Talk:Nonviolent Communication

Carl Rogers

Carel Roger is not a famous psychologist, but Carl Rogers is. That doesn't mean I understand whom we mean to refer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.189 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk from 2005

I am noticing a that the last couple of edits revolve around a couple of sentences....

I have added in my own, and I feel somewaht qualified in doing this, I have studied and practiced NVC for years and taught it for two, and at one point was seeking certification throught the International Center for Nonviolent Communication.

"the ideal of Nonviolent Communication is for all people to be use methods that brings pleasure to them and good to humanity as a whole."

I am uncomfortable with this wording for a couple of reasons:

~the ideal is for ALL people to use methods ummm NVC is not concerned with getting everyone to act in a certain way

~use methods that brings pleasure to them pleasure is a loaded word. I prefer enjoyment

~good to humanity as a whole ? please show me some NVC literature that says anything remotely like this.

The NVC ideal in terms of the large picture is (and this is from the website): To create a world in which everyone's needs are met.

The NVC ideal in terms of practical application in the moment is:

1. 1 to stay connected to my own and someone else's feelings and needs.

or

1. 2 how can I get my needs met that doesn't involve co-orcion or violence (which is really the same as #1)

Sethie 23:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cultures

I would like to know which cultures these anthropologists have discovered that do not understand the idea of someone being bad. The0208 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Colin Turnbull's "The Forest People", which is a study of the Mbuti pygmy of the Congo. There have also been many other studies of cultures in which war and violence seem absent. Laurens van der Post reports of the Kalahari San (a.k.a. "Bushmen") who told him, "We had a war once. One person died. It was so horrible we decided never to do it again". You might also like toread Ashley Montagu's book on "The Nature of Human Agression". John D. Croft 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a Peace Program?

Could we get some specifics about the sentence starting: in peace programs in Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Malaysia, Indonesia... What is a peace program in this context? Ashmoo 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NVC is content-neutral

I removed the words "in negative ways" from the sentence "It focuses on clearly expressing observations, feelings, needs and requests to others in a way that avoids diagnostic language or language that labels or defines others in negative ways." As Marshall writes on page 164 in Speak Peace in a World of Conflict, "In Nonviolent Communication we suggest not giving compliments or praise. In my view, telling somebody they did a good job, that they're a kind or competent person ... that's still using moralistic judgments. ... When we're using judgmental words for praise and compliments, it's the same form of language as telling somebody they're unkind, stupid, or selfish." In lieu of compliments and praise, NVC expresses gratitute by saying the specific action that contributed to your well-being, the feelings you have related to it, and the needs which, in being met, gave rise to those feelings. Chira 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

It's ironical that we're experiencing an edit war on such a peaceful article. I left a message on 66.189.62.30 (talk · contribs)'s talk page and offered to mediate this. I know, nobody asked for mediation, and I'm aware of the rules that specify how to deal with such cases, but I'd love to have a chance to practice NVC on the NVC article. Let's see how this turns out! — Sebastian 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, I have a user sub page for talking about how I'm doing with regard to NVC. Please leave a note there! — Sebastian 19:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability Concern

"An editor" has expressed a concern that Nonviolent Communication (NVC) isn't notable. If you are interested in helping cite 'third-party sources about' NVC, feel free to dig through google which returns 159,000 results for this combination of search terms: nonviolent communication marshall rosenberg

-- Besonen 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosenberg has published a number of books on the subject and NVC is taught worldwide. Anyone who does a google search will quickly see that it is, indeed, notable. I'm removing the tag. Sunray 22:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosenberg seems to be of questionable important too. The article must be improved; it is not okay right now. It does not explain its significance. Arbustoo 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Arbustoo, but third party sources seem imopssible to find - which is odd. I have attended a NVC class and found it interesting and appealing - but I can't find any information so far that places NVC in relation to the general topics of conflict resolution, mediation, etc. Without this NVC seems cult-like, which is unfortunate. Whole Sight (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles from the Google News archive: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22nonviolent+communication%22&ie=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Abbe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• I propose moving this page to Nonviolent Communication. The term is service marked [1]. More to the point, although i'm all for it becoming a generic concept, from my experience it is not, and this article certainly isn't. There are Wikipedia articles on many other "name-brand" processes - e.g. Process Oriented Psychology, Open Space Technology, The World Cafe. --John_Abbe (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• I support the move, for the same reason. Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Moves like this are part of what makes people regard this "article" as an advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I appreciate that you don't want the article to be seen as an advertisement; i don't either. I imagine that working to make the content less advertise-y is a better way of achieving this than sticking with an (imho) inaccurate name for the article. There is this thing with a proper name called Nonviolent Communication, and this article is about it. There are quite a few other articles on Wikipedia about things with proper names. --John_Abbe (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia policy on capitalization (WP:CAPS), just as a handy reference. --John_Abbe (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is a difference between (1) Nonviolent Communication as defined here, and (2) nonviolent communication as a generic. E.g. if I ask at a shop for something, and I do not threaten the shopkeeper with bad consequences, then that is (2) even if it is not (1). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Two procedure issues:
  • Anthony, i've noticed you went ahead and changed the name. While this is obviously the outcome that makes sense to me at the moment :-), i was hoping to finish this conversation first so that everyone is really on board with whatever we end up doing and we don't end up with edit wars. So my request is, would people stop changing the name, until we have consensus for a few days? (If it's important to anyone to change it back - once - i'm fine with that. I don't see the current name as being as important as coming to consensus here about it while we discuss, but i understand if someone else feels strongly about it.)
  • Second, i re-added this requested move to WP:RM, so that folks interested to participate in such discussions would be aware of it. Orange Mike, out of the same desire to include everyone as fully as possible, i'd ask if in the future you undo a requested move that has just gone through the WP:RM process, would you relist it there? --John_Abbe (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Going back to content, i'm not seeing anything in WP:CAPS that suggests the name for this article would be anything other than Nonviolent Communication.

Problematic example in intro

The current intro ends with an example of formal NVC communication, intended to show a listener reflecting the speaker's words: If someone said to you "You were very lucky indeed not to get shot when I saw you climbing over my garden wall last night." could be paraphrased as, "It sounds like you were nervous because your need for safety wasn't being met." This example has two problems. First, it's flippant and sounds like it's making fun of the NVC idea. We're not here to promote NVC but we're definitely not here to snipe at it. Second, it's just not a good example of restating the speaker's words. Instead, it's guessing at the speaker's motivation. Also it's sort of OR, where some Wikipedia author made it up. I'm not so familiar (yet) with NVC, so I don't feel qualified to come up with a better example. I'm going to delete it from the article. 98.216.107.65 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S., the "I see you are wearing a hat while you are standing in this building" example could use some rework too. It is stilted and artificial, making NVC sound very quirky indeed. Then again, I admit, some of the NVC teaching materials I've seen are also stilted and artificial! 98.216.107.65 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the hat example is stilted. I replaced it with an example abouts dirty socks, which is the first example given in Rosenberg's book. gmarceau (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotional style

The writing style overall appears to me as promotional. Throughout the article subtle and not-so-subtle claims are made without any evidence or references to back them up (e.g. "Thus, empathy may be used to relieve distress and increase understanding and readiness for hearing."). Such claims need to be stated as explicit assertions of NVC or others with citations. If it would help I can mark each case with a citation-needed tag but it will make the piece difficult to read while citations are being added. Jojalozzo 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not just citations that are needed but the style has to be changed to acknowledge all claims as such and explicitly attribute them to their sources. Otherwise it reads as if WP is making these claims which is not our task. Jojalozzo 16:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read the article carefully and make suggestions. Your point about providing evidence of claims is well-taken, I think. It would be useful to add "citation needed" tags where you deem appropriate. I would be willing to assist in making the article less promotional. You also make a good point about not making the article difficult to read as a result of a number of tags. However, if we get right at it, it shouldn't be too disruptive. Sunray (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I left the introduction as it is (since citations are usually not required in the intro as long as they are backed up in the rest of the article) - tho I may go back to review it for neutrality later. Instead I started with the Focuses section and stopped there so as not to overwhelm. I added the phrase "NVC advocates claim" before each claim I was able to identify. That makes for awkward reading and can be tweaked, perhaps when the actual sources of the claims are identified. Jojalozzo 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good start. I will look for sources to back up the claims. I've got a copy of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life and there are some other sources listed under "References." I will start with those sources and look for additional ones as well. Sunray (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Need original source for Rosenberg's definition of NVC

I have been unable to find the primary source for Rosenberg's definition of NVC, allegedly made in Lausanne, Switzerland, September 2003. The current reference from Korea Times is the same as the others I have located all of which use this quote without attribution. A large number of these references appear to be lifted from a previous version of this article's definition section (which used a 2004 date), a good example of Wikiality. These references are not sufficient. We need to find the origin of this quote and cite that, not these secondary, tertiary and n-ary cites.

Another option is to replace this vagrant quote with text from a book. Jojalozzo 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added the Korea Times citation. While not an authoritative source, it will do for now. I will search for something better. Sunray (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Korea Times text appears to be copied verbatim from one of the web pages that come up in a google search for Rosenberg's definition of NVC. From my perspective, if an unsourced quote from a 2010 Korean news article is our best source for a quote Rosenberg allegedly made in Switzerland in 2003, then the article is better off without the quote at all. Jojalozzo 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing an article by a journalist from a reputable news medium is better than no source at all, IMO. I've said I would find a better source. By all means add a "verify" tag to it if you wish. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For me, citing a source that appears to have googled some other uncited source is worse than no source at all. I feel we'd be more honest to leave the quote with the citation-needed tag until we can find the original source. Having said that, I am ready to drop this issue for now. Jojalozzo 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have replace the quote from The Korea Times with a passage from the top of page i of the first edition of Marshall Rosenberg's book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion. Slark (talk)

Criticism?

Others seem to have picked up on a need for some balance in this article. Perhaps this could be provided by a "Criticism" section?

Although the topic is "Nonviolent communication" in some sense it can be interpreted in a quite "violent" way, in the sense that the practitioner of NVC sees themselves as the dominant (paternalistic) partner in the exchange. The biggest challenge to anyone practising the "first half" of the process that NVC articulates is the second part: that of receiving the product of their "Honest Expression". NVC techniques can then rapidly lead into badgering, pleading, and passive aggression.

The assumption underlying NVC seems to me to be that those one speaks with will be innately interested in you. This seems to me to be based upon a questionable development of robust psychological theories (e.g. IMHO Carl Rogers).

The tendency to adopt the "victor's perspective" of condecension to other cultures is a function of Western history and power. On the other hand, measured and humble openness is a gold-standard and NVC supports intercultural competence.

LookingGlass (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a valuable perspective but be sure to base this addition on verifiable sources rather than your own insights and opinions. Jojalozzo 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a Criticisms section before actually reading the talk pages and seeing that this had been called for by LookingGlass. While, I am aware of many criticisms, it is difficult to find actual sources for criticisms of NVC. If anyone has any sources please add them or direct me to them and I will add them. I think the criticism section is highly important for balance, and what I have added only scratches the surface.Michaplot (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the subtitle of CrossCurrent to "Association for Religion and Intellectual Life" in the references which is the copyright given on the Free Library link (right before the social media icons). This is not the same as the "The Journal of Addiction and Mental Health". I don't know how to make that change in the footnotes. Could someone else correct it there, please? 70.36.144.203 (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Rachel

Hmm? Highbeam gives the reference as the Journal of Addiction and Mental Health. I have changed it, until this can be resolved, perhaps by my next trip to the library. Michaplot (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Highbeam has a different copyright... Strange. If you scroll down to the copyright info at the article on thefreelibrary (reference #7), it reads "COPYRIGHT 2006 Association for Religion and Intellectual Life." You can search for "Cross Current journal" and you'll find a reference to a Wiley site (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0011-1953), which is "Published on behalf of the Association for Religion and Intellectual Life." There is a CrossCurrents that is the Journal of Addiction and Mental Health (http://www.camhcrosscurrents.net/). But the copy of the article I got through online access to a university library also has the Association copyright (cite: Flack, Chapman. 2006. "THE SUBTLE VIOLENCE OF NONVIOLENT LANGUAGE." Cross Currents 56, no. 3: 312-327). For the Journal of Addiction, the current issue is vol 14, so this cannot be the journal where the article came from. And thanks for changing it in #7! 70.36.144.52 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Rachel

The first citation is to a non-remarkable blog post on opencouchsurfing.org by someone who seems to have an ax to grind against the couchsurfing management . The second goes to a respectable magazine, but the article does not seem to support the claims. I found no mention of "manipulation", "coercion", or "psychologizing" in Cross Current article. The third paragraph says "Some people are ..." without citing the people in question. It also says "The emphasis on spirituality is potentially troubling for both atheists" without citing any troubled atheists. The last section quotes Sharon Sarles who appears to be a professional nonviolent communication trainer (http://www.humanpotentialcenter.org/calendars/November01Calendar.html), so seems unlikely that her scenario was intended as a criticism of nonviolent communication as a whole. It seems that the only thing that could stand is the Cross Current article, but someone should write a better summary of it. gmarceau (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Gmarceau, I encourage you to edit the article yourself, make the changes you see fit, and we can all work with the improvements. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I second Kingturtle. Please edit the section if you have constructive changes. I have reworked it a bit, but until I have time to find more sources, I cannot add much more. As for citing blogs and youtube videos, it seems to me these are the voices of people who have had experience with NVC and have expressed criticisms. These seem to me to be legitimate primary sources for the claim that some people have had criticisms of NVC. They have not simply decried NVC, but rather have expressed thoughtful criticisms, even if they are not academics and have not expressed them in journals or books. Michaplot (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These won't be simple edits since, as Gmarceau pointed out, some of the references are misinterpreted. For example, the quote from Sharon Sarles comes from a section in her article that starts with the words "Please let me give you some imaginary vignettes to see how the method might be misused." She is raising concerns that NVC might be misused (in her case, she suggests fairly easily misused). Similarly, the Flack article from Cross Current is generally positive to NVC but cautions that NVC in its weak form could be misused. I will try to edit the article to reflect these concerns. RachelAB (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i've made some changes. See what you think... I think it's really important to include the criticism but it's also important that we represent them correctly... RachelAB (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You've definitely improved the treatment. You indicate that some of the sources are misinterpreted and this seems to stem from your perception that at least the Sarles and the Flack criticisms are largely that NVC can be misused. It is a good point that they both explore this aspect of NVC, however, I do not think it is fair to say that neither author sees any essential flaws in NVC other than its potential for misuse. Sarles, for example, says quite clearly in her article:

"In sum, I have seen a method with flaws used with possibly opposite intent in ways and times and places it was never intended to be used. The result is predictably opposite to that intended. It is violent, harmful, disrespectful, especially because it refuses to listen to those who are expressing, need, pain, or contribution.

I am saddened by the friendships and relationships that being harmed by well-meaning attempts to apply NVC. I am saddened by the confusion I saw when NVC was taught. I am fearful that with bad result, that the whole project of studying, learning, and applying steps toward non-violent communication may be given up."

I think it would be fair to characterize her criticism as something along the lines of: NVC is a flawed method, which, while containing many nuggets of wisdom and quite possible very effective in tense, hostile situations (e.g. Israelis vs. Palestinians), is not very appropriate for more quotidian conflicts or relationships. NVC is an attempt at non-violent communication and makes a contribution but also has inherent problems. I have changed the intro to Sarles critique to "imaginary vignettes" which is the phrase she uses, and seems less awkward to me than what we had.

As for Flack, I would make the same claim. I do not think it is fair to say he is generally positive toward NVC (though he seems positive towards Rosenberg), given his statement that, "...next to other efforts like critical thinking, his [Rosenberg's] has added violence to the language." And, "His advice never to hear thoughts may be helpful in those bitter disputes of long standing where bad faith is so firmly entrenched that only a drastic measure to disrupt the established pattern of communication can get the parties to begin to listen at all....But as a general rule it seems likely to create exactly that kind of situation out of simpler ones that could otherwise be easy to resolve. It establishes a speech rule under which matters of concern or dispute common and important among serious people may be inexpressible, dismissed, and unheard. A person who steps outside the speech rule to try to explain the trouble may, in the trap Goffman called 'looping,' find that effort itself dismissed for the same reason."

Flack seems to argue that the weak-sense you mention is unavoidable and perhaps inherent in the practice of NVC, unless I am misreading him. However, to debate whether or not Flack is generally positive toward NVC would be feckless. What matters, I feel, is that there are some trenchant criticisms of NVC in the article and they are not all of the cautionary sort. A hammer, to make a simple analogy, is a valuable tool, but could be wielded destructively. Flack does not seem to me to argue that NVC is a basically good tool, like a hammer, but we must be on guard for its potential to be recast as a weapon. It is not at all clear to me that he thinks NVC can be used peacefully even in the best of hands, though like Sarles, he does seem to find wisdom in it too.

So, I think it is good to add the authors' cautions that NVC can be misused, but I do not think these cautions fairly summarize the substance of their critiques. Before I make any more changes, I will think about this and perhaps you or others will add their ideas to this discussion.Michaplot (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reworked the Sarles review in detail. I have not really touched the rest, but may get to it eventually. Let me know if this seems like a more accurate interpretation of the source.Michaplot (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added some more and removed some as well. I think this is improved but still could use some work. Comments welcome.Michaplot (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner - I keep forgetting to check here thinking any additions will show up in my email box. Sigh.

The way i read Sarles is that she compares NVC as outlined by Rosenberg with what is practiced in her community (Austin, TX). Her criticisms as a whole are directed at the way NVC is practice in the group rather than at Rosenberg. To me, her article sounded more like a call for safe-guards than a dismissal of NVC (i.e., "how can we use NVC without danger of abuse?" rather than "let's not use NVC because it could be abused").

Regarding your addition of the ten suggestions: I would really like to caution that her critique is based primarily on her impressions in the Austin group - she does not even indicate if that group was lead by a certified trainer or not. For example, the very first point is not correct: NVC does not teach to tell anybody what their feelings are. If we offer a feeling another might feel, it's supposed to be in the form of a guess (see for example the NVC in Action in Rosenbergs "Nonviolent Communication" p. 32-3). The final judge is the person who is experiencing the feeling. Another example is #4: Requests are an essential part of NVC (see the NVC model: http://www.cnvc.org/Training/the-nvc-model). Yelling at people (#2) or using emotional violence (#7) are discouraged just as much in practicing NVC than in any other communication method that attempts to connect people.

Flack's weak-sense is present in all communication forms. He notes specifically examples of weak-sense critical thinking (316). Would you dismiss critical thinking then, too, because it can be misused like you seem to be doing with NVC? Also note that Flack ends his article with a suggestion of what we could add to NVC to "guard against Sprachregelung, against the metamorphosis of nonviolent communication into subtle violence done in its name" (325). Unfortunately, he doesn't go into detail on this (nor have i been able to track down the author to see if he's published anything else on NVC since his 2006 article; i have no idea what his affiliation is, which makes it tough to find him...). I will read the section on Flack some other time, though. And i want to read Latini first...

Finally, I don't think many of the sources, including Sarles, meet the reliability criterion. Reliable sources are those that "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for accuracy and for checking the facts." Neither Sarles nor OpenCouchSurfing or the YouTube videos meet that criteria. The Sarles article is self-published. OpenCouchSurfing is a blog, also considered self-published. RachelAB (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Rachel, I hear that you read Sarles as a call for safe guards rather than a dismissal of NVC. What I wonder is what you would like to see as a result of that perception? I think my summary of Sarles essentially says that (though if you are saying she sees no essential flaws in NVC other than a potential for misuse, I would argue she does).

As for the ten suggestions, besides being a clear indication that Sarles sees some value in NVC, they do not seem that important to me. I am unclear how you know that they are based on her impressions of the Austin group. After all, her essay is in part a review of Rosenberg's book. Also, I do not see what you see as inaccuracies. You say her first suggestion is incorrect because NVC does not teach to tell anyone what they are feeling. But that is exactly Sarle's point. That is exactly what she is saying, and I think it is a great suggestion, because all too often people practicing NVC verge into the telling. I have experienced this both in myself and in others, and some of my friends who are NVC trainers suggest that it is a challenge to remain neutral. So it seems like a very good suggestion for those who might use NVC. In what sense do you see it as inaccurate? In any case, you could remove the suggestions if you think them unhelpful.

As for Flack, I would say the same things. I am not concerned with whether or not he is not dismissive of NVC. I am only concerned with the details of his critique, and his is a strong criticism of some aspects of NVC.

I am not sure what you mean by, "Would you dismiss critical thinking then, too, because it can be misused like you seem to be doing with NVC?" I am not sure if this is addressed to me? I am also not sure exactly what the question is? I would certainly not throw out the baby with the bath water. I do not feel that I am promoting criticism or the appearance of intellectual rigor for untoward and ulterior and perhaps unwholesome purposes. Nor do I feel I am wielding analysis as a weapon. I do not feel like I am dismissive of NVC, either, if that is what you mean. Really, as far as the W article goes, it is irrelevant what I think. And I have not put any of my own criticisms, some of which are rather different than the ones I found in various sources, as that would not be appropriate for W. I do know a lot about NVC (was trained by Rosenberg) and some of my good friends are heavily involved in the Bay Area CNVC and are NVC trainers. I have even gone to an NVC therapist. I think NVC could use some critical analysis in the literature, just as it gets among groups of people I know. Unfortunately, few have published any of their ideas, so we are left with not much. My motivation is simply that I would like those who read about NVC on W to learn that what prima facie seems to be a simple technique for conflict resolution--the guise in which it is often proffered--is in fact a multifarious and courageous and encompassing set of assumptions, inextricably laden with prickly spiritual and philosophical concerns--and worthy of exigesis.Michaplot (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Michael. You answered my question regarding critical thinking, so i guess you figured out what i was trying to ask... Overall, i think what i would like to see is the point that the things raised by Sarles and Flack are also raised by people who use and/or value NVC. That many of your 10 points are not criticisms of NVC as such but as NVC as practiced, which imo is rather different (again, just because someone uses critical thinking to manipulate others does not mean that we want to dismiss critical thinking). To me, that nuance does not come through (or maybe i am just too nitpicky ;-). I'll see if i can figure out how to incorporate that into the article... RachelAB (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Rachel did find me and I've enjoyed looking through the edit history and talk page here. I've got to say that, whatever anybody says about the article as a whole, in the part that touches on my paper you have pulled and pushed each other into a really gratifyingly nuanced and accurate summary of what I meant to say. There's a very deep pleasure in being read so carefully and paraphrased so aptly, and I am tickled to death at how smart you've made me sound. I'm not even gonna change anything, except maybe make some concepts I borrowed from others into links, and see if the citation's missing any fields.

I think there might be one minor factual error in the treatment of the Goorden/OpenCouchSurfing business. I stumbled on that a year or two ago the last time I was curious enough to regoogle the subject and see what was new, and what I seem to remember from following their discussion threads back is that OpenCouchSurfing is a fork from an older organization simply called CouchSurfing, and it was that older organization that had introduced NVC. That move may have contributed to the group forking, through a perception that it was employed mostly to deflect responsibility and present an appearance that communication was welcome while keeping it safely ineffective. That is not much different from what I watched happen in the group where I first met NVC, though no formal fork resulted.

Michael, I like your hammer analogy. I guess if I were to use it I would say that communication is certainly one tough nail and we could all sure use better hammers, and it probably is true that any hammer worth using would also be potentially dangerous. I'm just not convinced that Rosenberg has even offered us much of a hammer, or that the head isn't more likely to fly off the handle and brain someone than hit the nail even under the best of circumstances. Chapman Flack 108.11.97.108 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your comments. A postmodernist might immediately point out that an author has no greater authority on their own works than anyone else, but fortunately, I am not a postmodernist! I appreciate your vote of confidence that the substance of your article has been fairly represented. It may be, given the distaste that many contributors seem to have for most of the other sources I have found, that your article will be all that remains of the criticism section someday. There is a startling paucity of discussion of NVC in the literature, though there are a few studies that have tested it and found it successful. I have an article I wrote some time ago but have only circulated among some of my NVC and non-NVC friends, that is critical of NVC. I argue that part of the lack of criticism may be because it feels a bit nauseating to criticize such a beautiful vision of human nature. Still, as a scientist, I have a hard time with it, and as Chris Hedges points out, it is exactly these sort of Utopian visions that pave the way for fascism and genocide.

Like you, I have greatly enjoyed the discussion ongoing here, and I do believe that the "pulling and pushing" has wrought something better than it would otherwise have been. I very much appreciate that on W people with different points of views work to create one mutually agreeable document.

I am not sure what to do about the opencouchsurfing reference. It is likely that it is easiest to cut it out, but if you have a references bring them on. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion!Michaplot (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it rather curious that there is more criticism of the Nonviolent Communication on the page than explanation as to how it works. While I think that criticism is important, I find myself wondering if the criticism needs to be this voluble. In particular, the ten points that Sarles raises are really more amplifications of the general message of NVC, and trying to correct some instances of it being used incorrectly, rather than a general criticism of the whole methodology. Could this section be trimmed down or more explanation of NVC's methods be added? PaulWay (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

REALLY couldn't agree more Paul, could someone "trim" the critique section to be less verbose? The article is almost less about NVC than it is aboiut Sarle and a couple of others. One way the article could balance out the torrent of stuff quoted as being from Sarle, would be to provide more information about it's history and applications. LookingGlass (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

I decided to start a new section on this because I want to ensure that this issue doesn't get lost in the indents. I think several of the sources used in the criticism section do not meet the reliability criterion. Reliable sources are those that "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for accuracy and for checking the facts." Neither Sarles nor OpenCouchSurfing or the YouTube videos meet that criteria. The Sarles article is self-published. OpenCouchSurfing is a blog, also considered self-published. I suggest removing criticism that relies on these. Hopefully, we can replace it with reliable sources. I want to raise this here first because of the work Michael has put into this - we'd be taking out a sizable chunk of his work. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? RachelAB (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue these are all appropriate sources. The section in which they are cited is "Criticisms" and these are criticisms. It is true that secondary or tertiary sources are preferred on W, however, primary sources are not forbidden. Clearly primary sources would not be good sources for information claims, but they seem to me to be good sources for criticisms by people who have experience with NVC and have made public comments about it. The W policy on primary sources says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify...." Since the sources are not used as information, but rather as examples of thoughtful criticisms, they seem to me appropriate. Perhaps a criticism section is what is not appropriate?

Second, I would note that the sources used by the main part of the article are largely unreliable based on W policy. They are mostly interviews with Rosenberg, blogs, websites, newsletters, reviews (similar to Sarles, which is on the SFN website) or articles in journals that are not good secondary sources (see below). W policy is: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

Refs include: the IUC Journal of Social Work documenting that Rosenberg is the creator of a conflict resolution technique (the journal is Croatian--an odd choice for a main ref.). There is a promotional blog, a promotional newsletter entry (Shambala Times), a Co-Intelligence website article, apparently self published, a ref in a journal devoted to promoting Buddhism (Inquiring Mind) which is an interview with Rosenberg, a web forum (Alternatives--whose tag line is "Alternatives. . . subverting the dominant paradigm one relationship at a time."), another newsletter (SIETAR) with a book review, a newspaper article (which is an interview with Rosenberg and does not contain any secondary source material, another journal article in an activist, non-peer reviewed journal (Yes!) which is just an interview with Rosenberg in any case, and then the refs I put up which include some of the same types of primary sources, but also some higher quality secondary sources.

Except for Rosenberg's writings (which are primary sources), there are no good secondary sources cited in this article (except the few that I put up). This is perhaps why someone noted that this article seems promotional rather than encyclopedic and why I thought it good to have the criticisms, even if they include some primary sources on this page.

I guess what I wonder now is, assuming we want an article about NVC on W (which I think we do--it is an important topic), do we even want a criticism section (due to lack of a basis in the literature), and can we clean up the rest of the article so it has valid and reliable sources or is there not enough in the academic literature to support the article as a whole?

Michaplot (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i was wondering about the same thing when pondering on this some more: Given the lack of academic work what happens with the whole article. Plus, as we talked about above, Sarles does raise some important points, do we simply want to dismiss that because her article isn't published? Okay, maybe this is just being lazy but i wonder if there's a way to mark any of the sources we think might not meet Wikipedia's reliability criterion and see if others help us clean them up (for example, at least some of the things Sarles raises are also in Flack, so maybe we could rely more on that). I could quite tell if the tag suggested in the reliable sources article can be added to individual sources and if so, how to do it...

I would feel uncomfortable removing the criticism section (if that's what you're suggesting) because i do think that Flack & Sarles are raising some important issues. Would it make a difference if we'd call it something other than "criticism"? Maybe something like "Potential problems" or is this just splitting hairs? RachelAB (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think, though, that the OpenCouchSurfing reference is questionable. The post reads like a blog post: It's a big rant... I don't think we lose anything by taking it out since the critical thinking aspect is something Flack is taking up. RachelAB (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As we work on this page, I am realizing that perhaps the whole article needs revision and not just the criticism section where the focus has been recently. (So I changed the name of this Talk section to simply Reliability of Sources.) I think for me part of this feeling comes from being too close to NVC to see it clearly (whether or not I really understand it, which is a different issue), so I have been less than effective about seeing the article from NPOV. In fact, I only noticed yesterday that the sources for the whole article are largely primary. So, I think I need to step back and have as objective a look as possible at NVC and the article.

I am thinking that NVC is a conflict resolution technique developed by Marshal Rosenberg, as stated in the intro. The rest of the article, though, is devoted to the details of the technique--but distinctions between claims about human nature, communication, sociology, psychology and history are blurred with the claims of NVC and/or Rosenberg about these. I propose we might:

1. strictly avoid using the term "nonviolence" or even "nonviolent communication" to mean NVC (sensu Rosenberg). There is a whole corpus of nonviolent communication technique and theory of which NVC is one example.

I don't think that's accurate. All the 15 sources I found (see below) used "non-violent communication" to refer to Rosenberg's work without any further qualification. Possibly the expression "non-violent communication" once upon a time stood for a whole corpus of works, but it isn't the case now. gmarceau (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You doubt that the phrase nonviolent communication can refer to other work besides Rosenberg's? See: Journal of Peace Research, Brian Martin and Wendy Varney vol. 40, no. 2, March 2003, pp. 213-232 (not a single mention of Rosenberg). This discussion in Tikkun (What Is “Nonviolent” about Nonviolent Communication? by Miki Kashtan on March 18th, 2010) as others I have referenced in the article aver that NVC comes out of an existing tradition of nonviolence. I agree the child has supplanted the parents to some extent, and just as the name Q-tip became the generic term for cotton swabs, has usurped the phrase. Still, I think we should pay due homage to the accurate meaning of the term and the context of Rosenberg's work.Michaplot (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Include a historical treatment of NVC, somewhat as Sarles and Flack to some extent do. What are the inspirations or philosophical schools of thought out of which NVC or Rosenberg comes? Certainly NVC, as an attempt at manifesting nonviolence, is part of a tradition and a time and place in history. The Nonviolence section of the article touches on this in mentioning Gandhi etc. I am sure that Rosenberg has discussed his influences and inspirations somewhere, as have others who aver that NVC is not really a new idea, but a modern version of some ancient notions. I propose a section devoted to this.

3. Provide high quality secondary (or tertiary) sources for as much as possible. I contend that for the bits on how NVC works, the details of the theory behind it and the criticisms of NVC, primary sources (like the CNVC website) are fine.

4. I propose that the lack of research (and there is some, but no one has cited it on the page yet) should be noted, which might serve as a call to action, even if it appears in a NPOV source like W.Michaplot (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes and References?

I notice that the article has both a Notes and a References section. From Wikipedia:Footnotes I got the impression that that happens when Notes offers explanatory notes, and References provides sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here: Notes contains a reflist of cited sources (nice because it's automatically maintained) and References just duplicates some of those (inconvenient because corrections can't be made in one place) and seems to contain some references that are no longer cited in the article. I don't edit WP much so I'm asking before doing anything: would it be bad in this article to ditch the non-automatically-maintained References section, and just keep the reflist?108.11.97.108 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for doing that. Someone might go through the References section and see if any of them should be turned into cited sources, and then turn them into citations. Thanks, 108.11.97.108. Michaplot (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I both skimmed the whole article again, and did Find in Page for author names and other key words from everything in the old reference section, and didn't find anything even referred to any more in the article that wasn't already in the reflist, so that section is gone (I kept the name References for what is now the only reference section, containing the reflist). Sorry if I overlooked anything ... it's always in the history.108.11.97.108 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Ratio of Criticism to Other Content

There are currently 1500 words describing what NVC is, followed by 2300 words criticizing NVC. To me, that would be a sign of serious imbalance in an article on any topic. This ratio is also highly non-representative of the information that is publicly available on this topic. If you go to Amazon.com and search for "Nonviolent Communication" the search returns over a hundred books, booklets, DVDs and CDs relating to NVC. There are no published books of criticism of NVC that I know of. The article ought to be beefed up by strengthening the content about what NVC is and possibly editing down the criticism section. This would redress the current gross imbalance in the article. Rhwentworth (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is because the bulk of the article does not have enough detail on NVC. In fact the majority of the article, exclusive of the criticism section, is merely a description of the theory and practice of NVC. There is little analysis, context, history, connection to other traditions, reception by the public, etc. My gods man! there is not even a date on when the whole thing began or who this Rosenberg person is!!

Rhwentworth, I would also, with due acknowledgment that my objection may be taken as mere temerity, point out that not a single reference (except those (at least a few, anyway) I have put up) can be considered valid secondary sources. If Amazon.com reveals hundreds of sources, why are none of them used here? I suspect there are precious few of any value for an encyclopedia entry, unfortunately. See my challenge below.

So I would argue that the imbalance is not too much criticism, but too little information in the rest of the article.Michaplot (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rhwentworth that the article is grossly out of balance at the moment. Even if the main body of the article was fully fleshed out with sections about analysis, context, etc, the criticism section would still be too long. Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight says "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." I wonder if this is suggesting the entire criticism section might be unwarranted. After much research, we have found only a handful of commenters critical of NVC. Sarles's essays do not amount to criticism of NVC, rather she wrote to reinforce Rosenberg's message and address some common misconceptions. When she writes "I see a method with some flaws," she is proposing incremental improvements to Rosenberg's method, not discarding it, nor is she advocating against its use. I wasn't able to find a copy of Elaine Fullerton's article, but given that she is cited [[2]] as thanking someone for "living the model of NVC and helping others to also gain this awareness and practice," it seems unlikely that she is critical of NVC as a whole. The "some people say" claims about atheists being put-off by the spirituality remains uncited, and I suspect they are not true. I know many non-religious NVC-practitioners and none ever mentioned this as a concern. So we are left with two of the people who have criticized NVC based on rather cursory knowledge of it (Flack and Goorden), and one guy on youtube with a dozen of views. This does not amount to a "significant minority". I propose we delete the entire section, or perhaps reduce it to a few lines summarizing the main lines of arguments brought by the few commenters --- gmarceau (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more information in the body of the article esp on applications and history, but I find the the style and content of the criticism section reads like a lengthy personal opinion that "advertises" alternative approaches. It is an article within an article but as it is "only" a section referring to criticism it ducks underneath the radar of Wiki standards. In my opinion it could be shortened considerably. This would not lose any of its relevance but there is no need to contain for instance a detailed account of ALL of Sarle's opinion in the criticism. The article is about NVC not about Sarle et all. A more "bullet point" style could be combined to further, lengthy, information contained elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LookingGlass (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Source Challenge

A number of contributors have suggested that the many of the references for the criticism section are not reliable as they are not secondary or tertiary sources. (I feel that some primary sources are acceptable for some uses, but that is another issue.)

I have pointed out that the rest of the article has few (if any) good secondary sources as well.

So here is the challenge: can anyone find any good secondary or tertiary sources for the topic NVC?

Just to forestall or at least anticipate what might happen, I would argue that any book, article or video by Rosenberg or other NVC personage is a primary source, though references used in those works might be good sources for us. Any interview with Rosenberg or newspaper article about Rosenberg that is "human interest", is a primary source or otherwise not reliable. Any article in a journal where the journal is clearly an activist or partisan journal and is not peer reviewed or intended for an academic audience, is not a reliable secondary source.

I am suggesting what I think we need here are sources that present research, analysis, synthesis, interpretation and/or critique of NVC. These sources should be non-partisan, neutral, objective, preferably peer-reviewed or suitable for an academic audience.

Of course, the work of Rosenberg or other NVC practitioners, and all the activist journals, etc. are valid as primary sources for documenting the theory and practice of NVC. They are simply not usually good sources for describing the context, efficacy, validity and relevance of NVC to the greater world.Michaplot (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These two might be appropriate secondary sources:

Reimer, Donna. Creating Sanctuary: Reducing Violence in a Maximum Security Forensic Psychiatric Hospital Unit, International Association of Forensic Nurses: OTE Volume 15 Number 1 - Spring 2009 Creating Sanctuary

Cox, E. and P. Dannahy (2005). The value of openness in e-relationships: using Nonviolent Communication to guide online coaching and mentoring." International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 3(1): 39-51.Michaplot (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this one can be used to write a good introduction to NVC and as a secondary source for what NVC is. Also discusses the evidence base for NVC. Behavioural distress: concepts and strategies Bob Gates, Bob Gates (RNT.), Jane Gear, Jane Wray Elsevier Health Sciences, 2000 Michaplot (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Would that be Gates RNT., Bob; Gear, Jane; Wray, Jane (2000). Behavioural distress: concepts and strategies. Edinburgh, New York: Bailliere Tindall. ISBN 9780702024153. OCLC 43095838.? Different publisher but likely to be the right book?108.11.97.108 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. Not sure where I got the publisher, but the cover shown on google books clearly indicates Bailliere Tindall.Michaplot (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources I was able to find using the Google Scholar search query "non-violent communication" nvc (63 hits)

Passport Santé.net has written a nice encyclopedic article about NVC: http://www.xn--passeportsant-nhb.com/fr/Therapies/Guide/Fiche.aspx?doc=communication_non_violente_th

Published academic work on NVC:

The Non-Violent Relationship Questionnaire (NVRQ), Daniel Eckstein, Lucy La Grassa, The Family Journal April 2005 vol. 13 no. 2 205-211

Nonviolent (empathie) communication for health care providers, M Rosenberg, P Molho, Haemophilia (1998), 4, 335-340

Anger and the use of nonviolent communication. Sitzman K. Home Healthc Nurse. 2004 Jun;22(6):429.

A 10-step path for conflict resolution. Sitzman K. Home Healthc Nurse. 2004 May;22(5):335

Nonviolent Communication - The Language of the Heart. Watson S. New ConneXion - Journal of Conscious Evolution, États-Unis, 2002.

and an evaluation of the effectiveness of NVC:

Matti, Tomas (2007) – ”Granskning av utvärderingar av program mot mobbning år 2007” / A scrutiny of assessments of programs against harassment in year 2007”, Myndigheten för skolutveckling

3rd-party books that builds on NVC:

Humanizing Health Care with Nonviolent Communication: A Guide to Revitalizing the Health Care Industry in America, by Melanie Sears

Don't Be Nice, Be Real: Balancing Passion for Self with Compassion for Others, Kelly Bryson

The Compassionate Classroom: Relationship Based Teaching and Learning, Sura Hart, Victoria Kindle Hodson

Facilitating Online, Tony Carr, Shaheeda Jaffer and Jeanne Smut, Centre for Educational Technology Series, Number 3

Academic or governement works that cite NVC:

Civic Education in Primary and Secondary Schools in the Republic of Serbia, An Evaluation of the First Year,2001-2002, Alan Smith, Susan Fountain, Hugh McLean

24/7 Family dispute resolution: disconnection and reconnection via the phone line, Mieke Brandon, Tom Stodulka, ADR Bulletin, Volume 10, Number 5

The Elementary Classroom: A Key Dimension of a Child's Democratic World, By Vale D. Hartley, Journal of Educational Controversy, volume 3, number 1

Community Peacemaking Project: Responding to Hate Crimes, Hate Incidents, Intolerance, and Violence Through Restorative justice Dialogue. Coates, Robert B and Umbreit, Mark S and Vos, Betty (2002). St. Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota.

Inclusion
 and Eeducation
 in European 
countries, INTMEAS 
Report 
for 
contract
–2 0 0 7‐2094/001
TRA‐TRSPO, Final report: 12. Sweden

Other possibly relevant work:

I also found many master's theses at different universities building on NVC. Would these be useful? They were not published in peer-reviewed journals, but they were reviewed but the university faculty. Searching Google Books for "nonviolent communication" -rosenberg" finds about 3000 books that either cite or build on NVC. My scanning of the Google-generated summaries for the first 5 pages of results did not identify any item that are critical of NVC.

gmarceau (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gmarceau, thanks for all the refs. I found a number of theses as well and I think these may be our best hope. I found the same article refs as you and here is what I am thinking about them:

The health passport French site does give good details on the history and background and therapeutic use of NVC, so it might be useful for details that the W article currently lacks. It does not seem to give anything beyond what we already have for other secondary sources as to the evidence, research on, or effectiveness of NVC.

The paper in Haemophilia is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. The only evidence adduced in the paper concerns the importance of communication between doctors and patients. The paper is essentially an argument that NVC can provide tools to improve doctor patient relations.

The two Sitzman papers in Home Healthcare Nurse journal are both arguments for the value of NVC but neither has any evidence to support its effectiveness.

The Stuart Watson piece is listed as New Connexion, but I believe the source is Living Now. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Journal of Conscious Evolution is a new age and/or pomo journal that does not present research per se, though it is academic. I am not sure if it is peer-reviewed, but more importantly, I am not sure if Watson's note on NVC is in this journal or not, since the journal seems to have begun around 2005 and the Watson piece if from 2002?

The Swedish source you found is quite interesting. I had to turn to a friend since I do not read Swedish. She translates the relevant section as:

“NVC: The representative of the program sent two texts to us, see Appendix 1. One is a two-page compilation of surveys and self-estimates, which indicates that people who use the program think they become better at listening. The self-estimation is presented as a half page but order, questions, methodology, etc. are not mentioned. The material is not scientific. We cannot comment on what is presented as the text does not describe the aims, methods, materials, constraints, etc. The second text is an incomplete description of the project. The material does not constitute an evaluation of the program.”

So apparently, the Swedish investigators could not evaluate NVC. It seems that the school in Stockholm where NVC was implemented either did not do any serious evaluation of the program, or neglected to send the documentation to the researchers.

I have not been able to evaluate any of the books or government sources. Maybe somebody has one or two of them and can add the relevant material to the article.Michaplot (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read the material. I dreaded having to use Google Translate on the Swedish paper.

I'm a bit confused by your response though. Aren't we engaged in an effort to identify the most reliable sources about NVC? I am puzzled by the insistence placed on finding peer-reviewed, independent scientific results measuring NVC's efficacy. NVC is a practice that was created and nurtured outside of the scientific community. Somehow, even though it has gathered a large community of expert practitioners, nobody has yet bothered to measure its efficacy. This isn't a problem on its own. If there are no efficacy studies to cite, we won't be citing any. Do you see any additional consequences?

All the sources I cited are high-reliability primary sources in the sense that they are "articles, books, papers published in respectable venues" (Wikipedia:OR#Reliable_sources) by professional practitioners of NVC (except PassportSanté.net, which is secondary, and Living Now magazine, which appears to be more sensational than reliable). The sourcing guideline says that primary sources are fine if they have been reliably published and used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any person will be able to verify are supported by the sources." (Wikipedia:Primary_source). Plus, if we take "primary sources" to mean Rosenberg and his staff, then many of the sources I am citing are reliable secondary sources.

In short, I am not sure which problem you are trying to address. gmarceau (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Here is the issue I am attempting to address. The article as currently written, save the criticisms section, is promotional and based largely on primary sources. It is not a NPOV description of NVC. That is to say, it is not an objective description of a set of beliefs and a technique that is practiced by a group of people. It is an extended explanation/justification of NVC theory and practice, but there is little context. (Granted some of the sections begin with neutral phrases like, "NVC advocates..." or "NVC holds..." (these were added in February of 2010 by Jojalozzo (see above) because of exactly what I am talking about) but the article generally blurs the claims of NVC with the Truth, which I suppose if your epistemology is postmodern is not a problem. I do find it problematic.)

You might look at the article on Neuro-linguistic Programming as an example of how a technique can be handled on W. In my opinion, the details of the technique and theory of NVC should be one or several subsections in the article. All the primary sources you have found are wonderful for that purpose. However, the introduction should indicate exactly what you say, that NVC has been developed outside the academic community, and has no significant evidence base to support its efficacy, though it has a huge amount of anecdotal support. (I have several secondary sources that say exactly this, so I may be asking for consensus to add that bit soon.) There might be a history section explaining how Rosenberg hit upon his technique and connecting it to the traditions out of which it sprang (nonviolence, human potential, etc.). There should be a section on criticisms. There might be a section on applications (political, therapeutic, etc.). There might be a section on the spiritual aspect and the connection to Christianity and Buddhism.

As for primary sources, you defend them, as I have previously done on this talk section. However, the criticism section has been criticized for not having secondary sources, and has been held to a high standard. Some of its content will likely need to be deleted due to being primary. While I still argue that primary sources should be allowed in limited cases, I agree with some contributors that over-reliance on them is poor for W purposes.

Gmarceau, I disagree with your representation of the W policy on primary sources. You cite the policy that they can be used, "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any person will be able to verify are supported by the sources." True enough. However, you do not cite the policy that,

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources..."

W policy also says, "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." And, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."

I would also note that W policy explicitly states that, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources..."

I would argue that the claims of NVC are exceptional and currently lack a mainstream analysis and critique, an evidence base and a philosophical framework supporting the claims.

I am sure that the lack of evidence or attention from the academic community is not troubling to most people who adopt NVC. To me, it is very troubling. If there is no evidence to support truth claims, and no rational argument to buttress them, then the claims are based on faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, of course, but the claims of NVC are fairly grand. What NVC promises is also quite ambitious.

The truth claims of NVC, both its theoretic underpinnings and its efficacy, may be verifiable, or they may end up forgotten. History is littered with abandoned articles of faith, even ones which once enjoyed huge followings and myriad diverse anecdotal enthusiasm. The lack of interest from the academic community is troubling in itself as it suggests either that NVC has not been taken seriously yet or that it has not been noticed. Like many purported cures for cancer, one has to ask, if this is so promising why is there not more interest in it from the mainstream? I have been trained in NVC, so I am familiar with its theory and practice. I have also attended a training in mediation and conflict resolution through MIT and no mention of NVC or its core principles under any other name was made.

If there are also no mainstream or secondary sources on NVC in general, I would say we have a fairly serious problem. The article will need to be reassessed. What is its purpose? And that, in short, is the problem I am trying to address.Michaplot (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Critique ?? Sarles, Flack or Rosenberg?!?

What is this article about??? As others above have, I also find it extraordinary how much space is being devoted in the article to two individuals who disagree with Rosenberg's ideas, relative to the amount addressing his work.

The critique section of this article is far too long in my pinion, taking up almost HALF of the article. This seems to me to distort the article considerably. From being an article about Rosenberg it becomes an article about two other individuals: Sarles and Flack. Whatever the merits of their opinions, and I cannot discern much that is logical or reasoned despite the length to which their views are detailed, the article is not the place for a dissertation on them.

Besides being far too long, in my opinion the criticism section is also badly written. There are many weasely passages, for instance:- "Some organizations have tried to adopt NVC and have found it problematic", while going on to only provide an acoount of a service provider that found it unsuited to their approach rather that to organisations/communities/ projects etc that have found it "problematic". The word "problematic" is in itself weasely, as it refers to differing opinions rather than to matters of fact.

The sextion is used (abused) as a plaform for the views of other approaches rather than as a summary of alterantive opinion and criticism. While what is expressed in the critique section is of great interest it is of secondary importance, by definition, to the subject of the article. Paradoxically I would have been more disposed to take the opinions referred to seriously if they had been expressed with a "humility" to their setting rather than attempting to be some sort of final authorative word on NVC.

In my opinion the critique section should be savagely edited, so as to describe in summary who criticises Rosenberg's methodology, in summary what they say, and references to further reading on these opinions. The article itself is not the place to go into the sort of detailed opinion given here. The result is an unbalanced article which falls considerably short of the standards I have come to expect and value from Wiki..

LookingGlass (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening this discussion, which has languished lately. You are, of course, free to go ahead and savagely edit the criticism section (though you risk invoking a devastating irony--it is an article about nonviolent communication after all). Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not that the criticism section is too long, but that the rest of the article is too short? The History and Development and the Applications subsections were both created (by me) to help expand the article and no one has filled them in with relevant information.

I am not sure why you think the word "problematic" is weaselly. The word was simply used to refer to a situation that presents a problem, or is questionable. Two examples are given, not one as you say. Could you provide a better word?

The statement that the criticism section is abusive and represents, "a plaform [sic] for the views of other approaches rather than as a summary of alterantive [sic] opinion and criticism," is serious. I would like to know more about why you feel this way, and what evidence you have for this. (By way of full disclosure, I was one of the editors of that section and I have no investment in any other approach besides NVC.) Similarly, the notion that the section attempts to present "some sort of final authorative [sic] word on NVC" sounds serious, nor is it clear to me on what basis this claim is made. Can you make any clarifications?

I would point out that the emphasis on Flack and to some extent Sarles is in part because they are some of the only published criticism of NVC, and some editors objected to other criticisms as these were not published as secondary sources.

Finally, I am happy to report that I just removed some arguably superfluous material from the criticism section. It now amounts to a mere 40% of the article.Michaplot (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you wrote this I reverted your edits because they were made without any comment. In my view a massive deletion such yours requires an explanation. Jojalozzo 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So, I went and wrote a long-winded criticism section for this article, for which I have been roundly and squarely criticized. Lots of virtual ink has been spilled with cries to reduce it, including a fresh and typically strident volley yesterday. So when I acquiesce at last and cut it down to a more agreeable size (by removing the parts we had previously identified as the most superfluous--see the long discussion threads above), it is summarily restored. The irony is dramatic, rather delicious and fiercely Wikipedian. Ha Ha Ha!Michaplot (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a habit of not explaining your edits. You are likely to have a lot easier time on this project if you approach it from a more collaborative perspective rather than going solo and expecting the rest of us to figure out what you're doing. Jojalozzo 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious? That is a habit I would certainly not want to have. Can you show me where I have been guilty of this? In my own memory I have engaged in lengthy and detailed discussions with a number of people on this page (including the author of one of the sources) and have refrained during most of those discussions from making or reverting edits until we had or were actively seeking something like consensus. The criticism section itself, which I added was done after it had been called for by a number of others and was presented as a draft, and then discussed. Even the edit you recently reverted was explained and was done as a response to another editors' concerns, not as a solo venture. I have certainly striven to work collaboratively. Am I delusional? I'd like to how I am going solo (so I can refrain). Curious?Michaplot (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was unclear. I was referring to the lack of edit summaries accompanying your edits, not your participation on talk pages. Even just a note that says "see talk page discussion" will help - something to let the rest of us know what you're up to and why. Jojalozzo 02:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Geez. That's at least the second time I've forgotten to add my own edit summary with my comments here. Do as I say not as I do. Jojalozzo 02:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes total sense--I see what you mean. I do often tend to fail to put a note in the little edit window. Sometimes I find it hard to summarize what I have done, and I did not realize it was important or read by other editors. I will do better at this now that I know it is relevant. Thanks for the lesson!Michaplot (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for "getting it" so graciously. Please consider reverting my deletion of your edit with a comment explaining what and why. Jojalozzo 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section has been identified as important but too long. I contend that, while the criticism section may be too verbose, the rest of the article is also too short. (I created several subsections which have not yet been expanded and would help restore balance.) Nevertheless, it seems there is a strong agreement that the criticism section goes overboard. Here is a proposal for a start on fixing the problem: 1) I propose cutting down the Sarles critique substantially by removing the numbered list of suggestions, and editing the rest for brevity. 2) The Chapman critique can also be summarized more succinctly. 3) Finally, we could cut out a few of the unreferenced bits (or find refs for them). This is what strikes me as a good way to start working on this section. I will make these changes if no one responds, or, if anyone has any other suggestions, I will discuss other options.Michaplot (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No one has weighed in on this proposal, so I will go and do some work on it. Any comments or amendments would be great.Michaplot (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone through the "Criticism" section to try to make something out of it. However, when I went through the references, it is worse than bad: essentially a collection consisting of: an essay, a blog, a YouTube video and a wiki. I couldn't find a reliable source among them. Nada. The people featured in these media are a variety of folks who've "read the book," "watched a video" or "attended an NVC group, read some books and watched some videos." Some of the criticisms are interesting and I was really trying to maintain this section. But it is in complete violation of WP policies (especially WP:VER and WP:NOR). I am going to remove it forthwith. If anyone wants to argue for its continued inclusion, let's discuss this. In sum, my view is as follows: If we are going to have a "Criticism" section, it needs to be reliably sourced. Sunray (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, have you read the extensive discussion on the criticism section in these talk pages. The consensus has been that this section is important and your claim that there are no valid sources currently sited in it is not in agreement with my reading of the critiques. So I am reinstituting it.Michaplot (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussion on criticism on this page. However, when I tried to verify the "sources" used, I was unable to come up with a single one that met the criteria set out in WP:IRS and WP:VER. I removed the section in accordance with the latter policy. Please note that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (i.e., you). The policy requires editors to, justify with a reliable source, each statement (and especially critical comments) made about a person or organization. Please do not restore that material until you have found reliable sources for each statement. Sunray (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you and others have consistently worked to get rid of the criticisms page. I am not sure where this urge comes from, but I am guessing it is fear. I would also suggest to you that, as recent research on the financial collapse has shown, strong in-groups become increasingly deaf to any outside advice and critique. Your contention in deleting the criticism page is that there is no valid criticism of NVC.

As for the contents of that page: 1. Why is the CrossCurrents article not a valid source? It is a journal. 2. What is wrong with the Sarles essay? She is a reliable source as she is a professional mediator who had experience with NVC in her work and published an analysis of it, although not in a peer-reviewed journal. 3. What is wrong with the Fullerton thesis, which reviews some of the critiques of NVC? Theses can be valid sources, and she provides a good synopsis of research on NVC. 4.Speaking of the Fullerton thesis, which was published in 2009, she notes that there currently exists a dearth of discussion, analysis and critique of NVC in the academic community. She also avers that NVC currently lacks any longitudinal research program, or significant research and analysis of the practice and its theoretical basis. I see that these statements were removed and now the claim on the page is that, "A growing body of research on NVC is available, much of it in the form of academic dissertations." However, this growing body, as collected on the CNVC website consists almost entirely of small scale studies done as theses or dissertations. The fact is, Fullerton's claim is still true--there exists no longitudinal research program on NVC. This seems like very biased editing. Why do you think this source material was removed? 5. The other critiques are certainly marginal, but a case has been made for keeping them in this lengthy discussion. A case could certainly be made for ditching them too. 6. What reliable sources support the rest of the article? There are currently 33 references for the article. 1) is a non peer reviewed journal and the article is the text of a lecture given at the school. 2) is a secondary source that I added to document what NVC is. 3) is a website (an NVC website). 4) is the Fullerton thesis, reliable but the ideas I noted above have been elided. 5) is another thesis. Interestingly, this thesis from 2008, claims that only four other studies of NVC programs exist and all are theses. 3 found a benefit and 1 did not. 6-12) are all books published by Puddledancer Press which is a publisher devoted to promoting NVC. As I am sure you are aware, the WP policy on reliable sources says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature..." 13) is a memoir, probably reliable but a primary source. 14-17) Puddledancer. 18-20) are websites for an organizations promoting NVC. 21) a book on using NVC. Looks reliable, but certainly not academic. It is probably a primary source, since it is written by a nonviolence trainer. 22) a children's book, apparently self published. 23) a link to the CNVC research page. 24) a link to an NVC website. 25-26) articles from "On The Edge. The official news letter of the International Association of Forensic Nurses". This is not a peer reviewed journal. It says it is a forum for communication. 27-28) reliable articles supporting the idea that human needs may be universal. 29) a reliable article from a religious journal arguing for NVC can be used with members of a religion. It is an essay and not research. 30-33) all promotional or non-academic, non-peer reviewed.

So where is the reliable sourcing for the rest of the article on NVC? I see few citations to reliable third-party sources. Those that do exist are mostly primary sources and the WP policy advises caution with primary sources. Secondary would clearly be better. Where is the academic discussion of NVC? Shall I delete most of the rest of the article on these grounds?Michaplot (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. One thing puzzled me, though. You state: "I see that you and others have consistently worked to get rid of the criticisms page." I do not recall arguing against the "Criticism" section. My main concern with the article has been to try to get better sources. Just above, I said: "Some of the criticisms are interesting and I was really trying to maintain this section." I mean that. However, if one reads WP:VER and WP:WEIGHT carefully, it is clear that criticism is held to the highest standard. WP:VER states: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups."

Here's my response to the issues you raise:

1. You are right that Cross-Currents is a journal. However, it is in blog format and is not peer-reviewed. In describing the journal, its editors state: "Like most journals in blog format, editorial control is extremely loose..." This was evident, given the nature of the critique, which strikes me as impressionistic and subjective. I Googled the author, but could find nothing on him. So we have a non-notable author, writing in a religious-themed magazine in blog format. While his contentions may be interesting, it is clear that they do not meet standards for criticism in the social sciences.
2. You ask: "What is wrong with the Sarles essay?" Just that, it is an unpublished essay, not a reliable source. The Southwest Facilitators' Network is an organization that may well be a competitor of NVC, which has one of its two offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This illustrates why it is important to ensure reliable sources for criticism. If her critique is any good, why has she not had it published in a peer reviewed journal?
3. The Fullerton thesis may well be a reliable source, however the link is dead. It would be good to see if we can get access to it somehow.
4. Agreed, we need to reconcile Fullerton's comment about the lack of research with the statement currently in the article. I have no idea whether her comment is valid or not. Perhaps we should discuss this further.
5. I think that it would be difficult to argue for the other sources in the "Criticism" section. The YouTube video had some comic value, but it illustrates why YouTube must be used sparingly on WP.
6. In your last point, you question the sources used to present the model. I agree that they need improvement. In accordance with WP:VER we can remove unsourced or poorly sourced material if it might damage the reputation of living people or groups. Poorly sourced material that is not damaging, should be tagged and better sources found.

Rhwentworth has been working on improving sources. There is still much to be done. Sunray (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a while since I looked at this page to see how you're treating me. I don't think it's my place to participate much in a W dispute over whether to include my work, but it did seem worth pointing out that a comment above ("like most journals in blog format, editorial control is extremely loose") seems to come from cross-currents.com, home of a different journal similarly named to the one that ran my article. It must have been obtained by merely googling "cross currents" instead of following the existing link that was in the Criticisms section and led straight to the W article about the correct journal. -Chapman Flack 128.210.3.16 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. It is good news for those who champion a "criticism" section. The two journals are vastly different. I have some questions about your critique. For starters, I was wondering whether there have been any peer-reviewed responses to it. Did Rosenberg respond? Do you know of any other discussion about it? Sunray (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the portion of the "Criticism" section that dealt with Flack's article. It will need some editing and I am hoping for some discussion of the issues raised by Flack. While I think that he raises some interesting points in his critique, if I've understood him correctly, some of the statements he makes apparently do not separate the model from the cognitive process of developing the model. I don't think that Rosenberg ever said that humans would not, or should not, think. My understanding is that he is saying that making critical or judgmental statements does not work especially well in conflict situations. Observations, feelings, or needs, on the other hand, are undeniable. I believe that such a statement is empirically demonstrable in the literature on communications and conflict resolution. Sunray (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)'

1. The Sarle's paper is not unreliable because it is self-published. The WP policy does not say self-published work is not valid. It says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Sarles is a published author and an expert in this field, thus her self-published critique is valid, as per the policy.
2. How can an organization (the Southwest Facilitators Network) be in competition with a conflict resolution strategy? That makes no sense to me.
3. It is interesting to me that you decided the Fullerton source was no good and deleted it because the link was dead. A valid source is not rendered invalid because it is not available online.
4. As of discussing Fullerton's notion, there is not much to discuss. Produce some longitudinal research or any long term, widespread research on NVC and the issue is settled.
5. All of the research on the NVC research page cited by Rhwentworth seesm to be not reliable, based on WP policy. The policy says, "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." All of the research on the NVC research page are masters theses, so the significant influence would have to be demonstrated. Most of them are very small scale studies done by obvious advocates of NVC. (Strangely, some of the work showing NVC to be less effective is not found on the CNVC research page).
6. I am not sure why you mention the WP policy on living persons. Though the BLP might apply to groups and certainly applies to the Marshal Rosenberg page, it does not apply here. The NVC article is not about a group. It is about a conflict resolution strategy.
7. You seem to agree that poorly sourced material should be removed. I wasnt actually planning on removing anything from the article, but I think since we agree on that, it might be interesting to treat the rest of the article with the same rigor as we are treating the criticism section. Everything beyond the material explaining what NVC is and how it works should be removed and statements strongly indicating that research does not support the claims can be added.Michaplot (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Observation: Perhaps my comments were not stated clearly enough. But rather than comment in any detail on each of your rejoinders, I think we need to move on. I challenged several sources. You have not produced reasons to remove my challenge to any of those sources. Chapman Flack pointed out that his article had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and I have put it back in the article.

Briefly: Sarles' paper has not been published at all. It is a Word document. Would you be willing to read WP:IRS and WP:VER more carefully before pursuing this further? I won't comment further on Fullerton unless someone can produce a link to that thesis. NVC is not a "conflict resolution strategy." NVC & Nonviolent Communication are trademarks of cnvc.org and Marshall Rosenberg. If you wish to continue this, would you please present actual evidence (quotations, links, etc.). If you don't do this, continuing will, in effect, be wikilawyering. Sunray (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read WP:IRS and WP:VER. In fact I quoted what seems to me the relevant bit of the policy. You say the Sarles paper has not been published and thus is not reliable and you simply cite the policy. I say that the paper exists on the internet and is available as a print publication from the author, which means it has been published--self-published. She is an expert in this field who has mainstream publications, and it is her personal critique, which according to the policy I quoted makes it potentially reliable.

You won't comment further on the Fullerton paper unless a link is found, but you have not removed it from the body of the article, only from the criticism section. More importantly, it is irrelevant that there is no link for it. Where in the policies you cite does it say that a source must have a link to an internet site?

So if NVC etc. are trademarked terms, why is this information not in the article? The article is not about the CNVC or Rosenberg. You are really contending that NVC is not a communication process that often functions as a conflict resolution process? Then the article needs a revision, because that is exactly how the article defines it.Michaplot (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Sarles, WP:IRS states:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

... Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." [3]

What publications by Sarles, on the topic of the article, have been published by a reliable third party? Sunray (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Peace Skills: Swim with the Dolphins, Not with the Sharks

Which is a, "Collection of definite techniques to prevent, reduce, and resolve conflict -- and even cultivate peace."Michaplot (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a self-published training manual. Sunray (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted the author and received some of her materials by mail. It appears that the now deleted critique referenced in the criticism section is a pamphlet--produced for distribution to the public and clearly self-published. The Peace Skills book is confusing and I am not sure I can figure it out. The trade paperback is printed by a pay to publish printer, and is attributed to Organizational Strategies, which may well be Sarles own organization. So, I think it is safe to assume that the work is likely self published.

Still, I fail to see the problem with this. Sarles is clearly an expert (whether we agree with her opinion or not) in this area. The source is absolutely verifiable (it is definite Sarles wrote it). These are matters of opinion, not fact. If we are to hold the opinions of critics to the standard that the criticisms must be published in peer-reviewed journals or by traditional publishers, then most of the article should be deleted. Nearly all the information on NVC is the opinion of authors either self-published or published in venues that are clearly promotional, both of which would render them invalid by the standards you are applying to the criticisms. I think the policies you reference are intended primarily to ensure that factual information is reliable. The criticism formerly included in this article are not intended to be factual. They are opinions and if the author of the opinion and the opinion itself seems credible (again, whether or not we agree with it), I feel these should be included--just as the opinions of those who promote NVC are included, without any reliable sources.

It seems to me a fundamental problem with the issue of NVC is that it has not attracted much academic research or discussion. Nor is it much discussed even in opinion essays or philosophical contexts, except by people like Flack and Sarles. The conspicuous lack of third-party sources has been interpreted by previous editors to suggest a notability concern. However, if we accept that NVC is notable enough to have a WP article, I think it should at least be reframed to portray the actual state of affairs (that there is little reliable literature on NVC from third-party sources).Michaplot (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to drop this, IMO. Sarles' critique is not published in a peer reviewed journal and is not a reliable source. I've challenged the use of this source so please do not reinsert it in the article unless and until there is consensus on this talk page to do so. Sunray (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards for criticism

There have been further additions to the "Criticism" section by Michaplot. I have reverted most of them. [4] My main concern is that they are not written from a neutral point of view and are not based on reliable or verifiable sources. I don't have time to do a tutorial on use of sources. Best to attend a university for that. Overall, the material seems to be a synthesis of Michaplot's own biases against NVC. For example, Michaplot writes: "Some religious Christians find a, "significant tension between [NVC's] assessment of human nature as essentially compassionate and the scriptural assessment that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'<ref name="Latini" />" This is a misrepresentation of Latini's findings and seems to be an attempt to cherry pick her paper to support a particular point of view. Latini's conclusion is exactly the opposite of what Michaplot claims:

" Nonviolent Communication can be understood as a humanizing ecclesial and educational practice. It challenges our enemy images of other people and provides a concrete way of transforming those images. It fosters openness to others in the midst of misunderstanding and conflict. When taught in a seminary curriculum, NVC can help future ministers live as persons made in the image of God. When brought to bear on seminary pedagogy, it can help professors to model compassionate discourse in hopes that our personal and corporate existence might witness to Jesus Christ, the True Human." -- Latini, T. (2009) Nonviolent Communication: A Humanizing Ecclesial and Educational Practice. Journal of Education & Christian Belief.

Several other references reinserted by Michaplot were unverifiable. Some have been questioned above. Others seemed to be a synthesis similar to the Latini example. I have removed them and am challenging their use per WP:VER. Sunray (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable? Did you attempt to look these up? The sources are all verifiable. Latini is cited in the article as concluding that Christians CAN find compatibility with their faith and NVC--notice her use of the word can. I believe she wrote the paper exactly because many Christians have exactly the problem I suggested and quoted from her paper. There are other sources for this but her's is the best.

So, you could certainly remove the Sarles ref since you seem to find it distasteful, though I contend it is cited appropriately. How do you justify removing everything else, including the well documented fact that there is little criticism of NVC published? A wholesale reversion does not seem appropriate, and your accusation that I made the section, which I shortened and made more objective, NPOV is both insulting and should be better documentedMichaplot (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unverifiable. Have you looked at those references? For the statement that "there is little published criticism of NVC", you cite Fullerton, Gear and Little. The Fullerton thesis is a dead link and Gear gets a "citation error." That leaves Little, but I haven't yet found her comment in her thesis because there is no page number given. The statement is obviously supportable, but the references are such a mishmash, I think it would be best to find verifiable citations and cite page numbers.

What are you hoping to achieve by resorting to edit warring? I've raised some serious concerns about the way you are using sources to support what you evidently believe. How can we get this on a better footing? The usual way on talk pages is to work on major changes one at a time and get agreement here before adding to the article. Criticism, as I have said, in detail, above, needs to be held to a certain standard. Rather than edit war, would you be willing to see what we can we agree on? Sunray (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake on the Gear link. I fixed it. The Fullerton link is not dead on my computer. You want page numbers for all the refs? No other ref in this article has a page number. For the Little thesis you can refer to pg 62 and 28ff. if you want to verify my use of this source. It really isnt that hard to search in an electronic document or use the table of contents, so I had no idea page numbers were warranted.

As for the stuff you removed, you say they need reliable sources. These were given. The bit about organization who used NVC and found it problematic and the bit about Skinner both came from the Fullerton source. In fact, she cites and discusses Sarles in some detail, so my reference to Sarles was in the context of summarizing Fullerton's use of this critique. That is why I contend these are valid, reliable and verifiable sources.

As for edit warring, I reverted your deletions not as an act of war but because it seems to me I have given reliable sources for nearly every sentence in the section, while the rest of the article is festooned with "citation needed" tags and could use even. If you disagree with the sources, my use of them or maintain that the section lacks a NPOV, then I think you should discuss this, and perhaps fix some of the problems rather than delete everything. Your claim that you want to maintain this section but cannot is belied by the fact that you see fit to delete refs in this section but leave the same refs in the main body of the article, and that you claim that refs are inadequate without checking into them carefully. I would prefer to discuss these issues on this page, and reach consensus, ask for clarifications or sources, etc., rather than unilaterally deleting whole sections, without discussion as you have done. Curiously, no one else but you and I seems to have an opinion.Michaplot (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We are both aware of the paucity of good sources. Sometimes one has to rely on relatively weak ones to be able to explain a topic. That is the only justification for their (the sources) existence and I agree with the "ref improve" tags. My main point here is that (if this encyclopedia is to be worth anything) criticism must be held to a high standard. In my years editing here, I have seen hundreds of folks brandishing political epithets based on scant data in half-assed attempts to discredit a person or group working to try to make the world a better place. I now realize that this wasn't what you were about at all. Thank you for trimming the section. There is a chance we can improve this article, yet. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we have to search a bit harder for secondary sources. There must be more out there. Just in the past few days, I have found Gorsevski, and a few others. I have put some calls out to my NVC friends and to some others in the hopes we can come up with something. I have just discovered one new good source: several articles by Havva Kök. In a conference paper and a journal paper, she describes, very nicely I think, the assumptions of NVC. She also points out the very poor literature on the subject. I am thinking that, whether we ditch the criticism section, rename it a Response section or maintain it in something like its current manifestation (with better sourcing), we might want to reframe the structure of the article. We might state at the beginning of the article, some of the assumptions and context of NVC. For example, both Kok and Fullerton point out that NVC is based on a set of beliefs, such as the belief in universal human needs, the belief that all people are inherently compassionate, etc. It might be useful for the uninitiated to see a list of these assumptions and the historical context (Rogers, Maslow, etc.). Then, of course, the bulk of the article would be the description of the theory and practice of NVC. The criticism or response section and an application section would round it out. Hopefully, some more sources will be forthcoming, which will obviate some of the sketchier ones we have!Michaplot (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gorsevski reference

Given that the reference to the Gottman interview suggests he is not an advocate of active listening, how is it relevant to suggest that NVC is different from active listening? I would also also suggest that the critique of Gorsevski, though it refers to Gottman, is specifically about NVC and not about Gottman. I would also add this seems like original research to me.Michaplot (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gorsevski's claim that Gottman's research invalidates NVC is highly unlikely to be true. I know of no evidence that Gottman has ever even heard of NVC; he has however focused on the efficacy or lack thereof "active listening" in the context of marriages and Gorsevski's claim almost certainly rests on a readily disproven belief that "active listening" and the recommendations of NVC are the same. If you look at descriptions of the two processes, they're different. (That Gorsevski claims NVC recommends guessing thoughts when this is actually specifically warned against by Rosenberg is a hint that Gorsevski isn't taking the trouble to make distinctions.) Is our only choice to quote a false claim and leave it unmodified, unless we can find a published source that explicitly says it's a false claim? How can this be addressed? Rhwentworth (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Assuming the claim is false is and the source is unreliable, we should get rid of it. I think, however, that Gottman (and I have read only a little) addresses is empathy and communication in general, so I am not sure that his focus is on active listening. His research suggests that empathy is not so important. Gottman says that learning to communicate better is not a way to save a relationship. So, again, I think the criticism of NVC is deeper than simply aligning it with active listening. Gottman is not simply "against" active listening (actually he says it can work, but is not always realistic) and therefore by conflation of NVC with active listening is against NVC. Gottman is against the idea that learning to communicate better, or deal with conflicts in a less antagonistic way, (whether through NVC, active listening, speaking from the heart or any other system, is a solution to relationship problems.Michaplot (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gottman has said[5] "I'm not against empathy, I'm just thinking active listening is not a very good tool for accomplishing it." NVC claims to be a better tool for accomplishing empathy. You might or might not believe that claim, but no studies have proven it false, so it might be true. Studies Gottman has done or been influenced by are studies of the efficacy of particular techniques (in the context of trying to rescue marriages), and are inherently not studies of empathy (or communication) in general. Any assertion that improved communication and empathy by any conceivable approach couldn't be helpful in relating to people is a speculative generalization, not a proven fact as Gorsevski makes it out to be. It's a bit like saying "Studies have shown that previously proposed medications were not useful in addressing a particular disease; therefore this new medication (which I'm thinking is "similar" to prior medications though others disagree, and which hasn't been studied) is not going to help in this or related diseases." I was trained as a scientist, and I am uncomfortable with quoting Gorsevski in asserting speculation as if it were a scientific truth.Rhwentworth (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the bigger question of potentially false or misquided responses to NVC, the problem with us responding to them is that that would be original research. Gorsevski may claim, for example, that NVC promotes docility, and she may be wrong (or she may be right), but I don't feel it is our place as editors to challenge this claim. (If she claimed that NVC promotes people buying guns and shooting their rivals, we could, obviously, reject that claim as patently false.) What we can challenge is the validity (reliability, verifiability, etc.) of the source, and exclude it.

Philosophically, what is different between a claim that "NVC promotes people buying guns and shooting their rivals" and an accusation of NVC "accommodating docility and obedience"? In both cases one can agree that NVC doesn't explicitly do anything of the kind, and then any conclusions beyond that require our editorial evaluation of whether there is a plausible foundation for such a claim. If you say we can't do editorial evaluation of plausibility, we'd have to include both claims. So, it sounds like you're opening a door to such an assessment? Rhwentworth (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference is rather dramatic. The assertion that NVC promotes shooting people (or eating spinach, or howling at the moon) is simply factually wrong. The burden would be on the claimer to show that NVC promoted these in some source. The claim that NVC promotes docility is an opinion, and can be supported by reference to writings on NVC. You may not agree with the opinion, but others may agree with it. The standard for inclusion of such an opinion here would seem to me to be the reliability of the source, not whether what they say is correct or not. Gorsevski is an academic who specializes in nonviolent conflict communication. So her opinion would seem to me to be a prima facie reliable source. If she is a fringe minority, then maybe not.Michaplot (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility that comes to mind, (but again it is bordering on original research) would be to have the responses to NVC and then have a response to the responses--though it would have to be based on reliable sources (potentially the writings of Rosenberg or others?).

I can see your concern though, that including a false claim just because it appeared in print, can be upsetting. However, consider the logical outcome if we go down the road of responding to what we consider false in the sources we use for this article. What if, for example, I was wrankled by the false claims that all people are inherently compassionate and that human needs are never in conflict, only strategies are? It would not be hard for me to find lots of secondary sources in science journals and University Press books to bolster my dismissal of these beliefs. Should I then put responses to those claims of NVC on the NVC page?Michaplot (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. My main problem with the Gorsevski source is the statement: "[the NVC interpersonal process] flies in the face of the documented, statistically verified data and research of John Gottman." What statistically verified data? Surely this needs to be specified? Also, I find myself wondering whether Gorsevski has understood NVC. Take, for example the statement that Gorsevski "criticizes Rosenberg's NVC practice for accommodating docility and obedience by, 'taking a social, political, or other cultural problem and pinning it onto a single person to deal with or just 'accept'" What is she referring to? Sunray (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"In Rosenberg’s popular book, NVC, the relative strength of the individual is vastly overestimated while the key issue of structural violence is almost completely ignored. Rosenberg asserts that “denial of responsibility” constitutes a “kind of life alienating communication” that can be avoided by individuals owning up to their “thoughts, feelings, and actions” Of the examples he offers of “denial”, he includes a teacher’s remarks that she didn’t like to give out grades because she felt that grades were “not helpful and they create a lot of anxiety on the part of students,” yet that this teacher said she had “to give grades: it’s the district policy”. To this observation, Rosenberg recommended the teacher “correct” her thinking to say, instead, “I choose to give grades because I want to keep my job”. This reversal of the situation in which a hierarchical and cultural construct that values power and distribution of favors in the form of grades, in short, a form of structural violence, is transformed unfairly and in an oversimplified manner into one individual’s problem or false dilemma of trying to stay employed (as if myriad other job opportunities might be available to a woman who spent a career as a teacher). Rosenberg on the one hand complains that the world is made dangerous by the large “number of obedient, docile men,” yet his theory tends to accommodate such docility by taking a social, political, or other cultural problem and pinning it onto a single person to deal with or just “accept” it. Moreover, Rosenberg contradicts himself, listing “blame” or being judgmental as one type of “punitive force” that ought to be avoided, while he himself blames others for being too “obedient” and “docile” to fight oppression such as the Holocaust."Michaplot (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding is such a botched misunderstanding of what Rosenberg is saying I hardly know where to begin. Rosenberg isn't advocating obedience and docility; to the contrary, he is advocating acknowledgement of individual choice as a possibility even in a context of structural violence -- surfacing the issue of that structural violence rather than denying it. And doesn't it carry any weight that Rosenberg wrote explicitly about social change and emphasized the importance of structural issues? Why was this deleted? Rhwentworth (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Acknowledgement of individual choice as a possibility" is a very nice way of saying that we are responsible for our feelings. Rosenberg certainly doesn't advocate obedience and docility, but does adopting NVC implicitly promote those? What if, to take an example, a person I meet calls me a jerk? I am likely to be offended. Did the person's imprecation cause me to feel bad? If I am taking responsibility for my feelings (as, if I understand it correctly, NVC might suggest I do), I would acknowledge that the insult triggered my bad feelings, not caused them, and that my bad feelings stem from my needs for acceptance, appreciation, respect, etc. not having been met. I might even extend empathy to the other by guessing that he or she spoke ill of me because some need of theirs has not been met and they chose the tragic expression of unmet need rather than trying to connect with me. However, it seems like a huge leap to me, and perhaps even a semantic slight of hand to make the distinction between cause and trigger. If someone calls me a jerk, I think that causes me to feel bad. It may be true that if I work at it, I can come to not feel bad, but that is not something most people can do most of the time. Could it be psychologically damaging to let people off the hook when they treat you poorly? (Of course, I could say, "when you call me a jerk, I feel bad. Would you stop calling me a jerk."--but that is not necessarily satisfying--what about telling the person they have no right to call you a jerk and telling them you are not a jerk, i.e. defending yourself.) Analogously, if someone punches me, that causes a bruise, though I could argue that the punch only triggered my own mast cells to release histamine and cause my capillaries to become leaky, forming a bruise. But was it my body that chose to form the bruise? Was it my own psyche that caused me to feel bad when verbally assaulted?

So perhaps what Gorsevski is saying is that in situations where structural violence (e.g. an institution forcing me to do something or calling me a jerk in some way) occurs, to take personal responsibility for my feeling bad about that could promote docility. I could frame it as, I choose to be called a jerk because I want to keep my job. But I am then taking responsibility for something that is being done to me. I am participating in my own oppression. The fact that Rosenberg may write about social change and structural issues may or may not be relevant. It's certainly true he does not and would not explicitly advocate for docility and obedience and he may write passionately about changing institutions, like education, that are violent or oppressive. But his technique may inadvertently encourage docility. It seems to me like a reasonable question, at least, whether such an extreme promotion of personal responsibility is realistic or wholesome in the face of structural oppression.Michaplot (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rosenberg certainly doesn't advocate obedience and docility, but does adopting NVC implicitly promote those?" To attempt to answer would surely require an unsupportable generalization, would it not?

"Make me feel bad" My take is that "Good: or "bad" feelings are not contemplated in the NVC model.

"perhaps what Gorsevski is saying" That's just it, I have no idea what Gorsevski is saying. Why would the model "encourage docility"? A few months ago, I took a course in "Social change and NVC" that could hardly be said to encourage docility. Sunray (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The way Rosenberg talks about "triggers" and "causes" is easy to misunderstand, and I do wish he talked about this differently, as some NVC trainers do. The way I like to have it said is that what we feel is a result of what happens externally combined with how we process the event internally, and it is likely to be empowering to focus (much more than we conventionally do) on the internal parts of the chain of events. These are more in our locus of control and have more potential to offer us information about how we could move forward constructively. Rosenberg's distinctions are a way of inviting us to focus our attention in this way. However, the story doesn't end there. Upon focusing internally, one discovers one's needs, and then NVC invites people to take responsibility for expressing and meeting those needs. Which turns attention outward towards action. NVC doesn't discourage action. It does argue that the types of action we take without noticing our internal processes will often be ineffective in getting us the outcomes we want, and that we're often better off noticing our internal processes and then consciously choosing how to act. Rhwentworth (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that the word "responsibility" has a subtly different meaning within the NVC framework. Conventionally, "responsiblity" is about who everyone agrees to blame and punish when things don't go the way you want them to. In NVC, blame and punishment aren't part of the picture. Within the model, taking responsibility for one's own feelings and needs doesn't mean that others don't play a role in one's life and well-being. It just means that one is willing to be more aware of one's own role in the situation, as a means of gaining greater empowerment and effectiveness in dealing with others. Rhwentworth (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the way you have expressed that and I think you have hit on a key point. Sunray (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, above, is getting hard to follow. Would participants in the discussion be willing to post in date order at the bottom of the thread? The other way would be to separate the main topic into subtopics. Michaplot, you say: "The claim that NVC promotes docility is an opinion, and can be supported by reference to writings on NVC." I think that the key word is "supported." It may be a judgement call and the editors here are tasked with making that decision, per WP:CON, which says, in essence, "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." To make that decision, we first need the exact quote from Gorsevski. Do you have that? Sunray (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoted above, where you asked to what she was referring.Michaplot (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon. I agree with Rhwentworth. Her opinion seems to be based on a misreading of Rosenberg. I haven't seen any evidence in that supports what she claims. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for coming to this late. I wasn't paying attention when this was being discussed last week. I am concerned that the Gorsevski criticism and other material in the criticism section may have been removed because editors think it is wrong, inaccurate or invalid. It's not our place to second guess a reliable source, especially when it's a matter of opinion and interpretation. We can add another source that makes counter arguments but it's inappropriate for us to decide what belongs in the article based on our judgment as to its accuracy. If the source is reliable, verifiable and on-topic, it belongs, and from what I can tell, Gorsevski is directly and pointedly criticizing Rosenberg's approach. I think all the analysis of Gottman and interpretations of wording is missing the simple point that on-topic criticism (right or wrong) from a reliable source has been located and therefore belongs in the article. Jojalozzo 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at whether sources are verifiable is certainly part of Wikipedia's philosophy, and focusing on that helps keep things as objective as possible. At the same time, I don't think it's logically tenable that everything that is verifiable belongs in an article. If this were the case, then articles could grow to hundreds of pages long and there would be no basis for saying that anything should be omitted, provided everything is traceable to a verifiable source. I don't think that would be an approach that would optimize the quality and usefulness of articles. In addition to verifiability, it is inherent that there must be some editorial discretion about what is to be included in a given article and what will be omitted. That opens the door to decisions that may be harder to make based on purely objective grounds, but I think the consensus process (WP:CON) offers considerable protection against unreasonable editorial discretion.

In the case of the Nonviolent Communication, there is very little published criticism. WP:BLPSTYLE (admittedly concerning a slightly different context) says "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I have the impression that the verifiably-sourced critics we've found thusfar are offering viewpoints that are theirs alone--they constitute tiny minorities. (I do hear occasional informal critical feedback about NVC, much more about how it is sometimes taught or practiced than about the underlying ideas, but the Gorsevski/Flack views don't much correlate to what I've heard elsewhere as concerns. Because theirs are unique criticisms, it is unlikely that we'll find anyone else publishing a refutation or counterpoint that we could include--the criticisms aren't representative enough for anyone to be motivated to respond to them in print.) To me, the "tiny minority" issue makes it quite reasonable to be cautious about including such material, and to not default towards inclusion. In that context, discussion about the plausibility of the expressed opinion or the extent to which it is shared by others seems to me to be a valid part of editorial discernment. Rhwentworth (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A related policy quote (WP:UNDUE) says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." Rhwentworth (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gorsevski is a professor of communication specializing in nonviolence. Her book is a notable work, about language and peacemaking, published by the State University of New York. Clearly many people think it is an important contribution to the field of communication and nonviolence. Our own informal observations of criticism cannot be the basis for decisions about what to include, what's a minority opinion, especially when it's an expert opinion. Peer-reviewed, academic publications such as Gorsevski's are some of the most reliable sources available and Wikipedia policy is clear that it's not our role to decide whether to use them based on our own analysis beyond determining whether they're on-topic or not. Jojalozzo 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it you wish to add from her book? Sunray (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We could return the content that was removed and if there are problems we can address them. Jojalozzo 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Gorsevski was challenged in accordance with WP:VER. Following extensive discussion in this section, consensus was to exclude it. I would support the idea of editors working out a neutral summary of what Goresvski says in the context of social science theory and research. If you can propose some wording we could review that and get agreement here. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the problem with verifying that content so I can address it. A good part of it is quotes, which is inherently verifiable. Jojalozzo 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the WP:NOR policy I see a mandate to exclude material for which there is no verifiable reliable source. However, I don't see a mandate that we must include ALL material for which there is a verifiable source, which is what you seem to be arguing for. Are you arguing that there is such a mandate? If so, what do you base that on?

Regarding the issue of tiny minorities, regardless of the academic standing of Gorsevski, I don't see that as evidence that her viewpoint is not that of a "tiny minority." WP:UNDUE say "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." Among the reliable sources writing about NVC, I believe Gorsevski's is the only one that says anything remotely like what she says, which to me makes it a tiny minority. You're right that anecdotal information on what informal criticisms I've heard isn't the main point according to the WP standard, yet if that informal information had matched Gorsevski's viewpoint I might have been more inclined to argue for lenience in including it.

I'd like for this to be an article which is useful, verifiable, and neutral. It seems to me that there is inherently editorial judgment involved in determining what to include in an article, albeit policy will sometimes clearly say that something should be excluded. Rhwentworth (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions the lack of academic attention for NVC but when a reliable academic source is contributed, we reject it because the opinions are unique. A great deal of academic criticism is novel, single opinions. Academics is driven by original contributions, not repetition of what's known and accepted. What carries weight is the credentials of the opinion holders and the reliability of the publishers.

I am hearing we can't include a communication professor's opinions published by an academic press about a topic within her academic specialty because some of us (perhaps all of us) disagree with them, don't understand them, or can't find correspondence to anecdotal opinions. I do not see those reasons in accord with basic policy.

I am arguing so strongly here because the article will be stronger the more criticism we include. It benefits the reader to have as many potential flaws pointed out as possible. I would guess that none of us drink the kool aid to bottom of the cup and it diminishes the topic, the reader, and us if we do not expose every problem we can find sources to support. If NVC is a valid approach it can stand up to close, critical scrutiny. We need to trust the reader and not be overprotective. Jojalozzo 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

True, and we also must not mislead the reader. The problem with Gorsevski's views (at least the ones that were added to the article) is that they were not credible. It is possible that whoever tried to summarize her views didn't do her credit. I don't have her book, so I cannot tell. This has been discussed extensively and the consensus was to exclude the text about her views that had been added to the article. Let's not forget that "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Sunray (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From my engineering days, I'm used to thinking about signal-to-noise ratio as being an important issue in any communication. Adding noise simply does not improve communication -- it confuses matters, muddies the waters. It doesn't benefit the receiver in any way that I'm aware of. The W policies are cleverly constructed to try to yield high quality articles. It's usually okay that WP just requires things to be verifiable, not true, since in most cases, things that are verifiable and widely believed, but false, will have a verifiable refutation that can be included, and then one can leave it up to readers to make their own assessment of truth. However, verifiable but rare viewpoints that are false won't have any verifiable refutation -- why would anyone bother refuting points that almost nobody believes? Including these would be problematic because it results in a one-sided presentation of information with no balancing information to support readers in making an intelligent assessment of truth. Fortunately, the WP policies that exclude "tiny minority" opinions provide protection from this situation. However, there may be situations in which WP policies don't work as well as one would like. You want to exempt academic opinions from the policy excluding tiny minorities--quite reasonably saying that uniqueness is valued in academia, so this policy discriminates against academic sources in a way that doesn't make sense to you. Yet, relaxing one policy messes with the integrity of the whole set of policies, and the way they work together to support the creation of high quality articles. So, relaxing one policy may require adjusting how one relates to other policies in order to honor the high-quality article goal. I'm willing to buy "we should relax the tiny minority policy" -- but only if we come up with a different safeguard to protect readers from one-sided low-quality information. Verifiability alone is not sufficient protection when it comes to unique opinions, due to the inherent lack of verifiable counterpoints. I'm willing to consider including unique opinions if you're willing to let us apply sanity checks as to whether or not those opinions have any merit. Thoughts? Rhwentworth (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective you are asking us to relax basic, core WP:V for your tiny minority exception and OR judgment. I think we need outside help. Jojalozzo 04:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I get that you really want to honor WP:V. Yet you haven't yet responded to my questioning of your interpretation of what this policy actually means. WP:V says "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." These policies say what is acceptable in articles. They don't say what it is mandatory that we must include in articles. Nor, as far as I can tell, do they mandate or prohibit particular processes for consensually deciding what permitted potential content to omit. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Flack criticism

Please discuss the removal of the Flack criticism. I don't understand why it was removed. Jojalozzo 03:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of Flack's essay on this page. His critique seems to be based on a rather limited assessment of NVC. What aspect of it do you wish to discuss? Sunray (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism doesn't have to be valid to be included. The primary criteria for inclusion (once it's seen to be relevant) is the quality of the source. We cannot exclude properly sourced material that is directly related to the topic based on our determination of it's correctness or completeness. If we agree that the source is reliable but we think Flack's criticism is based on limited data then we can cite a source that says that but if there is no such counter-source we cannot exclude the criticism on that basis. Jojalozzo 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you conclude that "criticism doesn't have to be valid to be included"? How can we justify that? When I read WP:WEIGHT I see no justification for including a one-off commentary that editors here have said is a misinterpretation. Would you be able to explain with reference to specific policy? Sunray (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V. Core policy, one of the five pillars. First sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

I agree my statement "criticism doesn't have to be valid to be included" was extreme. I might better have said that when a reputable journal publishes an opinion piece, there's little or no role for editors to judge its validity. Jojalozzo 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The two aspects of WP:V that seem to be applicable are: WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and WP:V#Neutrality. In the former, the requirement is: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and the red flag in this case is: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions..." The latter policy requirement (neutrality) requires that all articles adhere to a neutral point of view "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Flack's opinion is exceptional in that it seems to fly in the face of mainstream communication and conflict resolution theory and practice. We would have to look at each claim he makes to see whether is should be included. Sunray (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Flack's ideas as so strange or incongruent with the mainstream. He points out some contradictions in Rosenberg's approach that I suspect Rosenberg also would welcome. His is an insightful and reflective response to NVC that describes subtle issues that I think most of us are willing to live with but that he finds troubling enough to point out. From my perspective, his arguments would help lift up the article. Jojalozzo 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's how Flack criticism about cognition was covered in the article:

"Flack identifies what he sees as Rosenberg's relinquishment of thinking and failure to acknowledge that NVC requires cognitive work. (He quotes Rosenberg as stating that, "any time you're thinking, your chance of getting what you need is greatly decreased." although the correct quote from Rosenberg's book is "If we express our needs, we have a better chance of getting them met" [6] Flack is struck by the realization that Rosenberg is actually demonstrating a process of critical thinking even as he abjures it. He sees this inconsistency as, “a sign of the life in his learning and his teaching," but also suggests that disparagement of thinking in NVC is a serious problem and advances Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence as an example of a similar method that expresses, “much of the essence of Rosenberg's nonviolent communication, free of the impatience with thinking that colors Rosenberg's approach.”

His misquote of Rosenberg is telling. Rosenberg does not say "don't think" and he certainly would not deny that cognition is required to develop, or understand, his model. Rosenberg is saying that expressing needs is more likely to be successful in dealing with conflict than expressing thoughts, or judgements. This is well borne out in the literature. So Flack's criticism is absurd. No one else holds that view because it is wrong. It does not merit being repeated in the article. Sunray (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was quoting from the video but I haven't watched it to know. Jojalozzo 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is evident that he completely misunderstands what Rosenberg is saying. Sunray (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you watched the video to check what he says? Jojalozzo 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I only drop in on this discussion occasionally, and I still feel it is more my place to listen than to talk while you are discussing what my ideas might be worth. The last time I chimed in was when someone was quoting editorial policy for the wrong journal, so maybe that indicates my threshold: if it's a simple factual matter that's only confusing the discussion, maybe that's worth pointing out, so I can go back to listening to what you think of the actual substance.

In this case, I had not even noticed when the "although the correct quote from Rosenberg's book is" fillip got added to the quotation from my paper. I cannot say why Louise Romain would have added that when the quotation in my paper is directly followed by a raised numeral 4 and footnote 4 refers not just to Rosenberg's video, but specifically to volume I, 40 minutes in. Anybody is welcome to check me on that. I made the footnotes that specific precisely because I could anticipate responses of the "he couldn't possibly have said that" variety (I had those responses myself, and hit 'rewind' a lot).

So Jojalozzo, thank you, you were right that the quote was from the video and not the book, but you wouldn't have needed to watch the video to know that; reading the footnote in my paper would tell you that much. Please, could editors at least do that much before writing about my "misquote"s? Watching the video would be a further step if you actually doubted my citation.

It's perfectly fair to doubt whether I really understood what Rosenberg meant. You can read that I followed the quotation immediately with "I hoped at first that was a bit of hyperbole"; I, too, hoped he was merely doing a bad job of saying what he meant, indeed, that he might be better at it than he knows how to explain. I do think even that's a nontrivial concern. because except in those cases where he himself travels to a site of conflict, the practice of his methods depends as much on his ability to explain them as on his own innate skill.

So certainly, anything I wrote is open to arguments about whether I got what he meant. But I think the notes in my paper already give you what you would need to settle arguments about what he said, and even about whether I was faithful to context. Chapman Flack Fri Oct 28 12:04:20 EDT 2011

Possible Additions to Article

I have been reading Havva Kök, a academic researcher in peace studies, who has experience with NVC. She suggests in “Nonviolent Communication in Political Conflicts”, USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law, Volume 2, (2009).pp. 349-362 that NVC is an application of Human Needs Theory. This seems to me a good place to start in terms of placing NVC in a context. She further asserts that:

Nonviolent Communication asks us to consider a very different view of reality, one which we are an expression of Divine Energy and the world is abundant realm in which our needs can be met without war, cruelty and bloodshed. In it, we find that:

1. The world is abundant rather than limited,
2. Human nature is giving and compassionate rather than selfish and indifferent,
3. Direct personal experience has greater validity than any description of it,
4. Violence is a learned behaviour rather than innate human quality,
5. Language shapes rather than simply describes, the world we perceive,
6. Unrecognized subjective perceptions artificially limit the range of potential action,
7. Valid needs are at the root of every action,
8. Needs are the universal expressions of human conditions rather than preferences,
9. Feelings are an accurate indication of whether or not needs are being met,
10. We are individually responsible for the choices we make in meeting our needs.

I am wondering what people think about including Human Needs Theory and some or all of these assumptions in an introduction to the NVC article? Kök is an academic who has researched NVC's applications to political contexts. I am not sure if the specific source is peer reviewed, but she certainly has a number of papers in peer reviewed sources and if not peer reviewed, it is certainly still an academic secondary source.Michaplot (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Her paper is interesting. You are right it is not peer reviewed. Also, Human Needs Theory is not much more researched than NVC. I would be leery of framing NVC within HNT, unless we can find a solid source for that. Here's a thought: Following your suggestion, above, perhaps we should change the "Criticism" section to "Responses," and include a range of responses, critiques, and applications of NVC, including Kök's paper. Sunray (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see some sort of contextualization of where NVC fits into the world. If not HNT, then what? Do we characterize it as self-help? An offshoot of the human potential movement? We need a third party, objective source to place it. Fullerton and Little do to some extent and Kok as well. Michaplot (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference to HNT, since the theory does seem to have a striking overlap with the premises of NVC. So, acknowledging HNT as a related idea seemed worthwhile. However, there isn't a known historical link between the HNT and NVC, so I'm doubtful that mentioning more about HNT would be merited. In terms of the assumptions of NVC, those as as articulated by BayNVC might be more authoritative.Rhwentworth (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the Response section, I am for that. Would we want to divide responses into areas, e.g. those located in academia and those located in business, religion, education, etc.? Would we want to restrict the responses to reliable secondary sources or would we admit primary and less reliable sources? What would the criteria be for a response we would include?Michaplot (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the way Rhwentworth has included the reference to HNT. I also think that we could trace the origin of NVC to Humanistic Psychology, but we would need sources to do that.

As to criteria for a responses section I think reliable secondary sources based on research, or systematic review, would be fine. My concern with some of the critiques we did have was that they were essentially opinion pieces and in some cases seemed to be based on a rather thin understanding of the model. From what I have seen, the theses seem to be more sound. Sunray (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

Well, Drmies has decided to delete a huge portion of the section on the theory and practice of NVC on the grounds that it is unverified and has excessive detail. I tried to reinstate it and Drmies redeleted it. with the admonition to "reinstate only that which is relevant and encyclopedically relevant".

It seemed to me that leaving it with citation needed tags for now would be preferable, but Drmies did not agree, and I don't want to get into an edit war. He or she has not, as far as I can tell, participated in any of these discussions, so we can't be sure where exactly they are coming from, but...it seems to me that the accusation of "unverified" as it relates to the theory and practice of NVC is easily remediable. While we lack secondary sources, it seems appropriate to me to cite Rosenberg's books and perhaps some other PuddleDancer press or similar NVC experts as sources for NVC specifics. Somebody should go and add citations as soon as possible!

As for the excessive detail, that is another story. I am feeling like the remedy for that, if Drmies or others feel like it is an issue, would be to go and edit the page, not delete it. Since Drmies does not seem inclined to do so, we might either come to a consensus here that the detail level is fine, or we might edit the section to be more succinct. I, personally, am fine with it the way it was (if someone adds good citations), though I think it could be written better, and be better organized. I was leaving that to those who are more expert than me.Michaplot (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there was excessive detail. NVC is a complex model (not as simple as it might appear at first glance), and what was present before the deletions was arguably woefully incomplete. I thought what was there needed to be expanded. But I also wanted it to be better written and organized, and referenced. Rhwentworth (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of criticism

Should we include a discussion of the criticism of Nonviolent Communication in Peaceful Persuasion:The Geopolitics of Nonviolent Rhetoric by Ellen Gorsevski, State University of New York Press, 2004? The disputed criticism is on pages 166 and 226-227. The author's academic web page is here. A previous discussion of this issue may be seen above. See paragraph two of an Oct 14 version of the article's Critique section for recent inclusion of this criticism. Send me email for a copy of the relevant text (<500 words). Jojalozzo 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not quite so simple as to ask whether to use this reference or not. What various editors objected to was the wording of the summary of the Gorsevski's views. As it was worded it made no sense. I asked for verification of the actual wording she used. We have not received that yet. I am willing to go to the library and get her book, but that will take time. Thus I think that this RfC is premature. Sunray (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I phrase RFC questions as neutrally as I can, leaving it to the participants to explain their positions.

I will send you the text I copied from the book that I ordered from interlibrary loan at my local town library. I'm coming to this dispute only recently. You've had weeks to obtain a copy. I assume you don't consider your not having a copy of the book a verifiability issue. Access to the book was not given as a reason for deleting the text when I asked previously.

If the main problem was wording then it would have been better to edit than delete. When I asked for clarification on why the text was deleted, I understood the reasons to be that Gorsevski did not understand the subject, was a tiny minority, had fringe opinions, and the text didn't comply with verifiability policy, not that the wording made no sense. Jojalozzo 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All of those issues arise due to the lack of clarity of the summary of her views in the article. Whether it is her fringe opinion, or that of the editor who added it to the article, is unclear to me. I think that any treatment of her views should be dealt with on this talk page and a consensus be determined as to what, if anything, from her book should be included. Sunray (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)