Talk:Nonviolent Communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nonviolent Communication has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 21, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
October 10, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Citations Needed[edit]

I nominated this article for Good Article status, and the review was finally undertaken. The main obstacle to achieving Good Article status appears to be that there is too much text tagged with "Citations Needed". All the work we have done on this article, especially as regards proper sourcing, suggests we really should not have text that someone feels needs citations.

So, I went through the article and looked at all the "Citations Needed" bits. I am not aware of any sources that support those bits, so I removed them. I don't think they are controversial statements, and I am happy for someone to replace these if they can find reliable sources. In any case, I do not feel these deletions compromise the quality of the article, so I am not concerned if they do not come back either.

I am excited that the vast amount of work people put in to this article, and the care and commitment to quality everyone showed, may be recognized. Good Article status would be a wonderful next step for this article to take. Whether the article achieves Good Article status or not, I would like to appreciate everyone who has contributed to this article and to the passionate discussions we have had on these talk pages.Michaplot (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gert Danielsen?[edit]

I did as you suggested and looked at both references, albeit, rather quickly, and it was not obvious that any plagiarism has occurred. I have several concerns:

  • You seem to be posting from Cambridge University and thereabouts, but you have no user account on WP. You might want to create an account, and present your case, rather than doing it through anonymous IPs (assuming both changes on this issue, were the same person).
  • I asked originally if you would be willing to discuss this issue here, rather than making obscure changes with scandalous claims and no explanation.
  • Why not simply cite the Danielsen work, rather than accusing Kok of plagiarism, but leaving her citation intact? If you have a better source for this article, by all means add it to the article.
  • Without a published source for the claim that Kok's reference is illegitimate, I am not sure it is appropriate for us to have your change on this page. Kok is a legitimate academic, and the source is reliable. If there is other information on the source, bring it forward.Michaplot (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there a citation/link available for the Gert Danielsen thesis? The revision history note by claims the thesis is available online, but I have not been able to locate it. (I have found an essay by Danielsen which discusses NVC and HNT: "Meeting Human Needs, Preventing Violence: Applying Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in Sri Lanka" (2005), available at a number of sites including) Rhwentworth (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Analyzing historical documents (up to the newspapers of today) with the help of NVC[edit]

It would be extremely interesting to analyze all historical documents of the past – including the newspapers of today – with regard to using violent terms and classifications, including exclusive static terms like „men“, „women“, „we Jews“, „we Germans“, „the Russians“, etc. etc. This would show how violent the languages were in the last 5000 years (as often alluded to by Marshall Rosenberg) – and hence how violence still persists today.

Does anybody know of such attempts by NVC-trainers or NVC-experts to analyze "history" (another violent term!) - or more precisely: historical documents - with the help of NVC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C6A1:1290:D8EE:B5E:FFA8:7890 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable axioms[edit]

Axiom #3: "All actions are attempts to meet needs" seems suspect. Especially when viewed in light of axiom #6 "humans enjoy giving"; i.e., it is possible to gift over the level of 'need' and to or beyond the level of 'want'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8501:F6B0:4D3E:7A77:D737:6A0C (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK: the talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. You're arguing against the axiom, and whether or not you're right, that's not what the talk page is for. -- Irn (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)