Talk:Human bonding

message: Anyone else find this article specious, jejune and even offensive to human beings and other mammals? The bond between a mother and child, for example, which peaks about a year after weaning, is a passion so intense that everyone knows to steer clear of an animal with cubs to protect. But all the reader gets is a lecture on feeding choices? I've read a lot of Wikipedia for a lot of reasons, and it ranges from numb-skulled-but-I'd-love-to-see-what-word-they-use-over-on-the-German-side to brilliant. This, I'm sorry to say, tells us nothing and bears no resemblance to the world I've lived in for 50 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.233.58 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive?

message: Anyone else think this should be nominated as a Featured Article? 80.47.85.202 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.CerealBabyMilk 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for the nod of encouragement.  I favor this suggestion as well.  I was the one that started and wrote the majority of this article; however, I also recently started a similar article: interpersonal chemistry, which one would be a better FA nomination? --Sadi Carnot 09:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this article seems messy and unstructured. I went in there looking for information about bonds between parents and their children, or people in sexual relationships, and had to scroll through a lot of unrelated information before I found (a bit) of what I was looking for Totorotroll (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article?

message: Owing to the above comments, I will request a peer review: --Sadi Carnot 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: I received these comments via email, from contributor Lynn Liss, and added them below. --Sadi Carnot 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on Human Bonding article

message: First, I want to give kudos to Sadi Carnot who (as I easily discerned from looking at the edit history) has contributed so much work to creating a very comprehensive and informative article. I was looking to find what editor had added the section on "Human-insect bond", assuming correctly that it had been added recently -- but assuming incorrectly (oh, well...) that it was added by someone who had no other connection to the article. 
The first time I read through the article about 10 days ago, I was a bit taken aback when I first saw that section, but I was focused on other issues at the time, and didn't give it a lot of serious thought. But I've been back 2 or 3 times subsequently, and this time I have given it serious thought. 
In a nutshell, I simply do not see how a supposed "bond" between humans and insects can even exist, much less be put on a par with human-animal bonds, which unquestionably do exist in the cases of mammals and some species of birds.  I think that using the word "bond" in connection with insects is a serious misuse of the concept. How can there possibly be an actual bond between a human being and a non-sentient creature which lacks a developed brain? -- I'm not aware of any insect which has more than large nerve ganglia, at best.
I'm also not impressed by the fact that two entomologists have written a book apparently promoting the idea. Whatever "attachment" or fixation a person might have for an insect, it certainly doesn't amount to what could properly be considered a real bond. Moreover, if you google the term "Human-insect bond" it gets exactly ONE hit -- for this very Wikipedia article! :) -- whereas, the term "Human-animal bond" gets many thousands of hits.
I really think inclusion of this section detracts from and hurts the credibility of the rest of the article. So the bottom-line here is, I strongly urge that this section be deleted. (I was seriously tempted to remove it myself -- but that's a very un-collegial way to proceed, so I decided to broach the issue here first.) The material is not without interest; perhaps it could be moved to a more suitable location (minus the term "Human-insect bond") -- possibly here: Insect#Roles in the environment and human society. Hopefully I've persuaded you of my POV on this, fellow editors. Let me know what you think. Cgingold 13:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly see your point; it is a marginal topic and I suppose if enough people object to it we can certainly remove it.  On the other hand, it is a published view and I’m sure there are people out there who will agree that they have a strong bond to their hissing cockroach, ant farm, or moths, e.g. Silence of the Lambs, etc.  Likewise, there are probably a few scientists out there who discuss synergistic bonds between humans and bacteria, such as those that live naturally on our skin.  So, although these bottom sections need more work, I don’t think the whole article should be exclusively man-woman bonding.  We’ll have to see what others think? --Sadi Carnot 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bug bonding thing ought to be removed. People who collect insects, alive or dead, are revealing an interest or hobby they have and not a social bond. One may love their bug collection like they love their house or car, and some guys speak of bonding to their cars, but this is overstatement. Social bonds exist between people and between people and their pets. With pets there must be a meaningful emotional connection...it would be hard to truly bond with an ant farm.209.29.81.58 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the Human-insect bond section. The section was clearly not-notable, despite being a published viewpoint. The creator and defender of this section Sadi Carnot is known to have introduced many not-notable and questionably referenced topics (sometimes with his own self-published non-peer reviewed works) despite having contributed prolifically and often accurately in other areas. For those actively involved in this article I suggest that his contributions be carefully reviewed with a reasonable level of skepticism but probably not dismissed wholesale.--Nick Y. 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: the "Human-insect bond" 

message: As there is an article for male bonding, anyone want to help start up an opposite article? Obviously there are unique properties between girlfriends, sisters, mother-daughter, etc. Both the positives and negatives. Tyciol 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work Tyciol, I'll chip in a little with a few sources, external link articles, etc. --Sadi Carnot 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Female bonding]]?

message: Human bonding#Neurochemistry says the main article is Love (scientific views), while that very article, under Biological Theories/Chemical love: attraction and attachment, says that "Neurochemistry of bonding" -that very part of Human bonding- is the main article. They are referring to eachother as the main article. I'm posting this on both talk pages, in hope someone can figure it out and clean it up. Cheers and happy editting! - JackSparrow Ninja 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it from "see main" to "see also". --Sadi Carnot 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double reference error 

message: Wikipedia might need an article on this subject, but not this one.  Delete the whole thing and start over is my suggestion.  Keith Henson 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete and start over 

message: I have never read so much rubbish in all my life.
This page represents a feminist point of view dressed up with philosophy and science. Please go to the pages on John Bowlby, Maternal deprivation and the work of Professor Sir Michael Rutter to read an accurate account of bonding. (I have also produced 2 video clips called Bonding The Attachment Theory and Bonding The Attachment Theory - New Perspectives, available on YouTube). I could not agree more with the above comment 'Delete and start over'.
Kingsley Miller 78.146.200.13 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clap Trap 

message: My apologies to anybody I may have offended but what is written here and elsewhere is seriously flawed and damaging. I have e-mailed Wikipedia head office to say that they should be removed but I have received the reply that I should amend them. I have tried to show that these pages are so seriously misguided they should be removed altogether.
PS Thank you for moving my comment to the TALK page. At least somebody is now taking notice!
Kingsley Miller
It is flawed Kip and could do with a little editing - but its a pretty broad topic and covers more than attachment theory as such. I think it might help to work out just what areas the article is trying to cover. (I'm also puzzled as to why you think this page is feminist by the way. All those women who join the armed forces now they're allowed to would probably have something to say as well!) Fainites barley 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: apologies

message: How new is new? That baby looks to be about 10 months old. 
In any case, the caption is contradictory to the text material. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New mother picture

message: The caption under the image of the nursing mother and child is still contradicted by the text.71.125.130.45 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Breastfeeding

message: It looks like the article has been decimated (actually worse about half the size). We have lost references to most theories proposed on the subject Spinoza,  Goethe, Thomson, Sternberg, Granovetter's Week Ties,  Tennov's Limerence. Basically anything which looks remotely like a theory on the subject. If the edits were a bit more descriminating I'd take it with a little more respect so I'm going to have to revert the lot. --Salix alba (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the revert. I was watching the article, and was surprised by the sudden removal of so much information. Unsourced claims can of course always be removed, but the removed parts included a great number of references so it's not that simple in this case. If any editors think that certain sections are out of place in this article, or that the citations are not from reliable sources, that can certainly be discussed here. But such large-scale deletions of sourced material, in my opinion, really ought to be discussed first. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful of the complaints above from Kingsley Miller (from "claptrap" down to "apologies"). He was indef. banned for WP:POINT, WP:TEN and WP:NPOV a while back. This doesn't mean all his complaints were wrong though. Fainites barley 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimation 

message: I refer to the 'debonding' section.
What is this 'unconscious knowledge' that is being talked about?  OK, I know that Harold Wilson used to be prime minister of the UK, even though I am not chanting the mantra 'Harold  Wilson
used to be prime minister' all the time.  (Thanks to Gilbert Ryle about this.)  But I think something else might be meant here which involves plugging into a Freudian model of mind which requires the subject to be at once aware 
and unconscious of something - i.e. one party is aware of imminent break-up, but is unconscious
of it.  'Aware' and 'unconscious' are contradictions. 
Perhaps this should be written in terms of 'bad faith'.
OK, I know I have an axe to grind on this issue, but so does the author of the section, or else Diane Vaughan herself.
--Publunch (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unconscious knowledge 

message: I have read this work on several occasions, and I am far from certain that its
inclusion is warranted: From the context and article text, the impression is
given that Goethe suggest an at least semi-scientific model for bonding.
My impression from the book, however, is that Goethe merely uses a broad
analogy and that his main object is to have a suitable "literary device".
Unless there are some other references in Goethe's works (in particular his
non-fictional writings) that indicate otherwise and that I am unaware of,
it is likely best to drop the discussion.
88.77.184.157 (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goethe, Elective Affinities 

message: What does Human fit refer to? Jacobisq (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: no a clue. I'm going to remove it.--Dia^ (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: See also: Human fit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human bonding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817120257/http://www.seeingeye.org/aboutUs/?M_ID=88 to http://www.seeingeye.org/aboutUs/?M_ID=88
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified