Talk:Nonviolent Communication

Misleading edit about Program on Negotiation

@Biogeographist: Thanks for trying to add Program on Negotiation to the Nonviolent Communication article body as I suggested. Unfortunately, your edit made it sound like Little had compared Program on Negotiation to NVC, which she had not. I reverted your edit. I doubt that Program on Negotiation has a place in the NVC article, but I bear no hard feelings if you want to try again. Daask (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Daask: Little devotes four pages to discussing this: pp. 31–35 of the cited thesis. Biogeographist (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I have read Little once again to be sure. I'll try to state my understanding as best as I can. Program on Negotiation is a collaborative project of universities which operates similar to a professional association to advance negotiation as a field. Fisher and Ury may have had some involvement in its founding, but the Program on Negotiation page is unclear on this point, and may merely mention them as name-dropping. Little discusses developments in humanistic counseling, communication, conflict resolution, and interest-based negotiation around the time NVC began, and suggest ways these developments may have influenced each other. Little does not mention Program on Negotiation as an organization, though she does mention Fisher and Ury's affiliation with Harvard Business School, and their book cover mentions their affiliation with the Harvard Negotiation Project prominently. Based on this, I think it's appropriate to mention Harvard, but don't see how Program on Negotiation has any relevance to the NVC article. What am I missing? Daask (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Daask: What Little calls the interest-based model is what Fisher and Ury, among others, founded these programs to study and teach. There is so much information available on this that it's hard to know what to cite, but here are some random selections:

• "Getting to Yes is a concise strategy for arriving at mutually acceptable agreements in every kind of conflict—whether it involves parents and children, neighbors, bosses and employees, customers or corporations, tenants or diplomats. Written by Program on Negotiation co-founders Roger Fisher, Bruce Patton, and William Ury, Getting to Yes tells you how to separate the people from the problem, focus on interests rather than positions, and work together towards an outcome that will satisfy both parties." – "[tag:] getting to yes". pon.harvard.edu. Program on Negotiation. Retrieved 2018-02-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "While working on Getting to Yes, Ury and Fisher cofounded the Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law School, pulling together an interdisciplinary group of academics interested in new approaches to and applications of the negotiation process. Today, this applied research center is a multi-university consortium that trains mediators, businesspeople, and government officials in negotiation skills. It has four key goals: (1) design, implement, and evaluate better dispute resolution practices; (2) promote collaboration among practitioners and scholars; (3) develop education programs and materials for instruction in negotiation and dispute resolution; (4) increase public awareness and understanding of successful conflict resolution efforts." – Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2017) [1978]. Cultural anthropology: the human challenge (15th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 293. ISBN 9781305633797. OCLC 954440708. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "There are, though, a series of guides produced by Roger Fisher and William Ury that may be worth looking over. Fisher and Ury set up and ran the Harvard Negotiation Project; Ury later directed the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School before working at Emory University's Carter Center for Policy Studies in international conflict resolution. Theirs is a negotiating approach focused on win-win situations; on separating people from the issue; on understanding the other party's concerns; on avoiding fix-position/stare-down-the-opponent adversarial interactions; and on making sure that, when negotiating, a person has a BATNA: Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement." – Neumann, Thomas William; Sanford, Robert M. (2010) [2001]. Practicing archaeology: an introduction to cultural resources archaeology (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. p. 80. ISBN 9780759118065. OCLC 422763502. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School offers a variety of excellent courses.... Another highly recommended course [in the Program on Negotiation] is William Ury's 'Dealing with Difficult People and Tough Situations: New "Mutual Gains" Strategies for Succeeding in Tough Negotiations.' Ury is a master teacher. The course examines strategies and tactics that can be used against you in a negotiation and effective counterstrategies that you can use when negotiating with difficult people and in difficult situations." – McRae, Bradley C. (1998). Negotiating and influencing skills: the art of creating and claiming value. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. p. 148. ISBN 0761911847. OCLC 37024149. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "As is apparent in the preceding description of approaches to conflict resolution, ADR, and the problems associated with disgruntled employees, whenever possible, collaboration is the best approach. It has the greatest chance of satisfying each party and, therefore, the greatest chance of maintaining agreements over the long haul; this, in turn, yields the greatest probability of obtaining high levels of organizational performance. This approach has received intensive study at Harvard University Law School in its Program on Negotiation, which involves scholars and research projects from Harvard, MIT, Simmons College, and Tufts University. The program has produced a form of conflict resolution that is rooted in collaboration and has become known as principled negotiation. The method requires that conflicts be resolved on the merits of the issues involved rather than through haggling, trickery, or posturing. It prescribes that individuals in conflict search for mutual gains; when this does not seem possible, then their decisions should be based on fair standards independent of the will of either side. Principled negotiation has been described as being hard on the merits of the points of view involved but soft on the people." – Carter, Gregg Lee; Byrnes, Joseph F. (2006) [1994]. How to manage conflict in the organization (2nd ed.). Watertown, MA: American Management Association. p. 21. ISBN 0761214267. OCLC 72989586. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• And on the relevance of the Program on Negotiation (PON) to nonviolent communication in general, even apart from the very specific conceptual affinities with NVC that Little examines in her thesis, suffice it to quote the following (emphasis added): "Founded in 1983 as a special research project at Harvard Law School, PON includes faculty, students, and staff from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University.... The goal of reducing conflict and violence can seem like an impossible dream. At PON, we have the privilege of doing work in service to that mission..." – "Welcome to the Program on Negotiation (PON)". pon.harvard.edu. Program on Negotiation. Retrieved 2018-02-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The purpose of including the link to PON in the NVC article is to allow readers to discover a program whose theoretical foundations have a documented similarity to the theoretical foundations of NVC as well as a shared mission of "reducing conflict and violence". As Christian Vandendorpe wrote in Scholarly and Research Communication: "All these hyperlinks and categories are transforming the way people in general interact with knowledge. They may live to new insights and connections. By converting the syntagmatic discourse typical of traditional articles into paradigmatic series, they allow readers to find common characteristics and intellectual companionship between very different authors, or surprising variations in the productions of creators from different periods, different nations, or different cultures." – Vandendorpe, Christian (October 2015). "Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge". Scholarly and Research Communication. 6 (3): 1–10. doi:10.22230/src.2015v6n3a201. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In summary, there is nothing misleading about this edit. Biogeographist (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

nvc in the classroom

First, huge thanks to all who have worked on this article. It's great! I'd like to add a section on nvc in the classroom, dividing into k-12 and college classrooms. I'm thinking it fits best under research since what I have to offer really is a review of the literature on this - but thought I would ask first if folks thought it should go elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara.koopman (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Violation

The introduction clearly presents the method non-neutrally by making remarks like:

The result is interpersonal harmony and learning for future cooperation.

However, due to its far-reaching impact, has many beneficial "side effects" as a spiritual practice, as a set of values, as parenting Best Practices, as a tool for social change, as a mediation tool, as an educational orientation, and as a worldview.

NVC greatest impact has been in personal development, relationships, and social change.

At its heart is a belief all human beings have capacity for compassion and empathy.

I feel like the article does a good job presenting the common criticisms and remarks in "Research" and "Responses", but the introduction seems to have lines with strongly positive opinions instead of facts, while the references used are academic opinions.

I added an Unbalanced tag as of May 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agucova (talk • contribs)

I agree. The intro is unclear and falls into WP:ADVOCACY. For example, it never says what NVC is; mostly it just names some hazy benefits. If you'd like to make a WP:BOLD rewrite from scratch, please feel free. See WP:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section for some ideas if you haven't already. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited the lead and removed the {{Unbalanced}} tag. If anyone thinks that there are still WP:NPOV issues in the lead, you can revert my edit and discuss here, or edit the lead further to remove any remaining problems. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2022

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)

The discussion above 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.

GA Reassessment

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)

The discussion above 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.

Femke (alt) (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)