Talk:Gaslighting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

East German use?

I recall film director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck discussed the use of such a tactic by the Stasi (for example, stealing just one plate from a cupboard, taking the sheet off of a bed) in a radio interview. This was apparently done to someone with a family history of mental illness, who was already concerned about developing such an illness himself. Obviously a radio interview with a film director is not a reliable source, but it's something for the writers of this article to look into.--Pharos 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Torture?

Why is this not included under the category for torture? John Coxon 11:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite intro?

The introduction to this article really doesn't explain properly what gaslighting is. I had to read to the examples in the 'Cultural connections' section before I actually understood the concept. I think rewriting the intro to better define the topic would be a good idea - it's fairly unclear, and the first sentence in particular is very difficult to understand. Terraxos (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole article seems to be straying heavily away from the topic - we don't need a definition of stalking, or torture. I've cut it back to the cultural examples, and restored an earlier version of the lead. --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

Wtf is a picture of a gas light doing on an article about gaslighting which is a physchological tactic? XM 13:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LOLOL I love it, please, no-one change it.:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, that his hillarious on so many levels. Was the person who put that image there, trying to gaslight the readers of this article? I read the article and thought "am I insane, or does this image not belong here?" Then I smiled and basked in the irony of the situation. I love it! XM 15:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the intent of the person who included that, we can be certain it was not to give people something to joke about and make light of a tactic used to terrorize someone and induce mental illness. Grow up. This stuff happens, it won't be funny if it happens to you. Batvette (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Definition

I rewrote the lines that said Gaslighting consists of a systematic use of "terrorism" because that's far too general and loaded a term; It's misleading and confusing. The simple clear definition of Gaslighting is the attempt to drive someone crazy. Also Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, and the Holocaust are not examples of Gaslighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.86.173 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it later but I have to disagree that it's not an applicable definition. Wiki's page on terrorism starts with: "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

Clearly gaslighting and its related forms of abuse are meant to create a sense of terror in a subject. I think you dismiss it because it lacks a component of violence, but the violent acts which permeate many forms of terrorism are of lesser importance than the fact they are employed not as tactical gains themselves, but to create a sense of terror when they are done. When the lights dim clearly the victim experiences terror. She is being terrorized. You may find it mislesding because of your own preconception of what terrorism is. Batvette (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research and tone

We need a source describing the behaviours in the "Examples" section as specifically being "gaslighting", if they're to stay in the article - a paedophile teacher accusing a child of lying seems extremely tangential. I can't find a source to support the claim that this is known as "triangulation gaslighting".

This article could also use a rewrite for tone, to avoid constructions like "gee, that's odd, I could swear I remember doing XYZ". I tried it here, but it got reverted. --McGeddon (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article looks good

Thanks for writing it; it's new to me. Despite such failings as you see in the article, it has great merit. Describing these behaviors to others is tough, given how calculating, subtle, and deliberate these people can be - so thanks again for the words. IKnowYouNow (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaslighting is central to all fraud

Gaslighting can be verbal or written statements. It can be mail fraud, perjury, contract scams or public corruption. The gaslighting technique is "intent to mislead for improper purpose" and the common denominator in all forms of fraud.

In politics Gaslighting is commonly the main vehicle used to deceive the public, example: negative ads and smeer campaigns sway voters. Once Gaslighting starts it's hard to correct and spreads a lie as if true.

Recognizing and identifying Gaslighting in all its forms is a matter of public awareness, for if left undetected this fraudulent technique "intent to mislead for improper purpose" threatens the rights and privileges of citizens and menaces the foundations of democracy. 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Kimberley Bukstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.47.96 (talk • contribs)

Rosemary's Baby is a fine depiction of Gaslighting....

I also feel that Rosemary's Baby is a very accurate portrayal of this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A muchko333 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very abused term - lets not contribute to its misuse

Most of the info in this section is from this blogger who states:

How do we know [if we are gaslighted]? If you consider answering yes to even one of the following questions, you've probably been gaslighted:

Does your opinion of yourself change according to approval or disapproval from others who play an important role in your life, such as a spouse, parent, family member, bestfriend?

Do you dread having small things go wrong at home - buying the wrong brand of toothpaste, not having dinner ready on time, a mistaken appointment written on the calendar?

Gaslighting is an insidious form of emotional abuse and manipulation that is difficult to recognize and even harder to break free from.

http://dealingwithtoxicpeople.blogspot.com/2010/04/gaslighting-effect.html

And why the media references - this is a media creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.100.140 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Which section are you talking about? The current version of the article seems adequately sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---

My comment was general - I was calling into question the legitimacy of the term in clinical use. If you see the general use of this term on web sites, its describes anything and everything. I wanted to show that in the quote I provided about.

I rearranged the article, created a definition section, modified the technical quotes to be in there true context which is pretty narrow.

I do think the Florence Rush paragraph in the "Description" should be pulled. It provides no information and the Florence Rush book is an insignificant and poorly written work. I didn't pull it because I didn't want to over reach.

The "examples in media" - like the reference to the Six Million Dollar man - seems trivial. I think the section should be pulled or at least the Six Million Dollar man reference.

Thanks - I'm new to this. Not sure on the formating.

72.190.100.140 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender bias

Could this entry be more balanced in regard to gender references in two-person scenarios? There are several examples referencing husbands. Of course the etymology should include reference to a husband, as the play/films are the source of the term, but otherwise I don't see how psychological abuse can be assumed to flow in only one direction.

For one, the mention of a MALE therapist. I'm not sure how this gender reference adds anything to the example, but I suppose it is a quote so must include the modifier.

For another example, Jacobisq's edit on Oct. 23 2010 added this reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaslighting&diff=prev&oldid=392368012

Hilda Nelson may have been speaking about women in particular in that passage (I haven't checked the reference), but it does not seem to apply "with respect to women in particular." Anyone (male or female) could be seeking to acquire ordinary levels of free agency by trusting their own judgements. Just because (or even if) Nelson's writing is gender-biased, this article doesn't need to relay that bias.

How about a case of a wife or a mother? Statistics do not reveal that males are the larger population of abuse perpetrators. It is just a cultural assumption towards which this article is leaning.Ryanrockets (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to Gass and Nichols 1988 paper. If you actually read the article by Gass and Nichols, on the first page they assert that "studies show that up to 2/3 of all males have affairs" without citing any source. Their article is clearly gender biased!

I have also deleted the reference to Jacobson and Gottman. At present the Wiki says "Jacobson and Gottman report....". Jacobson and Gottman's book is NOT a journal article and they are NOT 'reporting' peer-reviewed data as such. On page 130 of the book they begin a story of a husband who slaps his wife in the face and gets the help of his neighbor (who was present) to deny it ever happened. While this event is consistent with gaslighting, the authors are NOT asserting that this specifically a male behavior, but that is the way it comes off in the article. If it is replaced after my deletion, it should be made more gender neutral, such as, "physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners, even flatly denying that they have used violence." Blomberg 69.5.130.12 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Robin Stern

Claims she invented the term [1]. Any other sources back her up? Someone have access to the OED? Thmazing (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

seems unlikely - book added as further reading anyway. Penbat (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Gender Bias in this article is abusive

The gender bias is completly abusive in this article, and outside the scope of the meaning of the term. Using wiki to promote male bashing is a bit abusive. All sections promoting this usage in this way should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.207.167.148 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Film/play reference

I have not seen the film, but according to this comment on a book on Amazon called The Gaslight Effect:

" As a minor quibble, I would also like to point out the author was mistaken when she referred to the 1944 film, Gaslight, by saying that the husband's most sinister act was to purposely turn down the gas to make his young wife feel even more insane when she's see the lights go low. He didn't turn down the gas for this purpose - the gas was automatically lowered when he turned on the gas in the house next door. Gas arrived to entired communities shared via pipes. His wife saw the result that less gas arrived to their lights - effectively dimming them. However, he was unaware this was happening. It marked his entering and leaving of the house next door."

The entry suggests he performed the act intentionally, which it sounds like he did not. Gaslighting was just his denial that the phenomena was occurring even though he knew it was? Ryanrockets (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the film 'Gaslight', the husband does indeed 'gaslight' his wife - moving items into bizarre locations, taking possessions so she thinks she has lost them... and then returning them to where they had been... But, the dimming of the gaslight is an inadvertant byproduct of the husband sneaking into the house's sealed attic room to search for jewells supposedly concealed there. He says he is going out, yet each time the wife notices the light dim 5 minutes later. It is because the husband has turned on the gaslight in the attic, which dims the lights elsewhere in the house. This dimming is what helps her to realise he is doing underhanded things. He never dims the lights intentionally and he doesn't even realise it has happened or that his wife noticed it. Format (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaslighting online

Has any research been done into this? It seems people with a lack of morality and excellent language skills can pull that off pretty well. At least that is how I've seen it. Rather post here than try any "original research" on the page. Electricbassguy (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

CoS gaslighting citation needed

A possible article to be cited can be found here with a discussion here. I have no experience with citing souces in Wikipedia, and this may not be credible enough of a source, so I'll leave it to a more knowledgable user to work out. Walther Atkinson (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the date for the first colloquial use of the term gaslighting. I changed it from "at least the late seventies" to "1971 or earlier." However, I don't know how to create the following citation - perhaps you can add it for me?

TV Series: McMillan & Wife Episode: The Easy Sunday Murder Case Release Date: 1971.10.20 Location of Quote Within the Video: 1h1m54s (approximately) Quote: "Are you trying to gaslight me?" spoken by Sally McMillan to her husband, Stuart McMillan, after he held onto his second shoe instead of letting it fall to the floor. [She was waiting for the sound, which didn't arrive.] 65.93.147.154 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Change to "Resisting" Section

I am not English. I found the final sentence of this section very confusing and using a term "gaslighter" which was not explained. I have made the English less horrible. Out of principle, I do object to this section anyway, as Hilde Lindemann is "arguing" (presenting only a point of view) and surely there is no room for "mere opinion" in lieu of harder evidence. I think this entire section should be taken out as its only feet is an opinion by a person who I do not think is medically qualified to count as an expert.

I also do not like subjective gender politics polluting the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychologist, Psychiatrist and Doctors of All Kinds Engage in This Without Knowing Perhaps

The patient complains about a symptom or maybe interpretation of behavior on the part of somebody. The doctor or advice giver then responds insistently using their "expert" opinion that the patient is wrong about their perception, because of course they know better. This causes the patient or advice receiver to doubt their perception or at the least, resent the practitioner, for failing to appreciate the patients possibly correct perception. I have been under psychological counseling for 34 years and have only found maybe 1 counselor out of 20 that respects my point of view and perceptions, instead of reflexively "shrinking" me and really adding to my psychological issues at worst or making my life more difficult rather than aiding it at best. So now I have a term for it "gaslighting".72.83.71.71 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This really needs to be cleaned up

There's a heavy, APA-style feel to this article (and many other psychology-related topics.) Like "Hemingway and Gellhorn" argue that... Or "Laurel and Hardy write in a 1932 footnote on the back of a napkin...." This kind of citation is not appropriate generally. A footnoted citation is all you need. Identifying the author with an in-text citation only really matters in limited cases. Even when people disagree about a certain psychological topic—which is often— who did the research is usually not the important thing. What's important is where views differ. TL;DR: Wikipedia articles are not APA-style research papers. —Fluous (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Steely Dan" quote

Random quote from a terrible Steely Dan song is not very relevant to a serious topic; just because a pop star used the word in a song doesn't mean it should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.178.4 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A quote in isolation tells us nothing, sure. But we have the band putting it into context, and a documented instance of someone noting that "he'd been hearing the term "a lot" in the previous few years, and that he believed the term to be local" for a particular year and city seems enough of a data point to be worth mentioning somewhere. --McGeddon (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Coma Prank

Should there be a section on the internet meme which encourages people to try and convince strangers that they are in a coma

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wake+up+you%27re+in+a+coma+this+isn%27t+real&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkl_bKluHKAhWCVhQKHXATAmgQ_AUICCgC&biw=1366&bih=634

It would be interesting to know if people previously in coma's have found it difficult to arouse themselves from their state due to an awareness that the surreal features of their condition might be due to gaslighting rather than their psyche alerting them to the need to wake themselves. 86.143.212.50 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with gaslighting. --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Archers

Excellent storyline illustrating this has been going on in the long running BBC radio serial The Archers http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/mar/27/the-archers-george-osborne-a-nation-shudders-over-gaslighting-fact-and-fiction.

This has been a chilling portrayal as Helen,s (the victim) world has slowly shrunk as Rob (the perpetrator) slowly isolates her from family and friends and has her doubting her own perceptions.Stainless316 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Shoot" and "Work"

The article contains the line "Popular XM radio show 'Ron_and_Fez' provides a daily example of gas lighting, between the hosts and to the listeners. The entirety of the show is designed as a work on the audience and some cases a shoot presented as a work." Shoot? Work? I don't understand these terms in this context. KASchmidt (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are terms used in the professional wrestling business. A "shoot" is (allegedly) real, and a "work" is faked. (That's a very rough explanation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Who in the world dropped a new Cold War 2.0 propaganda point in this article?

Hi, i haven't entered any discussion in wikipedia before but was extremely horrified to see a piece of political pov about Russia (specifically from an Adam Curtis film based on the writings of think-tanker Peter Pomerantsev). There is absolutely no reason for something like to be on a wikipedia page for a serious form of psychological abuse. I don't know what the protocol here is (sorry) but I thought I would bring that to the attention of whoever manages this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8403:B1C0:F485:6CB7:3518:E18F (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed the psychotherapy section

Original

Psychotherapy and psychiatry are thought, by many[who?], to be forms of gaslighting wherein the therapist or psychiatrist is characterized, by the patient, to be of a more sound, all-knowing mind (i.e. an expert). This can potentially create a conflict where the patient is unable to trust their immediate sense of their feelings and surroundings in favor of the interpretations offered by the therapist. Those interpretations will often come in the form of doubt or skepticism at the patient's appraisals and perceptions of their world.[11] Furthermore, gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[12]

I might rework this if someone doesn't add more sources or simplify it. The bolded bit in particular looks very speculative. I checked the sources. "All knowing" seems silly frankly. Doubt too many deceived patients actually see their doctor as "all knowing". Perhaps some do. The second sentence isn't supported by [11] that I can see. [11] Memory creation {from} the source is more about presenting possibilities ideas and using imagination than people being authoritatively "told" to have a memory; "interpreted" as having a memory if you will. The last sentence is supported by [12]. [11] doesn't mention the term "gaslight" or "gaslighting" once. Its about planting memories. While the source identifies instances of probable planting of false memories its unclear from the article whether an attempt to make the patient doubt sanity or perception is part of memory planting in it. In any case "trusting" the interpretation of a therapist over "immediate sense" is-more often than not-not gas lighting (somewhat of an assumption there I know). Perception is often unreliable and trusting a therapist in this regard can be reasonable as well as not a form of manipulation. It looks like the sources main focus is suggestion and there is already an article on that. The Heck I'll just revise it now if that's alright.

Changed to

Gaslighting can occur in psychiatry, psychotherapy, and therapy. There have been instances of psychiatrists being sued for planting memories. [11] It is reported that hypnosis and suggestive techniques were the mechanism in these cases [11]. Elizabeth F. Loftus found in her research that both exposing a subject to a familiar narrative or encouraging a person to imagine a scenario can create memory confabulation. This process commonly occurs unintentionally but can be used to deliberately manipulation despite the mechanisms not being entirely known. Some people are particularly vulnerable to gas-lighting such as interrogated suspects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question) and the mentally ill. Gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[12] The Dr. Patient relationship as well as illness (the main case study in source [12] is an elderly paranoid woman) makes patients in general more susceptible to abuse.

I could only access the abstract of [12]. I read [11]. My paragraph could certainly use more work but I feel its more relevant to the source [11]. My last sentence is speculative. I don't know if I should have added it. I'm mulling it over. From what I read [11] didn't discuss doctors proffering interpretations or even using their authority/expert status to manipulate. That may have been the case in the instances listed in the article but it didn't say (at least that I saw). Although I think what I wrote is better supported by the source it seems a little off topic. I think I might be in favor of removing the section altogether or using better supportive sources.

I think there's might be some questionable sections of the article but I think I'll leave it alone. In particular the sociopathy section appears to be conflating gasslighting with the more general concepts of lying or deception by focusing on effect (doubting a percetpion). Even habitual/regular lying isn't gaslighting per-se nor is doubt (even of perception) indicative of gas lighting. What I got from the 2nd source (listed by definition provided by the first source) was that gas lighting involves actually attempting to undermining anthers confidence in their ability to accurately perceive, reason, or judge (the) situation(s). In that context I wonder if source [11] is germane to the topic at all. Maybe I"m reading source 2 wrong. Oh well, I'm done with edits on this article and will probably stay away from editing wikipedia for a good long while. Last time I did an edit was years ago. ~BGL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.7.253 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reformatted preceding comment (just fixing indenting) without making any changes. — Narsil (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

See also section

Can this section please be reduced or eliminated. Thank you, --68.228.149.115 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Malerooster (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This was hardly a discussion - no reasoning was given - even the IP user left suggested reducing may be enough - a bit of pruning maybe ? Its a bit radical just wiping out the See Also sections - it doesnt happen for other articles.--Penbat (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it should, but that is just my opinion. Its better if those links can be worked into the article if appropriate.--Malerooster (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Jumble

This seems to be a jumble. Gaslighting could be (a) induced psychosis, (b) bullying, or (c) political tactics. Can we make it more coherent?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

does it have to be consciously done?

Does "gaslighting" have to be consciously done? Would someone who manipulates others in this way but isn't conscious of doing it be guilty of gaslighting? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples in literature

The plot of 'The Girl On The Train' relies on gaslighting (the book at least, I have not seen the film). This would be quite a spoiler if explained in detail in the article, but I would think that a link would be useful to show where the practice has been shown in popular culture other than the film that gives us the term. GlenUsk2 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

POL 150C2 Peer Review

This is a Peer review section that is an assignment for the University of Arizona course POL 150C2

The article has no shortage of information on what gaslighting is, but does not provide many historical examples of when it has been used besides Donald Trump. Adding examples to the in the media section could provide a greater understanding of how it has been used to influence large populations. Other then that, the article is well written, not much in the way of grammar or typos. Szadroyoung (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)szadroyoung

Trump section

Section was removed again... the text in question is as follows:

Donald Trump has been criticized for use of gaslighting techniques during the 2016 presidential campaign, both regarding his own behavior during the election as well as past behavior of allegedly assaulting over ten different women.

@Willondon: your assertion that all three sources' authors don't understand gaslighting seems absurd. I fear the problem is that you're understanding of the term doesn't match the sources' coverage of it FWIW, this happens to me often with terms like "racism" as my understanding of it is at odds with the dictionary and other mainstream RS. We have two good sources and one mediocre one (the everydayfeminims one). A number of sources have covered Trump vis-a-vis gaslighting and I don't quite see why it shouldn't be in this article about the topic. I can find more sources if you like. We can remove the details about the allegations if that would help (as they aren't directly related to the topic of gaslighting).

Also pinging The Anome as they raised concerns about the paragraph as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My sole reason for removing the para was weak sourcing for a controversial assertion. The sourcing is now much improved. The NYT is definitely a WP:RS, Salon is good too, but I'm not sure about the status of Everday Feminism as a WP:RS. Can you find a better source than this. or justify why Everyday Feminism should be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of the term? -- The Anome (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome that NYT is good and Salon is probably ok too, but the Everyday Feminism website is probably not a good source to reference for controversial political content such as this. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, I'm going to remove the Everyday Feminism cite from the para, until we have consensus that it meets WP:RS. NYT and Salon should suffice for the moment, and I don't think the EF cite currently helps anything. I've also removed the direct mention of allegations, as that would appear to be a WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That works for me! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with the New York Times. The paragraph seems a bit current affairsy for a general article on gaslighting, though. Anyway, I'm happy to have had my say, and to see how things turn out. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is undue prominence--yes, people accuse Trump of gaslighting, but lots of politicians and public figures are accused similarly. (I could give a long list of people saying that Hillary Clinton engages in gaslighting behavior.) So yes, while we can certainly verify that these accusations are made, I think it's inappropriate/unnecessary to highlight just the accusations against one politician. I won't go in and remove it on my own, but count this as another vote for removing this ref. — Narsil (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads a bit too flavor-of-the-month-esque. Trump may be gaslighting, and we have assertions, but is it relevant specifically to the topic at hand, or simply shoe-horned in due to recent occurrences? I would argue the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.238.97.203 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The material has been removed until clear consensus for inclusion is reached. --68.228.149.115 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that anonymous users are disrupting editing here by removing verified, sourced material. Please remember that this is Wikipedia, not a partisan POV-pushing party. Whether or not you choose to hide behind IP pseudo-anonymity, and whether or not you agree with the accusations directed at Trump's alleged gaslighting, these gaslighting accusations are being made and documented on a national level by multiple reliable sources. I'm not enthusiastic about seeing anons remove remove cited, sourced material they appear to dislike. Adding a fourth source by Lauren Duca. - Jm3 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Just because something is "verified" and "sourced" doesn't mean it's appropriate for the page. Nobody is questioning the fact that many people have said Trump engages in gaslighting; the question is whether it's appropriate on this page, or whether (e.g.) it's giving undue prominence to opinion judgments made against a politician during a campaign, on a page that is not meant to be "current affairs". Put me down as one non-anon voice for removing the cite. Or alternatively, can you say why we should not also note that Hillary Clinton has been accused of gaslighting? — Narsil (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Narsil: Definitely include that, if you have reliable sources! Why wouldn't you? - Jm3 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no policy-based arguments against inclusion yet. This clearly passes WP:DUE and to suggest Clinton should be added is WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably time to do a RFC to see if any consensus either way can be formed. I have removed for now. --Malerooster (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Covered by NPR too link EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The NPR article, IMO, doesn't change anything. It's just confirming that Teen Vogue used the term "gaslighting", but that's not in doubt. The question isn't "have some commentators accused Trump of gaslighting the American public"--they have! It's, "is it appropriate to mention that on the WP page for gaslighting (as opposed to, say, the page for Trump, or the 2016 campaign, or Teen Vogue). And there, I'd say "no", it's way too "current-affairsy", and also too "axe-grindy". And most importantly, it doesn't tell the reader anything useful about gaslighting. It tells them about Trump, and about those writers' opinions about Trump, but that's not what this page is for.

Those are the same reasons why I wouldn't mention that the same charges have been made against Hillary Clinton, BTW. I think mentioning Hillary is as appropriate as mentioning Trump--but I don't think either one is appropriate. Adding Hillary would be WP:POINTY, and I'm not gonna do that.

So, when/if we set up a RFC for this question, that's the argument I'll make. But I really think that isn't necessary. We got a good article now, it won't do any harm if this is a page that doesn't mention Mr. Trump. — Narsil (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the coverage the term has received, it seems UNDUE to not include it in what is otherwise a rather short article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe a well crafted RfC, suggested a few weeks back, could be used to involve more users. I will not revert again, but hope that the "material" would not be included until there is clear consensus for its inclusion, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - continuing events created by Trump himself are moving this issue well past the point where it needs an RfC. The American Dialect Society has declared gaslight as the winner in the Most Useful/Likely to Succeed category in determining its 2016 Word of the Year. [2] A recent article by Ben Yagoda in the Chronicle of Higher Education asserts the "new prominence" the term gaslighting has attained is the result of Trump's behaviour:

The new prominence came from Donald Trump’s habitual tendency to say "X," and then, at some later date, indignantly declare, “I did not say X. In fact, I would never dream of saying X".[3]

Page views for the article on gaslighting have exploded since Trump became president. A new Wikipedia article called Alternative facts has been created. This article is closely related to gaslighting, and was created in response to recent behaviour by Trump. The Google search on "trump gaslighting" now produces an astonishing number of results. Mainstream news sources are starting to respond in hardhitting and detailed ways. [4][5] --Epipelagic (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd to have a section on this regarding Trump or anyone else. Imagine an analogous section on Godwin's Law listing examples of people compared to Hitler in mainstream media. Accusing someone of engaging in "gaslighting" is obviously serious, given the article's description of the practice as a sort of psychological manipulation conducted by abusers. To assert (even with evidence, but that usually isn't provided, certainly not in that Chronicle article) that someone has walked back a previous opinion simply doesn't qualify, and such nonsense shouldn't be given the time of day on Wikipedia no matter how "reliable" of a "source" says it. It's opinion, not news when that happens. 76.64.32.197 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If you run the search suggested above (Hillary Clinton engages in gaslighting behavior), you find that a large majority of the search results are actually about Trump's gaslighting, not Clinton's (example), while the lesser number of articles accusing Clinton of the practice are often absurd; for instance the first result I see criticizes the Clinton campaign for stating that the candidate had pneumonia when she plainly had something much much worse. Who is gaslighting whom here?

Hillary Clinton has been inthe public eye for decades, yet the term seems not to have been associated with her until the recent campaign, apparently in retaliation after the term became ubiquitous in coverage of Trump.

Trump has popularized the term, and this is notable. He is to gaslighting what Don Rickles is to insult comedy, and an article on insult comedy that failed to mention Rickles would be seriously flawed. Ewulp (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest an edit to keep both sides happy? The edit would keep the Trump mention and the sources, but keep it to two-three sentences and end the paragraph with a mention of the American Psychiatric Association's memo on the Goldwater Rule. A rough edit of such a paragraph would look more like this:

"Journalists at both the New York Times Magazine and Teen Vogue, as well as psychologists Bryant Welch and Robert Feldman, have described some of the actions of Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election and his term as president as examples of gaslighting.[cite][cite][cite] According to political activist and psychotherapist Leah McElrath, who analyzed Trump's response to the Access Hollywood video, his methods amount to “the reality you just experienced didn’t actually happen.”[cite] In response to psychiatrists using their professional opinions to analyze the speech and behavior of political candidates, the American Psychiatric Association's Ethics Committee released a reaffirmation of the Goldwater Rule.[cite] The AMA stated, "When a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc. of a public figure without consent, that psychiatrist has violated the principle that psychiatric evaluations be conducted with consent or authorization."[cite]"

This way, those who favor keeping the Trump section -due to the popular searches of the term after the articles were published- get to keep it. Also, those who favor erasing the Trump section -due to feeling its presence is biased or it's adhering to WP:RECENTISM- will see it has better balance for the time being. After his presidency, perhaps it will be erased due to this being a case of recentism, or it will be joined in by articles of other high profile people. T.H.Reesh (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@T.H.Reesh: This is original research. If this "response" was directly related to "gaslighting" you should be able to cite secondary sources stating that. It is my belief that the response is directed at other statements of Trumps mental condition like his possible narcissistic personality disorder which is a medical diagnosis. Gaslighting is NOT a mental condition. That narcissistic personalities may sometimes employ it does not mean that employing it directly implies the person has a mental condition.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting is a psychiatric term used for manipulative, abusive behavior. Psychiatrists are trained to identify it, among many other things, not just illnesses. If a psychiatrist can use his/her schooling to say a professional comment about behavior, words or other appearance about a person, that is inherent to psychiatry, it's in conflict with the Goldwater Rule. They don't have to make a diagnoses about a specific mental illness. During the 1964 election, when Fact magazine published the results of a survey in which 12,356 psychiatrists were asked whether Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit for the presidency. Out of 2,417 total responses to the survey, 1,189 said that Goldwater was unfit for office. Goldwater eventually won a defamation suit against Fact. Those psychiatrists did not have to say he had a specific mental illness, such as narcissistic personality disorder. They simply said, based on his words/behavior/appearance, he was not mentally fit.

It is the same as doctors being interviewed on the news about Hillary Clinton's health during the election and the doctors saying, "Yes, by these videos and statements, it is clear she is fainting from the effects of nervous system damage". It is/was unethical of them to say so because they had not properly diagnosed her or run any tests on her. However, despite that the doctors might not have claimed a specific neurological disorder in that statement, they were making a professional opinion (using their schooling/expertise) about her general health. T.H.Reesh (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is WP:SYNTH. Unless an WP:RS affirms that the reaffirmation related to accusations of gaslighting, it's you making the connection. Gaslighting, like narcissism, is used in both a academic/clinical sense and a lay/popular sense. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it, that we are on the Talk page of a behavior that is classified in clinical psychiatry and yet, the Goldwater Rule does not apply to psychiatrists making statements of this behavior because you chose it not to apply in this instance? The Goldwater Rule encompasses all professional opinions made by psychiatrists who have not properly consulted the very person they are making the professional opinions of. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding those classification (with references) to the article would be a good first step.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, per policy laid out in WP:OR, you need to provide sources which link the topic (gas lighting) to the statement by the APA. You cannot assert the connection, even if it seems obvious to you. Reliable sources need to make that assertion. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Impartiality

How do I contest the impartiality of this article and contest removal of my edits attempting to restore some balance?----minerva100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobodyMInerva (talk • contribs)

I moved this to the bottom of the page per WP:TPO. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NobodyMInerva. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion in the section above regarding this section and whether it fairly represents a neutral point of view. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NobodyMInerva was trying to "restore some balance" by expanding out the Trump paragraph with a WP:SYN "Of course, Hillary Clinton could be accused of the same behavior...". Writing a roughly equal number of words about someone's political opponent doing the same thing is not a useful way to balance an article - any viewpoint should be WP:WEIGHTed according to its prominence in reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Since this article is about "Gaslighting", information about Clinton would only be appropriate if journalists or other authors had use the term when writing about her.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Trump section

Resolved

 – Consensus is to generalize and broaden the scope cum purview of the section.As a sidenote it conforms to WP:NPOV.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the section Gaslighting#In_politics fall in line with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV? If not, what should be done to correct it?--Winged Blades ^Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What to do with neutrality and bias of the section? T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)--Original question.

Survey

• Support inclusion of the paragraph, which helps the reader.
• Oppose, it is biased to the reader.

The above two bullet points were added by User:T.H.Reesh at the time of the RFC's creation, seemingly as a literal copypaste of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Example. I can't tell if the "Half & Half" comment below is intended as a third example or the user's actual opinion. --McGeddon (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Half & Half keep both sides to a minimum but each have a presence in article. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conforms to NPOV - The section is fine. As stated at NPOVN by multiple editors, there is no issue here. THReesh needs to stop with the OR regarding the Goldwater rule. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Its ok What is supposed to be wrong with it? Not everything that includes a mention of the Orange One require ArbCOM, the police, and eggshell walking. L3X1 (distant write) 14:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Conforms to NPOV - its usage in relation to Donald Trump is described in terms of cited quotes from reliable sources; the opinions of the writers are appropriately attributed to them and are reported nonjudgementally with respect to Donald Trump. I don't see any issue with the section as currently presented. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• I do not see any problem with the section. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. RfCs are designed to resolve disputes. This RfC fails to state what the dispute is, and without that I can't really offer an opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I also came here from the RfC notice, I also find the RfC question unclear. I'm assuming that the question follows from the discussion above, in #Trump section. I've read the section with that in mind, and I do not see an obvious problem, in that the descriptions are attributed to the sources and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. It also does not strike me as undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support with some changes If the term has indeed seen significantly increased usage of late, and journalists (not Wikipedia editors) have attributed this in published documents to Donald Trump's activities, then it's appropriate to say so. The Washington Post article is a good example. However, the part about McElrath is problematic because (1) it doesn't attribute the quote directly to show that it's a social media posting, (2) her tweet refers to one phrase being gaslighting, not Trump's "methods" and (3) it isn't a good example anyway because it's used vaguely (just a word in brackets) and incorrectly (Trump doesn't deny, or try to create doubt, in the apology she references, that the incident happened.) I would remove the sentence about her and just add her name to the list in the previous sentence of people who've used "gaslighting" in reference to Trump, and reference the Washington Post article. If an additional example is wanted, I'd pick one from a published document, not social media; however, this article is about the term, not about one politician, so IMO the one example from Ben Yagoda is enough.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I have now made this exact change.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• If you ask me—and you did, by opening an RFC—this section focuses a bit much on individual politicians, when the phenomenon of political gaslighting has been discussed in a more general way. For example, Bryant Welch, who is mentioned in the article at present, wrote a book in 2008 called State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, in which he argued that Americans have been systematically gaslighted by demagogues and the media for years. groupuscule (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with Groupuscule. Keep the section but generalize it. Andrew³²⁷ 12:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Groupuscule: I agree this is the best source available for this section. I have started to do this, however I lack access to the crucial p. 133 and chapter 8.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep but generalize, per the above. I agree with Anne Delong's analysis of problems with the McElrath material, but also agree that we have RS tying a rise in use of the term to Trump's campaign, and agree with Groupuscule's observation that sources have been making the point before Trump. So, it does need to be generalized, without whitewashing it with regard to Trump. The Trump connection, to me, is more important for a shift in actual meaning. That shift had already started before Trump, but Trump's campaign sharply tipped it. Few Millennials even know that the term originally meant individually psychologically terrorizing someone by trying to convince them, through trickery, that they're losing their mind. Some people in their 40s and older don't know the current definition and may be confused by current usage, but I think their number is dwindling. I'm 48, and I've been familiar with the current usage for several years now. These days, it just means manipulation to convince people that their perception of something has been mistaken and/or that their view/stance formed from that perception is unfounded. The shift was gradual; a few years ago, the usage was considered hyperbolic and seen as closer to the original meaning, and now it is not. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have concerns that the discussion on the Talk page and the former discussion on the Noticeboard aren't reaching any conclusions. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Any editors who oppose the exclusion of the paragraph due to various reasons (WP:Recentism, bias, etc) or attempt to reach a compromise at having both sides included in the article, are shut down by the opposing group. I fear it is because of political loyalties that compromise cannot be reached. T.H.Reesh (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a malformed RfC as you are not asking a question of editors, just seeking assistance. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So looking into the discussion more I see this was already discussed at NPOVN and a request for mediation was rejected. This amounts to forum shopping. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that posting on the article's own talk page can be considered "forum shopping". Discussion about this article is the page's intended use.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mediation was rejected so that an RfC could happen. Mediation Committee chairperson recommended an RfC happen first before trying mediation. Not forum shopping. Also, I rephrased the RfC to be in the form of a question, thanks. T.H.Reesh (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The proper NPOV-worded question would be "Does the section Gaslighting#In_politics fall in line with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV? If not, what should be done to correct it?"  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--I have changed the wording of the RFC to be as neutral as possible.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Janweh64, T.H.Reesh and EvergreenFir--the users who have already contibuted to this discussion.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: thank you! I wanted to fix it but since I'm INVOLVED i thought it best not to. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the section. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Adam Curtis AFAI can see, does not use the term, he simply describes a "strategy of confusion". Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: You are absolutely correct. It was actually Frida Ghitis who labeled it as gaslighting. I have made the corrections here.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Winter 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dreacasillas. Peer reviewers: Szadroyoung, Jennyaranda24, Codybonnet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English variant

Back in 2007, this article used non-American spellings such as "neighbours". It is therefore against policy to make edits changing to American-English spellings.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the only non-American spelling in any 2007 edit was a mention of the Australian soap opera titled Neighbours, which is spelled that way because it's a title, not because of editor preference. Since the Neighbours reference (unsourced & apparently OR) disappeared in June 2008, there appears to be a decade of consistent US spelling in this article; see "summarized", "characterized", "skepticism", "mislabeling", "behaviors", etc. in this edit from August 2016. MOS:RETAIN says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." Ewulp (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaslighting as a technique of attack used in Legal Proceedings

I think there should be an extensive section dedicated to the widespread use of this agressive technique as a legal attack in the legal profession, and especially in family Court proceedings because as I'm sure most of us know, this is widespread common knowledge and a common criticism of the flaws of modern Legal systems that there appear to allow such strategies to be used without hinderance in both Sexual Abuse cases and Divorce(or Child Custody) hearings. Colliric (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Colliric (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Common Use Definition vs Research

I would claim Psychology in many places asks us to question our memories, perceptions, and beliefs/preconceptions. Actually, many disciplines would ask students to take a critical eye to how they construe their surroundings including philosophy, sociology, economics, business, art, anything in the liberal arts Would we say a psychology professor "gaslights" their students? Elizabeth Loftus' research would suggest there is reason to be skeptical of memory. Descartes Suggested we should turn a critical eye towards what we know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sociopaths and narcissists frequently use gaslighting tactics - citation needed

@Felixphew: Citation 10 supports the statement that sociopaths use gaslighting tactics. It does not support "narcissists" or "frequently". So I propose that we delete the upsupported words, and apply citation 10 to that sentence.

Citation [10] is Stout, Martha (2006-03-14). The Sociopath Next Door. Random House Digital. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-0-7679-1582-3. Retrieved 2014-01-06. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor has used another citation for this:

Greenberg, Elinor. "Are You Being 'Gaslighted' By the Narcissist in Your Life?". Psychology Today. Sussex Publisher. Retrieved 3 April 2018.

The Greenberg citation supports "narcissists", but does not support "sociopaths" or "frequently".-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference in pop culture (House MD)

Well, since I heard about gaslighting I have found the term being used everywhere lately (as is often the case.) In the new episode of House MD (season 7 episode 12 "You Must Remember This") Doctor Gregory House is upset about his friend Wilson buying a cat, as he sees it as Wilson's way of quitting the dating scene. House decides to hide ragweed in Wilson's house so Wilson would attribute his allergies to the cat. Wilson knows that House is somehow involved and says to him "I am not allergic to cats, you are gaslighting me." House admits this to be true. I thought it was a good example, and since the word is actually used, I thought maybe it could make it in the main article. Thanks Wikipedia for getting me through college by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.178.15 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Film is Popular Culture.

The sections should be merged but retain seperation under subheadings. Cinema is Popular Culture. It is confusing to have two separate sections. Colliric (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is confusing and might be the result of a careless edit.

"Gaslighting is distinct in that:

one partner is consistently listening and considering the other partner's perspective; one partner is consistently negating the other's perception, insisting that they are wrong, or telling them that their emotional reaction is irrational or dysfunctional.

Over time, the listening partner may exhibit symptoms often associated with anxiety disorders, depression, or low self-esteem.

As opposed to these conditions, gaslighting requires a second party actively manipulating the perceptions of the other.[21]"

The sentence beginning "As opposed to these conditions..." would make more sense of the quoted phrase were omitted. Should I delete this phrase as a 'bold edit' ? Andrewg4oep (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewg4oep: Looking back at revision #1059208854, I think you are correct. I believe the sentence was intended to convey the following:

Current: As opposed to these conditions, gaslighting requires a second party actively manipulating the perceptions of the other.

Intended: Gaslighting differs from genuine relationship disagreement in that one party is manipulating the perceptions of the other.

I agree with your suggestion to delete it as it is redundant.

Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

POV problematic edits in section "In popular culture"

User "Dr. Woo Woo" redid the 4 same edits adding that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been called "gaslighting" by comedian Jimmy Dore.

• 02:01, 25 April 2022‎
• 00:57, 2 May 2022‎
• 03:24, 3 May 2022
• 02:45, 14 May 2022

The edit was reverted twice by User:Megaman en m, but last time no one has challenged/undone it.

My subjective opinion is that it doesn't look like a particularly good example of using "gaslighting" in politics (Jimmy Dore youtube clips being cited as sources).

I suggest we revert the edit. Algesten (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin

The term may well have been popularised by the title of the Cukor film, but it originated with the Hamilton play. Just because the coiner of a term or phrase is ignorant of its ultimate source, does that mean that the source itself should not be given a clear credit? (I can see that it is mentioned, but further down the article).--Stevouk (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)--Stevouk (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. IIUC both the play and the movies used the title literally, ie referring to the flickering gaslights in the house, and it wasn't even intended by the writers as the name for a particular psychological technique. Use of the term as a verb "to gaslight s.o." only appared later on with the popularity of the 1944 movie, not the (AIUI rather obscure) play, so I think it's fair to say the movie was the inspiration, but not the play, and who actually invented the term is arguable. --Syzygy (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaslighting was largely an obscure or esoteric term until the mid-2010s

This seems like a broad and entirely unsupported assertion. The term "Gaslighting was used throughout the Season 2, episode 9 of Gomer Pyle USMC "The Grudge Match" (1965) exactly as defined in this article. It was also used in a 1968 Season 1 episode of the Doris Day Show "LeRoy B. Simpson," suggesting that if the term was included with popular prime time family-oriented sit-coms, then the term, at the time, was not "obscure or esoteric." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:102:5800:70BB:C242:2E5D:AF9A (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Gaslighting might be obscure to people born after the 90s though, until recently.

Most people I know that were born 1980s or before are well aware of the term, but that's immaterial as we're all 'boomers' now. 76.75.88.196 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Malicious, intentional

How common is this idea that gaslighting is not always intentional or malicious? I fully realize that a person might unintentionally induce the effects described here, but it was my understanding that "gaslighting" is always a deliberate and invariably malicious act. Certainly, if I were to use the term, it would have that connotation. "Unintentional gaslighting" is practically an oxymoron. If you don't intend to do it, you're just straight up not doing it. Harm that comes from well-intentioned or misguided behavior can't be gaslighting. The claim is sourced but this strikes me as a vanishingly rare usage of the term in common discourse. 108.34.149.124 (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@108.34.149.124 that's like the point that the fallicy gains a life of its own as soon as one falsehood is accepted as truth the convinced individual becomes an agent of their enemy. they're and Anderson. until the world lights itself on it's eighth round of giving up and salting the ground they'll light their own shoes in them and if implemented as intended from it's origin subject stands, attentive, without acknowledging the heat or exhibiting response to pain... shivering from the icy disregard of their gods. 2603:6080:7400:2D0A:B80D:4471:4C19:172E (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore is not exactly reliable information

I deleted the line about Jimmy Dore talking about the squad voting against medicare for all as gaslighting line because many media watchdog put Dore on par with Alex Jones in term of reliability. Also, it's kind of trivial.

Here is a source on why Jimmy Dore isn't reliable https://adfontesmedia.com/jimmy-dore-show-bias-and-reliability/

Therrydicule (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Dore's use was noteworthy or WP:DUE here. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump cheap shot

Where are the examples? Where is the proof? Where are the citations? You have only the subjective opinion of liberal journalistic hacks. Now if you want multiple examples of textbook gaslighting you need look no further than the last Karine Jean-Pierre or Joe Biden press conference...and I mean it. 2603:8001:C200:1637:5863:82A1:7E3A:C48C (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at the citations? I removed the word "widely" since that isn't really cited. Do you citations for the claim that Biden's pressers are gaslighting or is that your opinion and OR? --Malerooster (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

The plot description is incorrect. It says "the husband secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lighting". However, the lights actually dim due to him lighting another light in the attic, thus lowering the pressure. He tells her it's her imagination so she doesn't know he is searching the attic. Pungh0Li0 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Carlyle

In his book “Past and Present,” Chapter 2 Book 3, Carlyle uses the term:

”that Heroism means gas-lighted Histrionism; that seen with ‘clear eyes,’ (as they call Valet-eyes), no man is a Hero, or ever was a Hero, but all men are Valet and Varlets.”

Clearly this is a much earlier usage of the term, yet every website seems to reference the play “Gaslight” as the earliest usage of the term. You’re welcome, and I will now accept my finder’s fee. 2601:84:8381:EBD0:A9F1:6A30:CCD4:A907 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It may well be that no man is a hero to his valet, but Carlyle was just using it to mean very brightlylit. It has no connection with the usage discussed in this article. It isn't even quite the same term: 'gas-lighted' as opposed to 'gaslighting'. So this has no place in an article devoted to the term gaslighting. Sbishop (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Brightly lit, yes. But brightly lit histrionism, meaning theatrics. Carlyle is saying that heroics as an ideal are downgraded into a brightly lit stage show devoid of its true meaning. In other words, what you think heroics means is wrong; we as the fake theater people will illuminate things for you instead. That sounds pretty close to the modern definition, even if it is not the precise meaning. Besides, wasn’t the origin supposedly based on a stage play about someone who manipulates lighting? What do you think a theater does for effect?

Past and Present is all about true finding the truth amidst the frivolities and quackeries of the times. Imagine what TC would think of Wikipedia… 2601:84:8381:EBD0:A9F1:6A30:CCD4:A907 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Your own interpretation is irrelevant. And no, Sbishop, this article isn't about the term gaslighting; it's about gaslighting (see WP:UMD). Although, there's necessarily going to have to be some discussion of the changing meaning of the term, that's not (or shouldn't be), the primary focus of the article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

So a close-reading using appropriate context and objective analysis is irrelevant? I suppose I need to get published in real journals with a Ph.D next to my name for the Odd Lots of reference websites to pay any mind to the truth hitting them in the face.

Pardon if you were not referring to me. It sounded like you were responding to my post, but then you mention SBishop. The writing wasn’t clear. 2601:44:40A:3A01:1814:9939:3B74:180 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

in the eye of the victim

Gaslighting is the subjective experience of having one's reality repeatedly questioned by another.

That's a strange way to put it. It would include debating religious beliefs, for example.

If a stranger on Reddit insists my anecdotes are false, or if I groundlessly believe someone is not taking me seriously, am I gaslit? I don't think so.

I'd be much happier with something like "Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse …" —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Gaslighting refers to the abusive act, not the perception of being abused. The way it is worded now is quite odd, as if to invalidate claims of gaslighting, which I guess is ironic. 2405:9800:B650:45C0:FC4D:3A59:5B09:CE64 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

An old version was Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment. What the darn heck was wrong with that? —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. DFlhb (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Old version did not take into account that reliable psychological sources define it as a colloquialism, rarely used in psychology. Not opposed to emphasizing its historical term which referred specifically to "manipulation so extreme as to induce mental illness or to justify commitment of the gaslighted person to a psychiatric institution" as the APA states, but the modern use of the colloquialism is broad, per sources. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Right; sows seeds of doubt and making [people] question their own [...] judgment wouldn't just include extreme psychological manipulation, but also just banal interpersonal disagreements. I think we should avoid any definition that encompasses the latter. DFlhb (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Well then, maybe the definition ought to include the words psychological manipulation? —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The colloquial use doesn't distinguish gaslighting from simple lying or a difference of opinion. 72.182.48.15 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be pretty good consensus against my version (up top).

How about Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation occuring over a long period, aimed at making someone doubt their memory, perception of reality, or mental stability. According to psychologist Naomi Torres-Mackie, its three components are "manipulation, control and exploitation of trust". — supported by the existing citations. LemonberryPie's criticism is still addressed by the last sentence of the lead, which notes that the term is often used more loosely. DFlhb (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would propose including both the historical term (per the APA) and the contemporary term for clarity in the lead. Gaslighting historically refers to extreme psychological manipulation with the intent to commit an individual to a psychiatric institution or cause mental illness by making them doubt their memory, perception of reality, or mental stability. In contemporary language, gaslighting is a colloquialism describing the subjective experience of having one’s reality repeatedly questioned by another. I kept in part of your wording as well. LemonberryPie (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That works DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

okay —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is the proper approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Mental Health Discrimination

The paragraph under the heading of 'Learned Behaviour' seems problematic to say the least:

"Studies have shown that gaslighting is more prevalent in couples where one or both partners have maladaptive personality traits^[26] such as traits associated with short-term mental illness (e.g., depression), substance-induced illness (e.g., alcoholism), mood disorders (e.g., bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (e.g., PTSD), personality disorder(e.g., BPD, NPD, etc.), neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g., ADHD), or combination of the above (i.e., comorbidity) and are prone to and adept at convincing others to doubt their own perceptions. ^[27]"

This appears to be saying that there are studies that show that people with depression, anxiety, PTSD, Bipolar and ADHD are prone to and adept at convincing others to doubt their own perceptions.

First, this doesn't pass the 'sniff-test'.

Second, the ideas in the first part of the sentence are attributed to one source and the ideas in the second part of the sentence to another source. If there are studies showing this surely the whole thing should be attributable to one source (or more) but not part to one source and part to another.

Third, I haven't been able to verify the source on Google Books. The book is "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout Phd. The cited edition (March 2006) isn't searchable. I searched the current edition for anything resembling the Wikipedia entry but couldn't find anything close. There were mentions of the author's case studies in relation to the above mentioned mental health conditions but the excerpt provided was too short to tell if it was the relevant quote. I cannot find the relevant source text elsewhere on line but only checked the usual places.

It seems like the entry has got a bit mixed up and has ended up sounding defamatory to people with a number of different mental health issues.

Can anybody else find the source for this citation - in particular, what study is being referred to?

Thanks PenfoldBrown (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"The word gas-lighting (referring to the behavior described in the above amateur psychology section) is occasionally used in clinical literature, but is considered a colloquialism by the American Psychological Association.[1][17]"

The term "gas-lighting" is a seen as colloquial for a good reason:

Outside of fiction it is usually impossible to determine whether one partner is tricking the other or if two people simply have different perceptions. "Gas-lighting" assumes malicious intent. This is sort of tell-tale... It is completely common that people have differing perceptions! How would a therapist or a researcher ever determine who is "gas-lighting" who within a couple? To really know this one would require absolute knowledge about both. Like an author. Fiction is where the term "gas-lighting" originates... The only thing an interviewer knows when two people accuse each other of "gas-lighting" is that they have differing perceptions unless he knows A LOT more about them then just what they say in interviews. Qualitative interviews are theory-generating science not for generalizing.

This is an article that is about a popular, but colloquial (and in my opinion pseudo-scientific) term. What most people mean when they talk about "gas-lighting" is better explained with Double-Bind-Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind#:~:text=Double%20bind%20theory%20was%20first,respond%20to%20and%20to%20resist. 2001:A61:12F1:CF01:F5A5:C501:A3C7:1558 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

When the term gained popularity ...

While the article does mention the 1938 play, it seems to state that the term was established by the 1944 film, but it is used in Preston Sturges' 1941 film "The Lady Eve" in a way that seems to indicate it was already an established term by then. Fisk0 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This page greatly downplays the significance of Gaslighting ...

... also ... page developer may find this timeline to be of interest ...

Post-Film Recognition (1940s-1950s): The film "Gaslight" was a commercial success and received critical acclaim, including several Academy Awards. As a result, it brought attention to the manipulation tactics used by the husband to deceive his wife. People who saw the film began to discuss the concept of making someone doubt their sanity or perception.

Psychology and Popular Culture (1960s-1970s): The concept of gaslighting started to appear in psychology literature and self-help books. Psychologists and therapists recognized it as a form of emotional abuse and manipulation, and it was discussed in the context of abusive relationships.

Feminist Movement (1970s): The feminist movement of the 1970s played a significant role in popularizing the term "gaslighting." Feminist literature and activists highlighted how gaslighting tactics were often used by men to control and manipulate women in relationships. This contributed to the term's visibility.

Broadened Usage (1980s-Present): Over time, the term expanded beyond its original context of abusive relationships and began to be used more broadly to describe any situation in which one person attempts to manipulate or deceive another person into doubting their own perception or reality. This broader usage has persisted into the present day.

Internet and Pop Culture (2000s-Present): With the rise of the internet and social media, terms and concepts spread rapidly. "Gaslighting" gained even more prominence as it became a common topic in discussions about relationships, psychology, and politics. It is frequently mentioned in online articles, forums, and social media discussions.

Today, "gaslighting" is widely recognized and used to describe various forms of psychological manipulation and emotional abuse in personal relationships, as well as in political and social contexts. Its evolution from a film title to a common expression illustrates how language can adapt and expand over time to describe complex psychological phenomena and social behaviors. 2601:19E:4181:5460:DD62:A7ED:6626:247B (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Your anecdotal opinion "essay" about the history of the term is of no use or interest here; we only care about what reliable sources have to say on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources for all of that information? Wikipedia can only cite anecdotal opinion essays from reliable sources. 162.246.139.210 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources [1][17] should show you that gas-lighting is NOT "widely recognized". It is a term from fiction. Outside of fiction it is usually impossible to determine whether one person is tricking another or if two people simply have different perceptions. That alone casts a lot of double at "gas-lighting". The term insinuates malicious intent that is often impossible to prove and in most cases assumed without any evidence. 2001:A61:12F1:CF01:F5A5:C501:A3C7:1558 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous choice of words that seriously alters the meaning of the information that is in the source

"minimize the serious health effects" from "This increased global awareness of the dangers of gaslighting has not been met with enthusiasm by all psychologists, some of whom have issued warnings that overuse of the term could weaken its meaning and minimize the serious health effects of such abuse" under "in psychiatry and psychology" is a very ambiguous choice of words.

The referenced source contains the following.. "However, some psychologists are not encouraged by this increased international awareness of the dangers of gaslighting, warning that overuse of the term could dilute its potency and downplay the serious health consequences – like PTSD and depression – of such abuse."

"minimize" here didn't make sense to me without reading the source, reading it as if "it somehow changes the health effects", whereas the source means "downplaying the health effects", thus trivializing not "minimizing". Ybllaw (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the referenced source.. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2018-shortlist/ Ybllaw (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)