Talk:Abusive power and control

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ariana.jh. Peer reviewers: Ariana.jh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TCtheisen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts
--Penbat (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I created abuse. There are quite a few common threads and dynamics running through the different types of abuse but the threads, elements, strands, themes and dynamics are not the same for all abuse types. Some dynamics are obviously context specific. It is not possible to have a universal abuse model. However some elements are common to many/most types of abuse eg manipulation, control, power etc so there is a lot of overlap disregarding context specifics. Also there are quite a few common possible characteristics of an abuser eg psychopath, control freak, "dark soul", personality disordered etc.
 * 2) This is an interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWBHRKFYCA&feature=youtu.be that illustrates quite a few interesting points (although we cant use it as a link). Video suggests gaslighting, emotional blackmail, mind games and manipulation are used to create confusion and fear. It alludes to it being like having your head put into a washing machine eg brainwashing. Brainwashing redirects to mind control on Wikipedia. Mind control is obviously very relevant to this article but most of it is at the group level eg cold war and cults however mind control is on the interpersonal level and has a place in here (although the text itself isnt that good). Gaslighting, manipulation, emotional blackmail and mind games are definitely relevant here. Needs to be explained why a controlling abuser wants to create confusion and fear.
 * 3) I think power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people. So power can either be influence (eg persuasion and manipulation) or control. There is probably overlap between influence and control, also influence may be used as a preliminary to set up the control.
 * 4) Locus of control and control (management) could be relevant.


 * Numbering for responses.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite clear what the points are, but I took a stab at my responses:
 * 1. Yep, that makes sense. I'm not sure if there's a desired action/reaction, but that makes sense. If there are any "main" articles in the sections that you don't feel are appropriate feel free to change or remove them.
 * 2. Yep, I'm sure that these will crop up, and can make sure that they do, in emotional abuse, coercion, intimidation, etc.
 * 3. It sounds like it would be good to have a definition of power and control.
 * 4. Makes sense.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has multiple serious problems
I'll lay them out as bullet points: Sorry to be critical, but it needs work, and its raison d'etre is a bit iffy. If it's not overhauled with a lot of reliable sourcing that links all these disparate themes (or they're not pared down to what can be reliably sourced) within the month, this will need to be taken to WP:Articles for deletion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Published views about this power and control topic can vary widely. Much literature about it is excessively dominated by the gender studies academic crowd, who often espouse views not accepted widely in other social sciences, or in more rigorous medical psychiatry. Some of what comes out of that school of thought is patent fringe science, some of it is spot-on, and works its way into socio-linguistics, psychology, etc. Virtually all of it, from scientific to cockamamie, is highly politicized, thus presents neutrality difficulties.
 * Most of that article is just summary page of other articles, strung together. But this is a backwards approach. We create summary articles by building up a stronger and more detailed article, and then necessarily moving material into spinoff articles as the main article gets too long.  By contrast, this is an "outside WP:COATRACK" and a multi-pronged content fork, in an effort to use novel synthesis of WP's own articles as if they were sources to construct a new approach to defining "power and control in abusive relationships".
 * More specifically, it's an overall original research problem to strongly implying connections between at least 25 different encyclopedia topics all under one politico-theoretical umbrella.
 * It has serious WP:NPOV faults. Just the fact that it starts off with a heading of "Why do people want power and control - control freaks" is problematic for multiple reasons, as is having a paragraph about "control freaks" immediately after conceding that it's derogatory slang.
 * The "info pamphlet" layout is non-encyclopedic, and verges into WP:NOT territory.

Seconded above. This article doesn't fit in at all on Wikipedia. 74.84.27.236 (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ strongly. As an IT consultant/slave in a slave-selling/IT consulting firm, I know first hand about these problems. They are true, and they need to be described in an NPOV encyclopedic way, so that people can refer to this article when they need to understand what is wrong with how they feel they are treated, be it in the workplace or in other places in their lives. This article could use some overhaul, maybe, but it is very strongly fitting here, in an encyclopedia. 83.145.69.50 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Except "so that people can refer to this article when they need to understand what is wrong with how they feel they are treated" is definitely not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:NOT, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:NOTTHERAPY, etc.). The entire idea is inimical to "described in an NPOV encyclopedic way". "Begging to differ strongly", then just offering a plaintive mini-screed on a morality basis, without addressing any of the list of identified problems, isn't constructive.  Kind of a WP:NOT thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've let this sit for almost two years, and none of these problems have been resolved, so I'm considering WP:AFD again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An AFD would not stand a chance. This article is seriously underpinned by its alternative titles "controlling behaviour" and "coercive control" which are hot topics in the UK at least. In the UK it is now a crime: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coercive-or-controlling-behaviour-now-a-crime. The aspect of power and control in abuse is an essential angle in understanding how abuse is perpetrated. There are plenty of available cites:
 * "coercive control" and "abuse" - Google Books
 * "coercive control" and "abuse" - Google Scholar
 * "controlling behavour" and "abuse" - Google Books
 * "controlling behavour" and "abuse" - Google Scholar
 * "controlling behaviour" and "abuse" - Google Books
 * "controlling behaviour" and "abuse" - Google Scholar
 * "power" and "control" and "abuse" - Google Books
 * "power" and "control" and "abuse" - Google Scholar
 * "power" and "abuse" - Google Books
 * "power" and "abuse" - Google Scholar


 * --Penbat (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I second the comments above regarding the issues in this article. It is very hard to follow. The introduction contains a brief definition and then a list of examples that do not seem to me to be the most relevant or most intuitive (being a non-expert myself, I must unfortunately leave it to somebody else to either demonstrate the relevance or add a more intuitive introduction). Moreover, the notability of the page seems to come primarily from the UK Coercive Control law, but that law is mentioned in a half paragraph at the end of the article. This is especially problematic given that there are simply way too many sections in this article, with very poor flow between them. There are even entire sections (complete with figures) that seem to be mostly paraphrased straight from single (highly non-encyclopedic) sources. Given that the issues discussed in the comments above have not been addressed (and if anything worsened), I will be (re?)adding a multiple issues tag to this page; substantial cleanup is needed. My suggestion (again, as a non-expert, to be taken with a grain of salt) would be to: heavily simplify the introduction; make the first section a universal, non-contentious and in-depth discussion of Abusive Power and Control; move the section on the UK law up the page and elaborate thoroughly; move the majority of the remainder of the present article into a section with a header something like "Feminist Views on Abusive Power and Control". 198.84.255.215 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that several of the titles need revamping. I'm in the process of editing several of them, and am open to any ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultdev22 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Coercive control" and "controlling behavour"
Article needs to incorporate these concepts. There is quite a lot of relevant research:
 * coercive control - Google Books
 * coercive control - Google Scholar
 * controlling behavour - Google Books
 * controlling behavour - Google Scholar
 * controlling behaviour - Google Books
 * controlling behaviour - Google Scholar

Obviously references to "controlling behavior" and "controlling behaviour" where the word "controlling" is used as a verb not an adjective need to be weeded out. There is overlap between the above concepts and "grooming". Coercive control requires strong manipulative skills as per power and control in abusive relationships.--Penbat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Vennessa's Peer Review
I really like all of the detail you went into when it comes to describing the different types of abuse and the various situations! Your notes were super detailed and had a very concise flow to them that was easy to understand. Nesscook8 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Difference (or relationship) between "abusive power and control" and "brainwashing"
This article lists "brainwashing" as one strategy for abusive power and control (but doesn't say any more), while the Brainwashing article mentions "Abusive power and control" under "see also". (And I always assumed that the subject of this article is essentially what people were talking about when they said "brainwashing", at least in real-world scenarios rather than sci-fi stories). However, this article seems to treat the existance of abusive power and control as uncontrovertial, whereas the Brainwashing article seems to be rather sceptical (and the talk pages even more so) that the subject is actually real, and not just something paranoid conspiracy theorists claim Cults / The Government / The Commies (delete as applicable) are up to. So are these articles actually talking about the same/related things, or are they actually fundamentally different concepts that are being conflated? Is the existance of "abusive power and control" more controvertial than this article implies? Is the "brainwashing" article being too sceptical? Iapetus (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Question: Under the emotional blackmail section you give examples of the different kinds of manipulation style punisher's threat, self-punisher's threat, suffer's threat etc. Why did you not explain each in more detail? We only got an example and I was left a little confused.Summer.pouliot (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's system an abuse of power or brainwashing?
Individual editors on Wikipedia are allowed to abuse unregistered users. In fact being "unregistered" becomes a target for registered editors to attack. Brainwashing in the Fox News realm is simply a matter of keeping information out of the stream that you don't want users to see or hear and wikipedia is all about that. They censor things that they know are fact and hide information so that many articles are merely a white washed substandard article that reflects a shallow, heteronormative , white academia point of view rather. Is the system of power on wikipedia unbalanced. 104.34.202.79 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Combining Institutional Abuse and Caring Professions sections
I'm seriously considering placing the information from Caring professions to the Institutional abuse section. There's hardly any information in the former and both relate enough that they don't need separate sections. thoughts? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultdev22 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2022
— Assignment last updated by Gal17014 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Problems with sourcing
I've removed a number of references to primary sources and to non-reliable sources. There is a still considerable problem with original research in this article. For example, there are a number of statements about what the laws in various jurisdictions provide on the subject-matter, but these are almost exclusively sourced to the statutes themselves. These are primary sources and the editors' explanation of what they provide is original research. The editors need to find reliable secondary sources, like law review or bar journal articles that actually discuss the laws, rather than simply citing the laws themselves. I've not removed those for now, but if this isn't fixed, I will do so in the future. Banks Irk (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent massive changes by MrOllie
recently vastly altered this article, including removal of a bunch of sourced material. I think this needs review by other editors more steeped in the topic, and I'm tempted to simply restore all the deleted material so that proposed deletions can be handled claim-by-claim. However, doing so might be rather challenging because of the overall article-structure changes made by the same editor in the same edit. But I'm not a big fan of "mass-revert to the last stable version" except where there is definitely and obviously something untoward going on. It's fine to sweepingly overhaul an article (I've done it many times), but it needs to be done in stages with each significant change justified with a clear rationale, most especially when it comes to removing sourced material. When the material is sourced and no principled and policy-based objection is in evidence, the burden has shifted to the would-be deleter to explain why the material should be suppressed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * My edit was a reversion of recent edits made by DDCool14, a user with apparent COI who has been filling a number of pages with apparent self citations related to a neologism for this subject ("coercive control"). Similar editing had also been coming from user Didicool14 as well as a bit of IP editing. MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense; thanks for clarifying. But is the material wrong? Is the journal in question predatory? Has the research in question been debunked by newer and better research? We discourage academics adding citations to their own journal articles, but it's not strictly forbidden. Not all of the removed material seems to relate to the coercive control terminology. Has the term been picked up in later citations? Just asking the questions; I don't necessarily think you're wrong to remove the material, but want to make sure we're not going too far, being over-protective of the content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Côté/Lapierre source has very few tracked citations, is from a journal with a SJR rank of 0.389 (quite low, 1.0 is 'average') and comes from a publisher which has appeared on Beall's List, though it was removed after being acquired by a new parent company. It is definitely not a 'leading academic source' as the SPA seems to think. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what about the dozen other sources that are cited?! Excited to hear your informed take on that. Didicool14 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm here to discuss with other editors, thanks. The open personal attacks you have been making lead me to believe direct discussion with you will not be fruitful at this time. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm annoyed, for sure, as you've systematically undone every single edit I've been doing without ever proposing a change, but I think "open personal attacks" is pushing. You've never replied to any of my demands for explanations or suggested modifications, and you seem to only be engaging with my edits now that other editors have noticed your pattern. Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus, and many other editors have thoughtfully engaged with my edits and I've welcomed all their suggestions, among other on this page. You're shifting the blame here. Didicool14 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2. Following that up with more personal attacks isn't going to change my mind. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just ridiculous. I've been asking your for clarifications since MAY and you've been refusing to meaningfully engage. Of course I'm wondering what your intentions are, you've been deleting all my work with no notes! Anyways, I'm contacting administrators, this needs to stop. Didicool14 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge this conversation right here is the first time you have asked anyone anything or otherwise contributed to an article talk page, side from the user talk personal attack I just linked. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not understand what 'Talk' pages were until today, and direct you to the 'View history' where I do ask you for clarifications. Even the one you referred to above (#2). Didicool14 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, "feels Incel-y" directed at MrOllie is certainly a personal attack, and "I suspect he just doesn't personally agree with the material" is just another form of aspersion-casting, imputing a viewpoint-pushing motivation and acting as if you can read minds. Neither were construtive, and you shouldn't be surprised that your "I come in peace" posture now adopted isn't being taken at face value. While his rather blanket reverting of your material without clear rationales wasn't so helpful either, two wrongs do not make a right, and using insulting language toward the other party is obviously not going to de-escalate anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit took out a number of sources to reputable academics who have published in this area. Even if an editor is in a CoI (how has that been determined here?), if they are providing reliable sources, the text has to be evaluated on its merits. Mosher, for instance, is a recognised Canadian law professor writing in the area of family law. I think there was also a cite to Bala, who is one of the leading family law professors in Canada. The Canadian academics writing in French cited in the article also seem reliable. “Coercive control” may be a new topic, but that doesn’t disqualify it from a WP article.Yesterday, Mr Ollie made a similar unexplained major deletion from the Divorce Act (Canada) article, entirely removing a section on 2019 amendments to the act which expressly recognised the issue of coercive control as an aspect of family violence which courts must consider in appropriate cases. I reverted that completely unexplained deletion, which was a reasonably accurate summary of legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada, directly on point for the Divorce Act article. (I did some slight editing to bring the cites more in line with the legal provisions, but that’s a common fix for summaries of legal provisions.)For this article, I don’t understand the mass deletions, and would suggest a revert to the last stable version. If anyone wants to then edit it, sure, but with explanations for individual changes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the multiple removed citations were the main concern I had. However, I can see MrOllie's point about responding to fairly recent additions that were themselves pretty major changes, so the "last stable version" might well be the one before changes. It may be more productive, if more work, to review the DDCool14/Didicool14 material in more detail and determine what to keep from it, on its merits. But I'm not a subject-matter expert, just (in this topic area) an NPoV/vandalism watcher, so I'm not sure I'd be tremendously helpful in that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You also deleted the exact same material from Divorce Act (Canada) a couple months ago. And in my view the last stable version of this article is this one, which has only very minor differences from the article as it stands after my reversions. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it was listed as a "minor edit". It wasn't.  I sometimes will revert large additions if they are improperly listed as a minor edit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, I've gone back to check the previous version which you deleted, and confirmed that it had citations from Professors Mosher and Bala, who are both well-recognised experts in family law in Canada.  I'm not personally familiar with Côté and Lapierre, but they are established academics as well.  Their article is published in Intervention, the professional journal of Quebec social workers and family counsellors, which strikes me as a reliable source. I've also taken a look at their article and it supports the statements being made in this article, prior to your reversion.  I think that the version as it existed immediately prior to your large deletions should be restored. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See my reply about Côté/Lapierre above. If we want to bring back what we can cite to Mosher and Bala and leave out Côté/Lapierre I'd be happy with it. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option would be restoring the Mosher & Bala material as-is, and trying to summarize the Côté/Lapierre material in a single block and directly attributed. It may not have been published in Nature or Science but it doesn't seem to be an actually unreliable publication, and the authors seem to be established in the field, if not yet cited all that much. There's probably a WP:DUE balance that can be struck here. But I would agree with the idea that just quietly citing them over and over again throughout our article as if they're the last word is not appropriate. I also take seriously your concern about the same work being cited for new material at a bunch of other articles where it doesn't seem pertinent, though I've not examined that stuff in any detail yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, you keep saying that Didicool14 is in a conflict of interest. On what basis do you make that accusation?  Has there been a finding of conflict of interest anywhere? The fact that Didicool14 is particularly interested in the topic of coercive control does not mean they are in a conflict of interest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On the basis that they have been (on this and on their prior account) systematically adding references to an obscure paper everywhere they can, even when they aren't really on topic for the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does "obscure paper" mean? Some sources are more used than others as I've tried to use academic articles that were in open access. Didicool14 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick notice, a user who is apparently Didicool14 posted this on r/wikipedia. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this post is not properly formatted, I'm struggling with this a bit. So yes, I wrote these entries as I've recently researched a great deal about coercive control and was disappointed that Wikipedia did not have a lot of infos on it, so I added infos on pages that were related to coercive control (e.g. the Divorce Act in Canada page because the government of Canada recently added a 'coercive control' element to it, the Harassment page because harassment is a tactic of coercive control). Like SMcCandlish ☏ and Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) noticed, MrOllie has been constantly undoing my work for no stated reason. That user complains about using the same source multiple times-- but those are leading academic sources, so of course I use them on multiple occasions, and I think it's pretty standard. MrOllie has not proposed a single change, just completely delete everything. I suspect he just doesn't personally agree with the material, but coercive control is not my personal creation, it is a documented pattern that I referenced plenty. Anyways, MrOllie is making me feel a bit unsafe, but I appreciate your interventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didicool14 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Didicool14, I just posted on your Talk page with some tips about editing on Wikipedia: User talk:Didicool14.  Hope you find them helpful.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)