Misplaced Pages

:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Attachment theory: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal | Cases Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:20, 18 May 2008 editKingsleyMiller (talk | contribs)608 edits User:Slakr,← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:30, 11 November 2021 edit undoFrietjes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors1,000,827 edits fix use of navbox classes outside of navbox 
(239 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Medcabstatus {{Medcabstatus
<!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. -->
|status = new |status = closed
|article = |article = Attachment theory
|requestor = ] (]) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |requestor = ] (]) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
|parties = |parties =
|mediators = |mediators = ] & ]
|comment = Case closed - requesting party subsequently asked not to participate
|comment =
}} }}
<!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. -->
<!-- {{notice|'''''READ THIS!''''' <br /> I can see a lot of discussion going on "down there". Too much - a mediator, when one comes along, is likely to just blank all of the discussion from when he started and begin afresh. I'd suggest, therefore, saving your energy and not thrashing things out here until a mediator arrives (you are, of course, encouraged to talk on the article talk page about issues which aren't directly related to the administrative issues surrounding this mediation). ]''']''' 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) }} -->

=== Request details === === Request details ===
The attachment theory page includes a list of tenets of attachment theory without specifying where they have come from. The ] page includes a list of tenets of attachment theory without specifying where they have come from.
==== Who are the involved parties? ==== ==== Who are the involved parties? ====


:] :]
:] :]
:]


I have added Jean Mercer and left Fainites although now that I have been able to verify the authorship of the list my dispute is with Jean Mercer ] (]) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)] (]) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I have added Jean Mercer and left Fainites although now that I have been able to verify the authorship of the list my dispute is with Jean Mercer ] (]) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)] (]) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
:I've added ]; not sure why he wasn't on the list before. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks. I think I was in as ''barley'' at the beginning but there have been so many edits interspersed between everything the whole page is now a bizarre tapestry. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
]


==== What's going on? ==== ==== What's going on? ====
Line 30: Line 31:


=== Mediator notes === === Mediator notes ===
{{collapse top}}

I've gone and closed ] and ]. Any mediatior can see these discussions if necessary. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I've gone and closed ] and ]. Any mediatior can see these discussions if necessary. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Line 42: Line 43:


I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals: I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals:
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|- |-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | suggestions for ambit of mediation ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | suggestions for ambit of mediation
Line 77: Line 78:


Mediator; Who are you? Are you Luna Santin the administrator?] (]) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Mediator; Who are you? Are you Luna Santin the administrator?] (]) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Administrative notes === === Administrative notes ===
{{collapse top}}

This case appears to encompass the same issues as ] and ]. If there are no objections I will close the other two cases and leave notes referring to this case. --] (]) 07:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC) This case appears to encompass the same issues as ] and ]. If there are no objections I will close the other two cases and leave notes referring to this case. --] (]) 07:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Line 96: Line 97:


{{Quotation|"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)}} {{Quotation|"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)}}
::::You've missed out part of what I said there Kip - and, as ever - the context. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::This is a direct quote. Misplaced Pages would not exist if we all obeyed Fainities 'Rules of Context'. I find this criticism abusive as it tries to portray me as disingenuous. I have made another request to move on to the next stage of Dispute Resolution as I believe these references show you are acting in bad faith.] (]) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Kingsley i have asked you many times not to keep posting odd bits of other peoples talkpage posts all over the place but to provide links instead. Are you now saying you are not prepared to mediate? You have been accusing me of acting in bad faith ever since I first dared disagree with you so that can hardly be the reason. Why don't you actually set out what you want to mediate about? What about my list of issues? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I have specific questions which I should like answered if possible; I have specific questions which I should like answered if possible;
Line 109: Line 114:
*I'm not an administrator, and Lunakeet is not an adminsitrator , and they are not Luna Santin . I've studied psychology myself, but it was agreed that merging the 3 cases would be best. Further comments on my talk page. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *I'm not an administrator, and Lunakeet is not an adminsitrator , and they are not Luna Santin . I've studied psychology myself, but it was agreed that merging the 3 cases would be best. Further comments on my talk page. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Steve Crossin2,
*'''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 ] 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 think the comment below is helpful and illustrates the point I am trying to make about keeping issues separate.

In reply I mention that many of the administrators editing these pages have only a superficial understanding of psychology. When you say you have studied psychology are you aware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work which I mention below?

Also could you please answer the previous question regarding the next step for dispute resolution?

] (]) 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I SHOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THE ABOVE REQUEST. Many thanks, ] (]) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all. Using '''CAPS LOCK''' is rather impolite, it is considered shouting. I've been busyish, in real life. Anyway, I studied psychology for 2 years at high school. We didn't exactly get into a huge amount of detail on the attatchment theory. This step is the current step in dispute resolution. The only other step for mediation is the Mediation Comittee, but they generally won't look at a dispute unless we have looked at it first. Mediation takes time. That's all. Thanks. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Administrative notes / Steve Crossin3 ===

'''I am sorry if you consider CAPS LOCK shouting. As far as your 2 years studying Psychology is concerned I am afraid it not sufficient to 'mediate' this subject. Before you get all irate again let me explain the reason. There are plenty of people that think they know something about Psychology. In reality because the subject we are discussing is counter intuitive this knowledge only works against a deeper understanding of the topic. (A classic example is the work of Dr John Bowlby which for a time was considered brilliant. He said that a small child's relationship with the mother was qualitatively different from any other. He based this theory on his observations. This theory later proved incorrect).

People such as Fainities and Jean Mercer have spent their time on Misplaced Pages promoting Bowlby's earlier work blissfully unaware that he was later shown to be wrong. When somebody like myself comes along and tells them they have been getting it wrong for years they are not prepared to accept their mistake and just like yourself get angry with the messenger.

Fainities has no formal qualification in the subject and mostly acts as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer. Unfortunately if you take a look at her work you will see it is flawed because she too was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work until my contribution to Misplaced Pages.


Fainities 'suggestions for ambit of mediation' is supposed to show their reasonable side. However in reality it shows how little they know about the subject. Fainities describes parenting almost exclusively in Bowlby's terms for mothering, with fathers mentioned almost as an afterthought. In reality we should be asking the reason Misplaced Pages makes such a distinction when it comes to parenting?
:I'm assuming that a primary cause for concern is the ] 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 ]; ]; and, ]. 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.


The subsequent discussion below only seeks to highlight the lack of knowledge about this subject. For example those familiar with the concept of 'maternal deprivation' would know that 'monotropy' is not a tenet of the attachment theory, so what is the point of arguing the point when it is already established? - This is a fundamental issue.
:Also, I've seen some objections based on what's "right," "wrong," or "disproven." Technically-speaking, as long as ], credible, ] ] objections could and (and likely should) be included if there's disagreement on a certain point. Just be sure to ] and present them neutrally (e.g., avoid ]). Even if something's disproven, it might have historical significance.


If you go to my user page you will see that I describe my role as challenging 'incorrect research'. You have to say to yourself, 'What does this mean?' The thing is there are many people like Fainities and Jean Mercer who are still operating according to the old conventions which I tried to address in my publication which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an 'interesting and informative guide'. Therefore it would be wrong to let them set the terms for mediation especially when Fainities has shown that he or she has acted in bad faith (see above and below).
: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 ] Also, avoid ] toward other editors, and please try to avoid insinuating the motives of others by maintaining ].


I hope this explains the reason I wish to move on to the the next stage of dispute resolution and I hope you do not find this offensive.'''
:--]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Slakr,


:Well, then, good luck finding anyone who's willing to mediate this case at all. It's not the best thing for someone who's studied psychology to mediate this anyway. Would be a COI. Good luck then. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this comment. As you indicate this is a complicated topic. Essentially this page should be concerned with the Misplaced Pages page on 'attachment theory' but has been amalgamated to include other topics.


:Kingsley, it is clear to me that you are very knowledgeable on the topic of Psychology. It is indeed a daunting topic, and perhaps a basic understanding of the subject would help a potential mediator. However, it is generally observed on Misplaced Pages (by me at least during my near-on-a-year of being in the mediation/Dispute Resolution "arena") that the more one knows about a topic, the more one will have preconceived views about the subject. A mediator needs to be neutral, and having a "blank slate" to start with means that the mediator may be able to look up relevant ''recent'' scientific literature - I know from my own study of the subject that plenty of the research is rather old when it comes to Psychology, and the newer stuff is obviously more relevant to us.
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.
:On a similar note, an interest in the subject is also helpful. There is a compromise to be struck. And Steve seems like the perfect mediator for the job here - I don't think you will find anyone else willing to take on the job, be it with MedCab or MedCom.
:The task of a mediator is to bring the participants of the discussion to a mutually accpetable solution, usually on a content issue. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not do anything about content issues as they consider it outside their remit. Thus, mediation is almost certainly the best place for this dispute at the moment. Input from ] and ] are other possibilities, but will only work if you (the participants) are willing to accept their outcome whatever it is, which I don't think is going to happen here.
:Good luck with this case, and I urge you to accept Steve's offer and attempt to resolve the issues we see before us. If the will to resolve a dispute does not exist, it cannot be resolved by mediation or, arguably, any other manner. Let's move forward and get on with it! ]''']''' 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Substitute "Steve" for "Any mediator who volunteers themselves" above :) ]''']''' 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Administrative notes / Steve Crossin4 / HelloAnnyong / Slakr / Martinp23 ===
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 Misplaced Pages 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. But as you quite rightly point out in your comment there must be some common ground in which to define a subject.


Martin23 thank you for your kind intervention. I do not believe Steve Crossin should just abandon his role but we need to redefine it. He is just one in a list of mediators that have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Fainities and Jean Mercer. Below I give the example of HelloAnnyong who made some good points in a private discussion with Fainities but was deliberately tied up in knots. Fainities has now got poor old Slakr 'reinventing the wheel' by using boxes and secondary sources below.
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.


The reason a 'blank slate' does not work is because a major factor is that people base their assumptions on the work of Bowlby. For a time his work was 'heralded' until it proved wrong. We cannot go back and erase the plaudits Bowlby received at the time but they should not be used to justify a theory which is wrong. I do not say this just for your benefit but for all those like yourself who use Misplaced Pages.
kip] (]) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I know mediation is about compromise and reasonableness and that there is nothing 'cool' about going out on a limb but if we accept compromise we end up with something that is not true. (The best example is the concept of 'monotropy' which still is not part of the attachment theory). Is this what Misplaced Pages is about?
=== Discussion ===


The question I would ask Steve and yourself is how can I get around the Misplaced Pages principles of 'consensus' when so many 'secondary sources' are misleading?
Here is what Jean Mercer says about Bowlby on his Wik page. There is no mention of 'monotropy'. So where has it come from?


In each case I have mentioned I have seen mediators run up the flag pole by Fainities and Jean Mercer. And then turn on me or disappear because the subject is not what it seemed.
Bowlby's Legacy


Now it is your turn!
Main article: Attachment theory
] (]) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Would I someone, who has no previous knowledge of the subject be able to help? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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. 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.


:Misplaced Pages's job is to deliver information as it appears in the secondary sources, where those sources are verifiable. Now, we can't decide whether or not a source is correct - other sources may do that and our articles should reflect this. As long as a source is ] and ] (as defined in those policies), we ought to include what's in it - regardless of what we think about its content. To allow our feelings in this regard to come into play would violate the ] and ] policies.
(I assume the above is KingsleyMiller)
:Ultimately, it is our job to report on the sources - not to decide on the truth, or the content of the sources. ]''']''' 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


::Yes, the sources are the issue, are they not? I am watching with interest to see when Kingsley Miller will adduce sources to support his views about Bowlby's role and about monotropy, but so far I see only wool, garden paths, and now flagpoles. ] (]) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
*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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
:::How are mediators to proceed if they are not provided with sources relied upon but simply accused of insufficient knowledge or of being duped? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


::::My point exactly. At this point, {{User|KingsleyMiller}}'s claims have so far been unsubstantiated with proof. Furthermore, this editor's contributions to this talk page have primarily revolved around accusation of motive (i.e., ]) statements and critique over mediation as a whole (, , ). I've created multiple opportunities (arguably more than most mediation cases) for everyone to better demonstrate their views, including multiple tables that request secondary sources; and, as of this writing the only two people who have taken advantage of these opportunities are {{User|Fainites}} (, , , ) and {{User|Jean Mercer}} (, ).
'''Not bad faith. Bad editing.'''


::::So, if {{User|KingsleyMiller}} chooses not to address the issues at hand by simply ] and ] them as requested numerous times, the only choice left for any other mediator would be to default to what ''can'' be sourced&mdash; and it appears that so far this dispute's resolution would come down to much of what {{user|Fainites}} and {{User|Jean Mercer}} have provided as possible resolutions. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The passage above is taken from the page on John Bowlby.


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


:Unfortunately this is the problem! We need somebody who is an 'authority' on the subject. My argument is that Fainites and Jean Mercer have already 'duped' several mediators acting in good faith. Fainites is acting as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer and her work is flawed because she was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work. Many thanks for the kind offer.
(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?)] (]) 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


:] (]) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Jean Mercer1'''


::First, I reordered this to maintain some form of chronological order and to keep similar threads together. As a side note, I'm not really sure how I got roped into this section header, but I think that this is starting to sound like ]. You can only claim conspiracy so many times. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(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)


HelloAnnyong,
'''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.'''


You are included in this section because you have been 'duped' by Fainites. You were in dialogue with Fainites and he or she deliberately tied you up in knots. The example is given below. (You don't seem to read the edits).
Where did you get it from?


All,
Which book?


I do not accept Jean Mercer is a reliable 'authority' on the subject of 'attachment theory' or the work of John Bowlby. Until my intervention she was totally unaware of the controversy surrounding the work of Bowlby indeed her references to him on this page show that she still believes he was a 'great' man. Jean Mercer is living in a 'time warp' because Bowlby's ideas conform to her own about parenting.
I would like to see a copy in the library if possible.


Also I find the suggestion by Martinp23 that Misplaced Pages should publish material that is incorrect or wrong, totally unacceptable even if it comes from so called reliable secondary sources.
Many thanks


For the reasons given above I suggest the page called 'attachment theory' should be deleted as Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle for Jean Mercer to publish her own ideas about Bowlby.
] (]) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


(For those interested here is a link to a John Bowlby article written in 1986 in which he describes his contribution to Child Psychology - )
==Jean Mercer's response==


] (]) 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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.


Fainites,
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 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.


The page on 'attachment theory' relies on the following source;-
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.


^ a b c d e f g h i Prior V and Glaser D (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, RCPRTU. {{ISBN|978-1-84310-245-8}} (pbk).
I don't understand whether Kip is suggesting that i donate a copy of my book to his library. ] (]) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


I wish to find these references in my University library and I would like to know which article from this publication you are citing and where? In the context of this discussion I would appreciate a plain answer.
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.] (]) 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 07:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::I never give you anything but a ''plain'' answer Kingsley. Just not necessarily as ''blunt'' as I would like. The book is fully cited in the refs, complete with ISBN, publisher etc. Its a ''book'' not an article. Thats why it has an ISBN number and does not say 'Eds' in the ref. Its published by the Royal College of Psychiatry Research and Training Unit. Its part of a series who's purpose is to set out the most up-to-date thinking and evidence based research/developments on a series of topics for practitioners, professionals and, presumably, reasonably intelligent lay people. Unfortunately I can't give you page numbers right now as my copy has gone walkabout but the relevent parts are easy to find. When I find my copy my plan is to alter the method of reffing to show page numbers as was done here .] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Could we perhaps collectively endeavour to keep this discussion readable, by using ]? Kingsley, mine was not a suggestion but a summary of the policies in this area. If you disagree with them, then the appropriate place to argue your cause is on the policies' talk pages, not in a mediation. The job of the miedation would be to determine which sources should be used, not to impose what is, whether right or wrong, one's own view on an article. Thanks, ]''']''' 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


::To put it cynically, Kingsley, you are looking for a mediator who has the "knowledge" that he'd take your side in the dispute. A biased mediator cannot mediate and find a '''mutually acceptable''' solution, and if you're not prepared to follow the proper route for mediation, ie a neutral mediator finding a compromise, then mediation will not work. ArbCom will not hear the case because it's a content dispute, so you're back at step one. I '''strongly''' suggest you think about where this is going and consider changing your stance. ]''']''' 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Jean Mercer2'''


=== Martinp23 - Swearing ===
Thank you for this.


I am not happy with your swearing. I shall report this to an administrator in the hope of having you removed from the discussion.] (]) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So, the list is basically made up of your own beliefs with no verification needed because they are your own ideas. Is that correct?
:Sorry. The point still stands. This page is now 110KB in size and you still don't have a mediator, and I'm suggesting you prioritise yourselves to finding a mediator rather than continuing to partake in what has descended into a mudslinging match. I'd like to see this dispute resolved, but it ain't gonna happen unless various people get their acts together. ]''']''' 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


:Kingsley, Martin '''is''' an admin. People have limits, and I guess Martin is at his. He's also on ], but really. You seem to reject any mediator that offers their help, so I'm not suprised he's at his limit. So, either decide on a mediator, or the case will be closed. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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'?


:We're not censored. We can swear if he likes. I like to swear myself. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure how what I know or don't know is either accessible to KM or relevant to this discussion --neither is his view of me as authoritative or otherwise a relevant point. Fewer personalities, more sources, please! ] (]) 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your first question is not at an appropriate level of discourse.


I found Martinp23's comments a refreshing change from faintly veiled personal attacks. ] (]) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


I thought Slakr had started on the mediation by trying to refine the issues. I haven't taken part in a mediation before (not one that's got of the ground anyway) so I'm not sure of the procedure. If it helps - I'm OK with any of you guys, and indeed would be impressed by your willingness to pick up this poisoned chalice. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Jean Mercer3'''


Well, ] <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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?


::I think we all agree that we need to move on already. Let's forget what just happened :) <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]<nowiki>|</nowiki>])</sub> ''</font> 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::Don't blame you Steve. So is Slakr the mediator then or his he just trying to set it up for mediation? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


*As far as I know, no. Slakr isn't mediating. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 16:30, 27 May 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.
:::Oh. Pity. I thought he was. He seemed to be getting to grips with things. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved what seems to be some mediation discussion (not administrative) to the talk page ]''']''' 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


A question: What happens if no mediator picks up the case? Do Fainites and Kingsley just return to the article page and keep reverting each other? &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
('''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).
:I imagine so, or an admin will intervene and bang heads together :) ]''']''' 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Well thats all very easy for you to say, but what is an editor to do when someone will not provide or discuss sources and simply assumes bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them? Why should editors who do provide sources, edit productively and attempt to discuss on the talkpage have their heads banged with anybody? Kingsley has consistently accused me and JeanMercer of bad faith and sought sanctions from ArbCom and admins since the day I first disagreed with him, to no avail. Anybody who does not see things from his point of view is seen as a dupe or sap, including all of you. What on earth good do you think banging heads together will do? And, by the way, there have not been revert wars. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry Martin. I'm not cross with you. Just mildly despairing. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I understand. It is easy for me to say, but I do know where you're coming from, and I know of this sort of dispute, and there will be a solution, somewhere. This may require admin intervention (blocks, protections, probations). Mediation is best because the participants, if they feel they've come to a solution themselves (which they have!) will be more likely to accept it. Admin actions tend to cause Drama, hence the preference I show to exhausting all the mediation routes before looking to "harsher" meothds of dispute resolution. ]''']''' 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


== A break ==
PS Somebody has tried to erase this discussion. I have reported it as vandalism and made a copy of the relevant passages.] (]) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
=== A nice cup of tea and a sit down ===
Done that? Right, let's carry on. ]''']''' 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
== A mediator ==
Here's how mediation works - one or more people will volunteer '''their''' time to help you to resolve this dispute. You are asked to accept or reject these mediators. I would suggest that the done thing in this case would be to just be happy with whatever you get. The mediation would then commence elsewhere.


If anyone would like to volunteer to become a mediator, please note their names below.
] (]) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
# 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (User:Seddon) I am currently only mediating one other case and that is for the mediation committee (though im not on the medcom). I am in all other aspects available to take on another mediation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:34, 27 May 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.
#:'''Endorse fully.''' While I think you're insane to take on this case Seddon, I think your bravery should be commended. Best of luck, <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
# If Seddon would like a second pair of eyes I would be willing to help out, too. ] ] 11:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Full endorse.''' Another pair of eyes is always helpful. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:* Brave man! ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 18:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Yes-- thank you, Neil. ] (]) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


=== Comments on the volunteers ===
(Jean Mercer - Please see the PS - Many apologies for any confusion)
Parties should note their acceptance of a mediator here.


Now, let's try to keep things here nice and calm and relaxed while we find a mediator. Tangential discussion may be best placed on the talk page, and I will move comments which seem irrelevant there to keep things clean. Similarly, I may refactor comments if it will keep the discussion moving.
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. ] (]) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


So, now the task is to wait until a mediator turns up! ]''']''' 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'''Jean Mercer4'''


==== Seddon ====
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.
*Fine by me! ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)(And Neil] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC))
*I'm grateful to anyone who's willing to try to deal with this. ] (]) 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Approve.''' Seems okay to me. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


===Question for KingsleyMiller===
People like Fainties have read your list and basically destroyed people who disagree with your list on Misplaced Pages!


Kingsley, are you happy with ] and myself mediating this dispute? If you indicate this is acceptable to you, we can proceed. ] ] 17:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is up to you to put it right.


:Neil, Sorry to be a pain but I have made a formal complaint against an Administrator who has contributed to this page.
(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?)


:I want to see how this matter is resolved before moving on.
What are you going to call your list?


] (]) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) :] (]) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


:PS Do you know who Professor Sir Michael Rutter is?
Don't tempt me to tell you what I'm calling it in my head!


::If I may be so bold... I have apologised to you twice now. What further resolution would you like? I am '''honestly''' deeply dismayed that my words have been mis-construed and caused the drama we see now. All that I have wanted from the start is for this mediation to get started.. Alas. ]''']''' 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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.


Seems you , Martin. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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.


::To Kingsley - Martin has apologised, and I'm sure he will refrain from such language in future. At this point, that is all that is appropriate (speaking as both someone trying to mediate this, and as an experienced administrator on Misplaced Pages), and I hope you will accept Martin's apology and move on. I would like us all to start addressing the actual dispute relating to attachment theory, if possible.
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.] (]) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


::PS - Professor Sir Michael Rutter is a leading child psychologist. ] ] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but if you are saying these tenets refer to Bowlby you should say so.
:::The arbitration's ended. They declined to accept it. Now, shall we spend our declining years making complaints about all the breaches of ] and ] on these pages - or shall we just get on with mediating? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


==Changes to the page==
'''Jean Mercer5'''


Can somebody tell me what has happened to the rest of the page.
Jean, you have written this on the discussion page on Bowlby.


Where have the contributions I made yesterday gone?
{{Quotation|Of course I think Bowlby's the originator of the theory associated with his name, the one whose tenets are on that list. There are other attachment theories too, as I mentioned, and naturally he's not their originator. When most people say attachment theory, they mean Bowlby's theory, as I noted in the article. Wouldn't you be surprised if someone spoke of attachment theory and it turned out they were talking about Gewirtz or Ian Suttie? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)}}


] (]) 06:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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?


] (]) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :Talk page. ]''']''' 09:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


==Changes to the page2==
{{Quotation|All - As a result of the CABAL MEDIATION TAG Jean Mercer has now referenced the list of 'Tenets of the Attachment Theory' and removed her own citations. Therefore the SELF-PUBLISHING TAG has been removed and instead I have replaced it with TAGS disputing the title of list of the 'Tenets of the Attachment Theory' as well as the page as a whole. Many thanks ] (]) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)}}


Where has my copy of the complaint gone?
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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Other people should be aware of what is going on and may also wish to contribute.
:::Why not leave the tags where they were if the contents were not self-publishing? ] (]) 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?] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Can somebody tell me what the rule is regarding removing other peoples contributions?
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. ] (]) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 23:33, 28 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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] (]) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Moved to the talk page as well. Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Let's keep the discussion on topic, the mediation. Shall we? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">] ] ]</font> 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


'''Jean Mercer6 - NEED FOR TAGS'''


==Request for Kingsley==
Jean Mercer,


I have asked KingsleyMiller on his ] to now engage in the mediation process he initiated. It is unfair to the other editors (who have all, I believe, agreed to participate) for this issue to drag on, and so if by (say) Tuesday of next week, Kingsley has not agreed to start the mediation process, it will be closed, and other dispute remedies assessed. ] ] 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You have written the following;
:Well, it's now Tuesday, and Kingsley has not responded. I will check back again tomorrow. ] ] 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
::Kingsley has indicated on ] that he wishes to consider the situation carefully. We shall give this a few more days. ] ] 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


It's been several days now. What's going on with this case? &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
{{Quotation|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. ] (]) 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)}}


Many thanks for extending the deadline (The following remarks also appear on my user page.
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.


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


Alistair,
] (]) 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
::You haven't even done this stage yet Kingsley. No mediation has started. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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;-
I await developments with bated breath and baited hook. ] (]) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/CCJfIRSTJudgment.html
Jean Mercer,


This is a unique privilege.
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.] (]) 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


I find Alistair's points about the relative significance of comments and criticisms made on this forum also relevant.
'''Jean Mercer - No need for further discussion'''


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


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


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.
I shall refer the next stage to an administrator.


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


I am sorry to say that far from Misplaced Pages 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.
] (]) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


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.
==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.] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
----


May I thank all those who have taken a genuine interest in this subject.
'''Higher Education: Don's delight Dr Raj Persaud on Maternal Deprivation Reassessed -the book that changed his life'''


== Bowlby's contribution - An Introduction to Child Development ==
The Guardian (Manchester); Jan 21, 1997; DR RAJ PERSAUD; p. 002


G C Davenport, Unwin Hyman, 1988.
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.


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.
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.


] (]) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
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.


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


Due to one party choosing not engage in the process, this mediation must close. Thank you to all for participating. ] ] 13:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To order any book mentioned in Guardian Education, call 0500 600102
:Wait, sorry. What happens now? Do the related articles just go back to being edit wars? Articles like ] are still a huge mess. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
----] (]) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::If it is impossible to achieve a consensus on the talk page, there are a few potential next stages in the dispute resolution process - a ], a ], or, failing both of these, ] (although the Arbitration Committee will only take on cases where all other attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted and have been unsuccessful, and address editor conduct, not content. ] ] 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:::I was the 3O on that page; we tried a request to the Psych wikiproject (]). I suppose we could do an RFC for science, but I'm not sure how far that's gonna go. I was really hoping this medcab would have worked... &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
::::We've actually tried ''two'' 3PO's ''and'' referrals to sources noticeboards to no avail. RfC's on the more obscure psychology topics generally get no response. The Psychology Project never responds to requests for assistance on these topics. Kingsley has also tried complaining about me to a variety of admins, and sought arbitration to have us banned. Discussions on talkpages look much the same, take a similar course and achieve much the same results as this mediation. No wonder there are virtually no psychologists or psychiatrists actively editing. Plus ca change.] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::The problem here is that MedCab seems to be the highest level of DR that will handle content disputes, and... this case just got tossed out. At that point, I'm not sure there's much else that can be done aside from letting the page turn into such chaos that it needs to go higher up to ArbCom due to editor conduct. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::As best I can tell, there is one simple solution that would resolve this. However, I'm not sure I can justify it at present without some homework, but I won't let this go unresolved. To aid me, I am aware of three articles that are the focus of this mess (], ], and ]) - are there any others? ] ] 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The other one was ]. In fact - the maternal deprivation talkpage is a sort of potted version of the whole dispute. Before that there was a run in between Kingsley Miller and an editor called Mrvain68 on the talkpages of ] and a bit on ]. The latter two were just before Kingsley and I 'fell out' as it were and it then went onto the maternal deprivation page. Discussions also spread over the talkpages of me, Kingsley and JeanMercer. You can also see on the various pages copies of complaints Kingsley has made. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::::The only decent solution I have come up with is a little extreme. I have made a post on the administrators' noticeboard - ] - asking for some other administrators to chip in; perhaps they can suggest alternatives. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on it. ] ] 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Jeez... sorry this had to end that way. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:30, 11 November 2021

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
ArticleAttachment theory
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Mediator(s)Seddon & Neil
CommentCase closed - requesting party subsequently asked not to participate

Request details

The attachment theory page includes a list of tenets of attachment theory without specifying where they have come from.

Who are the involved parties?

User:KingsleyMiller
User:Jean Mercer
User:Fainites

I have added Jean Mercer and left Fainites although now that I have been able to verify the authorship of the list my dispute is with Jean Mercer KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)KingsleyMiller (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added User:Fainites; not sure why he wasn't on the list before. — HelloAnnyong 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I was in as barley at the beginning but there have been so many edits interspersed between everything the whole page is now a bizarre tapestry. Fainites 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

The other side is evasive but I think they are using an early version of this theory by John Bowlby which is now discredited.

What would you like to change about that?

I should like the other side to clarify the source for this list. For example it includes 'monotropy' which has been abandoned.

Are they representing this earlier version of Bowlby's work as the true version?

Mediator notes

Extended content

I've gone and closed Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 John Bowlby and Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter. Any mediatior can see these discussions if necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you both review your sources? Look at the dates. the most recent is usually going to be the most accurate.

Lunakeet 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to start by trying to agree the ambit of mediation please Luna as there are three running between the three same editors on roughly the same ground involving the same set of articles. Fainites 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That (review)would ordinarily be reasonable, Lunakeet, but in this case part of the problem is interpretation of the sources, and another is quality of the secondary sources in use.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals:

suggestions for ambit of mediation

Is monotropy a feature of maternal deprivation?

Is monotropy a feature of attachment theory (Bowlby)

What is monotropy according to Bowlby?

Has monotropy been given a different meaning to Bowlbys by other authors?

What is the current state of thinking on monotropy?

In either maternal deprivation or attachment theory does it apply to only a)mothers, b) women or c)another or others?

Is Bowlby the originator/formulator of attachment theory?

If he's not, who is?

If we're not talking about Bowlby's attachment theory, what attachment theory are we talking about?

If Bowlby is the originator, has attachment theory developed on to the point where it is no longer Bowlby's attachment theory but something altogether different?

Was Rutter referring to attachment theory or maternal deprivation when he set out the four elements in his 1995 paper?

How do we present Rutters contribution to a)maternal deprivation and b) attachment theory? (Fathers and all).

There may of course not be definitive answers to any of these but there are plenty of notable sources around. Fainites 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator; Who are you? Are you Luna Santin the administrator?KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Extended content

This case appears to encompass the same issues as Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter and Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 John Bowlby. If there are no objections I will close the other two cases and leave notes referring to this case. --Cabal of one (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Fainites 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re; Fainities "Suggestions for ambit of mediation"

Dear Administrator,

I am sorry to say I cannot agree particularly in the light of the comment made below. This case does not encompass the same issues and I disagree with closing the other 2 cases. (Please can you restore these 2 cases to their original status?)

I believe this issue is important enough to warrant somebody with a recent qualification in the field of child psychology or Fainites and Jean Mercer will simply carry on pulling the wool over peoples' eyes.

Fainites has written the following about me which I find rude and insulting,

"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)

You've missed out part of what I said there Kip - and, as ever - the context. Fainites 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a direct quote. Misplaced Pages would not exist if we all obeyed Fainities 'Rules of Context'. I find this criticism abusive as it tries to portray me as disingenuous. I have made another request to move on to the next stage of Dispute Resolution as I believe these references show you are acting in bad faith.KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kingsley i have asked you many times not to keep posting odd bits of other peoples talkpage posts all over the place but to provide links instead. Are you now saying you are not prepared to mediate? You have been accusing me of acting in bad faith ever since I first dared disagree with you so that can hardly be the reason. Why don't you actually set out what you want to mediate about? What about my list of issues? Fainites 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have specific questions which I should like answered if possible;

1. Who is Lunakee and why was she replaced as the administrator with yourself?

2. Has the administrator Luna Santin contacted you regarding these pages as I am still awaiting a reply from her?

3. Please can you explain the next step in the Dispute Resolution?

Kingsley MillerKingsleyMiller (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not an administrator, and Lunakeet is not an adminsitrator , and they are not Luna Santin . I've studied psychology myself, but it was agreed that merging the 3 cases would be best. Further comments on my talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin2,

I think the comment below is helpful and illustrates the point I am trying to make about keeping issues separate.

In reply I mention that many of the administrators editing these pages have only a superficial understanding of psychology. When you say you have studied psychology are you aware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work which I mention below?

Also could you please answer the previous question regarding the next step for dispute resolution?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I SHOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THE ABOVE REQUEST. Many thanks, KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all. Using CAPS LOCK is rather impolite, it is considered shouting. I've been busyish, in real life. Anyway, I studied psychology for 2 years at high school. We didn't exactly get into a huge amount of detail on the attatchment theory. This step is the current step in dispute resolution. The only other step for mediation is the Mediation Comittee, but they generally won't look at a dispute unless we have looked at it first. Mediation takes time. That's all. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes / Steve Crossin3

I am sorry if you consider CAPS LOCK shouting. As far as your 2 years studying Psychology is concerned I am afraid it not sufficient to 'mediate' this subject. Before you get all irate again let me explain the reason. There are plenty of people that think they know something about Psychology. In reality because the subject we are discussing is counter intuitive this knowledge only works against a deeper understanding of the topic. (A classic example is the work of Dr John Bowlby which for a time was considered brilliant. He said that a small child's relationship with the mother was qualitatively different from any other. He based this theory on his observations. This theory later proved incorrect).

People such as Fainities and Jean Mercer have spent their time on Misplaced Pages promoting Bowlby's earlier work blissfully unaware that he was later shown to be wrong. When somebody like myself comes along and tells them they have been getting it wrong for years they are not prepared to accept their mistake and just like yourself get angry with the messenger.

Fainities has no formal qualification in the subject and mostly acts as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer. Unfortunately if you take a look at her work you will see it is flawed because she too was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work until my contribution to Misplaced Pages.

Fainities 'suggestions for ambit of mediation' is supposed to show their reasonable side. However in reality it shows how little they know about the subject. Fainities describes parenting almost exclusively in Bowlby's terms for mothering, with fathers mentioned almost as an afterthought. In reality we should be asking the reason Misplaced Pages makes such a distinction when it comes to parenting?

The subsequent discussion below only seeks to highlight the lack of knowledge about this subject. For example those familiar with the concept of 'maternal deprivation' would know that 'monotropy' is not a tenet of the attachment theory, so what is the point of arguing the point when it is already established? - This is a fundamental issue.

If you go to my user page you will see that I describe my role as challenging 'incorrect research'. You have to say to yourself, 'What does this mean?' The thing is there are many people like Fainities and Jean Mercer who are still operating according to the old conventions which I tried to address in my publication which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an 'interesting and informative guide'. Therefore it would be wrong to let them set the terms for mediation especially when Fainities has shown that he or she has acted in bad faith (see above and below).

I hope this explains the reason I wish to move on to the the next stage of dispute resolution and I hope you do not find this offensive.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, good luck finding anyone who's willing to mediate this case at all. It's not the best thing for someone who's studied psychology to mediate this anyway. Would be a COI. Good luck then. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kingsley, it is clear to me that you are very knowledgeable on the topic of Psychology. It is indeed a daunting topic, and perhaps a basic understanding of the subject would help a potential mediator. However, it is generally observed on Misplaced Pages (by me at least during my near-on-a-year of being in the mediation/Dispute Resolution "arena") that the more one knows about a topic, the more one will have preconceived views about the subject. A mediator needs to be neutral, and having a "blank slate" to start with means that the mediator may be able to look up relevant recent scientific literature - I know from my own study of the subject that plenty of the research is rather old when it comes to Psychology, and the newer stuff is obviously more relevant to us.
On a similar note, an interest in the subject is also helpful. There is a compromise to be struck. And Steve seems like the perfect mediator for the job here - I don't think you will find anyone else willing to take on the job, be it with MedCab or MedCom.
The task of a mediator is to bring the participants of the discussion to a mutually accpetable solution, usually on a content issue. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not do anything about content issues as they consider it outside their remit. Thus, mediation is almost certainly the best place for this dispute at the moment. Input from WP:RFC and WP:3O are other possibilities, but will only work if you (the participants) are willing to accept their outcome whatever it is, which I don't think is going to happen here.
Good luck with this case, and I urge you to accept Steve's offer and attempt to resolve the issues we see before us. If the will to resolve a dispute does not exist, it cannot be resolved by mediation or, arguably, any other manner. Let's move forward and get on with it! Martinp23 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Substitute "Steve" for "Any mediator who volunteers themselves" above :) Martinp23 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes / Steve Crossin4 / HelloAnnyong / Slakr / Martinp23

Martin23 thank you for your kind intervention. I do not believe Steve Crossin should just abandon his role but we need to redefine it. He is just one in a list of mediators that have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Fainities and Jean Mercer. Below I give the example of HelloAnnyong who made some good points in a private discussion with Fainities but was deliberately tied up in knots. Fainities has now got poor old Slakr 'reinventing the wheel' by using boxes and secondary sources below.

The reason a 'blank slate' does not work is because a major factor is that people base their assumptions on the work of Bowlby. For a time his work was 'heralded' until it proved wrong. We cannot go back and erase the plaudits Bowlby received at the time but they should not be used to justify a theory which is wrong. I do not say this just for your benefit but for all those like yourself who use Misplaced Pages.

I know mediation is about compromise and reasonableness and that there is nothing 'cool' about going out on a limb but if we accept compromise we end up with something that is not true. (The best example is the concept of 'monotropy' which still is not part of the attachment theory). Is this what Misplaced Pages is about?

The question I would ask Steve and yourself is how can I get around the Misplaced Pages principles of 'consensus' when so many 'secondary sources' are misleading?

In each case I have mentioned I have seen mediators run up the flag pole by Fainities and Jean Mercer. And then turn on me or disappear because the subject is not what it seemed.

Now it is your turn! KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would I someone, who has no previous knowledge of the subject be able to help? ŠξÞÞøΛ 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's job is to deliver information as it appears in the secondary sources, where those sources are verifiable. Now, we can't decide whether or not a source is correct - other sources may do that and our articles should reflect this. As long as a source is reliable and verifiable (as defined in those policies), we ought to include what's in it - regardless of what we think about its content. To allow our feelings in this regard to come into play would violate the neutral point of view and no original research policies.
Ultimately, it is our job to report on the sources - not to decide on the truth, or the content of the sources. Martinp23 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the sources are the issue, are they not? I am watching with interest to see when Kingsley Miller will adduce sources to support his views about Bowlby's role and about monotropy, but so far I see only wool, garden paths, and now flagpoles. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
How are mediators to proceed if they are not provided with sources relied upon but simply accused of insufficient knowledge or of being duped? Fainites 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly. At this point, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs)'s claims have so far been unsubstantiated with proof. Furthermore, this editor's contributions to this talk page have primarily revolved around accusation of motive (i.e., bad faith) statements and critique over mediation as a whole (, , ). I've created multiple opportunities (arguably more than most mediation cases) for everyone to better demonstrate their views, including multiple tables that request secondary sources; and, as of this writing the only two people who have taken advantage of these opportunities are Fainites (talk · contribs) (, , , ) and Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) (, ).
So, if KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs) chooses not to address the issues at hand by simply citing his arguments and verifying them as requested numerous times, the only choice left for any other mediator would be to default to what can be sourced— and it appears that so far this dispute's resolution would come down to much of what Fainites (talk · contribs) and Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) have provided as possible resolutions. --slakr 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Seddon,
Unfortunately this is the problem! We need somebody who is an 'authority' on the subject. My argument is that Fainites and Jean Mercer have already 'duped' several mediators acting in good faith. Fainites is acting as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer and her work is flawed because she was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work. Many thanks for the kind offer.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I reordered this to maintain some form of chronological order and to keep similar threads together. As a side note, I'm not really sure how I got roped into this section header, but I think that this is starting to sound like axegrinding. You can only claim conspiracy so many times. — HelloAnnyong 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong,

You are included in this section because you have been 'duped' by Fainites. You were in dialogue with Fainites and he or she deliberately tied you up in knots. The example is given below. (You don't seem to read the edits).

All,

I do not accept Jean Mercer is a reliable 'authority' on the subject of 'attachment theory' or the work of John Bowlby. Until my intervention she was totally unaware of the controversy surrounding the work of Bowlby indeed her references to him on this page show that she still believes he was a 'great' man. Jean Mercer is living in a 'time warp' because Bowlby's ideas conform to her own about parenting.

Also I find the suggestion by Martinp23 that Misplaced Pages should publish material that is incorrect or wrong, totally unacceptable even if it comes from so called reliable secondary sources.

For the reasons given above I suggest the page called 'attachment theory' should be deleted as Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle for Jean Mercer to publish her own ideas about Bowlby.

(For those interested here is a link to a John Bowlby article written in 1986 in which he describes his contribution to Child Psychology - LINK)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fainites,

The page on 'attachment theory' relies on the following source;-

^ a b c d e f g h i Prior V and Glaser D (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, RCPRTU. ISBN 978-1-84310-245-8 (pbk).

I wish to find these references in my University library and I would like to know which article from this publication you are citing and where? In the context of this discussion I would appreciate a plain answer. KingsleyMiller (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never give you anything but a plain answer Kingsley. Just not necessarily as blunt as I would like. The book is fully cited in the refs, complete with ISBN, publisher etc. Its a book not an article. Thats why it has an ISBN number and does not say 'Eds' in the ref. Its published by the Royal College of Psychiatry Research and Training Unit. Its part of a series who's purpose is to set out the most up-to-date thinking and evidence based research/developments on a series of topics for practitioners, professionals and, presumably, reasonably intelligent lay people. Unfortunately I can't give you page numbers right now as my copy has gone walkabout but the relevent parts are easy to find. When I find my copy my plan is to alter the method of reffing to show page numbers as was done here .Fainites 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we perhaps collectively endeavour to keep this discussion readable, by using indentation properly? Kingsley, mine was not a suggestion but a summary of the policies in this area. If you disagree with them, then the appropriate place to argue your cause is on the policies' talk pages, not in a mediation. The job of the miedation would be to determine which sources should be used, not to impose what is, whether right or wrong, one's own view on an article. Thanks, Martinp23 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To put it cynically, Kingsley, you are looking for a mediator who has the "knowledge" that he'd take your side in the dispute. A biased mediator cannot mediate and find a mutually acceptable solution, and if you're not prepared to follow the proper route for mediation, ie a neutral mediator finding a compromise, then mediation will not work. ArbCom will not hear the case because it's a content dispute, so you're back at step one. I strongly suggest you think about where this is going and consider changing your stance. Martinp23 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Martinp23 - Swearing

I am not happy with your swearing. I shall report this to an administrator in the hope of having you removed from the discussion.KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The point still stands. This page is now 110KB in size and you still don't have a mediator, and I'm suggesting you prioritise yourselves to finding a mediator rather than continuing to partake in what has descended into a mudslinging match. I'd like to see this dispute resolved, but it ain't gonna happen unless various people get their acts together. Martinp23 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Kingsley, Martin is an admin. People have limits, and I guess Martin is at his. He's also on MedCom, but really. You seem to reject any mediator that offers their help, so I'm not suprised he's at his limit. So, either decide on a mediator, or the case will be closed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not censored. We can swear if he likes. I like to swear myself. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how what I know or don't know is either accessible to KM or relevant to this discussion --neither is his view of me as authoritative or otherwise a relevant point. Fewer personalities, more sources, please! Jean Mercer (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I found Martinp23's comments a refreshing change from faintly veiled personal attacks. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Slakr had started on the mediation by trying to refine the issues. I haven't taken part in a mediation before (not one that's got of the ground anyway) so I'm not sure of the procedure. If it helps - I'm OK with any of you guys, and indeed would be impressed by your willingness to pick up this poisoned chalice. Fainites 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that we need to move on already. Let's forget what just happened :) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't blame you Steve. So is Slakr the mediator then or his he just trying to set it up for mediation? Fainites 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Pity. I thought he was. He seemed to be getting to grips with things. Fainites 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved what seems to be some mediation discussion (not administrative) to the talk page Martinp23 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A question: What happens if no mediator picks up the case? Do Fainites and Kingsley just return to the article page and keep reverting each other? — HelloAnnyong 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I imagine so, or an admin will intervene and bang heads together :) Martinp23 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thats all very easy for you to say, but what is an editor to do when someone will not provide or discuss sources and simply assumes bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them? Why should editors who do provide sources, edit productively and attempt to discuss on the talkpage have their heads banged with anybody? Kingsley has consistently accused me and JeanMercer of bad faith and sought sanctions from ArbCom and admins since the day I first disagreed with him, to no avail. Anybody who does not see things from his point of view is seen as a dupe or sap, including all of you. What on earth good do you think banging heads together will do? And, by the way, there have not been revert wars. Fainites 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Martin. I'm not cross with you. Just mildly despairing. Fainites 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. It is easy for me to say, but I do know where you're coming from, and I know of this sort of dispute, and there will be a solution, somewhere. This may require admin intervention (blocks, protections, probations). Mediation is best because the participants, if they feel they've come to a solution themselves (which they have!) will be more likely to accept it. Admin actions tend to cause Drama, hence the preference I show to exhausting all the mediation routes before looking to "harsher" meothds of dispute resolution. Martinp23 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A break

A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Done that? Right, let's carry on. Martinp23 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediator

Here's how mediation works - one or more people will volunteer their time to help you to resolve this dispute. You are asked to accept or reject these mediators. I would suggest that the done thing in this case would be to just be happy with whatever you get. The mediation would then commence elsewhere.

If anyone would like to volunteer to become a mediator, please note their names below.

  1. 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (User:Seddon) I am currently only mediating one other case and that is for the mediation committee (though im not on the medcom). I am in all other aspects available to take on another mediation. ŠξÞÞøΛ 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Endorse fully. While I think you're insane to take on this case Seddon, I think your bravery should be commended. Best of luck, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. If Seddon would like a second pair of eyes I would be willing to help out, too. Neıl 龱 11:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes-- thank you, Neil. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the volunteers

Parties should note their acceptance of a mediator here.

Now, let's try to keep things here nice and calm and relaxed while we find a mediator. Tangential discussion may be best placed on the talk page, and I will move comments which seem irrelevant there to keep things clean. Similarly, I may refactor comments if it will keep the discussion moving.

So, now the task is to wait until a mediator turns up! Martinp23 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seddon

Question for KingsleyMiller

Kingsley, are you happy with Seddon and myself mediating this dispute? If you indicate this is acceptable to you, we can proceed. Neıl 龱 17:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, Sorry to be a pain but I have made a formal complaint against an Administrator who has contributed to this page.
I want to see how this matter is resolved before moving on.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Do you know who Professor Sir Michael Rutter is?
If I may be so bold... I have apologised to you twice now. What further resolution would you like? I am honestly deeply dismayed that my words have been mis-construed and caused the drama we see now. All that I have wanted from the start is for this mediation to get started.. Alas. Martinp23 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems you got your wish, Martin. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To Kingsley - Martin has apologised, and I'm sure he will refrain from such language in future. At this point, that is all that is appropriate (speaking as both someone trying to mediate this, and as an experienced administrator on Misplaced Pages), and I hope you will accept Martin's apology and move on. I would like us all to start addressing the actual dispute relating to attachment theory, if possible.
PS - Professor Sir Michael Rutter is a leading child psychologist. Neıl 龱 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration's ended. They declined to accept it. Now, shall we spend our declining years making complaints about all the breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on these pages - or shall we just get on with mediating? Fainites 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the page

Can somebody tell me what has happened to the rest of the page.

Where have the contributions I made yesterday gone?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page. Martinp23 09:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the page2

Where has my copy of the complaint gone?

Other people should be aware of what is going on and may also wish to contribute.

Can somebody tell me what the rule is regarding removing other peoples contributions? KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the talk page as well. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Let's keep the discussion on topic, the mediation. Shall we? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Request for Kingsley

I have asked KingsleyMiller on his talk page to now engage in the mediation process he initiated. It is unfair to the other editors (who have all, I believe, agreed to participate) for this issue to drag on, and so if by (say) Tuesday of next week, Kingsley has not agreed to start the mediation process, it will be closed, and other dispute remedies assessed. Neıl 龱 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's now Tuesday, and Kingsley has not responded. I will check back again tomorrow. Neıl 龱 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kingsley has indicated on Talk:Attachment theory#Mediation that he wishes to consider the situation carefully. We shall give this a few more days. Neıl 龱 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been several days now. What's going on with this case? — HelloAnnyong 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for extending the deadline (The following remarks also appear on my user page.

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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) 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Closed

Due to one party choosing not engage in the process, this mediation must close. Thank you to all for participating. Neıl 龱 13:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. What happens now? Do the related articles just go back to being edit wars? Articles like Michael Rutter are still a huge mess. — HelloAnnyong 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If it is impossible to achieve a consensus on the talk page, there are a few potential next stages in the dispute resolution process - a request for comment, a third opinion, or, failing both of these, arbitration (although the Arbitration Committee will only take on cases where all other attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted and have been unsuccessful, and address editor conduct, not content. Neıl 龱 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was the 3O on that page; we tried a request to the Psych wikiproject (here). I suppose we could do an RFC for science, but I'm not sure how far that's gonna go. I was really hoping this medcab would have worked... — HelloAnnyong 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We've actually tried two 3PO's and referrals to sources noticeboards to no avail. RfC's on the more obscure psychology topics generally get no response. The Psychology Project never responds to requests for assistance on these topics. Kingsley has also tried complaining about me to a variety of admins, and sought arbitration to have us banned. Discussions on talkpages look much the same, take a similar course and achieve much the same results as this mediation. No wonder there are virtually no psychologists or psychiatrists actively editing. Plus ca change.Fainites 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that MedCab seems to be the highest level of DR that will handle content disputes, and... this case just got tossed out. At that point, I'm not sure there's much else that can be done aside from letting the page turn into such chaos that it needs to go higher up to ArbCom due to editor conduct. — HelloAnnyong 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As best I can tell, there is one simple solution that would resolve this. However, I'm not sure I can justify it at present without some homework, but I won't let this go unresolved. To aid me, I am aware of three articles that are the focus of this mess (John Bowlby, Michael Rutter, and Attachment theory) - are there any others? Neıl 龱 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The other one was Maternal deprivation. In fact - the maternal deprivation talkpage is a sort of potted version of the whole dispute. Before that there was a run in between Kingsley Miller and an editor called Mrvain68 on the talkpages of Attachment in children and a bit on Attachment measures. The latter two were just before Kingsley and I 'fell out' as it were and it then went onto the maternal deprivation page. Discussions also spread over the talkpages of me, Kingsley and JeanMercer. You can also see on the various pages copies of complaints Kingsley has made. Fainites 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The only decent solution I have come up with is a little extreme. I have made a post on the administrators' noticeboard - WP:AN#Advice please - asking for some other administrators to chip in; perhaps they can suggest alternatives. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on it. Neıl 龱 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeez... sorry this had to end that way. — HelloAnnyong 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Category: