Talk:Narcissistic abuse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 16 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Almaaguilarpdx13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled Section

This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have ever read concerning a serious academic topic. There's editorializing and general bad style and grammar, and much of the discussion of parental narcissistic abuse is buried under a bloated account of the concept's academic history. I get that in highly theoretical fields like psychology, much of what can be said is necessarily equivocal, and that often debate inheres in terminology. However, I feel the concept deserves the exposition for its own sake that is nevertheless accorded to other concepts in psychotherapy by this very encyclopedia.

I apologize for critiquing the article without editing it; I don't really feel like I know enough about the topic to rework the article to the extent that I feel the article needs it.

A regular Wikipedia reader. 11/26/2017

I have deliberately downplayed the concept's part in the Masson/Miller/Ferenczi assault on Freud of the Eighties, as potentially distracting from more constructive and enduring aspects.

Should a page ever appear on the Freud Wars, a paragraph there, with a link here, would seem more appropriate Jacobisq (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph says "you"! As in, it is addressing the reader! This is against wikipedias rules! It is a big poopoo on the face of our face. 68.108.98.2 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So dear 68.108.98.2, please be bold and rephrase this paragraph! Lova Falk talk 14:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Done!Pbrower2a (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Good section on Adult-to-Adult Abuse

The section on adult-to-adult abuse is a very nice summary of the phenomena. My complements to whoever wrote it. Thanks. Yaman32 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

== Some problems with the source regarding "codependents voluntarily seeking relationships" with people with narcissism. The source is outdates, refers to "inverse narcissist" in the gender pronoun "she" and is a poor source for cultural understanding of the dynamics between people in relationships that may exhibit these complementary traits.

Vaknin

Vaknin is a diagnosed psychopath - he's the subject of and is diagnosed as such in the film, 'I Psychopath'. He is NOT a qualified expert on narcissism. He also has no doctoral degree as he sometimes claims - ‘The phd was acquired in a diploma mill’, Vaknin, ‘I psychopath’, section 9, 2.45 - and he was imprisoned for fraud.

He created a web of books and websites about narcissism that sucked victims in and then abused them further - see 'Late night live', Phillip Adams, 'Spending time with a psychopath', Wednesday 24 March 2010 10:30PM, ABC Australia, at 20.30 into the podcast – Ian Walker, the documentary maker behind 'I, Psychopath', describes how Vaknin sucks people into his web under the guise of being an expert. It's not too difficult to find other accounts of this on the web. Dr. Robert Hare, creator of the 'Psychopathy Checklist - Revised', is also in the interview and jokes with Ian Walker that he warned him that by the end of the documentary Walker would be under Vaknin's control.

Giving credence and publicity to a psychopath who deliberately harms the already damaged is extremely amoral. A psychopath is not capable of understanding normal human emotions and since he or she has no empathy, no conscience and no remorse and is manipulative and thrill-seeking is only ever going to harm others. Psychopaths are also incapable of changing so there is no such thing as a 'good' psychopath, there's only a psychopath temporarily wearing a 'good' mask. 79.79.115.20 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

“Types of Abuse” section needs revision

It states contradictory information to this article referenced: (when you follow the psychological abuse link)

Male and female perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse exhibit high rates of personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.[32][33][34] Rates of personality disorder in the general population are roughly 15–20%, while roughly 80% of abusive men in court-ordered treatment programmes have personality disorders.[1] Jeanmb1 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I will no longer use Wikipedia due to this article

I have been a psychotherapist for over ten years and I was disgusted upon reading the information posted on this page. Narcissistic abuse is more prevalent than any other type of abuse, mainly because people do not know how to recognize it due to pages like this. Frankly, it seems all the edits were probably made by people diagnosed with NPD. This page grossly undermines the damage this type of abuse causes and fails to inform the public about it in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.91.127 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Content of the article is tangential to the topic

After reading this article I found myself more informed about the controversy surrounding narcissistic abuse than about the abuse itself. Whilst it is important to discuss the topic somewhere on Wikipedia, I feel that it might be better to instead split the controversy section into its own page and write a short synopsis, followed by a link to the new page. After that we can write more in-depth about the specifics of psychological, physical, sexual and financial abuse as they relate to narcissistic abuse, since there are some peculiarities in this context that aren't necessarily covered too well by articles that talk about them more generally. How does that sound?

Skennard98 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

This article is not only lacking sources and citations, it is clearly sympathetic of abusers. It is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive.

Idmidiom (talk)