Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Capture-bonding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
State: Closed

Requested By: Sadi Carnot 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediated By: Jehochman (talk · contribs)
Comments: Keith Henson is no longer able to participate



Contents

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

  • User:Hkhenson - someone who wrote a 2002 article on capture bonding, and feels he is the expert on the subject.
  • User:Sadi Carnot - someone who is trying to clean and organize all the related articles on human bonding.

[edit] What's going on?

In short, Keith Henson, i.e. User:Hkhenson, started the article in 2005 with a paste from a 2002 article he wrote. He feels he is the expert on this subject and will not let other views go into the article. The talk page summarizes the situation.

Admin comment. There appears to be a content dispute as to what constitutes Capture-bonding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which has lead to repeated reverting between Hkhenson (talk · contribs), who prefers an article based mainly on his own publications, and Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs), who prefers a version with a wider base of source material. The revert war has the effect of preventing improvement of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a biased view of the situation and that Sadi's "improvements" have been making a confused mess of a simple concept. I stand on my comments on the talk page and in addition would appreciate User:Sadi Carnot being asked not to delete white space or otherwise edit other posters comments on talk pages as discussed at User_talk:Hkhenson. Keith Henson 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

Mediation Cabal, please review the situation at article capture-bonding and give your opinion.

[edit] Mediator response

Both parties, please confirm here whether you will accept my services as mediator. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you know or are willing to learn the basics of evolutionary psychology I accept. It's a terminology dispute. Keith Henson 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am not familiar with the topic, but I am a fast study. The only commitment I make is to listen to what both of you have to say, and give my suggestions for how to resolve the dispute.
I note that you have written yourself into the article, which immediately raises a conflict of interest concern. As a mediator, I do not take sides in your dispute. However, I am not required to turn a blind eye to violations of Wikipedia policy. In this case the proper response may eventually be my filing a report on the conflict of interest notice board. Before doing that, I invite you to read the COI guideline. The other editor's participation and review of your work may actually be a good thing because that can help maintain neutral point of view, if you are open to working together. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 10:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accept your services as a mediator and thank you ahead of time for your help. --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sadi Carnot, in what ways would you like to change this article? Can you explain the desired changes succinctly, and also say why you think this would make the article better. Also, do you have any possible conflicts of interest here? I am very keen to know if you have any outside motivations that would prevent you from evaluating Mr. Henson's published works in a neutral way. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I am publishing a new 500-page textbook, in the next two months, on human chemistry, and the twelfth chapter is on the topic of human chemical bonding. Because of this, over the years I have read nearly every book available on the topic of human bonding (which also is an article that I wrote, that several people have nominated for FA status). As to conflicts of interest, I learned early on in Wikipedia that incorporating your own research into articles is a no-no; you can read through the lengthy list of all the articles I’ve contributed to Wikipedia to verify my point.
My conflict of interest in capture bonding, is that I am getting reverted when I add material from straight-up, published, verifiable, references, from multiple sources. This is where the conflict is. This is not the type of behavior we tolerate at Wikipedia, at least according to the rules I am used to at Wikipedia. In short, I want you to compare this version (4,541 bytes), where Henson is the primary source, with this version (18,551 bytes), where the old version is included verbatim (although I only did this recently to appease Henson, to no avail) with the incorporation of multiple sources that I added to make the article more encyclopedic. Then, in your judgmental opinion, explain to us if I am doing wrong by adding new material or if Henson is in the wrong for his efforts in a continual two-year period of reverts. That’s all I want. Henson thinks he is in the right; hence we need an outside 3rd party to judge in the case Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not here to take sides. I am here to help you two to understand each other. Should we consider getting more editors involved in this article? I find that doing only part of a job is a way to build consensus. Since Mr. Henson is apparently a source, it seems logical that he should have the help of independent parties to judge whether his material belongs in the article. What do you both think about that? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the help of independent parties should judge what belongs in the article. I have posted about five different Rfc's now. The problem is that the article, being obscure, is not drawing many editors to it. To compound the issue, Henson only wants his views in the article and has reverted every person who has attempted to modify the article. --Sadi Carnot 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

I don't mind more editors being involved. The article as it is presently displayed is a confusing mess, like a mix of planetary science and astrology. It is not "encyclopedic" to stuff a simple concept with unrelated material. Capture-bonding (with the hyphan) is simple concept out of evolutionary psychology, of evolved mental mechanisms that are activated by the stress of being abducted.

Sadi brings in material completely unrelated to evolutionary psychology if "capture" and "bond" occure in the same paragraph. Capture-bonding as an evolutionary psychology term is not related to abnormal psychology and has nothing to do with John Money's work who opposed the ideas of evolutionary psychology all of his life. Capture-bonding is either an evolutionary psychology concept or it is a concept of the anti-evolutionary psychology of John Money. It can't be both. One or the other should be cleaned out of the article. I am not arguing for either, only for a consistent article. P.S. to see how the term is commonly used, Google finds 9,630 for "capture-bonding" -henson Keith Henson 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Henson, thus far I have added referenced views on capture bonding from abnormal psychology, business psychology, battered-women syndrome, cases of animal capture bonding from animal psychology, evolutionary psychology views, modern college student abduction views of capture bonding, and you have reverted all of these sourced additions. In Wikipedia, we put all related topics in one article, divided by headers, until that point at which the article becomes too long, and then we divide it into subtopics. This is the point you are confused about. --Sadi Carnot 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the article can't present both points of view, with pro and con references? Our readers are able to weight the evidence and decide the truth for themselves, no? Wikipedia should present all points of view, in proportion to their prevalence in published, reliable sources. I'd like to see both of you stop removing or reverting each other's contributions. If either of you think that the other is pushing pseudoscience, try to find a reliable source that says so, and cite it. Try to get more editors involved. Also, consider adding this article to appropriate categories so it gains more visibility. Add any relevant maintenance tags, because that can bring in more editors. With two editors disagreeing in good faith, there is no way to create consensus. If you can get 10 editors to participate, that would make things much easier. Does that sound like a workable plan? Jehochman
Again, I agree. However, over the year I have requested for editor help and comment at at least 4 project pages, two admin pages, and several others. Help is hard to find. Also, since 2005, Henson has not contributed one paragraph to this article. All of his edits are to revert or argue on the talk page. My point is that if I find I published source, however unrelated Henson may think it is, it gets inclusion into the article. Henson doesn’t get this point? --Sadi Carnot 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a pro and con issue. A pro and con issue in an article would work just fine, for example in the difference between moving cables vs climbers for space elevators. But John Money's idea of bonds is as unrelated to an evolutionary psychology approach as cheese is from chalk. And if you Google for capture-bonding virtually all of the hits on that combination (except for Sadi's edits) are in an evolutionary psychology context. Google finds 4 association between "John Money" and "capture-bonding" and it looks like every one of them is due to Sadi. As for Sadi pushing John Money's theories, just read the article about Money and the one about David Reimer. Money's work may have been his honest belief, but his beliefs did huge damage to people because (as we know now) they were just wrong. Gender is *not* the result of socialization. And Money *never* used the term capture-bonding. I have left the article in Sadi's messed up state. Even though the EP concept of capture-bonding isn't my idea (it was John Tooby's) I have done a lot of popularizing of it. I am reluctant to delete the incompatible nonsense for that reason. If this does not have a resolution, perhaps we should just put the article up for deletion and let people use Google if they want to find out how the term is usually used. Keith Henson 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not required to represent fringe views in an article. Four out of 8,000 Google hits, all attributable to a single source, would definitely be a fringe view. I can't make this decision, but perhaps you both can come to an agreement. If you can't then maybe you can place a notice on the article talk page, Keith, suggesting that editors look at that material and determine whether it is a fringe view that doesn't belong in the article. In my view, the only ways to resolve this are if you both come to an agreement, or if you attract more editors. How about listing this article on request for comment and we'll see what other editors have to say? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

I have already done an RFC at that location and several other RFC's as well. We need you to mediate this case, either clearly tell Henson is wrong for reverting published views that he doesn’t agree with or tell me that I am wrong for adding published views. This argument has gone on for over a year now and a few editors have stated their opinions on Talk:Capture-bonding. That’s all I am asking for in mediation. Please decide in this matter for us. --Sadi Carnot 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What if both of you take a break from editing this article and see if some other editors decide to become involved? Maybe the tension here is discouraging other editors. It's just one Wikipedia article. There are so many others articles that need help. As you mentioned help is hard to find. Maybe you should offer help to others who seek it. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. I would very much like to take a long break from this article and leave it in its current form. The problem is that Henson wants to leave it in this form, a version from 2005, where he is the sole author. He has reverted multiple editors to keep it at this version. This is where the problem lies. He wants to revert back presently. This is where your mediation would be helpful. --Sadi Carnot 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Found new reference

I just found a passage from Money’s Love and Lovesickness book that the idea for the term capture bonding stems from a 1972 conversation between John Money and Margaret Mead in an elevator in a hotel in Stockholm. They had just finished working on a subcommittee report for a conference they were attending, one of a series on stress. They decided at that point that one of them would have to write a book on the subject.

In the following year, the famous six-day Stockholm bank robbery occurred, i.e. the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.

Influenced by this event, Money eventually wrote two books about abnormal bonds based on this theory of psychological stress capture resulting in the formation of a bond. Now these are direct quotes out of a published book. The problem is the Henson doesn’t want to buy this picture. He thinks he is the originator of the concept from unpublished ideas stemming from his associate John Tooby. In this webpage, for example, Henson claims “Until I proposed capture-bonding it had been a completely unexplained slice of weirdness.” The above section obvious disproves Henson's comments.

Would you please explain to Henson that his reverts cannot continue. Here, for example, is a referenced definition of "Capture bond, based on Money’s theories, verbatim right out of a new 2006 book. Henson reverted this like everything else, without even so much as an edit summary comment. From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself.

Henson is obviously trying to promote himself to the exclusion of anything he finds objectionable. --Sadi Carnot 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First I object to Sadi's extremely rude behavior of editing out white space on this page. Editing out white space can change the meaning no less than changing words. Sadi did it to Jehochman's comments as well. I have previously quoted to Sadi the Wikipedia page where white space is recommended. "Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line)." Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines No matter how the ruling comes down on capture-bonding, I think Sadi should asked to quit messing with other people's postings.
Sadi failed to comprehend the Usenet posting webpage. "My informant was scared and utterly awed at the emotional excesses demonstrated by the rest of the crowd. Until I proposed capture-bonding it had been a completely unexplained slice of weirdness. *After* EST, my informant was in scientology for a time. While there my informant . . . "
It should be clear that "I proposed" was in the context of a conversation. I was offering a tentative explanation to the person about what had he had witnessed in his life, in the same way I would propose a hole as the cause of a flat tire without laying claim to the idea of holes. (Though in fact I did propose an EP explanation for the mechanism that causes Stockholm syndrome and took credit for it until I found that John Tooby had discussed it with others 15 years previously.)
If Sadi wants to put up a page on "capture bond," tie it to abnormal psychology, and quote John Money that's just fine. But I see no reason for him to insist on adding unrelated material to a simple and fairly widely understood *evolutionary psychology* concept. Keith Henson 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As for my editing of your comments, Wikipedians like reading comments written in the form of paragraphs not sentences. It is mentally and visually easier to keep track of who is saying what. Second, talk pages become lengthy fast; it is good to keep discussions tight rather than spread out (as you have just done).
As to your suggestion, I will tentatively agree with that, namely dividing the page in two: capture bonding (evolutionary psychology) and capture bonding (abnormal psychology), if you can find one published source other than your 2002 article that uses the term capture bonding in an evolutionary psychology. If not, I don’t see how your one article justifies a full stand-alone Wikipedia article. I can find the term bride capture for example in Ellis, Bruce J. and David F. Bjorklund’s 2005 book Origins Of The Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology And Child Development as well as the statement “In nature and in captivity, the capture of a locust elicits intense begging and sharing” in Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby’s 1992 book The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. --Sadi Carnot 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should not create point of view forks (two articles with different POV). Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Resolution

I have added a few categories to the article to help attract more attention. The article seems to contain both of your points of view, and it's been tagged appropriately to indicate that accuracy is in dispute, and that it may contain unverified original research. I suggest that you both go work on other things, and leave this article for other editors to repair. If you agree to do that, I will go find some administrator trainees and ask them to work on the article. I assure you that these people will be completely neutral and have no connection to either disputant. How does that sound? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a possible option as well as what you mention above, namely making capture-bonding into a disambig page. Although, I am not necessarily in favor of splitting a page that will invariably force someone in the future to put merge tags on separated obviously related pages; it may function, temporarily, to appease Henson and to thus end his reverts. In this manner, knowing that Henson doesn't necessarily like to contribute text, I would volunteer to do the break-up of the article, each with a separate history section, one stemming from Tooby and the other from Money. This might eliminate the tension, thus letting the article grow separately? What do we think? --Sadi Carnot 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sadi, I think you misunderstand. We should not create two articles. That's called a point of view fork, which is discouraged. Instead, I propose that we have one article that includes both points of view, with references, and we let other editors decide whether all the material belongs or not. As I said before, an article can contain multiple points of view, but fringe views may be deleted. The three of us here can't decide what is a fringe view. We can agree to leave all the content in the article and step back so other editors can participate. How does that sound? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as you can get some admins in training to do it; if not I doubt anyone will edit it, which might lead back to a revert war. Also, make sure they incorporate the above history section about Money in the Stockholm elevator in 1972 and how he visualized the idea of developing the Stockholm-syndrome concept of capture bonding in abnormal relationships, such as wife-beaters or kidnapping. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Hkhenson will be offline for at least a few days. I suggest we pause until he returns. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
To note, here and here are a few third party comments on this matter. --Sadi Carnot 17:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Please continue to maintain civility and be helpful in any way you can. User:Hkhenson is a member of the community. His opinion should always be given full and fair consideration on issues that are important to him. I hope he will accept the proposed resolution. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. Whatever happened to Henson? Maybe he was capture-bonded? --Sadi Carnot 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
According to news reports, he was taken into custody by authorities for an outstanding warrant. This appeared on Slashdot.[1] Please try to be kind to him. I imagine this must be very stressful. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well in my opinion, a person’s personal matters are their own business. As far as Wikipedia goes, we are here to build articles; hence, reverting without compromise for months on end doesn’t help things. Anyway, I guess we’ll let the issue sit for awhile. Thanks for your mediation efforts thus far. --Sadi Carnot 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson will not be able to respond for about six months, I believe, therefore I am closing this one. Please be respectful of his contributions to this article. Thank you, Sadi, for your good cooperation. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank-you. I'm not for sure that we accomplished anything, but thanks for your help. --Sadi Carnot 19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes