprivation'. This theory held that there was a qualitative difference between the relationship a small child made with his or her mother than any other person and it was for this contribution to Child Psychology that he became famous. Although the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' proved incorrect he was later able to incorporate some aspects of this work into the 'attachment theory' through his books on the subject.

I would argue that it is misleading to call the Wikipedia page 'Attachment theory' when it is really about Bowlby's earlier ideas about attachment which proved incorrect.

Fainites' purpose is to deliberately confuse the 2 theories so as to boost the reputation of Bowlby by giving him credit for the 'attachment theory'.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "maternal deprivation" appears on the first page of Chapter 1 of Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951) at p11. He also refers to "deprivation of mother-love" and being "deprived of maternal care" in Chapter 2 which is actually titled review of evidence on effects of deprivation. Holmes describes the phrase "maternal deprivation" as a "catch-phrase summarising Bowlby's early work" on separation of infants from their mother or mother substitute. Fainites barley 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jean Mercer:  I would think it was pretty silly for administrators to be making solemn decisions about whose economic interest was being served.
 * Silly as it may, you are free to suggest policy changes over at the village pump for policies. If you intend to self-cite, your citations must still adhere to our neutral point of view policy as well as our verifiable sources policies; otherwise, it's a synthesis of ideas, and, again, a conflict of interest.


 * Jean Mercer: I don't care in the least whether all the computer-game stuff is accurate, but misinformation about families' lives is of great concern to me-- and should be to you too.
 * Actually, it isn't nor should it be when it comes to this. It's far more important to me to make sure that if there's alleged misinformation taking place that the proof thereof is properly verified through citing reliable secondary sources.  There are many versions of The Truth&trade; that many people, groups, and organizations will always seek to introduce into Wikipedia, so what's more important to us is to report relevant, well-sourced versions of The Truth&trade; in a neutral way, without giving excessive weight to certain versions of it.  If a significant number of people believe that a particular portion of a theory is outdated, that's totally fine&mdash; just as long as you can cite the people who believe it.


 * Fainites: Anyway - its pretty much irrelevent because Bowlby set out attachment theory in three preliminary papers and then in three substantial tomes and any serious work on attachment will distill much the same 'tenets' from it.
 * Unless you can cite that assertion with verifiable, reliable secondary sources, then it's your own personal synthesis of ideas, and it is therefore unsuitable for inclusion. While the viewpoints of the initial founder's ideas/findings are relevant, asserting that they continue to be enduring tenets of that ideology has no basis for validity in practice.  Psychology, as a whole, is a constantly changing field; and, nobody argues that the original findings of the earlier psychologists must universally apply today as representative of the entire field.


 * KingsleyMiller: Fainites' purpose is to deliberately confuse the 2 theories so as to boost the reputation of Bowlby by giving him credit for the 'attachment theory'.


 * Whatever Fainites's purpose is is beyond the scope of the article, because whether his purpose is to boost a reputation, or, instead, to find pictures of Lolcats, this leads to the same conclusion: whoever the founder is can be verified through citing reliable secondary sources that state who the founder is.  If it can't, the controversy over the founder can be verified through citing reliable secondary sources stating that there is controversy over the founder.  If it can't, then the  fact that there is no founder can be verified through citing reliable secondary sources stating that there is no founder.  In ever single case, the burden lies upon outside sources&mdash; not our own personal opinions.


 * ... however, barring that, if the only thing that's left is original research and/or synthesis of ideas, then we generally default to not including it&mdash; particularly if it's controversial.


 * I'm also still waiting on someone to use bullet points, numbers, or some other form of organization to illustrate just what, exactly, is being argued / disputed. Otherwise, mediation is going to difficult, as I still have no idea the full extent of the dispute. Please consider populating this table with the relevant disagreements.  Please remain concise.


