This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I very much appreciate that you read the rules before you posted. And I understand your frustration. However, given that the other user has made no indication they are interested in participating in a discussion, this forum cannot force them to do so. Nor can we mediate with no discussion having previously occurred. I did look at the history of the article, and while they gave a reason in their first edit- they did not engage in discussion nor did they address what you said in your edit summary. My suggestion at this point would be to as for a WP:3o which I do not feel qualified to give (we do sometimes provide those here but its better to go to the correct place) or do a WP:RFC. Either option will get more people involved in the discussion. You can also invite people who participate in a relevant Wiki Project- I would suggest one of the ones listed at the top of the article talk page. People there are usually happy to participate and improve articles under their subject. I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor and welcome to WP! Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [1]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.
What I changed:
What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A third opinion was requested by Darcyisverycute, which she is also disputing.
Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute
The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and
Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?
Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?
One editor has put a {{ disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.
There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with renaming the article to Manipulation (human behavior), since Object manipulation is also human behavior and there is ambiguity in that. I would note there is significant overlap between psychological manipulation and affect induction + mood induction, although the two concepts are distinct (see [1])
I agree the article can be expanded, and I wish to expand all sections of the current article. ie: lead section, characteristics, mental illness and assessment. I am not qualified to write a section on history/background, but I would also like to see that added.
These are the factually disputed elements for which I added the {{disputed}} tag:
I would prefer the discussion to continue here rather on the talk page. I apologise it was my mistake not to offer other editors there to come to DRN and thank wiki-psyc for doing so.
References
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 01:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
From Wiki-psyc: This exercise is hard to respond to because Darcyisverycute is asking for
WP:TNT and considers references like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, American Psychiatric Association, Forbes to be problematic. The
Manipulation (psychology) topic is a very basic subject, the article is pretty good as it is and should continue on its current trajectory with incremental edits as it has for 11 years, 545 editors, and 1,300 edits. In an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia
[3] it says manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. It focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.
Narrowing and redefining manipulation as a pathology/mental illness is WP:ORIGINAL. There is no reputable source to substantiate this. Pathological people can manipulate, but manipulation, itself, is not inherently pathological.
The article currently provides links to mental conditions where manipulation is part of the symptomology. I think it makes sense to discuss, for example, a study of manipulation related to the Dark Triad in the Dark Triad article rather than in a general article about manipulation. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that Darcyisverycute wants to make numerous changes to the article, and that Wiki-psyc has not proposed any specific changes to the article, and disagrees with the need for the changes. If my understanding is incorrect, then the editors should restate and explain. If my understanding is correct, then the next step is for Darcyisverycute to put their requested changes into the form of a "laundry list", a numbered list of items (numbered 1 to N), each being one paragraph, either stating specifically what they want to change, or that they want to rewrite a section. I will then, in the third stage of this mediation, ask Wiki-psyc to respond to each item either by accepting it, disagreeing with it entirely (rejecting it), or stating that they want to work on it or compromise on it. It is Darcyisverycute's turn to provide the list, at this point. Both editors may ask any questions and may disagree with my plan. Then it will be Wiki-psyc's turn to reply. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to restate, this doesn't mean that any of the changes will be made, and this doesn't mean that any of the changes won't be made. At this point, we are just breaking up or breaking down the scope.
For now, if the item to be rewritten is a paragraph, you may provide the proposed text. If the item to be rewritten is a section of more than one paragraph, just indicate that you want to rewrite it. You may provide the laundry list now. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I believe your understanding of the situation is correct. I will go ahead with your suggested plan unless there are objections from wiki-psyc. I would like to ask, when you say each being one paragraph, [...] that they want to rewrite a section.
for sections that I wish to rewrite, should I be adding the suggested rewrite as a paragraph, or just saying that I wish to rewrite it? Thanks
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Laundry list:
(1) Lead section: Proposed rewrite
(2) Lead section, second paragraph: Move to a new "Ethics" section -- this could be expanded much further but my proposal for now is to just move it to a separate one since I am not an expert on the ethics aspect.
(3) Characteristics of manipulators: Rename section title to "etiology" or "causes" or "risk factors"
(4) Characteristics of manipulators: Rewrite section
(5) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Move to subsection "Mental health" under the title of the section for (3)
(6) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Rewrite section
(7) Clinical assessment tools: Promote from subsection heading to section heading
(8) Clinical assessment tools: Rewrite section
(9) See also: unbold entries and remove those already covered by the disambiguation page
(10) Further reading: "Modulated Feelings: The Pleasurable-Ends-Model of Manipulation" and "Then again, what is manipulation? A broader view of a much-maligned concept" should be converted to inline citations. The rest of the articles in the further reading section should be removed. This is for not meeting MEDMOS and for being too old, and as far as I can tell they are not used in the article. (I would not rule out using them in a future "History" section however.)
(11) Assuming the ethics stuff gets moved to a separate section, I think it might be worthwhile to add the article to Wikiproject philosophy as well.
Thanks Darcyisverycute ( talk) 09:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Both editors should be aware that this may be a long content dispute resolution. Be prepared for this to take one to three months.
Darcyisverycute has listed eleven changes that they want to make to the article. Wiki-psyc may now reply to each of the 11 points by saying either that they agree, in which case that change will be made, or that they disagree, or that they would like to compromise or negotiate. Either editor may make any other concise statements or ask questions. This is primarily the turn for Wiki-psyc to respond to the eleven points. If you disagree with a change and want to leave the article as is, disagree briefly. It is only necessary to reply at length if you want to compromise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm willing to commit 1-3 months for this. I appreciate Robert McClenon and wiki-psyc for participating in this mediation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Robert, I'd like to suggest that before we invest 30-90 days doing a WPTNT and a rewrite of 11 years worth of of editors work, we should ask to see a few substantial references that show that Darcyisverycute's fundamental proposition is valid, specifically that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term. All of her recommendations she has made are based on this premise. It will be very hard to find compromise on what to put in an "etiology" or cause section if there is not agreement that this is a disease or disorder that has an etiology. I've been in medicine for 40 years and I am unaware of this disorder. It seems the American Psychological Association, World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association, Oxford and Britannica are also unaware. But certainly, we all should be open minded to hear her out and we could exhaust this exploration in a day or two. We already have 3,000 words of polite and cooperative discussion on the talk page and another 3,000 here to indicate good faith. Indeed, if there is substantial evidence that manipulation is disorder/pathology, and the disorder is the primary use of the term, I believe the editors would find compromise rather easily. Whereas without it, the only reasonable response I can give to the suggested rewrite of the article introduction summary is that it is not supported by the article, nor the clinical literature, and that terms like prosocial, non-prosocial, affect induction, antisocial, and Machiavellianism are overly complex terms for a summary statement on a very basic concept (manipulation) and most readers will be going back to Google to find another source about manipulation that they can read and comprehend.
I'd also like to ask that we remove the
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (July 2022) |
tag from the article as it has not be established that there are factual inaccuracies.
What substantial reference can we examine to verify that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term? Wiki-psyc ( talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc has expressed a concern that the whole rewrite effort may be misguided. So rather than try to address eleven points, we will focus first on the first point, the lede section, which leads into the other changes. For now I am not planning to try to analyze the differences between the existing lede and the proposed lede, but to ask the editors to address the arguments for and against the rewriting of the lede. Each editor should provide a statement consisting of anywhere between one and several paragraphs supporting or criticizing either the current lede or the proposed lede. I will then decide what pieces of this content issue will be addressed next. So, please assess either the current lede or the proposed lede. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.
If I understand correctly, I am meant to choose to either do one option or the other, so I will say what I think could be improved with the article's current lead.
The sourcing of the lead section is somewhat poor in that it does not cite or appear to base its claims from any review articles for a topic which they are available, which makes it difficult to determine to what extent this description is accepted by other academics and disciplines.
The first paragraph in the lead fails to define the concept in the broad scope with which the term is used. I will compare the definition to
what is used at wikitionary: (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use
- both this definition and the one in the first paragraph of the lead section are quite broad, and I would note the wikitionary one does not claim it must occur at the expense of others. While wikitionary is useful in its brief form, I think the current lead does not sufficiently indicate the breadth of the term, and how the definition differs among demographics and contexts. The second and third sentences say "in the extreme" and "at the very least", which suggests a continuum of some sort to define the term, although what lies on middle-points on this continuum is unclear, and the cited sources do not clearly discuss any such continuum.
The second paragraph contextualises manipulation in the ethics framework of other forms of social influence, although it claims to make an ambiguous claim/judgement that "influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative". I think the 2022 publication in the general references is not sufficiently addressed in the lead, for example to quote the source Conceptualizing manipulation is no easy task, not just because there are many intuitions involved.
[4] The second paragraph also fails to contextualise the term as it is used and compared in psychology literature. The lead section fails to explain which interdisciplinary fields are involved in studying manipulation, which could include for example ethics, criminology, marketing and advertising, behavioral psychology, clinical psychology. I will note the article is a member of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Lastly, the lead section fails to identify the origins of the concept (who developed it, who are the major contributors to surrounding theory and when did this all happen), and clearly establish why it is an important concept in the relevant fields with evidence such as statistics or statements from subject matter experts.
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I am out of town and unable to respond until Wednesday. Thanks for your patience. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 00:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
One editor, Darcyisverycute, has responded to my request to support or criticize either the current lede or the proposed lede. As the rules say, I expect editors to reply to my questions within 48 hours. I am willing to allow for breaks for editors who are temporarily unable to participate in a timely manner. I am now asking Wiki-psyc to reply within 24 hours, either as I had previously requested, or at least to give some idea of what their schedule will be. The alternative, if the editors will not be able to engage in discussion, will be a series of RFCs. So can User:Wiki-psyc please provide some response within 24 hours? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them.
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Working on reply now Wiki-psyc ( talk) 13:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I do see validity in breaking manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterizing the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral. This would be best in the body of the article.
Darcyisverycute has not provided a substantial reference saying Manipulation is a pathology. I've read through the Article talk page, this review, google scholar, and texts in my library and I can find no reliable source characterizing manipulation as a disorder/pathology. There is no "clinical" and "sub-clinical" manipulation.
Additionally, I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term. This is "techno-babble" and our professional organizations are encouraging their clinicians to abandon this style when communicating with the general public. The purpose of the article is to reach readers, not impress them. Darcyisverycute wants to introduced this unnecessary complexity in the second and third sentence of the article.
Lastly, sure there are cultural difference in manipulation - there are cultural differences in just about everything - but are there "significant" cultural differences; enough to put in the intro? We would really need to see a significant reference on this. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I have a question for the moderator: there have been a few edits to the article, the most recent one being [5]. I notified the user who initially removed the {{ disputed}} and disambiguation templates here along with reverting the template removal, and wiki-psyc has restored the version without either template. On reflection, I should have also added {{ DRN}} to its talk page when I filed this DRN, I only just realised that template existed now. To avoid an edit war over templates, what would you recommend here, Robert McClenon? Darcyisverycute ( talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
It is correct that I said that the participants should not edit the article while discussion is in progress.
I have no interest in any controversy about a tag on the article. Tagging controversies are essentially stupid. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article and to resolve any issues that are the subject of tags. Tags indicate that there is a content controversy, and moderated discussion should resolve the controversy, and it is not important whether there are tags on the article while content discussion is in progress. I will collapse any further discussion of tags, because tagging controversies are stupid. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc asks: "is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?" I would like Darcyisverycute to answer that question (in addition to the back-and-forth discussion mentioned below).
I will change the rules at this point and invite the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion on the lede section. This will continue for between three and five days if it is productive. If it is not productive or is repetitive, I will stop it in one to two days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I apologise for making drama out of the content tag. I will note the disambiguation template was also removed and I think that should be restored but I will not edit the article until the DRN is resolved.
I will address wiki-psyc's question: At this point I'm not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word for the meaning I am going for, rather that I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical), and it can also occur in the presence of no mental disorders ( subclinical or non-clinical). In other words, my understanding is that behavior is clinically relevant if it falls under the scope of a mental disorder. It's not up to us what constitutes a mental disorder or not, the best we can hope to do is explain the labels the APA and WHO use. The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder in itself, instead just one part of some mental disorders.
Here is a paper, of which there are a fair few, which distinguishes between a different set of behaviors in psychopathy as clinical and subclinical:
[6]. Here is a paper which talks about the clinical and subclinical role that empathy plays in narcissistic personality disorder:
[7], from which I think this quote accurately summarises my opinion: Although a pattern of deceitful, manipulative, and impulsive behavior is inherent in the syndrome of psychopathy, these features are not necessarily a component of NPD.
In other words, these two sources point to manipulation being an essential component of psychopathy, and not an essential component of NPD. Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD according to
[8]. So in this context the clinical relevance of manipulation depends on the specific disorder.
The term manipulation also has slightly different meaning in forensic psychology vs clinical psychology, mainly stemming from the continued use of the term "psychopathy" in forensic psychology but the term isn't really used in clinical psychology. As such, I think it is important if manipulation is acknowledged as related to psychopathy, that we note in the article that it's more often used as a forensic label based on a syndrome rather than a clinical diagnosis. There is evidently a lot more disagreement than just this, for example The psychological treatment of psychopathy is rife with controversy and conceptual disagreement.
[9] which also contributes to difficulty of defining the amorphous concept of emotional manipulation.
I look forward to discussion about the lead section. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Response from Wiki-psyc:
Is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?
“not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word”… “The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder…”
“I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical)”
“Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD”
Break manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterize the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral.
re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior)becuase that implies an even broader scope.
I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the termI agree to an extent, in that making the lead section accessible is important, and I also think that mentioning related technical concepts is nessecary to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept. I think MOS:INTRO offers useful guidance that it's okay to use technical terms along with a short description, it's important for the lead section to "ease readers in", and significant information in the lead should also be covered in the main article. What do you think of this, and do you have any other specific advice about my draft/proposed lead section? Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed. Just a note to the filing party, User:Andrevan. If you open a case here, don't delete it. Let a volunteer close it and let the bot archive it. This case was correctly closed because we don't open a case here to discuss a matter that is pending at another noticeboard. Either discuss the RFC at RSN before publishing it, or just publish it, or don't publish it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to DRN (or to other dispute resolution processes). There has been one statement by one editor at the article talk page, which does not qualify as discussion. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, after at least 24 hours and at least two posts by each editor, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Primary sources are not prefered on WP. We have a reliable source noticeboard WP:RSN if you would care to ask them, but self published sources- IE Youtube, are not reliable. You have been told this multiple times. You quoted the policy which says this. Inserting the same paragraph into multiple articles with links to a google doc is also poor form. So you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and go review WP:RS before you continue editing. Also- I understand the edit was on the article for 2 years. I appologize no editor caught that two years ago and told you then that it was not appropriate to source to a youtube article- but that does not change the fact that it is not a WP:RS. You are not being attacked- you are just WP:IDHT not hearing when people told you nicely that your sources were not acceptable. So I'm trying firmly, from an outsider perspective to tell you the other editors are right and you need to stop. If not, Ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. If you continue to force this paragraph into articles, I recommend that the other editors take you to the ANI. Nightenbelle ( talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This appears to be a dispute over whether certain material that was removed as RD1, removal of copyvio, was in fact copyrighted. DRN is not the forum for discussing copyright questions, which should be discussed either with the deleting administrator, User:Nthep, or maybe at Copyright Problems. There does not appear to have been any discussion with User talk:Nthep, so please discuss it with them first. Also, their edit summary redacting the copyrighted material cites two news media that are subject to copyright. If Blinken's remarks were reported by news media, the report is copyrighted. If a public domain report of his words can be found, such as a public domain US Government web site, then his words can be reported as quoted by the public domain web site. However, discuss the redaction with the administrator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. Both the guidelines of this noticeboard and the guideline against forum shopping say that an editor should not try to open discussions about the same dispute in two or more places at the same time. The filing party has already also opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard. The filing party should wait until the edit-warring case is resolved, and then resume discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift. If discussion resumes after the edit-warring case is closed, and if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Discussion here is voluntary, and the other editors may or may not want to discuss here, but that can be decided when it is time to decide. In the meantime, this dispute is at the edit-warring noticeboard. I do not have an opinion as to whether there has been edit-warring, but there has been a report of edit-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as abandoned. The filing editor has not commented two days after being asked what steps to take next. The other editor has not commented in four days. If there isn't still a content dispute, that is good. If there still is a content dispute, it can be discussed at Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This dispute appears to have two related questions. The first is whether the page in question should be in article space, and the second is what its name should be if it is in article space. The page has been removed to draft space by Fram, so that the way to discuss and decide whether it should be in article space is the Articles for Creation process. Discussion can be on the draft talk page, or in AFC comments. Although it is permitted for an editor to move the draft back into article space, that is not recommended and would be likely to result in a nomination for deletion. The proposed name of the article, if it is accepted, can and should also be discussed in the AFC discussion. This DRN case is closed, and discussion can be via the AFC process. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as subject has been raised at BLP as suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. That problem can be solved. The other problem is that this is a one-against-many dispute. Moderated discussion is seldom useful in dealing with a one-against-many dispute. The one editor often hopes that if he repeats his arguments enough times, length of argument will prevail. This has probably happened once in Wikipedia, based on the law of extremely large numbers, and is not worth gambling on. The filing editor has two choices. They can recognize that they are in the minority and leave the issue alone, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to try to get a new larger consensus. The other editors have two choices. They can ignore the one editor, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to formalize the consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as not discussed on an article talk page. Mediated discussion here must be preceded by discussion on an article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but not within the past month. Maybe there has been discussion somewhere else, but not on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page of at least one skier or skiing event, for at least 24 hours with at least two posts by each editor. If that is unsuccessful, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. The filing editor may benefit from reading our policies and guidelines on using references and independent sourcing, as the editor's lack of experience on Wikipedia is what is leading to the draft submission being denied. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. This is a case about a draft article which the author wants accepted. DRN is not a forum for discussion of whether a draft article should be accepted. You may ask about how to improve a draft article at the Teahouse, or you may simply revised the draft and resubmit it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. It seems the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page might be the best resolution; given that the two requests came at the same time, I assume "Maybe lock the page, the article is almost entirely slander" applies here also, which is not within the purview of DRN, nor aligned with its purpose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. It seems the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page might be the best resolution; requests for page protection are not within the purview of DRN, nor aligned with its purpose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as failed. The latest reply consists of a lengthy comment on contributors when I (the moderator) was trying to ask about content. If either of the editors would prefer to discuss the other editor, they can do that on user talk pages. DRN is not the place to comment on contributors. Also, an RFC should be about one question. If there are multiple questions, a multi-part RFC or multiple RFCs can be used. If the editors want assistance in composing an RFC, they can ask me on my user talk page. Avoid edit-warring. If there still is a content dispute, there is also an article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Before dispute resolution- you need to have significant discussion on the article talk page. Basically- you need to try to solve this yourself before you ask someone else to step in. It looks like you've made a couple of talk page posts, one person agreed that you should start a new page(s), and then you came here.... Thats not enough. Please continue discussing for a few days and if you still cannot find a solution, you can re-open this and we will be glad to help. I suggest visiting the teahouse if you need more advice before then. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There are several problems with this case. First, there have been lengthy posts by the two editors on the article talk page, but not within the two weeks, and neither of the editors appears to be interested in discussing, only in posting at length. Second, this noticeboard does not provide independent factual input, so much as facilitate discussion, and it does not appear that these editors are able to discuss productively. Third, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and it does not appear to be possible to separate the content dispute from the conduct dispute, which includes that the filing editor has been alleging that the other editor is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, although Checkuser has said that they are unrelated. This is a case of two editors who have a strong antagonism. They would be well advised to avoid each other and edit different articles. If that is not possible, they should ignore each other anyway. This case is closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. A secondary problem is that the filing party has not listed any other editors or notified them. The primary problem is that there has been no real attempt to discuss on the article talk page prior to filing. The filing editor did post a comment to the article talk page immediately after filing here. Allow for 48 hours and two exchanges of comments before deciding that outside help is needed. If discussion continues and is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as incomprehensible. The moderator, who has a scientific education, has no idea what the filing party wants, and has not received an answer to a question. Other editors should resume normal editing of the article, which does not require much editing because it has been found to be in excellent condition. If the filing editor wants to discuss something with someone, they may try discussing at WikiProject Physics, but they might try leaving the article alone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed, DRN is not the place for a third opinion. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Third opinion if the dispute continues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Also, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to a request for a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has made edits to the article that have been reverted. That is BR of the Bold Revert Discuss cycle. Discuss on the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for. Also, the filing editor is strongly advised not to cast aspersions on other editors by saying that they are trying to hide the truth, which is a personal attack. Discuss content, not contributors, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as failed. I made a mistake in opening this dispute when there was already an RFC in progress on a closely related topic. I was then ready to wait until the RFC was closed, but a review of the history of this dispute has made me non-neutral so that I am no longer sure that I can mediate. It appears to me that one of the parties, User:Federalwafer, is trying to game the system, by extending the RFC ID, perhaps because they don't like the result of the RFC, and then by trying by forum shopping, trying to use DRN to "pause" the RFC. They were advised that they could ask about source reliability at the reliable source noticeboard, but do not seem to have been there. I am closing this DRN thread as failed. The editors are welcome to come back to DRN and file a new request to ask for a different volunteer mediator. I do not know if another moderator is available. Either editor can report user conduct at WP:ANI, but they should read the boomerang essay first, and it is also possible that WP:ANI may say that this is a content dispute. Do not edit war. I am failing this dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. Minima Arbitrating disputes is not within the purview of DRN (consider 3rd Opinion or an RFC for that avenue), little discussion has taken place on article talk, and it seems this has evolved into more of a user-conduct discussion than merely the question of inclusion (continue the discussion on user talk, or perhaps try ANI). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as wrong forum. This is a deletion dispute, and DRN does not handle any dispute for which there is a special procedure, or any dispute that is being argued in another forum. There is an Articles for Deletion discussion in progress, which is the proper place to discuss whether to delete the article. If there are personal attacks or other conduct disputes, the conduct may be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I very much appreciate that you read the rules before you posted. And I understand your frustration. However, given that the other user has made no indication they are interested in participating in a discussion, this forum cannot force them to do so. Nor can we mediate with no discussion having previously occurred. I did look at the history of the article, and while they gave a reason in their first edit- they did not engage in discussion nor did they address what you said in your edit summary. My suggestion at this point would be to as for a WP:3o which I do not feel qualified to give (we do sometimes provide those here but its better to go to the correct place) or do a WP:RFC. Either option will get more people involved in the discussion. You can also invite people who participate in a relevant Wiki Project- I would suggest one of the ones listed at the top of the article talk page. People there are usually happy to participate and improve articles under their subject. I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor and welcome to WP! Nightenbelle ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [1]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.
What I changed:
What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A third opinion was requested by Darcyisverycute, which she is also disputing.
Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute
The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and
Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?
Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?
One editor has put a {{ disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.
There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with renaming the article to Manipulation (human behavior), since Object manipulation is also human behavior and there is ambiguity in that. I would note there is significant overlap between psychological manipulation and affect induction + mood induction, although the two concepts are distinct (see [1])
I agree the article can be expanded, and I wish to expand all sections of the current article. ie: lead section, characteristics, mental illness and assessment. I am not qualified to write a section on history/background, but I would also like to see that added.
These are the factually disputed elements for which I added the {{disputed}} tag:
I would prefer the discussion to continue here rather on the talk page. I apologise it was my mistake not to offer other editors there to come to DRN and thank wiki-psyc for doing so.
References
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 01:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
From Wiki-psyc: This exercise is hard to respond to because Darcyisverycute is asking for
WP:TNT and considers references like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, American Psychiatric Association, Forbes to be problematic. The
Manipulation (psychology) topic is a very basic subject, the article is pretty good as it is and should continue on its current trajectory with incremental edits as it has for 11 years, 545 editors, and 1,300 edits. In an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia
[3] it says manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. It focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.
Narrowing and redefining manipulation as a pathology/mental illness is WP:ORIGINAL. There is no reputable source to substantiate this. Pathological people can manipulate, but manipulation, itself, is not inherently pathological.
The article currently provides links to mental conditions where manipulation is part of the symptomology. I think it makes sense to discuss, for example, a study of manipulation related to the Dark Triad in the Dark Triad article rather than in a general article about manipulation. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears that Darcyisverycute wants to make numerous changes to the article, and that Wiki-psyc has not proposed any specific changes to the article, and disagrees with the need for the changes. If my understanding is incorrect, then the editors should restate and explain. If my understanding is correct, then the next step is for Darcyisverycute to put their requested changes into the form of a "laundry list", a numbered list of items (numbered 1 to N), each being one paragraph, either stating specifically what they want to change, or that they want to rewrite a section. I will then, in the third stage of this mediation, ask Wiki-psyc to respond to each item either by accepting it, disagreeing with it entirely (rejecting it), or stating that they want to work on it or compromise on it. It is Darcyisverycute's turn to provide the list, at this point. Both editors may ask any questions and may disagree with my plan. Then it will be Wiki-psyc's turn to reply. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to restate, this doesn't mean that any of the changes will be made, and this doesn't mean that any of the changes won't be made. At this point, we are just breaking up or breaking down the scope.
For now, if the item to be rewritten is a paragraph, you may provide the proposed text. If the item to be rewritten is a section of more than one paragraph, just indicate that you want to rewrite it. You may provide the laundry list now. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I believe your understanding of the situation is correct. I will go ahead with your suggested plan unless there are objections from wiki-psyc. I would like to ask, when you say each being one paragraph, [...] that they want to rewrite a section.
for sections that I wish to rewrite, should I be adding the suggested rewrite as a paragraph, or just saying that I wish to rewrite it? Thanks
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Laundry list:
(1) Lead section: Proposed rewrite
(2) Lead section, second paragraph: Move to a new "Ethics" section -- this could be expanded much further but my proposal for now is to just move it to a separate one since I am not an expert on the ethics aspect.
(3) Characteristics of manipulators: Rename section title to "etiology" or "causes" or "risk factors"
(4) Characteristics of manipulators: Rewrite section
(5) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Move to subsection "Mental health" under the title of the section for (3)
(6) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Rewrite section
(7) Clinical assessment tools: Promote from subsection heading to section heading
(8) Clinical assessment tools: Rewrite section
(9) See also: unbold entries and remove those already covered by the disambiguation page
(10) Further reading: "Modulated Feelings: The Pleasurable-Ends-Model of Manipulation" and "Then again, what is manipulation? A broader view of a much-maligned concept" should be converted to inline citations. The rest of the articles in the further reading section should be removed. This is for not meeting MEDMOS and for being too old, and as far as I can tell they are not used in the article. (I would not rule out using them in a future "History" section however.)
(11) Assuming the ethics stuff gets moved to a separate section, I think it might be worthwhile to add the article to Wikiproject philosophy as well.
Thanks Darcyisverycute ( talk) 09:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Both editors should be aware that this may be a long content dispute resolution. Be prepared for this to take one to three months.
Darcyisverycute has listed eleven changes that they want to make to the article. Wiki-psyc may now reply to each of the 11 points by saying either that they agree, in which case that change will be made, or that they disagree, or that they would like to compromise or negotiate. Either editor may make any other concise statements or ask questions. This is primarily the turn for Wiki-psyc to respond to the eleven points. If you disagree with a change and want to leave the article as is, disagree briefly. It is only necessary to reply at length if you want to compromise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm willing to commit 1-3 months for this. I appreciate Robert McClenon and wiki-psyc for participating in this mediation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 04:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Robert, I'd like to suggest that before we invest 30-90 days doing a WPTNT and a rewrite of 11 years worth of of editors work, we should ask to see a few substantial references that show that Darcyisverycute's fundamental proposition is valid, specifically that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term. All of her recommendations she has made are based on this premise. It will be very hard to find compromise on what to put in an "etiology" or cause section if there is not agreement that this is a disease or disorder that has an etiology. I've been in medicine for 40 years and I am unaware of this disorder. It seems the American Psychological Association, World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association, Oxford and Britannica are also unaware. But certainly, we all should be open minded to hear her out and we could exhaust this exploration in a day or two. We already have 3,000 words of polite and cooperative discussion on the talk page and another 3,000 here to indicate good faith. Indeed, if there is substantial evidence that manipulation is disorder/pathology, and the disorder is the primary use of the term, I believe the editors would find compromise rather easily. Whereas without it, the only reasonable response I can give to the suggested rewrite of the article introduction summary is that it is not supported by the article, nor the clinical literature, and that terms like prosocial, non-prosocial, affect induction, antisocial, and Machiavellianism are overly complex terms for a summary statement on a very basic concept (manipulation) and most readers will be going back to Google to find another source about manipulation that they can read and comprehend.
I'd also like to ask that we remove the
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (July 2022) |
tag from the article as it has not be established that there are factual inaccuracies.
What substantial reference can we examine to verify that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term? Wiki-psyc ( talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc has expressed a concern that the whole rewrite effort may be misguided. So rather than try to address eleven points, we will focus first on the first point, the lede section, which leads into the other changes. For now I am not planning to try to analyze the differences between the existing lede and the proposed lede, but to ask the editors to address the arguments for and against the rewriting of the lede. Each editor should provide a statement consisting of anywhere between one and several paragraphs supporting or criticizing either the current lede or the proposed lede. I will then decide what pieces of this content issue will be addressed next. So, please assess either the current lede or the proposed lede. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.
If I understand correctly, I am meant to choose to either do one option or the other, so I will say what I think could be improved with the article's current lead.
The sourcing of the lead section is somewhat poor in that it does not cite or appear to base its claims from any review articles for a topic which they are available, which makes it difficult to determine to what extent this description is accepted by other academics and disciplines.
The first paragraph in the lead fails to define the concept in the broad scope with which the term is used. I will compare the definition to
what is used at wikitionary: (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use
- both this definition and the one in the first paragraph of the lead section are quite broad, and I would note the wikitionary one does not claim it must occur at the expense of others. While wikitionary is useful in its brief form, I think the current lead does not sufficiently indicate the breadth of the term, and how the definition differs among demographics and contexts. The second and third sentences say "in the extreme" and "at the very least", which suggests a continuum of some sort to define the term, although what lies on middle-points on this continuum is unclear, and the cited sources do not clearly discuss any such continuum.
The second paragraph contextualises manipulation in the ethics framework of other forms of social influence, although it claims to make an ambiguous claim/judgement that "influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative". I think the 2022 publication in the general references is not sufficiently addressed in the lead, for example to quote the source Conceptualizing manipulation is no easy task, not just because there are many intuitions involved.
[4] The second paragraph also fails to contextualise the term as it is used and compared in psychology literature. The lead section fails to explain which interdisciplinary fields are involved in studying manipulation, which could include for example ethics, criminology, marketing and advertising, behavioral psychology, clinical psychology. I will note the article is a member of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Lastly, the lead section fails to identify the origins of the concept (who developed it, who are the major contributors to surrounding theory and when did this all happen), and clearly establish why it is an important concept in the relevant fields with evidence such as statistics or statements from subject matter experts.
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I am out of town and unable to respond until Wednesday. Thanks for your patience. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 00:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
One editor, Darcyisverycute, has responded to my request to support or criticize either the current lede or the proposed lede. As the rules say, I expect editors to reply to my questions within 48 hours. I am willing to allow for breaks for editors who are temporarily unable to participate in a timely manner. I am now asking Wiki-psyc to reply within 24 hours, either as I had previously requested, or at least to give some idea of what their schedule will be. The alternative, if the editors will not be able to engage in discussion, will be a series of RFCs. So can User:Wiki-psyc please provide some response within 24 hours? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them.
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Working on reply now Wiki-psyc ( talk) 13:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I do see validity in breaking manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterizing the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral. This would be best in the body of the article.
Darcyisverycute has not provided a substantial reference saying Manipulation is a pathology. I've read through the Article talk page, this review, google scholar, and texts in my library and I can find no reliable source characterizing manipulation as a disorder/pathology. There is no "clinical" and "sub-clinical" manipulation.
Additionally, I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term. This is "techno-babble" and our professional organizations are encouraging their clinicians to abandon this style when communicating with the general public. The purpose of the article is to reach readers, not impress them. Darcyisverycute wants to introduced this unnecessary complexity in the second and third sentence of the article.
Lastly, sure there are cultural difference in manipulation - there are cultural differences in just about everything - but are there "significant" cultural differences; enough to put in the intro? We would really need to see a significant reference on this. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I have a question for the moderator: there have been a few edits to the article, the most recent one being [5]. I notified the user who initially removed the {{ disputed}} and disambiguation templates here along with reverting the template removal, and wiki-psyc has restored the version without either template. On reflection, I should have also added {{ DRN}} to its talk page when I filed this DRN, I only just realised that template existed now. To avoid an edit war over templates, what would you recommend here, Robert McClenon? Darcyisverycute ( talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
It is correct that I said that the participants should not edit the article while discussion is in progress.
I have no interest in any controversy about a tag on the article. Tagging controversies are essentially stupid. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article and to resolve any issues that are the subject of tags. Tags indicate that there is a content controversy, and moderated discussion should resolve the controversy, and it is not important whether there are tags on the article while content discussion is in progress. I will collapse any further discussion of tags, because tagging controversies are stupid. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc asks: "is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?" I would like Darcyisverycute to answer that question (in addition to the back-and-forth discussion mentioned below).
I will change the rules at this point and invite the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion on the lede section. This will continue for between three and five days if it is productive. If it is not productive or is repetitive, I will stop it in one to two days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I apologise for making drama out of the content tag. I will note the disambiguation template was also removed and I think that should be restored but I will not edit the article until the DRN is resolved.
I will address wiki-psyc's question: At this point I'm not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word for the meaning I am going for, rather that I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical), and it can also occur in the presence of no mental disorders ( subclinical or non-clinical). In other words, my understanding is that behavior is clinically relevant if it falls under the scope of a mental disorder. It's not up to us what constitutes a mental disorder or not, the best we can hope to do is explain the labels the APA and WHO use. The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder in itself, instead just one part of some mental disorders.
Here is a paper, of which there are a fair few, which distinguishes between a different set of behaviors in psychopathy as clinical and subclinical:
[6]. Here is a paper which talks about the clinical and subclinical role that empathy plays in narcissistic personality disorder:
[7], from which I think this quote accurately summarises my opinion: Although a pattern of deceitful, manipulative, and impulsive behavior is inherent in the syndrome of psychopathy, these features are not necessarily a component of NPD.
In other words, these two sources point to manipulation being an essential component of psychopathy, and not an essential component of NPD. Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD according to
[8]. So in this context the clinical relevance of manipulation depends on the specific disorder.
The term manipulation also has slightly different meaning in forensic psychology vs clinical psychology, mainly stemming from the continued use of the term "psychopathy" in forensic psychology but the term isn't really used in clinical psychology. As such, I think it is important if manipulation is acknowledged as related to psychopathy, that we note in the article that it's more often used as a forensic label based on a syndrome rather than a clinical diagnosis. There is evidently a lot more disagreement than just this, for example The psychological treatment of psychopathy is rife with controversy and conceptual disagreement.
[9] which also contributes to difficulty of defining the amorphous concept of emotional manipulation.
I look forward to discussion about the lead section. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Response from Wiki-psyc:
Is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?
“not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word”… “The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder…”
“I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical)”
“Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD”
Break manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterize the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral.
re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior)becuase that implies an even broader scope.
I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the termI agree to an extent, in that making the lead section accessible is important, and I also think that mentioning related technical concepts is nessecary to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept. I think MOS:INTRO offers useful guidance that it's okay to use technical terms along with a short description, it's important for the lead section to "ease readers in", and significant information in the lead should also be covered in the main article. What do you think of this, and do you have any other specific advice about my draft/proposed lead section? Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed. Just a note to the filing party, User:Andrevan. If you open a case here, don't delete it. Let a volunteer close it and let the bot archive it. This case was correctly closed because we don't open a case here to discuss a matter that is pending at another noticeboard. Either discuss the RFC at RSN before publishing it, or just publish it, or don't publish it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to DRN (or to other dispute resolution processes). There has been one statement by one editor at the article talk page, which does not qualify as discussion. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, after at least 24 hours and at least two posts by each editor, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Primary sources are not prefered on WP. We have a reliable source noticeboard WP:RSN if you would care to ask them, but self published sources- IE Youtube, are not reliable. You have been told this multiple times. You quoted the policy which says this. Inserting the same paragraph into multiple articles with links to a google doc is also poor form. So you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and go review WP:RS before you continue editing. Also- I understand the edit was on the article for 2 years. I appologize no editor caught that two years ago and told you then that it was not appropriate to source to a youtube article- but that does not change the fact that it is not a WP:RS. You are not being attacked- you are just WP:IDHT not hearing when people told you nicely that your sources were not acceptable. So I'm trying firmly, from an outsider perspective to tell you the other editors are right and you need to stop. If not, Ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. If you continue to force this paragraph into articles, I recommend that the other editors take you to the ANI. Nightenbelle ( talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This appears to be a dispute over whether certain material that was removed as RD1, removal of copyvio, was in fact copyrighted. DRN is not the forum for discussing copyright questions, which should be discussed either with the deleting administrator, User:Nthep, or maybe at Copyright Problems. There does not appear to have been any discussion with User talk:Nthep, so please discuss it with them first. Also, their edit summary redacting the copyrighted material cites two news media that are subject to copyright. If Blinken's remarks were reported by news media, the report is copyrighted. If a public domain report of his words can be found, such as a public domain US Government web site, then his words can be reported as quoted by the public domain web site. However, discuss the redaction with the administrator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. Both the guidelines of this noticeboard and the guideline against forum shopping say that an editor should not try to open discussions about the same dispute in two or more places at the same time. The filing party has already also opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard. The filing party should wait until the edit-warring case is resolved, and then resume discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift. If discussion resumes after the edit-warring case is closed, and if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Discussion here is voluntary, and the other editors may or may not want to discuss here, but that can be decided when it is time to decide. In the meantime, this dispute is at the edit-warring noticeboard. I do not have an opinion as to whether there has been edit-warring, but there has been a report of edit-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as abandoned. The filing editor has not commented two days after being asked what steps to take next. The other editor has not commented in four days. If there isn't still a content dispute, that is good. If there still is a content dispute, it can be discussed at Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This dispute appears to have two related questions. The first is whether the page in question should be in article space, and the second is what its name should be if it is in article space. The page has been removed to draft space by Fram, so that the way to discuss and decide whether it should be in article space is the Articles for Creation process. Discussion can be on the draft talk page, or in AFC comments. Although it is permitted for an editor to move the draft back into article space, that is not recommended and would be likely to result in a nomination for deletion. The proposed name of the article, if it is accepted, can and should also be discussed in the AFC discussion. This DRN case is closed, and discussion can be via the AFC process. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as subject has been raised at BLP as suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. That problem can be solved. The other problem is that this is a one-against-many dispute. Moderated discussion is seldom useful in dealing with a one-against-many dispute. The one editor often hopes that if he repeats his arguments enough times, length of argument will prevail. This has probably happened once in Wikipedia, based on the law of extremely large numbers, and is not worth gambling on. The filing editor has two choices. They can recognize that they are in the minority and leave the issue alone, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to try to get a new larger consensus. The other editors have two choices. They can ignore the one editor, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to formalize the consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as not discussed on an article talk page. Mediated discussion here must be preceded by discussion on an article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but not within the past month. Maybe there has been discussion somewhere else, but not on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page of at least one skier or skiing event, for at least 24 hours with at least two posts by each editor. If that is unsuccessful, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. The filing editor may benefit from reading our policies and guidelines on using references and independent sourcing, as the editor's lack of experience on Wikipedia is what is leading to the draft submission being denied. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. This is a case about a draft article which the author wants accepted. DRN is not a forum for discussion of whether a draft article should be accepted. You may ask about how to improve a draft article at the Teahouse, or you may simply revised the draft and resubmit it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. It seems the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page might be the best resolution; given that the two requests came at the same time, I assume "Maybe lock the page, the article is almost entirely slander" applies here also, which is not within the purview of DRN, nor aligned with its purpose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. It seems the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page might be the best resolution; requests for page protection are not within the purview of DRN, nor aligned with its purpose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as failed. The latest reply consists of a lengthy comment on contributors when I (the moderator) was trying to ask about content. If either of the editors would prefer to discuss the other editor, they can do that on user talk pages. DRN is not the place to comment on contributors. Also, an RFC should be about one question. If there are multiple questions, a multi-part RFC or multiple RFCs can be used. If the editors want assistance in composing an RFC, they can ask me on my user talk page. Avoid edit-warring. If there still is a content dispute, there is also an article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Before dispute resolution- you need to have significant discussion on the article talk page. Basically- you need to try to solve this yourself before you ask someone else to step in. It looks like you've made a couple of talk page posts, one person agreed that you should start a new page(s), and then you came here.... Thats not enough. Please continue discussing for a few days and if you still cannot find a solution, you can re-open this and we will be glad to help. I suggest visiting the teahouse if you need more advice before then. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There are several problems with this case. First, there have been lengthy posts by the two editors on the article talk page, but not within the two weeks, and neither of the editors appears to be interested in discussing, only in posting at length. Second, this noticeboard does not provide independent factual input, so much as facilitate discussion, and it does not appear that these editors are able to discuss productively. Third, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and it does not appear to be possible to separate the content dispute from the conduct dispute, which includes that the filing editor has been alleging that the other editor is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, although Checkuser has said that they are unrelated. This is a case of two editors who have a strong antagonism. They would be well advised to avoid each other and edit different articles. If that is not possible, they should ignore each other anyway. This case is closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. A secondary problem is that the filing party has not listed any other editors or notified them. The primary problem is that there has been no real attempt to discuss on the article talk page prior to filing. The filing editor did post a comment to the article talk page immediately after filing here. Allow for 48 hours and two exchanges of comments before deciding that outside help is needed. If discussion continues and is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as incomprehensible. The moderator, who has a scientific education, has no idea what the filing party wants, and has not received an answer to a question. Other editors should resume normal editing of the article, which does not require much editing because it has been found to be in excellent condition. If the filing editor wants to discuss something with someone, they may try discussing at WikiProject Physics, but they might try leaving the article alone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed, DRN is not the place for a third opinion. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Third opinion if the dispute continues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Also, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to a request for a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has made edits to the article that have been reverted. That is BR of the Bold Revert Discuss cycle. Discuss on the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for. Also, the filing editor is strongly advised not to cast aspersions on other editors by saying that they are trying to hide the truth, which is a personal attack. Discuss content, not contributors, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as failed. I made a mistake in opening this dispute when there was already an RFC in progress on a closely related topic. I was then ready to wait until the RFC was closed, but a review of the history of this dispute has made me non-neutral so that I am no longer sure that I can mediate. It appears to me that one of the parties, User:Federalwafer, is trying to game the system, by extending the RFC ID, perhaps because they don't like the result of the RFC, and then by trying by forum shopping, trying to use DRN to "pause" the RFC. They were advised that they could ask about source reliability at the reliable source noticeboard, but do not seem to have been there. I am closing this DRN thread as failed. The editors are welcome to come back to DRN and file a new request to ask for a different volunteer mediator. I do not know if another moderator is available. Either editor can report user conduct at WP:ANI, but they should read the boomerang essay first, and it is also possible that WP:ANI may say that this is a content dispute. Do not edit war. I am failing this dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed. Minima Arbitrating disputes is not within the purview of DRN (consider 3rd Opinion or an RFC for that avenue), little discussion has taken place on article talk, and it seems this has evolved into more of a user-conduct discussion than merely the question of inclusion (continue the discussion on user talk, or perhaps try ANI). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as wrong forum. This is a deletion dispute, and DRN does not handle any dispute for which there is a special procedure, or any dispute that is being argued in another forum. There is an Articles for Deletion discussion in progress, which is the proper place to discuss whether to delete the article. If there are personal attacks or other conduct disputes, the conduct may be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|