Talk:Gaslighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Reference in pop culture (House MD)[edit]

Well, since I heard about gaslighting I have found the term being used everywhere lately (as is often the case.) In the new episode of House MD (season 7 episode 12 "You Must Remember This") Doctor Gregory House is upset about his friend Wilson buying a cat, as he sees it as Wilson's way of quitting the dating scene. House decides to hide ragweed in Wilson's house so Wilson would attribute his allergies to the cat. Wilson knows that House is somehow involved and says to him "I am not allergic to cats, you are gaslighting me." House admits this to be true. I thought it was a good example, and since the word is actually used, I thought maybe it could make it in the main article. Thanks Wikipedia for getting me through college by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.178.15 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 17 February 2011

RfC about Trump section[edit]

Resolved: Consensus is to generalize and broaden the scope cum purview of the section.As a sidenote it conforms to WP:NPOV.Winged Blades Godric 07:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the section Gaslighting#In_politics fall in line with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV? If not, what should be done to correct it?--Winged Blades Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What to do with neutrality and bias of the section? T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)--Original question.

Survey[edit]

  • Support inclusion of the paragraph, which helps the reader.
  • Oppose, it is biased to the reader.
The above two bullet points were added by User:T.H.Reesh at the time of the RFC's creation, seemingly as a literal copypaste of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Example. I can't tell if the "Half & Half" comment below is intended as a third example or the user's actual opinion. --McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Half & Half keep both sides to a minimum but each have a presence in article. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conforms to NPOV - The section is fine. As stated at NPOVN by multiple editors, there is no issue here. THReesh needs to stop with the OR regarding the Goldwater rule. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Its ok What is supposed to be wrong with it? Not everything that includes a mention of the Orange One require ArbCOM, the police, and eggshell walking. L3X1 (distant write) 14:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Conforms to NPOV - its usage in relation to Donald Trump is described in terms of cited quotes from reliable sources; the opinions of the writers are appropriately attributed to them and are reported nonjudgementally with respect to Donald Trump. I don't see any issue with the section as currently presented. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not see any problem with the section. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot. RfCs are designed to resolve disputes. This RfC fails to state what the dispute is, and without that I can't really offer an opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I also came here from the RfC notice, I also find the RfC question unclear. I'm assuming that the question follows from the discussion above, in #Trump section. I've read the section with that in mind, and I do not see an obvious problem, in that the descriptions are attributed to the sources and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. It also does not strike me as undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with some changes If the term has indeed seen significantly increased usage of late, and journalists (not Wikipedia editors) have attributed this in published documents to Donald Trump's activities, then it's appropriate to say so. The Washington Post article is a good example. However, the part about McElrath is problematic because (1) it doesn't attribute the quote directly to show that it's a social media posting, (2) her tweet refers to one phrase being gaslighting, not Trump's "methods" and (3) it isn't a good example anyway because it's used vaguely (just a word in brackets) and incorrectly (Trump doesn't deny, or try to create doubt, in the apology she references, that the incident happened.) I would remove the sentence about her and just add her name to the list in the previous sentence of people who've used "gaslighting" in reference to Trump, and reference the Washington Post article. If an additional example is wanted, I'd pick one from a published document, not social media; however, this article is about the term, not about one politician, so IMO the one example from Ben Yagoda is enough.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I have now made this exact change.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If you ask me—and you did, by opening an RFC—this section focuses a bit much on individual politicians, when the phenomenon of political gaslighting has been discussed in a more general way. For example, Bryant Welch, who is mentioned in the article at present, wrote a book in 2008 called State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, in which he argued that Americans have been systematically gaslighted by demagogues and the media for years. groupuscule (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with Groupuscule. Keep the section but generalize it. Andrew327 12:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Groupuscule: I agree this is the best source available for this section. I have started to do this, however I lack access to the crucial p. 133 and chapter 8.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but generalize, per the above. I agree with Anne Delong's analysis of problems with the McElrath material, but also agree that we have RS tying a rise in use of the term to Trump's campaign, and agree with Groupuscule's observation that sources have been making the point before Trump. So, it does need to be generalized, without whitewashing it with regard to Trump. The Trump connection, to me, is more important for a shift in actual meaning. That shift had already started before Trump, but Trump's campaign sharply tipped it. Few Millennials even know that the term originally meant individually psychologically terrorizing someone by trying to convince them, through trickery, that they're losing their mind. Some people in their 40s and older don't know the current definition and may be confused by current usage, but I think their number is dwindling. I'm 48, and I've been familiar with the current usage for several years now. These days, it just means manipulation to convince people that their perception of something has been mistaken and/or that their view/stance formed from that perception is unfounded. The shift was gradual; a few years ago, the usage was considered hyperbolic and seen as closer to the original meaning, and now it is not. — SMcCandlish ¢ʌⱷ҅ʌ 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • I have concerns that the discussion on the Talk page and the former discussion on the Noticeboard aren't reaching any conclusions. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Any editors who oppose the exclusion of the paragraph due to various reasons (WP:Recentism, bias, etc) or attempt to reach a compromise at having both sides included in the article, are shut down by the opposing group. I fear it is because of political loyalties that compromise cannot be reached. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a malformed RfC as you are not asking a question of editors, just seeking assistance. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
So looking into the discussion more I see this was already discussed at NPOVN and a request for mediation was rejected. This amounts to forum shopping. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that posting on the article's own talk page can be considered "forum shopping". Discussion about this article is the page's intended use.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mediation was rejected so that an RfC could happen. Mediation Committee chairperson recommended an RfC happen first before trying mediation. Not forum shopping. Also, I rephrased the RfC to be in the form of a question, thanks. T.H.Reesh (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The proper NPOV-worded question would be "Does the section Gaslighting#In_politics fall in line with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV? If not, what should be done to correct it?"  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--I have changed the wording of the RFC to be as neutral as possible.Winged Blades Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Janweh64, T.H.Reesh and EvergreenFir--the users who have already contibuted to this discussion.Winged Blades Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: thank you! I wanted to fix it but since I'm INVOLVED i thought it best not to. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any problem with the section. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Adam Curtis AFAI can see, does not use the term, he simply describes a "strategy of confusion". Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: You are absolutely correct. It was actually Frida Ghitis who labeled it as gaslighting. I have made the corrections here.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Impartiality[edit]

How do I contest the impartiality of this article and contest removal of my edits attempting to restore some balance?----minerva100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobodyMInerva (talkcontribs)

I moved this to the bottom of the page per WP:TPO. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, NobodyMInerva. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion in the section above regarding this section and whether it fairly represents a neutral point of view. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
User:NobodyMInerva was trying to "restore some balance" by expanding out the Trump paragraph with a WP:SYN "Of course, Hillary Clinton could be accused of the same behavior...". Writing a roughly equal number of words about someone's political opponent doing the same thing is not a useful way to balance an article - any viewpoint should be WP:WEIGHTed according to its prominence in reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Since this article is about "Gaslighting", information about Clinton would only be appropriate if journalists or other authors had use the term when writing about her.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)