 * -- slakr \ talk / 05:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slakr: Silly as it may, you are free to... I don't believe this is in dispute. However, there is no basis to assume breaches of these policies simply because an editor references a passage to a book written by them - provided it is sufficiently notable to be suitable as a source. Fainites barley 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slakr: Unless you can cite that assertion... I most certainly can cite verifiable sources and indeed have done so. I would hardly have said that any serious work on attachment theory would set out similar tenets if that were not the case. I think you might find this mediation easier if you read all the talkpages of Maternal deprivation, John Bowlby Michael Rutter and Attachment theory as many contain extensive references to sources. This was a selection from sources I happened to have lying to hand when it was alleged Bowlby was not the originator of attachment theory. There are undoubtedly many more. Nobody is arguing nothing has changed. However, in this particular field, perhaps unusually, the formulation of a comprehensive theory of attachment, known as "attachment theory" was in fact the work of one man. He certainly hoovered up ideas and research results from all over the shop and continued to do so. Whether or not anybody thinks his theory is crap or not is beside the point. Certainly since he did it things have developed. I have started a developments section (sourced) and Jean Mercer has started a comprehensive criticism section and a section on issues today. This is work in progress. Unforunately work in progress is hampered rather than helped by a bald assumption of bad faith by KM if anything is written or discussed with which he does not agree. It has therefore proved impossible to discuss these issues - hence the need for mediation. Fainites barley 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite happy to do this but am away for a few days. I'll have a go when I get back. Perhaps in the meantime Kingsley could have a go. Fainites barley 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some limited access to a computer. Fainites barley 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Kingsley Miller could present his view of who it was who developed attachment theory, since he believes Bowlby did not. I presume he doesn't argue that no attachment theory exists, or that it exists but was handed down from Sinai on stone tablets. If he wanted to argue that it was Ian Suttie, I'd say he was wrong, but it's a plausible view. If he says Michael Rutter, that's not plausible, however deservedly famous MR is. But Miller needs to name a name, otherwise the alternative to the view presently taken by the article is unknown, and no discussion is possible.

Now, as to sources: one has to use secondary sources? Doesn't this mean that no journal article reporting research can be cited in a Wiki article, but only literature reviews or references in other reports are acceptable? Or am I misunderstanding your definition of secondary sources?

Another question about sources: does the quality of a source make a difference? For example, is it acceptable to use a source written for study by A-level students, when there are many alternative sources intended for more sophisticated readers?Jean Mercer (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also - if Bowlby is a primary source rather than a secondary source, one can use him, for example, to say Bowlby says this or that rather than secondary sources, many of which misquote him - for what ever purpose. Presumably if one was talking about Einsteins theory of relativity you could use Einsteins paper as a source as to what the theory was rather than just a secondary source, whether it was, for example, a school level textbook or an erudite exposition. Fainites barley 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I figured about using a primary source, but that doesn't seem to be what Slakr is saying. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues

 * I've updated the table with an example. Feel free to add/change stuff. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm struggling with your table here Slakr. Its much too complicated for me. Fainites barley 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few more researchers and authors on attachment theory who think it originated with Bowlby: Fainites barley 18:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "This chapter is about the role of ethology in John Bowlby's thinking when he was formulating attachment theory." Robert A. Hinde in Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood: The Major Longitudinal Studies 2005.
 * "My first exposure as a graduate student to attachment theory came from reading Mary Ainsworths (1973) outstanding essay delineating Bowlby's theory, including her extensions of it...." Jay Belsky in Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood: The Major Longitudinal Studies 2005

Is Bowlby creditied with pioneering/originating attachemnt theory
From what I can tell, the given discussions and the given cites state that he is, with unsourced objections that he isn't. Unless someone is able to refute this with reliable, verifiable secondary sources, the issue should be closed and it would logically follow that Bowlby is credited with originating early attachment theory. -- slakr \ talk / 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely an important question would be, If Bowlby did not originate attachment theory, who did? If there is no evidence that someone else was responsible, and many sources credit Bowlby, there seems to be no further reason for discussion. However, if there were evidence that someone else was responsible, the attachment theory article should say so... so the problem would then not be resolved simply by finding sources that just said that it wasn't Bowlby. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say, then, in absence of verifiable secondary sources saying he wasn't, and plenty saying he did, then it might be better to simply have the article reflect popular opinion in the literature (from those sources that were given on that talk page)&mdash; that is, that bowlby did originate the theory, much in the same way freud originated the psychoanalyst branch. -- slakr \ talk / 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. (Mind you - one of the sources seemed to credit him and Ainsworth - though the others seem to credit him and then say how hugely important Ainsworths contribution was).Fainites barley 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is monotropy a feature/tenet of attachment theory and/or maternal deprivation
Looking at the discussions, it looks like, well, obviously, disagreement over whether monotropy should be listed as a tenet of attachment theory, does it belong in maternal deprivation, does it belong in one, but not the other, or does it belong in neither at all. Realistically, this comes down to sources. If it's your opinion that monotropy is or isn't a key feature, that's less important than what can be sourced, so, I've added another fun table. -- slakr \ talk / 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of this problem is to decide what date's attachment theory is referred to. Monotropy is part of the theory as it was proposed by Bowlby in the early '60s, but not part of the theory as it is used today. However, since Rutter's comments in 1995, no one has attempted to nail down the nature of the theory in its current form.The ethological aspects have been reworked and reinterpreted, too. These problems are similar to those that arise when people talk about "Freudian theory." I haven't looked to see the Wiki version of that, but perhaps there would be some ideas in that article that would give a model for dealing with changes in a theory over a long time period. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so then it sounds like monotropy isn't technically 100% part of the theory, thus, it sounds like it might be better in a subsection under Bowlby or something on Attachment theory and/or Maternal deprivation rather than fundamental to all adherents of the theory. -- slakr \ talk / 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well its not quite that simple even on monotropy. It all depends on what any given writer thinks monotropy means. Ainsworth said it only ever meant hierarchy with a principal figure at the top. Rutter says its abandoned "insofar as it was understood to mean attachment with just one person, qualitatively different " but then Prior and Glaser say it never meant just one person so qualitatively is the issue. They then set out all the various theories and research around this. All that stuff about metapalets in kibbutz's and what have you. They take the view that it can mean hierarchy. I don't know who's right or wrong - but the point is the controversy over monotropy is still alive and kicking and the research on the issue is of interest. I tried to set it out here I suppose we could either sum this situation up under tenets - or have a 'developments section which attempts to state the current position or just grasp the bull by the horns and say "Original tenets of attachment theory (as at 1982 or whatever)" and then "current developments" or something. However - it was certainly never part of "maternal deprivation" as such although student handbooks and crib sheets do seem to confuse the two. I dare say there's material to be found on the confusion of the two at the time as Bowlby himself complains along those lines.


 * Also how about putting the finishing date for attachment theory at 1982? Volume 1 1969, volume 2 1972, volume 3 1980 and then a rejigged volume 1 + up-to-date research in 1982. That was it really. The 1988 thing was an attempt to relate it to clinical practice more.Fainites barley 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Slakr,

Can we please do a box thing on Bowlby as the 'originator' of the attachment theory or the theory of 'maternal deprivation' or both?

(Also can you get them to actually state what their evidence is rather than just a link?) Can they also sign their entries? I must say it is seems a good idea.

And then a similar box about Rutter's comments?

I should ask you to be pretty strict about attributing sources. Also if you think anybody is talking gibberish please stop us straight away.

(I intend to copy these boxes for future reference, hopefully!)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Links are perfectly OK and clutter up the page less. All you have to do is put these things [] round an url for whatever diff or section you're referring to. Fainites barley 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Slakr,

Can you get Fainites to summarize his or her arguments in the boxes, please. If possible quoting from original sources otherwise I will lose track. It looks like gibberish to me I am afraid.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the [Rutters] elements relate to maternal deprivation and/or attachment theory
I'm not totally sure what's going on with this, but I'll make some comments based on the diffs/versions provided:


 * – this might be better as a subsection of a criticism section&mdash; if it even should be on a biographical page. Keep in mind, biographies like John Bowlby aren't for critical discussion of theory.  For example, in Bill Gates, we don't have an in-depth discussion about Open source, nor in René Descartes do we discuss the criticisms of Cogito ergo sum.  As a result, I would probably caution against including criticisms in the respective articles (i.e., Maternal deprivation and/or Attachment theory. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * – Same as above. Criticism of the theory should be avoided in biographical articles. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * – this seems out of place. If it is to be included, it needs to be converted per the manual of style (e.g., remove the bold print), it needs to be correctly cited, and if it's a criticism, it needs to be in a criticism section. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * – dunno what's going on here. Please explain. -- slakr \ talk / 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (If you look in the fourth paragraph next to the picture you will see a similar paragraph set out claiming that Rutter showed differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory, in the context of OR on Bowlby.Fainites barley 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC))


 * and – the third opinion discussion by, ,  came to the consensus that the section sould not exist as it would constitute original research. As a result, I'm tentatively marking this section as  Do not include per consensus.  -- slakr  \ talk / 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're looking at Rutters contribution to the maternal deprivation debate - I put in this froma secondary source which set out his contribution (which Kingsley reverted as 'vandalism'). I would suggest that we use a secondary source on Rutters contribution to the maternal deprivation debate rather than run the risk of OR or POV in interpreting what Rutter said. Fainites barley 22:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Slakr,

Really sorry but I feel you are being led up the garden path by Fainites. Please see my comment to Steve Crossin3.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, however, I don't care what path we're being led up&mdash; so long as it is well-sourced and verifiable, then that's the best we have. Like I've been saying all along, if you, personally, don't agree with something, I'm sorry; but, this isn't the place for opinions.  If you have solid evidence from secondary sources that are verifiable to support your assertions, then stick it in the tables.  -- slakr  \ talk / 22:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

General discussion
Here is what Jean Mercer says about Bowlby on his Wik page. There is no mention of 'monotropy'. So where has it come from?

Bowlby's Legacy

Main article: Attachment theory

Although not without its critics, attachment theory has been described as the dominant approach to understanding early social development and to have given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of childrens close relationships.[16] As it is presently formulated and used for research purposes, Bowlby's attachment theory stresses the following important tenets: 1) children between 6 and about 30 months are very likely to form emotional attachments to familiar caregivers, especially if the adults are sensitive and responsive to child communications. 2) The emotional attachments of young children are shown behaviorally in their preferences for particular familiar people, their tendency to seek proximity to those people, especially in times of distress, and their ability to use the familiar adults as a secure base from which to explore the environment. 3) The formation of emotional attachments contributes to the foundation of later emotional and personality development, and the type of behavior toward familiar adults shown by toddlers has some continuity with the social behaviors they will show later in life. 4) Events that interfere with attachment, such as abrupt separation of the toddler from familiar people or the significant inability of carers to be sensitive, responsive or consistent in their interactions, have short-term and possible long-term negative impacts on the child's emotional and cognitive life. [17]

(I assume the above is KingsleyMiller)


 * an editor has just alerted me to this. i note that although Jean Mercer is quoted as the author of a disputed passage she is not listed as an involved party. It also seems to be a complaint implying bad faith rather than a request for mediation. Fainites barley 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'''Not bad faith. Bad editing.'''

The passage above is taken from the page on John Bowlby.

When you clarify where your source lies for the disputed list we can try and contact them as well.

(The point that is being made is that one of the previously alleged sources does not claim authorship for the reference to monotropy on another page. So where did you get this table from?)KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer1

(This form of mediation was suggested by a third party - In this case my dispute is with you as the author of the list/table - Please can you put your responses here so other people may contribute)

Jean Mercer if the list of 'tenets of the attachment theory' is yours then you need to reference the title on the page to make it clear that you have made this title.

Where did you get it from?

Which book?

I would like to see a copy in the library if possible.

Many thanks

KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer's response
I'm not sure what format to use here, so I will do this. No doubt someone will tell me if it's wrong. I referenced my book which discusses all the items in that list. If it would be preferable to have another source for each of them, I can easily use the sources that i used in writing the book. The list is not a direct quotation from the book, nor could I supply a single page number relevant to the whole list.

A particular concern of KM's seems to be about monotropy. I know he was much put about some time ago when I edited a statement about monotropy to indicate that it could mean not just one, but a small number of people. I made this change in part because of a statement in Bowlby's 1958"nature of the child's tie" paper, in which he proposes to use the term monotropy to mean "the tendency for instinctual responses to be directed toward a particular individual or GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS [my caps-- JM] and not promiscuously towards many" (p. 370). The use of the monotropy concept in the strict ethological "imprinting" sense has certainly been minimized, as KM points out, but the idea of attachment to a few individuals is still very much with us. Two examples would be the criteria listed for Reactive Attachment Disorder in DSM, where ready social engagement with strangers is viewed as pathological, or the "day care wars" of the last century (cf. Belsky), where there was concern about young children having more than a few caregivers.

I believe it is impossible to cite one (or even a few) documents setting out the tenets of attachment theory as it exists today. No such revised theory has been formulated in an explicit way, although there may be an implicit theory indicated by stress on particular issues. We can only work with the theory as it was put forward by Bowlby. This can be followed up with suggestions or arguments that have occurred after the formulation of the theory, but those are not part of the theory in the usual sense of the words. Perhaps we could agree on a date at which attachment theory of the Bowlby type was completed. I would propose the date of the last volume of the trilogy.

I don't understand whether Kip is suggesting that i donate a copy of my book to his library. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just looking further at KM's concerns above: the Bowlby page is not "about attachment therapy", so when I commented on the tenets of the theory I referred to those which are STRESSED, not to all of them. The page is biographical and would presumably be read for different purposes than those which would motivate someone to read about attachment therapy itself. To omit monotropy from this short list of stressed ideas does not mean that monotropy does not appear on a more complete list. If KM would like to edit this passage to say that these are the tenets of greatest interest to most people, but not the only ones, there is nothing to stop him from doing that.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer2

Thank you for this.

So, the list is basically made up of your own beliefs with no verification needed because they are your own ideas. Is that correct?

Would I be correct in assuming also that although the page is called 'Attachment Theory' a more accurate description, in your opinion, would be 'Bowlby's Attachment Theory'?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your first question is not at an appropriate level of discourse.

When I wrote the lead part of the attachment theory article, I noted that although there have been various attachment theories, the term is generally taken to mean Bowlby's attachment theory, and I maintain this view. Ordinarily, when you read this term, you can assume it doesn't mean S. Freud, it doesn't mean Gewirtz, etc. I think it may be true that there have been some implicit post-Bowlby changes. Perhaps you would like to find a term for the post-Bowlby theory and describe its tenets, including recent scholarship on the topic? I'm working on a paper on this topic myself, so I certainly can't bring in my own OR. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer3

Let me put it like this. One definition of 'tenet' is doctrine. You have made a list about 'attachment theory' which states 'Tenets of the Attachment Theory'. As a student reading the page for the first time I would expect the list to be a definitive account. Whose 'Tenets' are they? You should give the list an appropriate title. For example, is it Bowlby's tenets? Or is it Jean Mercer's 'Tenet's of the Attachment Theory' Can you think of an accurate title?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I note you have started to reference the 'tenets' for the list which is extremely helpful. Can you please make sure you also give the list an accurate title - This is also very important so that people know who made the list in the first place.

(Please note From your statement above I guess you would not say that Bowlby is the 'originator of the attachment theory' and I have also added that quote to the relevant discussion. I think it will help both discussions).

PS Somebody has tried to erase this discussion. I have reported it as vandalism and made a copy of the relevant passages.KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Why don't you give it a title? And why don't you check all the tenets and make sure all are there, and none are there that should not be? Or, since you like Rutter's 1995 paper, why not see if his headings would work? You really can't expect me to write it the way you want it, on command.

I trust that I'm not the person you're admonishing not to remove things. I don't think I've ever removed anything, unless i had written it myself. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Jean Mercer - Please see the PS - Many apologies for any confusion)

By the way, if anyone wants to know who put the list together, they just have to look at the article's history, right? Once again, there is no page in anything I've ever published where this list of tenets appears in this form. But if you read through my book "Understanding Attachment" you'd find all of them. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer4

Sorry but I don't agree with the list. 'Tenets' means 'tenets' and if you cannot define them you really should not put up such a list that is not accurate.

People like Fainties have read your list and basically destroyed people who disagree with your list on Wikipedia!

It is up to you to put it right.

(I am the author of a booklet on an aspect of the theory of 'maternal deprivation which Professor Sir Michael Rutter called an 'interesting and informative guide'. I have the e-mail on the wall if ever you would like to see it?)

What are you going to call your list?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't tempt me to tell you what I'm calling it in my head!

I stand by the list. You haven't given a plausible argument against the accuracy of any of the points made. It's called "tenets" and I consider that to be an appropriate title. If you'd like a different title, suggest one-- there's no reason this can't be discussed, but there are many reasons why bullying won't work.

Once again, I propose a definition of the type of attachment theory we're talking about here. You must know that Rutter's 1995 remarks were not the last word on this, nor were they the formulation of a revamped theory. I stated in the article that the theory formulated by Bowlby was the one being discussed. If you have another theory you want to put forward, that would be a worthy contribution, but you must say what you're talking about.

Perhaps you can tell me who was destroyed and in what manner this occurred? But not today-- I have other things to do, and it would not be a bad thing for you to reflect on some of the issues I've stated here.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you are saying these tenets refer to Bowlby you should say so.

Jean Mercer5

Jean, you have written this on the discussion page on Bowlby.

If this is the case why have you not made it clear that the 'Attachment theory' page refers to Bowlby's attachment theory and that the list of tenets are his 'tenets' of the attachment theory? Surely this would clear up any confusion?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I removed the self publish tag KM because you had misunderstood what self publish meant. JeanMercer has not removed her citation. The tenets could be obtained from any decent work on attachment theory - including hers. She has added Bowlbys primary sources. As attachment theory as currently understood originates with Bowlby there is no need to change the title. The lead makes it clear that attachment theory originates with Bowlby. If, however, you wished to add a history section of earlier theories that relate to attachment, nobody is stopping you - provided its in accordance with policies of course. However = I think someone has already pointed out that bullying, shouting and demanding that other people write things to your command is unlikely to be a winning formula. Fainites barley 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not leave the tags where they were if the contents were not self-publishing? KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Self publishing is inappropriate editing. It was plain from your talkpage post that you had misunderstood what it meant. You also made several plainly untrue statements about references and tags being removed. For the nth time Kingsley - mediation is supposed to be a co-operative process. It requires agreement and good faith. Why would anyone agree to mediate with someone who's edits frequently consist of personal attacks, a stream of false allegations, accusations of bad faith and implications of some kind of underlying conspiracy?Fainites barley 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, of course I meant Jean Mercer's references not the 'tags'. The tags should be removed once the offending self publishing citations were also removed. KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jean Mercers refs are not self-publishing, they have not been removed, the tag was removed by me because you had plainly misunderstood what 'self-publishing' meant. Fainites barley 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who reads, marks, learns, and inwardly digests the attachment theory article will see that it is Bowlby's theory that is being discussed. It says so. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer6 - NEED FOR TAGS

Jean Mercer,

You have written the following;

Forgive me but the title of the page does not say this at all. This is an encyclopedia. People want to read about the attachment theory not your opinion of Bowlby's version.

Unless you change the title of the page to reflect the contents in accordance with Wikipedia policy I shall take this matter to the next stage of dispute resolution.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't even done this stage yet Kingsley. No mediation has started. Fainites barley 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I await developments with bated breath and baited hook. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer,

If you look at the page about Rutter you will see that despite my many reqests Fainities still has not told me what his objections to the page maybe. I would save your breath.KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean Mercer - No need for further discussion

I do not think there is any need for further discussion.

It all boils down to this, you are happy with the title of the page 'Attachment theory' and the title of the list 'Tenets of The Attachment Theory'. In particular you see nothing wrong with the reference to 'monotropy'.

I shall refer the next stage to an administrator.

Thank you for your cooperation.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

 * Hey! Who am supposed to have destroyed? Its news to me. I hadn't realised I was so powerful. And what has the list of tenets got to do with it? I think you need to realise Kingsley that there is no body of full time authors of article who are responsible for articles who are in a postition to be bullyed by you into writing things. Actually until quite recently I had relatively little to do with either the Attachment theory or John Bowlby page. A quick flick through the history would have shown you who wrote the tenets, and anyway - JeanMercer made it very clear to you. Your implication of some kind of cover up or misrepresentation is presumably another implied bad faith allegation that will go the way of all the others you make and then never substantiate.
 * Also - in my disputes with you I have set out great chunks of 'original Bowlby' and other notable sources so I have not got my ideas or views from JeanMercers list. Many of your beliefs appear to derive from website material rather than notable sources - hence your difficulties. If we take monotropy - you keep stating that it is not a feature of attachment theory in a way that implies that anyone who disagrees with that statement is acting in bad faith. However - you have on several occasions on various talkpages ignored quotations from Bowlbys work on attachment theory in which he describes his first use of the word and what it means, and material from other notable commentators. Why is this? You then seek to start the same discussions making the same assertions on new pages - such as the monotropy article you wrote or these mediation pages.
 * None of this is appropriate on this page anyway and we are probably all about to be slapped on the wrist and chucked off. As I have said to you elsewhere - mediation requires an assumption of good faith, an unbiassed statement of the nature of the dispute and notification to all relevent parties. You then wait for a mediator to come along and offer to mediate. That seems increasingly unlikely. A request for mediation is not an attack page.Fainites barley 20:10, 26 April 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) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Swearing on Wikipedia
I am sorry I am not happy with swearing on Wikipedia and I will refer this matter to the complaints procedure.

I do not think an Administrator on Wikipedia can start swearing and that this is endorsed by other users such as Compwhizii.

Steve Crossin has complained about CAPS LOCK yet swearing is okay(?)(Please also see the comment left on my user page)

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.

Statement by User:KingsleyMiller

There is an unofficial policy operating in Wikipedia which condones the use of bad language ie swearing. The Wikipedia Administrator with the user name Martinp23 used the F word whilst editing (LINK). Wikipedia Administrators do not have special privileges and if other Editors can see Martinp23 get away with this form of intimidation they will feel there is nothing to stop them from doing so also. In this case the Editor with the user name CWii felt free to follow suit (LINK). CWii followed this with a warning to me about my behaviour on my user page (LINK). Martinp23 has also made comments about 'banging heads together' and that he knows this 'sort of dispute'(LINK). For somebody sitting on the Wikipedia Mediation Committee to make such comments without knowing the facts of the case is inappropriate.

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to decide that Martinp23 and CWii be restricted from any discussion in which I am also involved as well as any other sanction that may be appropriate. If no sanction is deemed necessary I should like the policy of swearing to be formally adopted by Wikipedia so that individual Editors may be prepared to know what to expect when they challenge the established status quo.

(cur) (last) 15:32, 27 May 2008 Martinp23 (Talk | contribs) (97,679 bytes) (what the  is going on here? mediation started or not? I suggest you make your minds up) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:53, 27 May 2008 CWii (Talk | contribs) (109,684 bytes) (?Martinp23 - Swearing:  --- look mommy i sweared!) (undo)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just filibustering again. Its impossible to believe that a 50 year old teacher and campaigner (see his user page) would be quite so sensitive. Particularly one who is so quick to abuse, attack and allege bad faith against others. Make your mind up Kingsley. Are you are you not prepared to accept Seddon, the only person saintly enough to offer to mediate?Fainites barley 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should all be required to swear-- but not until after KM gets on board with Seddon (who is probably all too quickly realizing what he/she has gotten into). 72.73.219.65 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Sorry, that was me Jean Mercer (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)