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 crosscurrents.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)