Talk:Nonviolent Communication/Archive 2

Possible Additions to Article
I have been reading Havva Kök, a academic researcher in peace studies, who has experience with NVC. She suggests in “Nonviolent Communication in Political Conflicts”, USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law, Volume 2, (2009).pp. 349-362 that NVC is an application of Human Needs Theory. This seems to me a good place to start in terms of placing NVC in a context. She further asserts that:

Nonviolent Communication asks us to consider a very different view of reality, one which we are an expression of Divine Energy and the world is abundant realm in which our needs can be met without war, cruelty and bloodshed. In it, we find that:


 * 1) The world is abundant rather than limited,
 * 2) Human nature is giving and compassionate rather than selfish and indifferent,
 * 3) Direct personal experience has greater validity than any description of it,
 * 4) Violence is a learned behaviour rather than innate human quality,
 * 5) Language shapes rather than simply describes, the world we perceive,
 * 6) Unrecognized subjective perceptions artificially limit the range of potential action,
 * 7) Valid needs are at the root of every action,
 * 8) Needs are the universal expressions of human conditions rather than preferences,
 * 9) Feelings are an accurate indication of whether or not needs are being met,
 * 10) We are individually responsible for the choices we make in meeting our needs.

I am wondering what people think about including Human Needs Theory and some or all of these assumptions in an introduction to the NVC article? Kök is an academic who has researched NVC's applications to political contexts. I am not sure if the specific source is peer reviewed, but she certainly has a number of papers in peer reviewed sources and if not peer reviewed, it is certainly still an academic secondary source.Michaplot (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Her paper is interesting. You are right it is not peer reviewed. Also, Human Needs Theory is not much more researched than NVC. I would be leery of framing NVC within HNT, unless we can find a solid source for that. Here's a thought: Following your suggestion, above, perhaps we should change the "Criticism" section to "Responses," and include a range of responses, critiques, and applications of NVC, including Kök's paper. Sunray (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some sort of contextualization of where NVC fits into the world. If not HNT, then what? Do we characterize it as self-help? An offshoot of the human potential movement? We need a third party, objective source to place it. Fullerton and Little do to some extent and Kok as well. Michaplot (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference to HNT, since the theory does seem to have a striking overlap with the premises of NVC. So, acknowledging HNT as a related idea seemed worthwhile. However, there isn't a known historical link between the HNT and NVC, so I'm doubtful that mentioning more about HNT would be merited. In terms of the assumptions of NVC, those as as articulated by BayNVC might be more authoritative.Rhwentworth (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the Response section, I am for that. Would we want to divide responses into areas, e.g. those located in academia and those located in business, religion, education, etc.? Would we want to restrict the responses to reliable secondary sources or would we admit primary and less reliable sources? What would the criteria be for a response we would include?Michaplot (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the way Rhwentworth has included the reference to HNT. I also think that we could trace the origin of NVC to Humanistic Psychology, but we would need sources to do that.


 * As to criteria for a responses section I think reliable secondary sources based on research, or systematic review, would be fine. My concern with some of the critiques we did have was that they were essentially opinion pieces and in some cases seemed to be based on a rather thin understanding of the model. From what I have seen, the theses seem to be more sound. Sunray (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions
Well, Drmies has decided to delete a huge portion of the section on the theory and practice of NVC on the grounds that it is unverified and has excessive detail. I tried to reinstate it and Drmies redeleted it. with the admonition to "reinstate only that which is relevant and encyclopedically relevant".

It seemed to me that leaving it with citation needed tags for now would be preferable, but Drmies did not agree, and I don't want to get into an edit war. He or she has not, as far as I can tell, participated in any of these discussions, so we can't be sure where exactly they are coming from, but...it seems to me that the accusation of "unverified" as it relates to the theory and practice of NVC is easily remediable. While we lack secondary sources, it seems appropriate to me to cite Rosenberg's books and perhaps some other PuddleDancer press or similar NVC experts as sources for NVC specifics. Somebody should go and add citations as soon as possible!

As for the excessive detail, that is another story. I am feeling like the remedy for that, if Drmies or others feel like it is an issue, would be to go and edit the page, not delete it. Since Drmies does not seem inclined to do so, we might either come to a consensus here that the detail level is fine, or we might edit the section to be more succinct. I, personally, am fine with it the way it was (if someone adds good citations), though I think it could be written better, and be better organized. I was leaving that to those who are more expert than me.Michaplot (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there was excessive detail. NVC is a complex model (not as simple as it might appear at first glance), and what was present before the deletions was arguably woefully incomplete. I thought what was there needed to be expanded. But I also wanted it to be better written and organized, and referenced. Rhwentworth (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exclusion of criticism
Should we include a discussion of the exclude criticism of Nonviolent Communication in Peaceful Persuasion:The Geopolitics of Nonviolent Rhetoric by Ellen Gorsevski, State University of New York Press, 2004? The disputed criticism is on pages 166 and 226-227. The author's academic web page is here. A previous discussion of this issue may be seen above. See paragraph two of an Oct 14 version of the article's Critique section for recent inclusion of this criticism. Send me email for a copy of the relevant text (<500 words). Joja lozzo  05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not quite so simple as to ask whether to use this reference or not. What various editors objected to was the wording of the summary of the Gorsevski's views. As it was worded it made no sense. I asked for verification of the actual wording she used. We have not received that yet. I am willing to go to the library and get her book, but that will take time. Thus I think that this RfC is premature. Sunray (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I phrase RFC questions as neutrally as I can, leaving it to the participants to explain their positions.
 * I will send you the text I copied from the book that I ordered from interlibrary loan at my local town library. I'm coming to this dispute only recently. You've had weeks to obtain a copy. I assume you don't consider your not having a copy of the book a verifiability issue. Access to the book was not given as a reason for deleting the text when I asked previously.
 * If the main problem was wording then it would have been better to edit than delete. When I asked for clarification on why the text was deleted, I understood the reasons to be that Gorsevski did not understand the subject, was a tiny minority, had fringe opinions, and the text didn't comply with verifiability policy, not that the wording made no sense. Joja  lozzo  14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those issues arise due to the lack of clarity of the summary of her views in the article. Whether it is her fringe opinion, or that of the editor who added it to the article, is unclear to me. I think that any treatment of her views should be dealt with on this talk page and a consensus be determined as to what, if anything, from her book should be included. Sunray (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Having had a chance to review source text from Gorsevski, her viewpoint still seems to me to be (a) divergent from other sources and (b) based on a serious misreading of Rosenberg. However, there doesn't seem to be much point in going into detail about that while we still have disagreement about whether her critique being unique and unfounded is relevant.


 * (1) One point of contention seems to be the meaning of the WP:V policy. To me the policy clearly says that verifiability is a prerequisite for potential content to be acceptable in W. However, Jojalozza seems to infer that this policy means something further, that if a source is verifiable one is obligated to include it (or is not allowed to consider any other factors when deciding to omit it). Yet I don't see support for this interpretation in WP:V, and to me, this interpretation is logically untenable.


 * (2) A second point of contention regards how to honor the WP:NPOV policy (equally important as WP:V), in particular its sub-policy WP:UNDUE which says that opinions belonging to a tiny minority of sources do not belong in W. Jojalozza seems to favor academic sources (e.g., Gorsevski) being exempted from this policy, since academic sources are viewed as "reliable" yet originate in a culture that values originality. I am concerned that such an exemption (which doesn't seem to be supported in W policy) would have adverse consequences on neutral point of view, insofar as it could lead to inclusion of unfounded opinions that (a) aren't representative of a larger pool of opinion (that would make them worthy of inclusion even though unfounded) and (b) will not have any balancing opinions because they are too marginal for anyone to bother to refute in print.


 * I'm not sure how to address these policy-interpretation issues, but to me they seem to be at the heart of a certain amount of "talking past one another" that is happening in this discussion. I long for some shared understanding around how to approach all this. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I too have now looked at the source text and agree that it is divergent from other sources and seems to be a misreading of the NVC model. With respect to "talking past" one another, let's all try to remember that WP is a collaborative project. So let's try to collaborate. If there is a difference of view as to policy interpretation, we could always get an outside opinion from the relevant noticeboard. But I don't think we are there yet. Jojalozzo needs assurance as to why Gorsevski is not an acceptable reference. So let's go through what she says and relate it to the NVC model and behavioral science literature. Jojalozzo, would that be helpful? Sunray (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, you are proposing the editors discuss the criticism and include it only if they think it is in accord with other sources. It's axiomatic that strong criticism is at odds with the subject's core sources. It will start with different assumptions and end with different conclusions. That's the heart of the synthesis processes and essential to philosphical, ideational, and emotional development. Rather than engage in OR and SYN, I think our job is to simply present the criticism in a neutral manner. Joja  lozzo  05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) I am saying that it is a violation of core policy to exclude a source if it is verifiable, reliable, and on-topic. It's particularly egregious if the reason for excluding it is editors' opinions regarding its truth or accuracy, i.e. that editors disagree with it.
 * (2) Am I the only one who sees the irony of excluding a reliable source of strong criticism on the basis of it being a tiny minority when there are few or no other sources of criticism?
 * I hope we get some outside help here soon. Joja  lozzo  06:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that editorial decisions are made by consensus. I was the one who challenged the Gorsevski reference. It was discussed here and consensus reached that it should be excluded. That is completely in accord with WP policy, so it seems to me to be beside the point to suggest that there is something amiss. It is also WP policy that consensus can change. I am willing to examine the reference more closely to see whether there is some way of including it. Would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think consensus can override core policy. By my reading of that previous consensus process I saw a good bit of OR and SYN but little consideration for RS and V. Joja  lozzo  20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, take a look at this: "Consensus among equals is our only tool for resolving content disputes, and our main tool for resolving all other disputes." I am not in agreement that we did not give adequate consideration for WP:IRS and WP:V. Both Rhwentworth and I have explained our concerns about the Gorsevski reference. I have invited you to take a closer look at that source, but you seem to prefer Wikilawyering. Once more I am asking you: Would you be willing to work on this? We can start with your contention that we overlooked something in WP:IRS and WP:V if you like. Sunray (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing there has been some mounting frustration on both sides as folks haven't had a sense of what they are saying being heard, respected, or responded to. At the same time, I trust that everyone in this discussion is acting in good faith. I have a concern that referring to Wikilawyering in the way you have likely won't improve communication (see Wikilawyering: Misuse of the term). Likely Jojalozzo hasn't wanted to look more closely at the source because given Jojalozzo's frame of reference, it wasn't apparent how that might be appropriate or useful? At the same time, I do wish there had been more willingness to discuss specifics of WP:V/WP:IRS etc. rather than simply repeating broad assertions about them. I'm guessing that repetition may have contributed to your frustration as well? I appreciate your offering a specific invitation about one way to move forward.
 * I also just noticed W's fifth pillar "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and the Ignore all rules policy---which seem to suggest that consensus doesn't take a back seat to "core policies." Rhwentworth (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, insisting on evaluating the source is evidence to me of my position not being heard. With respect to RS and V, what's not verifiable or reliable about a volume in State University Press, SUNY series on Communication Studies, Dudley D. Cahn, Editor, authored by a professor in communications with a specialty in nonviolent communications?
 * With respect to consensus overriding policy, we're highly unlikely to achieve consensus when the basis for ignoring the rules is editors' personal opinions concerning the validity of Gorsevski's criticism. Joja  lozzo  15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If criticism is duly source it can be included, if it is not it can't - sourcing is a necessary criteria. It is not however sufficient, but depends on an editorial decision that the view is sufficiently significant to be included under WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV requires only that all significant views be included and significance is established through editorial discussion based on sources showing that a particular view is considered significant enough to mention. Consensus is a core policy - and there is nothing wrong with making an editorial decision to exclude a view if it is determined by consensus to be insignificant. The decision should however not be based on the editors personal evaluations of the source, but preferably by other scholars evaluations of it. If other scholars discuss it it is significant whether or not they find it to be wrong - the fact that they have taken the time to comment on it shows that it is significant. If it is largely ignored by scholars in the field or the case can be made that the author's view is simply insignificant because of lack of credentials or expertise, or because he belongs to a specific fringe minority then the view can also be discounted as insignificant. If it is determined to be worthy of inclusion then it should be given only its due weight - established on its significance relative to other presented views. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maunus. I agree with your summary of the policy considerations that should govern this discussion. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The state of criticism on this topic seems to be that there are few verifiable sources that have been found, most are low-quality references, no two say the same thing, and no known reputable sources comment on the criticism to confirm or refute it. Based on that, one should probably simply conclude that criticism on this topic does not exist at a level of significance that merits inclusion in W. I think we've been stretching to find if something could be regarded as significant anyway. Jojalozzo seems to feel that a source being academic confers sufficient significance to merit inclusion. I don't. I was willing to consider inclusion if in addition to that the criticism seemed to have intellectual merit (a test it didn't pass for me). I've repeatedly read all the W policies, and although in general this sort of evaluation isn't encouraged I haven't seen anything that says it couldn't be a factor considered in this sort of rather limited context where there is little else to go on. If one is of the opinion that this sort of consideration can't be taken into account, we revert to the starting point: the criticism doesn't appear to be significant enough to merit inclusion. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Maunus' summary but don't see it as supporting exclusion of Gorsevski's criticism. The dearth of criticism of NVC means to me that any reliable source of criticism is significant. The fact that this source (a volume in State University Press, SUNY series on Communication Studies, Dudley D. Cahn, Editor, authored by a professor in communications with a specialty in nonviolent communications) is eminently reliable makes its exclusion particularly troubling.
 * So far I have seen every loophole and interpretation of policy brought out as justification for excluding Gorsevski's criticism. Here Maunus says that "significance" is a viable criterion and it becomes the new reason of the day. I appreciate RHW's honesty in admitting that personal judgment of validity (or significance) is the main factor in wanting to keep Gorsevski's opinions out of the article but that, along with Sunray's insistence on evaluating the criticism as it relates to other sources, is clearly, to me, reliance on original research and synthesis in a case where all we need is neutral presentation of an opinion. Joja  lozzo  15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you say that you have "seen every loophole and interpretation of policy brought out as justification for excluding Gorsevski's criticism." There has been one main objection to her viewpoint: It violates WP:NPOV in that it gives undue weight to a viewpoint that is held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (i.e., Gorsevski, herself). The argument has been protracted because, until now, you have refused to accept any viewpoint other than that it is a "reliable source," therefore it must be included. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One person may be a quite significant viewpoint depending on the number of other participants in the dialogue, and the relative quality of their platforms (e.g. academic vs. blogosphere).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sunray: I agree that statement was uncalled for - a number of loopholes were overlooked (:-). No seriously, I apologize, some of my resistance here is due to past discussions where basic core policy is countered with interpretations of vague, often inapplicable, policy language and I am overly sensitive to that form of argument. As to Gorsevski's being a minority (of one) viewpoint, I don't think that's what the policy is referring to as a tiny minority. Original opinions are quite common in academic circles, especially ones where there are not many participants. As I said previously, academics value original thought as the basis for synthesis and progress. Joja  lozzo  17:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One person's viewpoint certainly can be significant. This is especially true if it is based on rigorous research or evaluation. Unfortunately this is not the case with Gorsevski (see below). As to original thought, again, I agree, but in her case, I see no synthesis, only the zeal to criticize. Sunray (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to evaluate whether an academically published scholar has done rigorous research - that is the job of the academic press publishing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What are the reasons for considering Gorsevski's view significant? (e.g. other authors citing him, his credentials, the publisher's credentials etc.) What are the reasons for considering it to be insignificant? (sources dismissing him, sources ignoring him, lack of credentials, publishers lack of credentials). Answering these questions would be the way to approach an answer to the question of whether it is a significant view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant because
 * it's a rare instance of academic attention to NVC.
 * it's a volume in SUNY series on Communication Studies, Dudley D. Cahn, Ed., State University of New York Press, authored by a professor in communications with a specialty in nonviolent communications.
 * Joja lozzo  15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That certainly sounds significant to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"'Elsewhere, Rosenberg advocates 'paraphrasing' what others might be 'observing, feeling, or requesting' by asking questions that aim to guess what the other person is thinking. This interpersonal process, which is anecdotally verified by Rosenberg as successful, flies in the face of documented, statistically verified data and research of John Gottman. Gottman specifically targets 'negative mind reading' as one communicative tactic that leads marriages to fail!"
 * The problem with Gorsevski's view is that it does not meet the criterion for neutrality WP:UNDUE, in that it is viewpoint "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (i.e., she is apparently the only one who holds it). While she may, or may not, be a notable person. (As an assistant professor of SUNY, I would argue that she is not notable). But it is her viewpoint that is of concern. For example, she makes the following generalization about the social science literature that is, I believe, completely unsupportable:
 * Gorsevski is attempting to invalidate the NVC model with this example, which is tenuously linked to the research of John Gottman. This in itself presents a verification problem. However, as someone who is generally familiar with the social science literature, I can say that her conclusion simply does not wash. The interpersonal process she is speaking about is paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a basic tool of several social science disciplines. For Gorsevski to question its effectiveness would require a major evaluative project, not just a throwaway reference to Gottman. Thus her view is a fringe view and should not be included in Wikipedia. Sunray (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging that some find looking at the content of the critique irrelevant... what I found telling here was that Gorsevski condemns Rosenberg by saying that Gottman specifically targets "negative mind reading", or unconfirmed insistent attribution of negative motives to others, as a problem contributing to the breakup of marriages -- when Rosenberg's recommendation is to assume (and investigate with an open mind) positive motives (attempts to meet life-serving needs) in others and in oneself. It's just one example of Gorsevski seeming to have no understanding of what Rosenberg is advocating. Rhwentworth (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A point of view does not need to be neutral - in fact it can't. Whether or not we find her argument convincing is also not relevant. Whether proponents of the view she is criticizing agrees with her is also not relevant. I think your reasoning is incorrect, and that is misapplies policy. As a previously uninvolved editor with no knowledge of the topic I would agree with Jojalozzo that the can be included, as a significant minority view, and given its due weight (which is determined relative to the article as a whole).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to clarify what it is about her view that makes it significant? Sunray (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All your points may be valid, but we can't make a case for Gorsevski's being a fringe viewpoint without reliable sources to support it. Without that your position is OR, however much familiarity with the literature you have. This is why I object to pursuing such a discussion.


 * The fact that her work is published by a reputable academic press may not reach your personal measure of notability but it certainly meets Wikipedia's requirements. I don't think it's helpful to marginalize her opinions based on her position as (only?) an associate professor.  Joja  lozzo  18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not..." Sunray (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is one of a very small number of academic sources about the topic, written by an academic with relevant credentials, published by an academic press, and the fact that there is nothing (except your statements of your personal evaluation) to suggest that her views have been dismissed as irrelevant by a majority of other scholars that are knowledgeable about the topic. All of this suggests that her view point cannot be characterized as a fringe viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Would you be willing to take a closer look at this? Sunray (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just my "personal evaluation" about paraphrasing. Paraphrasing, as I have said, is used across almost all social science disciplines. It cannot simply be dismissed as being "anecdotally verified by Rosenberg as successful," and "[flying] in the face of documented, statistically verified data..." Sunray (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LEt's let the editors of the relevant academic press determine that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available..." What is the scholarly consensus that supports her view? Sunray (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Gorsevsky is in no way an expert in Nonviolent Communication, the service marked process that is the topic of this article. She has apparently read one book of the dozens available, and is not known to have attended any trainings. The NVC Academy defines 16 to 100 hours of training as a "Beginner" skill level. By this standard, Gorsevsky is not even yet a beginner. Her knowledge of the subject is extremely superficial.
 * Imagine that a weight-training coach reads a book on yoga (and misunderstands what that book says), does not attend a single yoga class, then writes a critique of what is wrong with yoga. She publishes this in a weight-training book, edited by a colleague who also knows about weight-training but not yoga. While it's possible that the critique might have value, it's far from guaranteed--and I wouldn't want to give such a critique prominence by quoting it in the W article on yoga. Even when an author has expertise in a superficially related area, I don't think it's appropriate to offer a presumption of significance to critiques based on such limited knowledge and minimal research. Rhwentworth (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The NVC Academy does not decide who is an expert in NVC anymore than being an expert in Catholic theology requires one to be baptized, or anymore than we require experts in Scientology to be 9th level Tethans.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a critic need not be a member of the group criticized nor must they pass all the tests a group sets for people to be initiated. However, that wasn't the point of my quoting the benchmark -- the point was as an indicator that the topic has some complexity. I wouldn't grant expert status even as a critic to a person who only read one book on Catholicism or Scientology or yoga or any other complex subject, no matter what their level of expertise in other topics. Would you? Rhwentworth (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think she has only read one book about her chosen topic? How do you think she convinced the press to let her publish about a topic she is not qualified to write about?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The remarks whose inclusion is being discussed, comprising a few paragraphs, begin "In Marshall Rosenberg's popular book, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion (published in 1999)..." which implies that what Gorsevsky says is in the context of what she found in this one book. A few paragraphs, in the context of a larger body of work, are unlikely to be closely vetted by an editor. Likely Gorsevsky has expertise on the general topic of the larger work, but that doesn't imply expertise on each individual item mentioned in the larger work. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any higher degree of expertise that we could expect than being an expert on the topic of non-violent communication and having written about that book and published it professionally. No editor would turn down a review of Rosenberg's book written by Gorsevski. You are setting a bar for who is allowed to criticize the book that is more than unreasonably high. I cannot think of how a person could have better qualifications for criticizing that book. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem may lie in the fact that "nonviolent communication" can be approached from many directions. Gorsevski's focus is structural. Her research is on "contemporary rhetoric (suasory discourses) of peace-building, especially the communication practices and artifacts of leaders in peace and social justice movements." Specific research interests include: "international/intercultural rhetoric, political and social movement rhetoric, media criticism and propaganda, and nonviolent conflict communication." This is an entirely different domain than the one that is the focus of NVC, which is interpersonal communication and conflict resolution. I'm somewhat shocked that she (and her publisher) think she has appropriate expertise to critique NVC. She is clearly out of her element. Sunray (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you think so. She is fully qualified to give her opinion on the book, and there is no reason that wikipedia shouldn't include it. Why is excluding her opinion so important if I may ask?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Rosenberg and Gorsevski see non-violent communication and interpersonal conflict resolution as important in reducing structural violence but even if Rosenberg did not, I think Gorsevski's criticism of NVC is in-context simply because she says it is. Joja  lozzo  02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I was talking about their respective expertise. She has no expertise that I can find in interpersonal conflict resolution. Sunray (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She is a Ph.D. who has published books and article about non-violent communication. You have no case I am afraid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to point to the article of policy that comment elucidates? Sunray (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should wrap this discussion now. It isn't going anywhere. Sunray (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Maunus's argument that Gorsevski is qualified to offer a book review... Perhaps. Some of my concern is that her remarks had been framed as a critique of Nonviolent Communication, not as a review of one particular book on NVC, which is all they appear to be. The topic of the article is NVC, not simply one book about NVC, so the significance of a review of one book seems a bit limited. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd honestly also like some clarity about policy. I've raised this point before, but it's been ignored or met with unreferenced assertions every time, and I'd sincerely like an answer. I've read various WP policies over and over again. I see that the policies say that OR and SYN cannot appear in content, that material must be verifiable and that material can't be juxtaposed in an article in a way that implies a synthesized answer. However, I can't find any policy text that says original research can't be used as an input to consensus in a decision to not include verifiable material. Jojalozzo and Maunus, you've both repeatedly said that this is prohibited -- but could you please point me to anything in the published policies that says this? Rhwentworth (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to express your opinion about editorial decisions, regardless of what you base that in of course. However it holds little weight unless it is supported by sources. If we had a consensus that the book was irrelevant and erroneous then of course we'd decide not to include it, but this is not the case. To me this does look more like an attempt to exclude criticism at all costs. And that makes me extra intent on following the letter of the policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My use of OR and SYN has been sloppy and I'm sorry for creating confusion. Perhaps "well informed POV" would be a better characterization. Excluding something based on editors' opinions regarding its validity, no matter how well researched and developed, violates NPOV: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ." (my emphasis) It's not against policy to determine through research that a view is off-topic, insignificant or unsupported, but we can't exclude in-context, significant, reliably supported views on the basis of our own, unsupported determination that they are wrong, misinformed or unfair.  Joja  lozzo  13:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your point of view. I have identified the policies that govern this: WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:IRS and explained why the source is not viable. What leads you to continue this? Are you on some sort of a campaign to discredit NVC or Rosenberg? Sunray (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have identified ythe correct policies, however as we have argued you are misapplying them - and you are advocating that your personal evaluation should trump those policies, and the institutions that have vouched for the validity of Gorsevsky's research. There is no policybased argument that supports exclusion of this highly relevant source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NOR is never allowed, period. The only question here is, how to use a source appropriately.  Scholars misunderstand one another all the time, unfortunately.  But this is not for us to judge.  Rather, it is the reason why our NPOV policy is so sane.  We should not use Gorsevski to represent Rosenberg's views.  But we should use Gorsevski to represent Gorsevski's views of Rosenberg.  Gorsevski might represent the views held by many of Rosenberg.  It is not for us to assess the views, only to ascribe them accurately.  I will provide a simple analogy: an article by an anthropologists cites Sarte, and (I am certain) incorrectly.  The work by this anthropologist, who is not an acknowledged expert on Sartre (as a philosopher, intellectual historian, or biographer may be) should never be cited as a source on what Sartre thinks.  But it can be cited as an example of how this anthropologist views Sartre and we might find evidence that it reflects more generally how anthropologists interpret Sartre (if the source is widely and positively cited by other anthropologists, but not positively cited by philosophers).  A textbook on sociology might misrepresent anthropology.  That is not for us to judge.  We simply must distinguish between how anthropologists represent themselves, and how sociologists represent them.  Levi-Strauss and Sartre had a famous public argument.  I wouldn't use either one as a source on what the other thought.  But each of them is a good source on one notable scholar's critique of another.  Our task is not to say whether or not we are persuaded by the critique, only make clear that it is a point of view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sartre and Levi-Strauss are both notable. Gorsevski is not. Did you see her dismissal of the use of paraphrasing (see my comments above)? She presents no evidence that paraphrasing is ineffective, just a throwaway reference to Gottman. There is a mountain of research on paraphrasing. All social scientists use it. It is like saying that Rosenberg anedotally suggests using questions is effective, but that (someone has said that) using questions can upset people, therefore questions are ineffective. I'm saying that giving any credence to her views would be undue. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't give credence to any views, we just represent them. We do not require proponents of viewpoints to pass the notability requirements unless we write articles about the persons - we just require them to be significant and reliably sourced. You are arguing that your view of her view is more reliable than the view of her editors - without providing any evidence suggesting that your view is share by anyone. Your view is insignificant for our purposes untill it gets published in a source of equal repute to the one that you are trying to censor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an obligation to not mislead the reader. If her view had any scholarly support it would be fine. But it does not. Sunray (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does - she is supported by peereeviewers and editors at academic presses and an academic employer. The book has also been positively reviewed in several scholarly journals. Where is the support for your contention that it has no weight?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The way we "don't mislead readers" is by providing appropriate context. Is Gorlinski from a different acaemic discipline than Rosenberg?  If so, we include this information.  Is the book about a different topic than Rosenberg's work?  Then we say so.  In what context is she referring to Rosenberg?  let's include that.  We add more information that enables readers to understand the different kinds of sources.  But we do not judge them.


 * Do you tink there are better reviews of Rosenberg's work, from equally reliable sources? Let's add them too.  Are there people in Gorlinski's field who have different views of Rosenberg?  Let's add them too.  This is how we better inform the reader. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * [Referring back to Maunus's comments of 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC) - Haven't had time to read comments that happened while I was drafting this.] I suspect both camps hear the other as "unwilling to listen to reason" and a tempting response is to start attributing ill motives and harden one's position (which, ironically, John Gottman's work says is disastrous). I'm trying to resist this temptation and continue to assume good intentions, and I hope you will as well. I expect that everyone here is sincere, and is puzzled by why others don't see their to-them-obvious points of view. It would seem like discussing the differences in perspective openly would be the best way to avoid impasse and reach a mutually satisfying conclusion.
 * "However it holds little weight unless it is supported by sources" is an example of the sort of assertion that I'd like to see backed up by a pointer to what in the WP policy leads you to say this. I have trouble giving weight to such assertions when I don't know why they are made.


 * "If we had a consensus that the book was irrelevant and erroneous then of course we'd decide not to include it, but this is not the case." This comes back to the previous point--why are other sources saying a given source is erroneous the only factor that you are willing to consider in developing such an assessment? Rhwentworth (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing sources and consensus. If we have two reliable sources one contradicting the other then policy is to include both. It's not our role to decide which is correct. In Maunus' statement the key word is "irrelevant" since editors need to determine if statements in the article are on-topic and if a source really supports statements in the article. Joja  lozzo  20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was asking about the don't think that's it. The issue of irrelevance isn't of that much interest to me right now. What interested me was Maunus's allusion to the possibility of a book being determined to be "erroneous."


 * [Referring back to Jojalozzo's comments of 13:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC) - Haven't had time to read comments that happened while I was drafting this.]Thanks for offering a particular quote. I hope you won't think I'm being obtuse, but the quote doesn't resolve the question for me, insofar as it doesn't say explicitly anything about what factors one may consider is assessing whether a view is "significant." You say "It's not against policy to determine through research that a view is off-topic, insignificant or unsupported, but we can't exclude in-context, significant, reliably supported views on the basis of our own, unsupported determination that they are wrong, misinformed or unfair." I'd like to tease this apart, since this seems to be where some of the lack of mutual understanding lies. (1) What sort of research do you imagine as legitimate in determining that a view is insignificant or unsupported? (2) When you refer to supported or unsupported does this to you strictly refer to the presence or absence of a verifiable source for the view or assessment? (3) Do you see any scope for a supported determination of a view being "wrong, misinformed, or unfair" affecting one's assessment of whether the view is "significant"? Personally, my intuition is that a view can be wrong and still significant in that it is widely believed, but that when there is no evidence of a view being widely believed, being wrong or unsupported by evidence or reason for me reduces the significance of a view. Rhwentworth (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in any camp - I came here because I saw the RfC with no preconceived notions whatsoever. I am arguing strictly based on knowledge of policy, not of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your statement "To me this does look more like an attempt to exclude criticism at all costs. And that makes me extra intent on following the letter of the policy." This seemed like a potential example of ascribing ill motives to people seen as "other." I wanted to point out the symmetry that people could find it easy to ascribe ill motives to anyone in this discussion, yet I hope they won't, as it's counterproductive and contrary to WP:AGF.
 * I wasn't using "camp" pejoratively, but observationally. There appear to be two groupings of people in this discussion: (1) those who are certain that editorial assessment of the intellectual quality of a source has no role in assessing the significance of a source and who have been proposing that Gorsevski is significant, and (2) those who assess Gorsevesky's statements as having low intellectual quality and are unaware of any documented policy that supports the contention that factoring in this assessment is forbidden. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) I would consider it legitimate to research whether a source is verifiable or reliable, e.g. ordering Gorsevski's book from the library and studying it. (2) Yes, by supported I mean a statement has verifiable, reliable sources. (3) If there were a lot of other criticism and no one paid any attention to Gorsevski and she could only get published in minor journals it would diminish the significance of her work. However, because her work is published in reliable publications and cited by other scholars in a field that is not highly populated I consider it significant.  Joja  lozzo  19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarifications. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have a sense of having a better understanding of what I think is going on in this discussion: a clash of cultures. I think possibly the core source of friction comes from there being an undocumented Wikipedia culture (or subculture), such that those familiar with this culture cite certain ideas as "policy" though these are not recognizable as policy to those who read the policy documents yet are unfamiliar with the culture.
 * I base this on seeing a consistency of viewpoint from a number of editors who seem to have a particular, coherent interpretation of policy, and who consistently cite this viewpoint without pointing to particular policy text that I can recognize as unambiguously supporting their strongly held beliefs.
 * That many of the assertions are cultural, common interpretations and extrapolations of policy, rather than documented policy isn't necessarily a problem. It just creates a mess when we don't recognize that this is happening and some people uses "policy" to refer to policy + culture, while the others use "policy" to refer to documented policy alone. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jojalazzo suggests that in order to find out whether Gorsevski's book is a verifiable or reliable source, one much order it from the library and study it. I am a little unsure what this means.  That the book is published by SUNY press means that it is reliable - that is sufficient to fulfil our reliability standard.  That one is able to order it from the library is sufficient to fulfill ou verifiability standard; "verifiability" means that a WP reader can take the book out for themselves and verify that Gorsevski wrote what we say she wrote.  If Jojalazzo thinks that the book is being misquoted, well, fine, then this is what Jojalazzo needs to do to verify it.  I just did not think that this is what this discussion was about.  I thought people were questioning whether what Gorsevski wrote is credible or valid, not whether she actually wrote it or not.  Was I misinterpreting the conversation? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Slr, I think you have understood the conversation. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can clarify what Jojalazzo was saying beyond saying that I think the comments about verifiability and reliability were answering a hypothetical, for purposes of addressing a question about editorial philosophy, and were not implying that verfiability/reliability were "what this discussion is about." My understanding of what the discussion is about is that there has been a debate about whether Gorsevski's views are (a) significant and worthy of inclusion vs. (b) insignificant and likely representative of a "tiny minority" (WP:UNDUE) and therefore appropriate to exclude. The conversation has been somewhat challenging because there has not been a shared understanding around what considerations may be taken into account in making a determination. Some have raised credibility/validity as an issue based on examination of the text of the source, while others have dismissed concerns about this as inappropriate to consider. As best I can tell, these dismissals of inappropriateness are based on an editorial culture or subculture familiar to various editors, but which is not explicitly part of documented W policies. Rhwentworth (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My current understanding is that editors excluded content about Goirsevski's opinions because it didn't correspond to their view of the subject. Joja lozzo  03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is it. I've tried hard to explain my views, but it seems to me that others have not tried to understand my concerns. Perhaps that is not fair and perhaps I haven't expressed myself well. I think that we might make more progress if we began to try to listen to one another. Sunray (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying that "editors excluded content about Goirsevski's opinions because it didn't correspond to their view of the subject" doesn't quite match my understanding, especially if it means "Editors liked NVC and Gorsevski didn't." Rather, editors looked at Gorsevski's conclusions and the arguments used to support these and concluded that the arguments were based on gross misunderstandings of Rosenberg's writings and blatantly flawed logic about the relevance of Gottman's research. (This came in a context of having previously considered a slew of criticism, most of it from unreliable sources, and all from people with only very superficial knowledge of NVC, and all with different criticisms, so that it seemed plausible that every opinion represented only a "tiny (and thus insignificant according to WP:UNDUE) minority" (of one person).) Although Gorsevski's credentials and publisher rendered her source nominally reliable, the superficiality of her knowledge of NVC and her gross misinterpretations and dubious logic failed to persuade the editors at the time that her views were really more significant and valuable to readers than the views of the unreliable sources. (I also had a concern that the views would likely never be able to be balanced by a verifiable alternate opinion, since the views seemed too blatantly flawed and unlikely to be influential outside of W for any reliable source to bother rebutting them.) Rhwentworth (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It still sounds like this all comes down to you disagreeing with Gorsevski's take on NVC. If we put what you are saying into the article as counter-arguments to Gorsevski's criticism it would be considered OR and SYN, no matter how well thought out and intelligent, because there are no reliable sources. Instead, you removed the content about her criticism based on these well thought out, intelligent arguments against it, i.e. because you don't agree with it. Evcen if we had sources that made the same counter-arguments, we wouldn't remove the Gorsevski content but add the counter-arguments as part of the controversy. Joja  lozzo  16:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that if we had sources that made the same counter-arguments, we wouldn't remove the Gorsevski content but add the counter-arguments. However, to my mind that's because the existence of verifiable counter-arguments elevates the significance of Gorsevski's views, and also allows us to present her views in a context where it's easier for readers to assess their merits. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the attempts you are making to hear what is being said. For me, though, it is not a matter of simply disagreeing with what she is saying. That would be OR on my part. It is that what she is saying is contrary to what the literature on the subject is saying. Awhile back Slrubenstein asked whether I and Rhwentworth considered that her credentials are in another field. They are. She is a communications theorist. She is interested in language, media, socio-political structures and so on. Rosenberg's degrees are in psychology. He is dealing with conflict resolution practice. They are completely different approaches to nonviolence. That is perhaps why she makes statements that contradict the literature. She is looking at a different literature. But some of her errors are as bad as they can be. She attempts to say that paraphrasing does not work. That flies in the face of all the literature that says that it does work. What discipline are you trained in? If you tell me, I will try to find a comparable example. Sunray (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * (1) I agree that Gorsevski is in a substantially different field of expertise than Rosenberg. This poses both potential benefit and risk. The potential benefit is that one can view a set of ideas from a different and potentially valuable perspective. The risk is that one comes to the situation with deep preconceptions concerning how to look at the world, and that these preconceptions can blind one to the essence of what is being expressed in the context of another field. My sense is that the risk often exceeds the benefit when one takes only a very superficial look at another field, as Gorsevski seems to have done, and that it takes much more detailed study and consideration to realize the benefits of cross-disciplinary analysis. Because of the risk of myopia, I am inclined to not accord a shallow (reflecting limited study) cross-disciplinary analysis more significance than an analysis by someone with no particular expertise.


