Talk:Gaslighting/Archive 3

Trump gaslighting? Really?

After all the actual gaslighting that went on leading up to and throughout the Trump presidency, where false claims of a "Russia conspiracy" were propagated, and people were led to believe they were crazy if they didn't believe, I'm just blown away that it had to be suggested that Trump, himself, had been gaslighting. The insult to injury is all the gaslighting about the election fraud that many of us actually witnessed on video. I'm just shocked people have the temerity to make such claims. I think the best that can be done about this is to simply remove Trump, who himself was a victim of gaslighting as were his voters, from this article. It cheapens the discussion.70.59.19.249 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On this page, it is not suggested that Trump has been gaslighting, it is stated and sourced that several media suggested that Trump has been gaslighting. There is a difference. If you find some reliable sources to support the claim that Trump was 'a victim of gaslighting', please add this information with the sources. Laurier (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

can somebody help in adding info about gaslighting

https://medium.com/@emcee-senior/a-conversation-becomes-an-argument-and-after-the-argument-the-victim-either-gets-emotionally-8edabd071c93 Dsm+sam (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What if you are being accussed of gas lightening Kristina4773 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has significantly over extended / over committed itself in this article.

This article attempts (as of July 3, 2021) to proffer a long, detailed and complex psychology definition to a colloquial metaphor as if it is a bonafide psychology term with a body of theory behind it. Currently, one subhead goes ass far as to suggest that there is a "Psychoanalytic explanation".

Wikipedia is significantly over extended / over committed here. It is not psychology term. It is also not in the APA dictionary.

The popularity of "Gaslighting" in psychology blogs and self-help books is as "click bait". The term is widely known, it assumes blame and a victim, and it can pull readers in hundreds of situations because it is not specific. The breadth of use of the term is so expansive that all anything can be labeled as gaslighting:

politician gives a speach - gaslighting

husband tells his wife he was at work when he was really at lunch with a women - gaslighting

mom tells daughter there is an Easter bunny - gaslighting

roofer tells a homeowner that he needs a new roof - gaslighting

dog ate my homework - gaslighting

The term is out there. It should be included here, but not as a psychology theory.

Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia policy this fine description otherwise violates? There is nothing wrong with arriving at a compromise, and creating a sub-section to elaborate on a layman summary laid out before. Yegourt (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made that compromise Gaslighting#Psychiatric_explanation Yegourt (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is incomplete. It only refers to the gas lighter lying to convince the victim to doubt their grasp on reality. A gas lighter also lies to convince others the victim is out of touch with reality. in the movie "Gaslight" the villain did both. Aside from that the article does a good job describing the tactic. It is a tactic against a victim not a psychological condition of the victim unless the victim is succumbs to actually doubt their reality. There may be a psychological condition involved with the abuser, or more likely mere dishonesty. Occasional lying isn't gas lighting. The tactic is a persistent organized strategy of lies. A dishonest alibi isn't gas lighting. An effort to construct a false set of evidence to undermine a witness is. That might include bringing in false witnesses to claim the real witness was somewhere else. Or fabricating other evidence the witness was elsewhere. That would be gas lighting. There is likely to be gas lighters editing this article to obscure what gas lighting is. That may be what is happening here. This happens to many articles on wikipedia. Getting a cadre of irresponsible allies to overwhelm, and to undermine responsible editors. A new strategy of the trolls is to arbitrarily delete points such as this on talk pages. 98.164.76.40 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The APA is the most authoritative source for this colloquial term. And like most colloquial terms, the definition is broad - not highly specific as you are suggesting. The studies quoted in the "In psychiatry and psychology" and the theories in the "In philosophy" section do not include third parties or maliciousness in their work and in fact, "a dishonest alibi" is the most commonly used example of Gaslighting. I reverted the introduction to be more consistent with the the APA and per review studies. 97.99.90.245 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Politics section: Removal of 2020 POV Banner

I propose the removal of the POV banner and the following content:

The citation on this text makes no mention of "gaslighting" and (2) the article doesn't need detailed examples of US political gaslighting and (3) this text is not a clear example by any means of anything. If the article is going to contain an example it should be an encyclopedias event.

Common uses on social media were often in relation to the movement #ForcetheVote and the inclusion of a Medicare for All platform to allow for universal health care in the United States. This required for a vote in the Upper House of Congress in January 2021 and gaslighting was the terminology used to describe the behavior of people opposed to the policy, as it meant that the politicians or media personalities were concealing their true intentions while still trying to appeal to a base in favor of the policy using convenient information which may or may not be factually correct

This text is mostly fluff. It's a list of journalists who think Trump, in general, gaslighted more than other presidents. Is a general statement encyclopedic? If we needed examples there are many - Clinton on Monica Lewiski and bombing a milk factory. Bush on weapons of mass destruction. Obama on financial viability of Obamacare. Trump on CoViD. Biden on Afganistan. I'm not sure such a list makes for a better article. What does gas-lighting actually mean here - its slang. We could easily list all of these items in the liar article, or misinformation, or BS article.

Journalists at The New York Times Magazine, BBC and Teen Vogue, as well as psychologists Bryant Welch, Robert Feldman and Leah McElrath, have described some of the actions of Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election and his term as president as examples of gaslighting. Journalism professor Ben Yagoda wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2017 that the term gaslighting had become topical again as the result of Trump's behavior, saying that 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"'" had brought new notability to the term.

The most scholarly citation in this section (Politics) states that gaslighting is common politics and it would be naive to tag on group or a candidate as being different than others.
I will delete the paragraphs in in another day or so if there are no objections. 107.77.196.68 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Umm, no. I don't think that is justified. Many, many quality sources not cited in the article (such as The Guardian backstop thr consensus view currently presented in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I assume that you are not debating the #ForcetheVote paragraph removal.107.77.196.149 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not speaking for anyone else, but I am fine with the removal of that paragraph (only), since "gaslighting" is not even mentioned in the source given. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In law

I removed the "In law" section because the text and the citation did not offer much other than to say that a well know academic (Chon) used the term "gaslighting" in her article of Critical Race IP. It would seem that "Critical Race IP" is really the point and that won't make sense to most readers without putting it in the context Critical Race Theory. My thoughts are rather than tackling this in the gaslight article, it would be better discussed in the Critical race theory article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Introjection

There is a whole section on Introjection dedicated to gaslighting. At minimum this article ought to have a mention of it. Indeed it was already mentioned in the article until August 24th when it was removed without any explanation by User:Wiki-psyc. Arteso32 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. The rationale for removing it was broadly explained here: Wikipedia has significantly over extended but could have been better explained. The psychoanalysis section did not represent the state of the art or consensus in the field and it used excerpts from different sources to imply meaning and context that was not in the source documents. The conclusion that gaslighting may be "a very complex highly structured configuration which encompasses contributions from many elements of the psychic apparatus adds little to the article or understanding of gaslighting. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pop culture: 1964 novel by William Goldman

Page 564: "You're gaslighting me, for chrissakes."

See: https://imgur.com/qcR3N8e

Text is available on archive.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.58.61 (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting references to the play and previous 1940 UK Film Adaptation of Gaslight?

Please explain yourself. Why are you vandalizing the article by continuously deleting my edits clarifying that the 1944 film was an adaptation of the classic play?

The 1944 Bergman film is NOT the original work, and is not the first Film Adaptation of it either. It's almost as if you are trying to gaslight people who read this article! Colliric (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason for each revert was noted in the "edit summary". The most definitive source, the Oxford dictionary, traces the Etymology to the 1944 Film and that is noted in the citation (Reliable Source).

Personally, Colliric, I respect your passion for authors work. However, Patrick Hamilton did not coin the phrase "gaslighting". He didn't use it in the play or any of his works. The term was not used until after his death. I hope that helps. Wiki-psyc (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That is extremely deceptive and is straight up wrong. Find a better source. It will have to be undone. And you also continuously delete it from the "In popular Culture" section despite the fact it is the most famous depiction.

Find a better source. Colliric (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-gaslighting-how-do-you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866

Stop using an outdated source that even NBC News knows is wrong. Colliric (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(18)30024-5/fulltext

Use the Lancet instead of Oxford. Colliric (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is factual that Hamilton did not use the term "gaslighting" in his 1938 play - there are no sources suggesting he did and you can prove it to yourself by reading the playscript. I added New York Times and Vox sources to the article which specifically discuss which of the adaptions was the origin of the term (1944). I also added the Lancet reference to the article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)