| Revision as of 14:35, 22 March 2008 editFainites (talk | contribs)20,907 edits →Photo of father and child irrelavant but picture of mother and child relevant. Why?← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:41, 22 March 2008 edit undoKingsleyMiller (talk | contribs)608 edits ==Fainites|barley|nonsense==Next edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| 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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:35, 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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==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 Misplaced Pages into disrepute. People are watching these pages so I will also copy it to my own TALK page. | |||
| kip] (]) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:41, 22 March 2008
 | Biography: Science and Academia B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Psychology B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Archive 1 of previous discussion
Archive 2 of previous discussion
Photo of father and child irrelavant but picture of mother and child relevant. Why?
Compare amendment made to this page with photo of mother and child on;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/Attachment_theory
Kingsley Miller
answer; editorial bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kip - please try to assume good faith. There was no picture of a mother and child on this page. This is a biography of Bowlby and was supposed to have a picture of Bowlby but it got removed. Further you've put that same picture on quite a number of number of articles now.Fainites 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Maternal Deprivation -dates
You cannot give EXACT dates for the effects of maternal deprivation. To do so would be silly as each child is not exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I SHOULD LIKE TO CALL A 'TRUCE' ON THIS PAGE REGARDING THE THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIK PROCEDURE FOR ARBITRATION.
I have fundamental concerns about the edits to this section by Fainties
22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see maternal deprivation talkpage for the substance of this discussion. Fainites 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 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) 10:48, 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 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages into disrepute. People are watching these pages so I will also copy it to my own TALK page.
kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories: