Talk:Nonviolent Communication/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archived threads

Hi there, GA Reviewer here. :) I've archived some stale threads and threads from over 6 months ago. — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Image check

Sup y'all, GA Reviewer here. I checked all images used in the article and they're all free-use and appropriately licensed from Wikimedia Commons, so that checks out okay. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Stability check

Hello there, GA Reviewer here, doing a stability check:

1. I looked through the article edit history going back several months = didn't find any glaring problems or ongoing conflicts.
2. Took that opportunity to welcome some previously unwelcomed users. :)
3. Went through the talk page history and archives going back a few months = also doesn't seem to be any big conflicts or ongoing problems there either.

Therefore, stability check passes, on to the rest of the review. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations Needed

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

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

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

Gert Danielsen?

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

• You seem to be posting from Cambridge University and thereabouts, but you have no user account on WP. You might want to create an account, and present your case, rather than doing it through anonymous IPs (assuming both changes on this issue, were the same person).
• I asked originally if you would be willing to discuss this issue here, rather than making obscure changes with scandalous claims and no explanation.
• Why not simply cite the Danielsen work, rather than accusing Kok of plagiarism, but leaving her citation intact? If you have a better source for this article, by all means add it to the article.
• Without a published source for the claim that Kok's reference is illegitimate, I am not sure it is appropriate for us to have your change on this page. Kok is a legitimate academic, and the source is reliable. If there is other information on the source, bring it forward.Michaplot (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a citation/link available for the Gert Danielsen thesis? The revision history note by 128.232.230.5 claims the thesis is available online, but I have not been able to locate it. (I have found an essay by Danielsen which discusses NVC and HNT: "Meeting Human Needs, Preventing Violence: Applying Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in Sri Lanka" (2005), available at a number of sites including) Rhwentworth (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Questionable axioms

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

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

Using NVC on Wikipedia

I would like to gather experiences from editors at Wikipedia with NVC, so we can learn from each other.

Since, as User:Irn remarked correctly, the talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, I suggest you could relate your experiences at User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 11:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: I find it difficult to follow the discussion that already exists at User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC; in addition, the discussion there is eight years old, so you may want to set up archiving on that page (see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo) to clear the page of old discussions that may make little sense to newcomers. Furthermore, it is not clear to me what you mean by "experiences from editors at Wikipedia with NVC", so at User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC you may want to explain more clearly what kind of "experiences" you are seeking. In my view, the general ethos of NVC is already expressed in the Wikipedia conduct policies, especially the policy of Civility: see also Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Civility. In fact, NVC is already mentioned in one of the essays on civility: Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads. And NVC is also mentioned in Wikipedia:Pledges (as you already know since you created that essay). Finally, I would note that NVC is not the only conceptual system or model that is relevant to civility on Wikipedia; other equally relevant models can be found in books by William Ury and his colleagues at the Program on Negotiation and by Chris Argyris (creator of the Ladder of Inference), in Bohm dialogue, pragma-dialectics and other dialectical models in argumentation theory, Rogerian argument, critical thinking, communicative rationality, design rationale (which is relevant because all discussion on Wikipedia is about designing an encyclopedia), other approaches to conflict transformation, etc. Biogeographist (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your good pointers. I will archive User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC right away and start there with an explanation why I'm asking this now, after so many years. Embarrassingly, it has to do just with that Wikipedia:Pledges mention of NVC. — Sebastian 10:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)