Talk:Nonviolent Communication
 | Nonviolent Communication was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nonviolent Communication article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Requested move 9 May 2022
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Nonviolent Communication → Nonviolent communication – Since the title is not referring to a proper name, "communication" should be lowercase, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). ~BappleBusiness[talk] 12:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to be the proper noun name for a technique, not a broad concept article on the idea of nonviolent communication. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It is in fact a proper name (for a specific technique) and is capitalized as such in the sources as well. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Now the problems I've found with this page really only show the state of the page now compared probably to how much better it used to be in 2012, when it was listed as a good article. But now, there are a lot of problems with the page:
- Either the first paragraph, the very first paragraph, in "History" has misplaced the citation so that it doesn't end at the end sentence, or the latter half of the paragraph is unsourced. This one problem represents my main problem scattered throughout the article: you'll be scrolling, then find a part of the article dedicated so much to its cause, but it's unsourced. Can we fix this? As well as the citation needed tags? It looks even worse when the article makes claims like "This could lead to problems of accessibility for the underprivileged and favoring a higher social class.". Who's making this claim? Wikipedia itself? I assume this is a generalization of what researchers may be saying, but can we have a name to associate with this opinion?
- Which brings me to my next point: points of bias in the article: From the "Responses" section, "NVC may lead to the outcome of an ended relationship. We are finite creatures with finite resources, and understanding one another's needs through NVC may teach that the relationship causes too much strain to meet all needs.". This sounds like a quote, but I don't know who it's attributed to. It really sounds poetic, and nice, but we need a reference and someone who said it, otherwise it just looks like an editor's opinion. "From an evidence-based standpoint, it does not have the same standing as practices such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Supporters of the theory have generally relied on clinical and anecdotal experience to support its efficacy. Critics generally assume the efficacy of the method on an individual level; most criticism consider issues of equity and consistency. In Internet blog posts, some have described its model as self-contradictory, viewing NVC as a potentially coercive (and thus “violent”) technique with significant potential for misuse.". This is sourced, but who are these "supporters"? Who are these "critics"? I learned so much, yet so little about these critiques and who they're coming from! Whether it says who the critics and supporters are in the source doesn't matter though; it should be included in the article, yet it's not.
A lot of work needs to be done on this article in order for it to be GA material again. There is biased content and too much of it is unsourced. Therefore I'm submitting it for reassessment. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @NowIsntItTime: you've opened this as an individual reassessment, which means that it's up to you to delist the article (easiest with User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool). I agree with many of the points you make above. Could you close the discussion? Femke (alt) (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke (alt) (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Research section outdated and partially misleading - in need of rewrite
[edit]The Research section is outdated, overly reliant on studies up to 2014, and treats the comparison with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as if it were a settled framing. In academic terms, CBT is an established clinical intervention with decades of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, while NVC is a communication and interpersonal process model with applications in education, organizational development, healthcare, and conflict transformation. The comparison is misleading, because NVC does not position itself as a psychotherapeutic treatment in the same sense as CBT. Updating the entry requires integrating the most recent systematic reviews and empirical studies, particularly from 2019–2024, many of which focus on organizational, educational, and healthcare settings.
Key Issues: - Outdated evidence base: The current text puts strong weight on research up to 2014, ignoring significant newer studies, especially RCTs in healthcare and education. - Misleading CBT comparison: Current wording suggests psychologists “generally do not consider it to have the same standing” as CBT. This positions NVC as if it were a competitor to an accredited therapy, when its applications are broader (conflict resolution, mediation, education, organizational culture). Very few peer-reviewed articles suggest that cognitive-behavioral therapy is the proper benchmark. - Grassroots vs academic framing: The emphasis on Rosenberg’s lack of institutional affiliations and the grassroots history reads more like organizational lore than balanced research coverage. Chalk giant (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
New section: Limitations
[edit]I have added a “Limitations” section to balance the article’s coverage of Nonviolent Communication. The section is based primarily on open-access peer-reviewed sources (e.g. Adriani 2024 scoping review in *BMC Health Services Research*; Sung & Kweon 2022 pilot trial in *Nursing Reports*; Marlow 2012 in *J Correctional Health Care*; Grossman 2021 in *Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open*). Practitioner commentaries by Miki Kashtan in *Psychology Today* are included to reflect widely cited practitioner perspectives, and CNVC’s certification page is cited for training-structure details. I avoided private blogs and non-RS sources, in line with WP:MEDRS and WP:RS. The section highlights methodological, cultural and practical critiques found in the scholarly and practitioner literature. Feedback and improvements are welcome. Chalk giant (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
New Applications subsection NVC and AI
[edit]Hi, I recently added a short subsection under "Applications" describing emergent efforts to apply Nonviolent Communication (NVC) concepts in AI systems, after another editor removed the link to a commercial tool (NVC.ai). I would, however, like to put it back, since my intention was to document a nascent application area where NVC principles are being operationalized in software and research. I accept the concern raised that the in-body link and some phrasing may have come across as promotional, and I apologise for that. I have no links to the company concerned but was very grateful to have found this app myself after having come across some extremely toxic language in some messages which I was finding very hard to deal with. The nvc.ai app really helped me navigate that, it was good for my mental health, and I think it is in the public interest for people to know about these tools, given the rise in the mental health crisis that the World Health Organisation acknowledges is burgeoning. To comply with WP policies I have written a new subsection of the Applications section on NVC and AI in a strictly neutral, concise encyclopedic tone. Please advise as to whether you think it appropriate to add nvc.ai to “External links”. I also recognise that arXiv preprints are valuable open-access sources for emerging research but are not peer-reviewed, so I will label them as preprints and seek peer-reviewed or independent corroboration where possible. Thank you, will be happy to make any edits that help the article meet WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines. Chalk giant (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for rewriting the AI part, this looks a lot better. I think this trend of offloading critical thinking and emotional skills to AI applications will come back to haunt us (though that debate should not be held here), but if they are a phenomenon in the field of NVC with enough coverage in third party sources, they can indeed be mentioned. Do note that "I think it is in the public interest for people to know about these tools" is not a valid reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. A small point I'd like to raise if you contribute frequently is typography: the Wikipedia style is to use straight quotes (
"") instead of curly ones (“”) and to put spaces around en dashes but not em dashes. Perhaps a more proficient editor can take a better look at the writing and research itself – I won't be able to make time for that myself. M!dgard (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)- Thanks v. much for this feedback, much appreciated. Agree that the offloading of critical thinking to AI is already causing damage, especially to young people. It can enhance productivity greatly in the right hands. Maybe its use should be restricted to those who can already demonstrate the relevant skills? The last source I quote gives a very thoughtful and balanced view re AI and NVC, I feel. Chalk giant (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Also thanks for tip re curly quotes vs. straight. I only have curly ones on my keyboard though. Could maybe copypaste correct ones from elsewhere in Wikipedia. Chalk giant (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)