COPY
MORE ATTACHMENT! edit
Dear Fainties,
You have a very good feel for the subject and the changes you have made are a vast improvement.
If you take a look at the pages I have created on 'maternal deprivation' and 'Professor Sir Michael Rutter' I have identified major differences with the Attachment theory.
Although you may not believe others no longer think in terms of MD part of the problem you have found in keeping track of the changes to these pages is that many people still do - please take my word for it.
What is more is that they believe they are the same thing ie mothers are naturally better parents than fathers.
Thank you for your interest
KingsleyMiller 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) KingsleyMiller 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
PS I have also just completed a page on the Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents, not without its hicups!
ACT and IRS form 990 edit
I notice that in your description you make no mention of your being a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy and I was wondering why not since it is such a major component of your professional career (promotes your books and articles and positions and views and such)?
Oh, also, on another subject, I'd asked you for a copy of your group's IRS form 990 and have not yet received a copy. Many organizations actually post theirs on their website. 69.204.15.239
What description? Fainites barley 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
IP Address Location IP Address 69.204.15.239 City AKRON State or Region NEW YORK Country UNITED STATES ISP ROAD RUNNER HOLDCO LLC.
just outside buffalo NY. The scary thing is that Wiedman is a licensed psychologist. creepy to think that people are going to him and paying him money. of course much comes from the taxpayers. here is an anonymous person demanding info. can you spell nutjob?
maybe if he would say who he is you would reply to him directly. FatherTree 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Becker-Weidman is licensed as a clinical social worker, with a designation that makes him third-party payable. (I'm not sure how this jibes with his description of himself as a scientist on his user page.) And I know who he is, and have told him several times that I do no administrative work at ACT and don't have a copy of this form. I forwarded his request to the executive director the first time I received it. Since he brought up the subject, though, I've become quite curious about his center and whether it's incorporated for-profit or not. This point is relevant to disclosure of financial interests, as we've discussed here ad infinitum.
If I recall correctly from administering a different non-profit (i.e. not ACT), the 990 needs to be filed yearly only if an income of more than $25,000 a year is occurring. So there may not even be a recent form in anyone's hands. But Becker-Weidman may have the IRS on his mind since a colleague of his recently had quite a bit of trouble along this line.Jean Mercer 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Maternal Deprivation edit
Dear Jean,
Thank you for your comment regarding 'Deprivation of Maternal Care. A Reassessment of its effects' which I believe goes a long way to explaining my complaint.
I should like to take this opportunity to outline how I think things have gone wrong, with a copy to Doug, an independent editor, who I have enlisted to help.
It is clear from your comment regarding the above work that you are not really aware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's writings.
Let me make it clear that you are not alone. A great number of people come to the subject of 'attachment' through the work of Bowlby. Not surprisingly a great number of institutions use his 'Attachment and Loss' trilogy to teach about the subject. But what a great number of these people do not realize is that the trilogy would not have been possible without his earlier work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' which went on to be a best seller. Even if they have heard of this book they assume it contains basically the same ideas as his later works. These individuals for the sake of this discussion belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology. They have no reason to question their teachers or the work of Bowlby. In fact their opinion is reinforced by the governments of the day which adopted Bowlby's earlier ideas as social policy. This is a know fact which you will need to check for yourself if you are not aware of the controversy.
So what is the problem?
The problem lies in the fact that the significance of 'Deprivation of Maternal Care' is that it shows that the research community was not happy with Bowlby's initial theories so much so that he had to change his ideas. You do not understand this fact because you have altered the definition of 'monotropy' to a 'small number of people' on the Wikipedia page on 'Maternal Deprivation'. But part of the original controversy was precisely about this issue. What you have tried to do is 'iron out' an aspect of Bowlby's work that everybody else found controversial in the first place.
Why have you vandalized the page in this way?
You have vandalized the page because you are not aware of the controversy in the first place. You do not know about it because you belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology. How can I be sure of this?
Because in your other posting you also query how Bowlby "diffused" the theory of 'maternal deprivation' into the 'attachment theory'. If you knew about the controversy you would know this is the accepted explanation of how Bowlby 'reformed' to become an accepted part of the academic community. This is how Rutter describes the process.
I have had a look at your books and it is clear Fanities knows even less than you about this controversy. However his 'speakers' are working and he has seen and heard my video clips. Therefore he has used every trick in the book to try and stop my voice being heard in Wikipedia, so I have enlisted Doug's help.
There are many people who belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology who would like to see him crowned 'father of the attachment theory'. But as my latest video clip on YouTube called 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' shows he was proud of the theory of 'maternal deprivation' and never claimed to be the 'father of the attachment theory'.
I knew nothing about you before coming to Wikipedia. But it is because there are many people like you that I put up the page called 'Maternal Deprivation' on Wikipedia.
Fanities relies upon your criticisms of me to make his edits. If you check my sources and see what I am saying is true I should be grateful if you would distance yourself from Fanities. With the help of Doug I want to restore the damage you and Fanities have done to these pages. If you intend to continue editing these pages I will be forced to take my complaint against yourself further.
(Please see Fanities latest comment on and edit to the section on Maternal Deprivation in John Bowlby).
KingsleyMiller (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)kip