Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 27 March 2023

Psychology C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Denial (oldid, history) → DARVO (diff) Copied Gaslighting (oldid, history) → DARVO (diff)

juice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.161.165 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

no evidence in source for trump example

there is no evidence in the source for the trump example AbleistSL (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is literally about Trump being an expert user of DARVO; so there is. Idell (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Does a single Boston Globe opinion piece rise to the level of NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.139.85.145 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Trump section needs to be removed. That article is not only incorrect, it's intentionally misrepresenting past incidents and details. Of specific note, Trump was correct in his claim of innocence on harassment allegations from Stormy Daniels (exonerated when she was to repay all his court costs for her frivolous lawsuits). He was also correct on his statement that the Clinton campaign paid for a fabricated intelligence "report" or "dossier" claiming numerous connections between his companies and entities in Russia. FEC just fined the Clinton campaign for paying for this dossier without disclosing. I'm removing this reference. The "article" sourced is a political hit piece, not an objective piece of journalism. Not only that, but the Goldwater rule in American politics makes it clear that diagnosing politicians with psychological problems is absolutely inappropriate in any setting. ClairelyClaire (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It does seem a bit 'off' to cite the person who created the acronym as an authority on application of the acronym to someone else. A bit auto-incestuous. Almost original research. --142.163.195.221 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of original research. She is Professor Emerit of Psychology at the University of Oregon and has published multiple, peer reviewed articles on the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There is some confusion above, in the use of the term original research. What was meant by IP, was undoubtedly Misplaced Pages's sense of the term, namely, WP:Original research. However, the OR guideline applies not to valid, reliable sources, but to Misplaced Pages editors who make assertions based on their own understanding of a term, rather than what the reliable sources have to say about it. User:Ifnord uses the term in its common, English meaning, in which "original research" is highly to be desired in academia, and in fact is a requirement, for example, in the awarding of a Ph.D. With respect to the Boston Globe article, non-WP:INDEPENDENT is a bigger problem than NPOV, as Freyd is a co-author.

The issue of "Original research" is a red herring here. IP 142 attempted to identify a problem in this article, but misidentified it as WP:OR. The actual problem is the overuse of WP:PRIMARY and non-independent sources, that is to say, the article is about DARVO and the sources are either primary sources credited to the original articles about the term, or Freyd is involved as an author. The NYT site never mentions it; NAR seems to be a blog or website run by an individual; Harsey (2016) is a primary source; the rest are all by Freyd as author or co-author, except for the Chicago Tribune article which seems to be a fully independent and secondary source; there needs to be more like that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple more sources that might be useful here: . I'll add them to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

Why is it included here? Can someone elaborate on why it follows the DARVO scheme? --132.180.69.85 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed it, as it was recently added but without any explanation or source. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Depp-Heard

I removed the sentence mentioning Depp-Heard 2022, whose only sources are articles written post-trial by apparent Heard supporters. These articles clearly accuse Depp of being a physical and sexual abuser who utilised the DARVO technique against his "victim". This is a problematic addition.

The jury ultimately found Heard's claims of physical and sexual abuse to be uncredible, and made with an intention to harm Depp's reputation and career. The court heard audio recordings where Heard admitted to physically abusing Depp, and also where she taunted Depp saying nobody would believe she'd abused him. As such, the conduct of Depp's legal team is not an example of DARVO; Heard is in the court record admitting to being a domestic abuser, with Depp the victim. This situation actually looks like DARVO - but with Heard the abuser. The court's verdict would support this perspective, but I've yet to see any reputable sources put forward this claim.

As such, please do not re-add a mention to Depp-Heard unless you can provide sources which do not:

1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.

2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.

3) Ignore how Heard admitted she had physically abused Depp and taunted him saying nobody would believe him.

4) Ignore Heard's previous arrest for domestic violence against a now-former girlfriend. Kronix1986 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

By what criterion would yours not be an unsourced OR, in short an encyclopedically irrelevant personal opinion? --82.84.18.254 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

> 1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.

> 2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.

I get that you have strong opinions about this, but these are not actually false labels, depending on where you are. These allegations were considered substantially true by a UK court. So it's basically a matter of opinion whether the UK (non-jury) trial process was flawed, or the US (jury) trial was. 37.4.251.165 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Heard was not a party in the UK trial, only the journal The Sun and Depp were, hence the considerations that Depp could be labelled a domestic violence perpetrator was a germaine issue only partially investigated to resolve the main issue whether The Sun's publication was defamation or free speech. To put it simply, the UK trial had to answer the question of whether The Sun had enough credible information to publish their story in honesty (ie, not whether the story was true, but whether The Sun could genuinely believe it was true), whereas the US trial investigated whether the parties (the authors) themselves defamed the other one (ie, whether the statements were actually true). In any case, the main issue here that should concern us is that opinion pieces are not usually considered reliable sources, especially when they state claims that are totally counter to court proceedings which have a higher reliability weight, but even then an analysis published by lawyers in a reputable expert journal or magazine (ie, specialized in law) would be preferable. --2001:861:5100:5C60:E385:DE8D:9AC1:1D9F (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have a personal opinion and haven't looked into the issue thoroughly, but at the trial article, specifically at Depp v. Heard#Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo, there are multiple references supporting claims that DARVO was involved. Surprisingly, I don't see discussion explicitly about this specific question on the case talk page, though I just did a brief scan. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This incorrect statement still appears on this page as an example of DARVO: "The behavior of Johnny Depp after his ex-wife Amber Heard published an op-ed mentioning the consequences of speaking up against domestic abuse." This opinion should be removed, as it is an opinion and not a fact, and is overly biased to the point that it does not teach people about the subject this page is supposed to be on. Labeling people as perpetrators of DARVO also does not seem appropriate for a wikipedia page, as this is a topic where the victim is just as likely to be labeled as the abuser. If the victim is incorrectly labeled here instead of the abuser, it can further be used as a way to abuse the victim and makes wikipedia a less reliable source.

An entire jury of her peers in the US unanimously found her to be maliciously lying about being a victim of DV and SV, and the UK trial should not be treated as a more reliable source when she wasn't a party to it. This is also not a clear example of DARVO, as only Johnny Depp has hospitalization records showing that he experienced abuse. All of the hospitalization records Amber Heard claims to have are mental health records and were self reported and never confirmed by a medical doctor. Also, he started making these statements in 2015 when he cut his finger and told Dr. Kipper that Amber Heard did it, and not after she published the op-ed as this statement implies. This is proven in audio recordings between Dr. Kipper and one of his nurses.

Please remove this overly-biased opinion as it does not belong on wikipedia. 172.58.43.255 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The presence of the line about Depp is a gigantic violation of WP:NPOV and means the article is essentially defamation. He successfully won a court case which sought to disprove exactly what this article is now alleging, in the country they are both originally from, and not in a foreign country where she was not even directly part of the trial. Remove it immediately as this is both disgusting and extremely against what Misplaced Pages should be for. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, two of the "sources" cited are BBC and The Guardian, which are both widely associated with bigotry such as transphobia, and using them as a "reliable source" in any gender-related matters is absolutely ridiculous, comparable to citing Fox News in an article about American politics. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the line. The jury found that Amber Heard did not commit acts of abuse against Johnny Depp. No journalist's differing opinion matters after that. Tocharianne (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support your deletion because of BLP considerations. Just to be perfectly clear: although I support your conclusion, your rationale is utterly false: there is no Misplaced Pages guideline or policy elevating the finding of a U.S. jury above the accounts written by journalists and published in reliable sources. Any such published account which adheres to policy and duly represents the general opinion of reliable sources without running afoul of other policies (such as WP:BLP) most certainly may be included in the article, regardless what any jury declares. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The jury didn't rule on whether Heard abused Depp. The jury used Heard's own admissions of her abusing Depp as evidence, and came to the conclusion she was probably also lying about Depp beating and raping her. Heard cannot, by definition, be a victim of DARVO; she admitted she had physically abused Depp. Kronix1986 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't have added my opinion; that just confused the situation. My main point was just to delete the line entirely. There are a lot of strong opinions on the Depp/Heard case, and I think this has the potential to turn into an edit war about adding/deleting the line, or claiming one party to be the victim versus the other. Since the particular Depp/Heard example isn't crucial to the DARVO article, it should just be deleted from here. The place to discuss the case is on the Depp/Heard page. Tocharianne (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Kafka Trap

We don't need "alleged examples" under "Examples". That's the first sleight of hand, but there are more.

Especially those that have an obvious political agenda, especially when they are in response to what are often considered false allegations of their own. Daisy chaining allegations then baselessly choosing one allegation over another allegation is extreme bias.

One cannot, in good faith, frame defense against unproven allegations as alleged DARVO, that is highly biased nonsense. It provides an avenue for writing off all classical defense, aka "Guilty until Proven Innocent". May as well have a wiki page for how people are guilty upon accusation.

That is a sort of Kafka trap(When the denial of accusation being irrationally considered as evidence of guilt, not for any real reason other than guilt was pre-determined so all reactions amount to guilt in the minds of the judging party). As far as that goes, Kafka Trap, if it has a page, should certainly be in the "See also" section.

Ironically, it comes off as its own "Attack" stage of DARVO itself.

This is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia look utterly terrible.

It is not only clearly biased, it misinforms people(or possibly is disinformation), by clouding justified defense against false accusation as if it is just as bad and manipulative as DARVO.

The "sources" for Trump and Kavanaugh entries are glorified opinion pieces. Do wiki editors not understand the difference between a reliable source and the kangaroo court of political propaganda? That's rhetorical, of course people do, they do this sort of thing anyways.

These two people may be bad people, but they really shouldn't be shoe-horned in as examples of DARVO. No cases of mere accusation should be included. We can't rationally assume guilt with trial and evidence in complete absentia.

A different example that could be included: Jussie Smollett and other actually convicted criminals that bizarrely lash out meeting all the criteria of DARVO.

DARVO is pretty clearly defined. It should be easy to find examples of it, or to leave out the examples section entirely. 98.159.186.191 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@98.159.186.191: The citations call out Trump's use of DARVO. No Misplaced Pages editor invented it. Each example in the section is cited to a source which ties a certain person’s behavior to DARVO, including the South Park instance. Grorp (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Allegations about allegations from opinion pieces aren't really proper citations. We're venturing into possible speculative fiction here.

For example, since you seem to not understand:

I hereby allege that you rape goats and minor children. Any denial you put up is DARVO, just like Trump. The only way for it to not be DARVO is to admit you do these things.

Do you really not see the flaw in taking that as gospel?

"No Misplaced Pages editor invented it."

No, but wikipedia editors did put it on the page. It didn't just magically appear there. My point is that these do not belong on the page.

"BuT ThErE Is A CiTaTiOn"

I can find "citations" for all sorts of things that are misleading, misinformation, disinformation, blatant lies, etc etc.

If that is really your only support of retaining these "alleged examples", you're part of what is wrong with wikipedia.

The page is supposed to be about DARVO, not unproven allegations/speculation about contemporary political figures(hell, a shorter list would be politicians that don't have things alleged about them).

I will try a totally different angle.

Read the very first sentence of the page again:

DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as sexual offenders may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.

perpetrators of wrongdoing

If all you have are allegations, that is not the same thing as being "perpetrators of wrongdoing". This is why I brought up the very important difference between being "alleged" and "guilty".

This is not rocket science. If you can't fathom the reasoning here, you probably shouldn't be an editor at all. 98.159.186.191 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• C-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles