Talk:Control freak

Much more information needed

It would be useful for someone to do more research and contribute much more information, someone that knows a lot about this. This kind of information is very valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.134.84 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New Thoughts?

This is a blatent advert for an un-proven source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.5.18 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some minor stuff but I'm wondering if the last sentence (or the whole "The Character" subheading for that matter) is appropriate here or if it should be moved elsewhere. --GrafZahl 08:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Split?

I think the two sections should be split with a disambiguation page. Or perhaps a merge of the animation portion into "List of Teen Titans Villians". Slang terminology should be in Wikitionary anyway.

---

I happen to agree that this article isn't really appropriate. I also removed the link to the "control freak" character. It just wasn't relevent.

Krisyan 09:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

The article is a lift from here http://www.ec-online.net/knowledge/Articles/control.html. I don't see permissions granted to republish under the GFDL on the original document and I see mo attribution in the wikipedia version.

Are the tags still needed?

I removed the noncompliant tag because I think it applied to the long and useless text at the end of the article, which was removed, and I think the formal tone tag is not needed anymore but I'm not sure so I left it there. Can somebody look at this to decide whether to remove or not the formal tone tag? Canjth 28 July 2006

Steve Jobs

Are you sure we can't have a picture of Steve Jobs?

Although the Alan Deutschman remark regarding Steve Jobs is quite funny, I don't know if it really belongs here.--Tabun1015 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jobs -- why?

The part on Steve Jobs does not related well with the other content. Before we are discussing the 'psychology', with Steve Job we are discussing how to design a system.

Removed link

I removed the external link, which was incorrectly titled "examples of control freak behavior." What it really linked to was a random woman's personal blog talking about how her husband called her a control freak one day. It was not a worthwhile link. Lawofone 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add the irrelevant link without discussing it here. Anshul 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't, I removed it. Lawofone 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The irrelevant link was back, so I removed it as well. The link actually directed me to some advertisement page where it wanted me to swap my cell phone. jasonaltenburg 6:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

derogatory term?

This article says that control freak is a derogatory term. I do not think this is correct, because often it is a control freak that gets things going and makes sure things are done right. Being a control freak is not a bad things and I would like to remove the indication that this is a derogatory term. I know the polite thing to do is to up it here first, so if I don't get a response I will be changeing this.

starlingrock "Being a control freak is not a bad things..." if I don't get a response I will be changeing this."

CONTROL FREAK

see you got offended...point proved it is a derogatory term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.116.176 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hplover09

Kindly leave it alone. There isn't a person alive who will call someone a control freak and expect to be thanked in return. Thus: derogatory. Pfistermeister (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alas, you are the victim of an absolute, and these almost never work out. There are many professionals out there who say that being a control freak is a great think, and would take it as a compliment. Cheryl Cran is one of them. She has written the books “The Control Freak Revolution”, “50 Ways to Lead and Love It” and “Say What You Mean--Mean What You Say." Here is a link to an article on her opinions on control freaks: http://www.slackermanager.com/2008/02/7-steps-to-being-a-successful-positive-control-freak.html. Here is another one: http://www.brazencareerist.com/2008/04/17/5-reasons-why-being-a-control-freak-is-a-good-thing-for-you-and-your-career/. Check these out and we can talk again about this necessary change. Hplover09 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No: if you think any of that twaddle is important you can *talk about it at the end* of the existing article. What you *can't do* is start removing and re-defining stuff in the service of someone's personal and profit-generating pet theory. Pfistermeister (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "twaddle," even though I believe it is correct, and what is here is wrong. I just hope nobody comes to Wikipedia to find out what a control freak is... --Hplover09 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So: you have nothing to contribute to the article *at all*, then...? You simply wanted to *replace* the existing definition with one you personally happened to like more...?

Or -- is there something you can actually *add* to the page as it stands...? Pfistermeister (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes that are necessary. Only could you please tell me how to cite my sources, because I don't know how. --Hplover09 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, someone needs to tell me how to cite the changes I made. How do you incert a source? --Hplover09 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed your spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.187.129 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who had a once close relationship followed by a falling out with another who later become part of a rock band and wrote a thinly-veiled song about me labeling me a “control freak,” I, for one, can categorically state that I was most decidedly not happy. Ungrateful wretch!

There's more than one kind of derogatory. Some words are only insults, such as "retard" (to describe a disabled person) or "nigger" (except when used satirically). But there's a lot of slang that is descriptive in nature, such as "redneck," "jerk," and "control freak." These are commonly used and not necessarily insulting. People will even use the terms to describe themselves. 206.116.243.76 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Control freak and Narcissism

Pathological narcissists are often control freaks. This ought to be mentioned.--Penbat (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Control Freak could be a negative connotation. Somethings have to micromanaged but when no input is allowed in the task that is when problems arise.When you have control freak/lets get it done/what do you say?/ ok lets do it. that could be ok. But when it is control freak/do as I say, I am in charge/ bully tactics/ intimidation/insecurity, then that is where there are problems. They are the only ones who love themselves to extreme. Comments? Henry v v (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment is excellent and Henry is correct. Control freakery is a characteristic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceSchmerel (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article should be united with the one on micromanagement. 'Control freak' is a popular term for an obsessive micromanager in everyday life, not a different psychological type. 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)~Bulgarian reader19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.147.244 (talk)

Quotes

Is it just me, or is half the text on this page consisting only of quotes from some article? I'd argue the quotes make up too large a part of the overall text, and I'd further contend that they are poorly executed and cause the text to be difficult to understand as they are very much chopped into bits and pieces. I would also love it if someone could actually write an article on this detailing both the positive and already-listed negative side. Yes, "control freak" is a derogatory term, but "a need for control" does not necessarily have to be as there are multiple examples of worklife situations where some degree of it is a useful trait to possess. This is worth mentioning. I believe the person above was trying to convey this (although to the opposite extreme instead of a neutral middle-ground). I am not "correctly" knowledgeable enough to comfortably edit this article myself. I also lack the time and energy. That doesn't make it less important. 94.254.80.16 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

self-destructive habits

I'd like to see some research here on control freaks and self destructive habits. I've known several cfs and each of them seemed to allow him or herself one habit which was self-destructive both in tendency and result. This might go with the co-dependency issue. Examples include tobacco, alcohol, and a diabetic who insisted on hoarding sweet snacks. It seemed to be an issue of "everybody has faults", however the excessive indulgence was what made it destructive.

Control freak's not a term in psychology

It's just a general slang term used by the general public and it's not terminology in any branch of psychology or psychiatry. If it's to be linked with narcissism or antipersonality disorder, sources that comply with WP:MEDRS are needed that link "control freak" with "narcissism", "antisocial behavior" and formal terminology in psychology and/or psychiatry. Farrajak (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

diagnosis of narcissism - are there mental health professionals with this opinion? (other than in pop psych books)?

Could reliable third party sources be provided? (Enough to justify this huge template)? Farrajak (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Check this lot out: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=%22control+freak%22+narcissism. Also narcissism is obviously much broader than just a mental health term, in fact as you must know, the correct mental health term is "narcissistic personality disorder". Narcissism is also a concept, societal and cultural attitude. You must surely know all this or dont you understand what you are editing ? Also "pop psychology" is perfectly OK as a Wikipedia source.--Penbat (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparison between Wellington and Napoleon?

While there is some truth in the comparison between Wellington and Napoleon, it is not the whole picture by any means.

Wellington was a general in the British Army, under its Commander-in-Chief and answerable to elected politicians. His forces included allied contingents, who answered to their governments. To fulfil his orders from London and keep his various allies on side required constant attention.

Napoleon on the other hand was a dictator, answerable to nobody, and his armed forces answered only to him. As well as waging war, he also had the French Empire and its puppet states to run. Only by delegation could he manage such a task.

--Hors-la-loi 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

New form.

I´m missing here the manager client subordination, where individuals on the lower rungs of wage/capability attempt to con the client into/force the client into, routes that that client is not willing to go into. IE: shrinkwrap licensing. Microsoft´s Bill Gates allotted to allow those types of individuals within his own sphere, ´IE: microsoft´, by giving his ´executives´ ample room to maneuver. This led to internal upsurbtion by ´control freaks´, most of any whom can be labelled, ´fascist communism/´ which leads to a ´army controlled´/´populist controlled´ element (Hence, the shrinkwrap licensing, where pretense is made to virtually con the individual in believing the shrinkwrap HAS any licit/legal standing anywhere. To force the issue of shrinkwrap ´legality´, a specific states legislation is used, deleware, south dakota, mexican contract, those same states & legislature having a ´populist´ movement which can be rallied upon to force a statement of ´legitimacy´ through pure bribery and extortion.

Another form of this ´shrinkwrap´, is the ´Bankers Internet contract´ (example is Wells Fargo with their ´no fee´ money transfer, where the client is extorted to press the agree button by and through inhibiting him from accessing his account and money transfer capability (this has a direct relationship with Stanford Bank/Antigua, fast amounts of subsidiation, and includes internal crime (current, running these days), where ´phone banker desks´ check/mine the banks accounts to see whom has had no/insufficient movements (accorded to them) so as to have a ´legitimate´ ´purpose´ to make these accounts disappear.

Both are forms of ´control freak´ modes, none of those modes having real legitimacy, the only purpose being to satisfy either criminal entendres (downright stealing), or obsessive-cumpulsive disorders. (Post Twin Towers, Post Vietnam War, Post Korean War, Post Iraq, are all internal social events of loss of control, where the individuals no longer have the amassed ´power´ to mass control/mass manipulate through excuses.

Other examples are paul jones (guayana), where the ´control freak´/obsessive-compulsive WITH codependencies obtains less and less control, and finally leads to forms of mass suicide. (Currently, this is the situation for what are several nations, including the POST Iraq United States). (With all out attempts to force a continuation on any scale of the continuation of the War Act, including direct attacks on individuals whom would eliminate the ´War Act´, or for that matter the continuation of the ´communist´ aspects of military fascism: ´Homeland Security´ Protocols (Also called the Vigilanti Acts) and similar, without which the individual presumes to lack control.

These issues and instances can last a very long time, examples abounding of situations where solely the death of the ´control freak´ leads to amelioration of the instance. IE: Her Hitlers Germany, Several Asian Nations with family regimes, several historical modes in aristocratic monarchism, where the ´new king´ becomes a ´control freak´, or for that matter is too lenient and alotts to allow a ´populist´ control freak into position, degrading his own capacity and leading to populist revolt (Russia).

In this same form and manner, wikipedia HAS shown a severity of signs of these individuals in the mitst of wikipededia itself, examples abounding of statements made that lead to individuals no longer participating. IE: the originators are ´control freak´ micromanagers. (In slang it would be said: a roach baller: individual whom puts his eyeballs between the legss of a roach [to observe the details]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.58.55 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The Inmates Speak?

Never have I encountered a WP "Talk Page" comprised primarily of comments offered by the actual personality types being described in the article itself - that is, until today. Congratulations WP editors! You are now officially deemed WP Control Freaks!! Snit333 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality - "live-and-let-live principle"

Might I suggest changing the phrase

which respected the live-and-let-live principle of "Do your own thing" in opposition to the social conformity required by traditional conservatism

to something along the lines of

which espoused the live-and-let-live principle of "Do your own thing" in opposition to its perceived requirement of social conformity within traditional conservatism

I feel this changes the statement from one of implicit approval, to a neutral statement of fact. Jaguar83 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Control freak describes a person with a personality disorder?

As of September 2021‎, this article contains gross misrepresentations of its citations as well as amateur psychology concepts. Some highlights:

• control freak describes a person with a personality disorder characterized by undermining other people
• this can be caused by feelings of separation or departure from a loved one
• People with histrionic personality disorder need to be the center of attention, to attract other people to themselves into disposable, personal relationships.
• Recovery for them entails recognizing that being a control freak helped paradoxically preserve codependency itself
• People with antisocial personality disorder tend to...

I've reverted back to #758768404 when much of this content started filtering into the article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)