 * (2) I agree that some of what I am looking at would constitute OR or SYN if it were explicitly included in the article. Yet I see an important distinction between explicit inclusion of such information and using it as an input to discernment in assessing the significance of a viewpoint. It's not that original research and synthesis are themselves inherently bad in general -- without them, it would be impossible to make intelligent sense of the world. No, WP policies don't say these are inherently bad, they ask that OR/SYN not be included in articles because the purpose of W is to present a summary of significant ideas that already exist in the world. Verifiability is important because it is the means by which we establish that the ideas already exist in the world. But how does one establish significance? "Reliability" of a source (likelihood that the contents are reviewed by someone) is suggestive of significance. But I don't see any reason to regard this as definitive. Is there harm done, or does it any any way compromise the purpose of W to consider original research and synthesis in assessing the significance of a viewpoint? What does it mean to say that a viewpoint is significant? To me it means that the viewpoint is influential in the world. It doesn't mean the viewpoint is correct, as false ideas can still be very influential. How can we assess influence? One way might be to presume that academic sources are inherently influential. I've been involved in academia, and have a Ph.D. My experience is that not all ideas published by academic sources are well-vetted or influential, so I'm loth to regard this as definitive. Another way might be to compare readership. Rosenberg's main book ranks #997 in book sales at Amazon.com. Gorsevski's book ranks #2,699,538 in book sales at Amazon.com. (There, I just committed an act of original research/synthesis to help assess relative significance. Is this harmful or helpful? It might be neither.) If a source had a high sales rank, I would take that as evidence of significance, regardless of what I thought of the contents. However, in the case of some sources, it is less obvious how influential they are. If an idea is cited by others, that's evidence of influence. I don't know of anyone citing Gorsevski's comments on NVC, so I don't have that to rely on. Are her views based on a significant level of research, which could help confer significance? Well, it appears that she only reviewed one book, when vastly more material on NVC is available. It's only in this very special context, of having uncertainty about the influence of Gorsevski's views, that I finally turned to looking at their credibility. Are the views based on plausibly credible reasoning? Well, she seems to have misunderstood and be misrepresenting what Rosenberg is advocating, in a way that seems unlikely to have occurred had she researched the field more extensively, and then she refutes these misinterpretations in ways that seem to involve the misinterpretation of other research. Given the lack of overt evidence of Gorsevski's viewpoint on NVC being influential, and my assessment of the shallowness/shoddiness of her analysis, do I think it will be a contribution to W readers' understanding of the intellectual context of NVC to share Gorsevski's viewpoint with them? Personally, I don't see how that would help most readers. Do I see my process for developing this perspective as harmful to the goal of W representing a summary of "signficant" viewpoints? I personally have trouble seeing this process as harmful to the goals of W or as representing a lack of neutrality (which I do very much value). I am open to hearing others' perspectives on this. Rhwentworth (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I am not expressing any of my own (amazingly empiricist) views of the subject matter in what follows, only my views on policy. I hope not to fan flames higher by offering up a contentious but universally accessible parallel: There's a reason why is cited in the article on Evolution. Now, in this case anyone alive in America knows that this is a significant view, even if scientific consensus rules it false or at least unreasonable. But anecdotally, I can tell you that there is significant questioning of Nonviolent Communication (as a theory and movement) and that Gorsevski's (admittedly poorly written) critique does represent this strand of rarely-surfacing criticism. Since Nonviolent Communication is dismissed as sheer quackery in some other disciplines, it is unsurprising that there are few critiques in print, just as, despite the vast importance in society of the intelligent design debate, the percentage of evolutionary biologists discussing intelligent design (especially in their scholarly works) is vanishingly low. All of this is to say, in response to Rhentworth, that I agree with other editors that academic publication is fine evidence for significance and that we are not in the business of dismissing research that is bad. I agree with you, Rhentworth, that this article is far from the best, and that the countervailing academic community has done poorly in having little expressed the reasons for its dubiousness. However, there are statements like Dempsey 2005 in Philosophy & Rhetoric (ironically, a somewhat critical review of the Gorsevski book in question) that attest to the view that Nonviolent Communication, non-violent rhetoric, and non-violence in general are hopelessly utopian (p. 95), quite a different criticism from the narrow ones raised by Gorsevski, and one that is more widely held. Hope this helps! Mellsworthy (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's not necessarily germane to sorting out the current editorial issues, I'd be really curious to know more about where and by whom Nonviolent Communication is "dismissed as sheer quackery." If you'd prefer to communicate privately about this, you could send me email. At the other end of the spectrum, I know of a Fortune 500 company that has trained senior managers and their departments in NVC and is reporting significant cost reductions and increased effectiveness. Maybe there will be an academic publication about this in the next year or two. I also anecdotally know of people who practice a mockery of NVC that follows the form but not the spirit and likely contribute to giving NVC a bad name. It would be nice if there were reliable sources who discussed that. Rhwentworth (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed comment, Mellsworthy. I think you make an interesting point about some of the resistance to NVC and I agree that there is some of this sentiment out there. Whether its basis is founded on any real understanding of NVC, I'm not sure because I can find no such published criticism. The problem I've raised about Gorsevski is that she has misunderstood NVC and has made fundamentally erroneous statements (e.g., about paraphrasing) in her book. I've said this now several times, but it has yet to be seriously addressed. I do agree that the idea of nonviolent communication becoming widespread is probably utopian (and unattainable). But the aim of NVC is rather more simple: To give people a tool for communicating that will help them get their needs met. While there is anecdotal evidence that it can do this, so far we have found no research that actually measures its effectiveness one way or the other. Sunray (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A predominance of editors seem to feel that academic publication is sufficient to confer significance and prefer to honor cultural norms concerning not evaluating the quality of the the content of sources even when there is limited evidence of the viewpoint being influential. While I continue to think we're not doing readers much of a favor by drawing these particular opinions to their attention, I'm now willing to stretch to include a modest mention, perhaps something like:
 * Prof. Ellen Gorsevski, in assessing Rosenberg's book "Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion" (1999), asserted that "the relative strength of the individual is vastly overestimated while the key issue of structural violence is almost completely ignored." Gorsevski further asserted that Rosenberg's recommendations about paraphrasing are contraindicated by John Gottman's research identifying "negative mind reading" as a communication tactic that leads marriages to fail. (Reference/citation for Gorsevski's book goes here) (Reference/citation for: Gottman, John M., What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers 1994))
 * Including this much feels like a big enough stretch that I wouldn't be enthused about including more. Thoughts? Rhwentworth (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a well put, neutral summary of her position. Joja  lozzo  23:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the difficulties I have with this discussion is that we all have opinions and offer them fluently. What we do not do is respond to one another. I have raised an objection to Gorsevski that I think is fundamental and no one has yet responded to it. In order to get consensus we will need to remove legitimate objections. Would someone who argues for including Gorsevski please address my objection? Sunray (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have repeatedly responded to your objection that Gorsevski has "misunderstood NVC and has made fundamentally erroneous statements" but I may not have been sufficiently direct. Policy on neutrality doesn't aim for agreeable, non-controversial, genius opinions, it aims for neutral presentation of opinions. Your removal of properly sourced material because you disagree with it, think it's wrong, or based on misunderstandings is a violation of policy against editorial POV. You must set aside what you think of the content if it is properly sourced and on-topic. Joja  lozzo  23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm enjoying hearing a the objection to exclusion being framed a little differently (this time in terms of "editorial POV"). I'm inspired to think about how framings of other parts of this exploration can be refined.


 * People have seemed dismissive of the policy mandating not including tiny minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE) as a consideration in the current situation. That left me confused for a while, but now I'd like to seek more clarity around this. It is a very firmly stated policy, so it seems hard to justify dismissing it lightly.


 * One could say, Gorsevski's is not a tiny minor among reliably sourced critics of NVC. But I don't think limiting oneself to "critics" is a neutral/fair test. Admitting logic that allows us to pick a subcategory as the standard would also allow one to argue that that a particular person isn't a tiny minority among those who think the moon is made of cheese. It's artificial to limit oneself to "critics" or any other subcategory of the whole. The less easily manipulated test is: is a given viewpoint a tiny minority among all sources writing about the topic of the article (i.e., NVC). Not only do Gorsevski's conclusions about the failings of NVC differ from what others sources say, even her characterization of what practices NVC advocates differ from what other sources say. By this test, Gorsevski's viewpoint seems to me to be a "tiny minority."


 * There is the objection that academia favors originality, and so academic views will often be unique, and ruling out tiny minorities would discriminate against academics, which is counterintuitive because surely we should value academic opinions. It's an interesting argument, though WP:UNDUE doesn't mention any exception for academics. What is the logic of why we should value academic viewpoints more than others? I suppose it's tempting to do so on the basis that academics are generally smart, and study their subjects carefully, and when publishing through academic channels, their views are likely to be vetted to some degree. All these factors on average will tend to make for viewpoints that are more likely to be right. Perhaps greater likelihood of being right merits featuring their viewpoints in W even if they are saying things that others don't? So, we want to go outside policy to grant latitude to academic sources with respect to the "tiny minority" policy because they're more likely than other sources to be right?  But wait, if that's the logic that justifies fudging the "tiny minority" policy when it comes to academics, is it fair to insist that we continue to fudge the policy when it comes to a particular case where it is clear to editors that the source likely didn't study their subject carefully, and there seems to be a strong case for saying they're wrong?


 * In general, we don't exclude widely held viewpoints just because they're wrong. But for views that are singular, isn't it reasonable to revisit the "tiny minority" issue when those viewpoints are also shallowly researched and most probably wrong? It's not a matter of excluding the viewpoint because it's shallowly researched and wrong. It's a matter of not stretching the "tiny minority" policy in this case. It's the tiny minority policy that leads to exclusion of the viewpoint.


 * I don't think this is a new argument so much as it is a matter of being able to better articulate something I've been sensing all along.


 * "You shouldn't evaluate the the quality of the content of a source" is not itself a WP policy. It seems to me that it is a rule-of-thumb and cultural belief that in many cases (e.g., for widely held views) is aligned with and helpful for honoring the neutrality (WP:NPOV) policy. However, I think there are cases such as this one in which evaluating the quality of the content of the source actually supports discernment around how to honor the NPOV policy (of which the "tiny minority" policy (WP:UNDUE) is a part) and honor the goals of W. Rhwentworth (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Rhwentworth has evaluated the requirements of WP:UNDUE correctly. Moreover, as policy (WP:NPOV) is one of the five pillars, it behooves us to take it very seriously. WP:IRS certainly supports that as well when it says, in respect to scholarly sources: "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available..." [emphasis mine]


 * There is another concern that has been touched on, but not seriously addressed. Since Gorsevski's criticism is directed at Rosenberg (she names him), the rules of WP:BLP would likely apply. NVC is a small organization and the term is a service mark. The section of the policy that would seem to apply is WP:BLP. If there is no agreement among editors on this, we could ask for a legal opinion. WP:BLP sets stringent standards for criticism. WP:BLP states: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." That brings us back to WP:UNDUE.


 * The policy seems pretty clear to me. But perhaps I've got something wrong. If there is a flaw in the above reasoning, please point it out. If not, I think it is time to close this RfC. Sunray (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This new BLP objection really stretches my ability to assume good faith. Gorsevski is criticizing Rosenberg's positions not the man himself. Joja  lozzo  17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for both our sakes, I hope that you will continue to assume good faith. :) The point I was making is that professional jealousies and conflicts of interest are entirely possible on the part of these critics. As as been discussed here, at length, the "Criticisms" are so shoddy as to raise that as a very real prospect. Nevertheless, I realize that raising WP:BLP is tenuous. Sunray (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the UNDUE argument when no majority (great or small) of other criticism of NVC has been put forward to make Gorsevski's a tiny minority. Like BLP, it appears to mask personal opinion and analysis regarding properly sourced criticism.  The rejection  of any negative criticism of NVC including Gorsevski taints this whole discussion.  Joja  lozzo  17:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply saying that you "don't buy" something will not wash. If you have a bona fide objection to the reference to this policy, please state it. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read the complete post or just stop at the first half of the first sentence? I'll repeat what you appear to have missed: "no majority (great or small) of other criticism of NVC has been put forward to make Gorsevski's a tiny minority". Joja  lozzo  16:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After two administrators have weighed in and opposed the exclusion of Gorsevski's criticism, this resurgence of the same arguments (albeit in fresh clothes) and a new inept BLP loophole are signs of not hearing and my ability to assume good faith is failing. I have participated in two NVC courses but have no personal or financial stake in protecting it from criticism. I cannot be sure that others here do not have personal or business conflicts of interest related to NVC that might be interfering with their ability to edit from a neutral POV. Joja lozzo  18:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My current position is that I am neither blocking nor supporting inclusion of Gorsevski. This reflects having listened to arguments in favor of inclusion and finding them plausible to a degree, but not entirely convincing as yet. I think this shift in position is evidence of my not being intransigent.
 * I am still trying to achieve a deeper understanding of what nuances of editorial philosophy make sense. I am not content to take as absolute truth strongly stated editorial maxims that are W culture but not actually policy. To do so would seem contrary to W's pillar of no fixed rules. So, as long as the parties to the discussion have not achieved consensus, I don't see it as counterproductive to offer possible analyses of the situation.
 * Since you seem to be asking, I'll be transparent that I teach NVC. There hasn't been enough money involved that this constitutes much of a business conflict of interest. I do have a strong personal appreciation for NVC, and a consequent desire for it to be represented accurately. I actually agree that good criticism could strengthen the article -- and I wish we had reliable criticism from someone who had done something more substantial than read one book and fail to show any evidence at all of understanding it. Unfortunately, NVC isn't easy to understand, and such superficial examination is unlikely to yield much of value.
 * I am committed to NPOV, listen to what members of this discussion say with a willingness to be affected, and do my best to sort the issues out logically. Having trained as a mathematician at one point, I am rather sensitive to logical gaps in people's reasoning, and am slow to shift until I see those gaps start to fill in.
 * Although I've offered arguments in favor of deleting criticism that didn't seem to meet standards, I've refrained from unilaterally deleting any criticism, in part because I imagined others could project a conflict of interest, regardless of whether or not I actually experience one. Rhwentworth (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it is unlikely that good faith is as much of an issue for most of us as is being unconsciously blind to our own biases. It is clear that Rhwentworth is highly invested in NVC, and while he may have a business COI, I think it is more likely he would simply like to protect NVC from what he sees, given his expertise, as unfair criticism. Sunray is more curious. S/he has, in my opinion, been extremely defensive, tendentious and aggressive, having accused several of us of wikilawyering and harboring a hidden agenda against NVC, as well as claiming we had reached consensus when in fact the defenders (mostly me) had simply given up, having felt bulldozed. S/he has also consistently removed material from the criticisms section, because s/he incorrectly assessed the sources, could not find a convenient link to the source, or because the source was deemed inappropriate for criticism--yet left the source in place for material elsewhere in the article. I have no idea why Sunray is so aggressive about critiques of NVC, but I doubt it is a COI or bad faith.


 * The strong objections to the critiques by a number of pro-NVC advocates, such as Sunray and Rhwentworth, essentially consist of the idea that there are no valid criticisms of NVC. In the previous arguments over these sources, the substance of the objection came down to either rejecting the source as unreliable (for criticism but not for promotion) or claiming that the source misunderstands NVC and thus is simply wrong. So at this point, the only critique of NVC we have noted in the article is that it lacks critique. Given the strong and diverse critiques of NVC that have been published, this is sad to me.


 * I pointed out that disparaging of the sources of criticism of NVC as being unreliable, minority, inaccurate etc. should also apply to the sources supporting NVC. On this talk page, I went through every reference in the article and showed that they were nearly all from promotional or minority literature. It is hard to find traditionally reliable (e.g. academic, peer-reviewed, mainstream, etc.) sources for any aspect of NVC. This has marginally improved.


 * I suggested previously that we have a responses section rather than a critique or criticisms section, which I hoped would allow some of the responses from non-academic or non-traditional sources to be aired in the article. We have been stuck arguing about the academic sources, however, so I am thinking that the less reliable sources would not be accepted.


 * I believe that beyond the argument we are having about sources for explicit criticism of NVC, there are other big issues. The article was originally criticized by editors as sounding promotional, and we made some headway in fixing this. Lately, however, the article has again been rewritten, in my opinion, to promote NVC. This consists of burying information that might cast NVC in a less than glorious light and by making the article essentially a description of how the advocates of NVC see it as working, rather than putting it into a context for naive readers. For example, Sunray argued very strongly that NVC is not a conflict resolution technique, but is a trademark of an organization and therefore should not be criticized under the BLP policy. I then added the information that NVC is trademarked to the intro, but this was removed to the very end of the article. (Perhaps there should be an 'sm' next to each mention of NVC, since it is a trademarked item.) The one study of NVC efficacy described in detail in the article as research was published in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter. This information was removed to the reference section rather than staying in the article itself, where I put it. The fact that there is nearly no discussion, research or confirmation of NVC in the literature was removed from the introduction to become the sole critique of NVC, at the end of the article. And, as one of the sources on NVC notes, one critique of NVC is that it is based on beliefs rather than research. This is no longer mentioned in the article explicitly.


 * As far as moving forward, I think the Gorsevski and the Flack sources are high quality and the reasons adduced for exclusion do not seem sufficient. I do not think we have to go into any detail on the contents of their critiques, but we should mention they exist and provide a citation. I also think that one major critique of NVC is that many organization have attempted to adopt it and found it problematic. This is the opinion of one of our high quality academic (and pro-NVC) sources. I think a sentence to this effect should be included, with the reference. I also think it would be legitimate to include here the opencouchsurfing.com and noesis.org mention, and Sarles self-published critique (which is discussed in the academic source). The pro-NVC academic sources are not afraid to address the critiques, so I am not sure why the WP article should not mirror those discussions.Michaplot (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have spent hours talking to you, Michael. And am very sorry to hear that you think that I have been both defensive and aggressive. That sounds conflicted and desperate. Tendentious seems unfair, as I believe my posts were usually shorter than yours. I don't actually think that I was ever defensive. I have no dog in this race, no conflict of interest. What matters to me is writing good articles. I've edited WP for many years and have seen many "Criticism" sections that were little more than ill-constructed, politically-motivated hit jobs. When I saw that video of the philosophy student rambling on and then saw Sarles Word.doc from her website, I admit, I was angry. If that simmered over and made me seem aggressive, I regret it. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick response. I'm sad to hear that you infer my position is "There are no valid criticisms of NVC." My actual position is more like "There's plenty of valid and interesting criticism that one could make concerning NVC, yet unfortunately this doesn't seem to be what gets produced when people with only superficial exposure to NVC are the critics."
 * I appreciate your willingness to attribute good faith. It's hard for people to know about unconscious bias. I have to say, it certainly looked like there was a bias towards casting doubt and criticizing in earlier versions of the article. People I know who had some positive regard for NVC reported feeling "sick" when they saw the W article. It seemed shockingly hostile to them. My editing has been with an aim to be neither promotional nor critical/skeptical; it seems that our perceptions as to what is neutral may differ. I do favor your suggestion of replacing "Criticisms" with "Responses" per the recommendation of WP:CRIT, though who knows what content would end up there. If nothing else, changing the title would signal the intention for it to be a balanced section. Rhwentworth (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that members of the NVC community have been most distressed about this article. While I am not an NVC trainer myself (I hasten to say, what with all the insinuations flying about :)), I do know several NVC people professionally. A certified NVC trainer recently told me that she and other trainers were very unhappy about the way Wikipedia described NVC. Her reaction was to dismiss Wikipedia as a reliable source. I have to say that I think Rhwentworth's recent work on the article has improved it immensely. In that regard, his aim of neutrality is very much in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Editors should not need reminding that WP:NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. The essence of the policy is: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Sunray (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally trust that everyone's intention is neutrality. The issue is more likely to be different understandings around what neutrality looks like. As a minor example, at one point the word "claim" was used repeatedly when describing something said by a source. WP:CLAIM points out that this is not neutral since "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." A generalized tone of calling into doubt was one of the things that troubled me about earlier versions of the article. I'm sure the editor who added "claim" felt this served neutrality, but WP:CLAIM validates that others don't experience it as neutral. Rhwentworth (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to take care of readers' feelings. Deleting criticism because your friends and acquaintances don't like it is no more appropriate than deleting it because you personally disagree with it. Joja  lozzo  16:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's not the point. The point was to offer circumstantial evidence that the article may not have been successfully capturing a neutral tone. I'd expect that some people would find some things to dislike in a neutral article on a subject they care about, but that people would feel "sick" is suggestive that something went beyond neutrality. Rhwentworth (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the particulars of what sort of information is publicly available on this topic offers some challenges around how to produce an article that most people can experience as neutral.
 * You may or may not believe this is the case with NVC, but as a thought experiment, let's suppose there is a subject which is complicated enough that it's easy for novices to wildly misinterpret it, yet striking enough that people like to offer responses. A variety of people offer novice criticisms (including some academics) -- but these don't point to much truth about the subject itself beyond the truth that it's hard to learn. (I've seen this with quantum mechanics which people are prone to bizarrely misinterpret, though in this case fortunately more informed critiques are also available. Alas, more informed critiques don't seem to be available for NVC.) At the other end of the spectrum are testimonial quotes from notable public figures (in the case of NVC see Endorsements of NVC). These are arguably significant due to the prominence of the speakers, but don't have the sort of presumption of neutrality one would get from an academic source (albeit some endorsers are academics).
 * The question is, how do you manage the editing of the article so that it doesn't end up being a laundry list of misleading ramblings by novice critics or a laundry list of glowing assertions? Rhwentworth (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basic, core verifiability policy says that it's the reliability of a source that matters, not it's accuracy. Given that there is almost no criticism of NVC, we should be including every reliable source of criticism.
 * It's inappropriate for editors to decide what's an informed, non-novice criticism and what's not. If there was a consensus among critics as the quality of Gorsevski's opinions we could base our decisions on that but clearly that's not going to happen.
 * The question of tiny minority is a red herring here since there is no majority body of criticism. If we had a proper body of critical work focused on NVC we'd no doubt have much better sources than Gorsevski and Flack but since that's what we have we should present them in a neutral manner such as you proposed above. Joja  lozzo  22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To summarize: As yet we have found no reliable source that criticizes NVC. There has been abundant documentation on this page of the reasons why neither Flack nor Gorsevski qualify. WP:IRS points up the need for scholarly consensus. There is no such consensus. WP:NPOV states that views that are in a tiny minority should not be included. Would you be able to explain what policy requires that there must be a criticism section? Sunray (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If your position is that both Gorsevski's book published by an academic press and Flack's article published in a peer reviewed journal are not reliable, then there's no point in continuing here. I propose we request arbitration. Joja  lozzo  01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks like a pointless exercise in showing how poorly wikipedia is able to deal with advocate editors using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics. Several uninvolved editors have clearly stated that there is no policybased reason for excluding this viewpoint. Sunray and Rwenthworth have failed to provide any counterargument other than WP>IDONTLIKEIT, which is not valid. I say we simply go ahead an insert the reliably sourced material - consensus does not require unanimity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I'm disappointed that you see me that way. I've conscientiously put many hours into crafting analyses to try to make sense of what the right thing to do here was. Maybe you thought the answer should have been obvious. Maybe you assumed my analyses were disingenuous (they weren't). Maybe my analyses didn't pan out ultimately. But they were offered in good faith and many were much more specific than "I don't like it." Rhwentworth (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To Sunray: I'm not sure what is being referred to in WP:IRS regarding "the need for scholarly consensus.": The text I see there says "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." So, it sounds like scholarly consensus is desirable but not required.
 * With regard to the "tiny minority" issue, I've been trying to sort through theories of how to assess this. (A) One could say that one can only conclude a critical viewpoint is a tiny minority if there is a much larger number of reliable sources offering critical viewpoints that differ. (B) One could say that a viewpoint represents a tiny minority if only one person is known to hold this viewpoint. (C) One could say that a critical viewpoint can be held to be a "tiny minority" in comparison not just to other sources of critical viewpoints, but in comparison to all sources offering viewpoints on the subject. Theory A would say Gorsevsky is not a tiny minority. Theories B and C would say she is, and this has been the basis of my continuing to wonder if the "tiny minority" argument might be valid. However, at this point I'm not sure B or C are viable. Rhwentworth (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point I do not see a policy basis for excluding Gorsevski. Rhwentworth (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maunus and Jojalozzo, I have repeatedly asked you to show me what I've got wrong. You have not done that. Instead you keep asserting that because Gorsevski has published in an academic press, the source is reliable. You have not responded to the questions I've asked thus far, but nevertheless, I will ask you one more question. If an opinion about NVC by a mechanical engineer was published in an Engineering journal, and was the only view of its kind, would that be a reliable source? Sunray (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think your arguments are valid, but probably WP:RSN will result in the same recommendations I would put forward, which is to start from the proposal of Rhentworth above to objectively contextualize Gorsevski's views as her views.
 * As far as policy goes, I hope you'll forgive me for trying to argue this again, but the case seems clear to me. We cannot (without reason beyond our own perspective) deem a scholarly opinion as having undue weight if it is published in a refereed and edited source. Keep in mind that the editors and publishers in addition to the author have deemed the author's view overall credible and relevant. (I will add that Gorsevski does not appear to be a lame-brain from other articles I have read, but this is personal opinion.) She is a professor, and managed to get there by convincing yet more people that she is credible and her work relevant in the world. Now, I will grant (at least for the sake of argument) that the comment on NVC is not her best work, but it really seems to me that we cannot exclude reference to her analysis because some of us think it's wrong. (I don't have a position.) On the basis of perceived error, run-of-the-mill evolutionary biologists would exclude reference to Intelligent Design on the Evolution page, and that violates NPOV and VNT.
 * As Sunray says, the only possible basis for exclusion would be that Gorsevski's view is too insignificant to mention. But, as I have mentioned, this is contradicted in the general case by the sheer amount of vetting that academics and their views get. (NB: Gorsevski's book was reviewed in real journals. Journals do not print reviews of things they view as crackpottery.) This overall argument is why academic publications are generally assumed to have weight, unless there is some kind of evidence to the contrary like A.) more recent scholarship that supersedes its views, or, circumstantially, B.) a citation desert. If A were true, we would be having a discussion of the more recent scholarship, and, as I mentioned, B is not true as I have found reviews of the cited book. I expect that someone could try to argue that we can still exclude this particular bit of Gorsevski, as none of the citations I have found directly address the accuracy of her discussion of NVC. However, if we recast this to the biological sciences, say, this would imply that if there was only a single publication confirming that a particular lizard sometimes had blue spots on its tail, this fact would not be citable in W unless somebody else has cited this exact view. We tend to trust biologists; if we're going to start distrusting other academics, W will have to be rewritten from different principles.
 * My apologies for phrasing this very strongly. I promise to avoid bringing up Hitler. Mellsworthy (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sunray: If your position is that the peer-reviewed, published opinions of Gorsevski, a specialist in nonviolent communication, is equivalent to a mechanical engineer's opinions on NVC then I think we are justified in ignoring your input in this consensus. Joja  lozzo  15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, what Gorsevski means by nonviolent communication in her field and what Rosenberg means are different, and are rooted in different academic disciplines despite the same name. Rather than confounding issues, it might simplify the discussion to answer Sunray's question about a mechanical engineer's opinion, then separately consider the issue of how relevant this is to the degree of difference between Gorsevski's and Rosenberg's fields. In my experience, addressing one issue at a time increases the chance that people will feel an issue has actually been heard and addressed and not feel a need to return to it again and again.  So, it can ultimately save time. Rhwentworth (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sunray: Likewise I consider your repeated declarations that we haven't responded to your objections additional examples of your not hearing. In at least one case, when I have responded (e.g. here) instead of dialog we got a new objection about BLP(!). I prefer working with those who are constructive rather than obstructive. Joja  lozzo  15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Referral to RSN
The policy basis for excluding Gorsevski is WP:WEIGHT. I quoted from WP:IRS to show that it mandates us to look for scholarly consensus. As there is none, then the superordinate policy is not WP:IRS (or WP:VER which directs us to use WP:IRS in determining the reliability of sources, and WP:WEIGHT in questions of neutrality). This has gone on quite long enough. We do not have consensus. I would suggest that the next step should be to take it to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take back what I just said. I don't think you should send it to RSN unless you really think the whole source is unsound and provably so. Seems like you should go to Neutral POV notice board, since WP:RSN says that's where undue weight is decided. Mellsworthy (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As the only one here who thinks including Gorsevki's opinions violates policy you also have the option of conceding to the general will. Joja  lozzo  16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no one on this has responded to what I consider to be a legitimate concern (which was also raised by Rhwentworth). I do think that an outside opinion would be helpful. Thank you Mellsworthy for your suggestion about WP:NPOVN. Also, I would be willing to summarize my arguments here, before taking it to a noticeboard. In that case, others would be welcome to comment on the specific points I raise here.


 * I applaud Rhwentworth's efforts to seek areas of agreement. I would support any collaboration of editors on this page. Sunray (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please post a link to the discussion at NPOVN. Joja  lozzo  03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no NPOVN discussion appears to be in the works, I will restore the Gorsevski response paragraph. We can take it down if a consensus develops to do that. Joja  lozzo  03:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Flack
I confess I had only previously read the summary of Flack's views. Upon reading the complete essay, I was relieved to discover quite a bit of merit. Here's a possible draft for a new summary:
 * Chapman Flack, in reviewing a training video by Rosenberg, finds the anecdotes "humbling and inspiring" and the presentation of key ideas "spell-binding," notes the "beauty of his work," and his "adroitly doing fine attentive thinking" when role-playing with his audience. Yet Flack wonders what to make of aspects of Rosenberg's presentation, such as his apparent "dim view of the place for thinking" and his building on Walter Wink's account of the origins of our way of thinking. To Flack, some elements of what Rosenberg says seem like pat answers at odds with the challenging and complex picture of human nature history, literature and art offer.


 * Flack sees an overlap between what Rosenberg advocates and critical thinking, especially Bertrand Russell's formulation uniting kindness and clear thinking.


 * Flack notes a distinction between the "strong sense" of nonviolent communication as a virtue that is possible with care and attention, and the "weak sense," a mimicry of this born of ego and haste. The strong sense offers a language to examine one's thinking and actions, support understanding, bring one's best to the community, and honor one's emotions. In the weak sense, one may take the language as rules and use these to score debating points, label others for political gain, or insist that others express themselves in this way. Though concerned that some of what Rosenberg says could lead to the weak sense, Flack sees evidence that Rosenberg understands the strong sense in practice. Rosenberg's work with workshop attendees demonstrates "the real thing." But Flack warns that "the temptation of the weak sense will not be absent." As an antidote, Flack recommends, "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others," and guard against the "metamorphosis of nonviolent communication into subtle violence done in its name." (Flack reference goes here)

I imagine it makes sense to let the Gorsevski conflict work it's way to a resolution before deciding whether to include some version of this in the article. Rhwentworth (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rhwentworth has tried to summarize the main points of Flack's article. This seems to me a much more promising approach than focusing exclusively on the criticism. What do other editors think? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I interpret this as a likelihood that adding this to the article may be accepted, and am doing so, subject to change as always. Rhwentworth (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Rosenberg and Manfred Max Neef
Marshall has acknowledged that like Manfred Max Neef he does not accept Maslow's contention that needs are hierarchical. He accepts that needs are limited, universal and invariant between cultures, the basis of Max-Neef's view. What Marshall calls "strategies" Max-Neef callls "satisfiers". John D. Croft (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but we need a source that verifies that Marshall Rosenberg connects NVC with Max-Neef's approach. -Hugetim (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)