Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Add the new content written by User:Penbat, and then move to Isolation to facilitate abuse. This will preserve the article history.. Cerebellum (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation Techniques (Individual)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pointless list of isolation techniques including WP:OR. If you want to get a list of isolation techniques just look at Category:Shunning or Category:Social rejection. Isolation techniques tend to relate to different contexts rather than being a homogenous concept. I am not aware of any bodies of work devoted to isolation techniques generally. How much each one is aligned to bullying or abuse (which is the angle of the article) is arguable and different. --Penbat (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Social isolation as tagged. The article is not only list; It also has some meaningful referenced mergeable text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Staszek Lem, I can see that abusive isolation is a credible and important concept. I have experienced it myself as part of a bullying strategy. Your opportunity to interact with others is restricted so you cant get help from others to overcome the abuse. This applies, for example, in domestic abuse and cults. It is something that is missing from all the Category:Shunning and Category:Social rejection articles. In principle I agree to merge to Social isolation#Abusive and punitive isolation but the list needs to be truncated and the text in the Purpose of Isolation section expanded and Wikified. Isnt punitive isolation already covered by Send to Coventry, Ostracism and Silent treatment ? Maybe just focus on "abusive isolation" stuff that isnt already covered elsewhere. Actually the expression "abusive isolation" is ambiguous as it might imply a form of torture such as sensory deprivation for its own sake. "Isolation to facilitate abuse" is clearer so section heading would be Social isolation#To facilitate abuse.--Penbat (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked at this in more detail. It will not work to create a new section in social isolation as the scope of the material is broader than just social isolation. Also the rest of social isolation is entirely about voluntary social isolation which is something different. I have created a draft of new article User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse which uses all the usable material I can see in Isolation Techniques (Individual) and some new material which I have added. I believe User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse is good enough to launch although there is plenty of scope to improve it over time. That renders Isolation Techniques (Individual) redundant and in my opinion is not even worth keeping as a redirect as it is an unlikely search expression.--Penbat (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isobel Chaveh, the sole purpose of publishing my article Isolation Techniques (Individual) on Wikipedia was to create necessary balancing controversy (विनाश) on this subject - to the point of Undoing, which it has, by Penbat.

Isolation Techniques is a short excerpt from a sociopsychological analysis of the Financially Controlling Psychological Abuser, an abstract by Sri Neale Tamal, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Oxford Hindu Studies. Isolation Techniques are but a part of the methodology used by FCPAs. It is of interest to note that other male sociopaths such as dictators, emperors, cult leaders, abusive husbands, fundamentalist evangelists, all employ the same identical tactics & methodology in gaining power over their victims or subjects.

You may read Dr. Tamal's complete work on this subject after it has been translated in its entirety & published. Retaining excerpts of his articles on Wikipedia as a reference source of materia is not necessary. Isobel Chaveh (talk)

Comment Dr. Tamal's work may well be credible as one of the sources after it is published. Anyway with User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse your article lives on in a modified form. I think I have picked up on your "other male sociopaths such as dictators, emperors, cult leaders, abusive husbands, fundamentalist evangelists, all employ the same identical tactics & methodology in gaining power over their victims or subjects" angle.--Penbat (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am itching to launch User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse. Nobody has objected to it. I will wait until 7 days have passed with this AFD.--Penbat (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Penbat: Would'n it be a WP:FORK of the discussed article? Please explain what's the difference in the subject. Also, before progressing with your draft, please get familiar with wikipedia guidelines about WP:SYNTHESIS and other issues of WP:NOR so that you avoid the pitfalls. Also, I would advise a simpler title: "Abusive isolation". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already explained above that "Actually the expression "abusive isolation" is ambiguous as it might imply a form of torture such as sensory deprivation for its own sake." Anyway "Isolation to facilitate abuse" tells you a bit more. "Coercive isolation" might have been credible but unfortunately if you Google it it is mainly used as a political term. The original article and my draft both refer to "physical isolation", "emotional isolation" and social isolation". It makes no sense to make article a section in social isolation for this and other reasons. I am not WP:SYNTHing or WP:NORing anything. My draft already has 23 different cites. It spells out that coercive (non voluntary) isolation is a common feature of many types of abuse. As I have already started doing in my draft, isolation for the different types of abuse are to be described in separate sections. Some common features between different abuse types may in some cases become apparent. Unlike the original Isolation Techniques (Individual), my draft has a proper focus and is far less WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. That is the whole point. I was only suggesting that Isobel Chavehs theme may shine through incidentally but not explicitly. --Penbat (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"abusive" and "to facilitate abuse" is an unnecessary splitting hairs. Torture is abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is self evident that if an abused person is isolated, an abuser can abuse more easily. Within individual contexts in my draft there is repeated mention of isolation giving the abuser power and control to allow abuse to take place. The fact that the isolation could itself be abusive as a form of torture (as sensory deprivation) is a different subject and a specialised case. To include it here and call article abusive isolation makes article lose its focus completely.--Penbat (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no question of WP:FORK as originally I wanted this article binned completely, hence this AFD. But I then realised that some aspects of the article address an important gap in the Wikipedia coverage in this area. As I explained I have copied over all that I think are all the usable bits of the original article and added some new material. Thus the original article can then be binned anyway.--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you copied something, it cannot be binned, per wikipedia licensing rules; article histories must be merged instead. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. That could be got round by pasting my new version into Isolation Techniques (Individual) and renaming it Isolation to facilitate abuse. This situation is not unique and you seem to be looking for excuses to stall it. It is not uncommon for editors to draft major revisions of articles in sandboxes and in fact it is the sensible thing to do.--Penbat (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in a nutshell) - I originally proposed a straight AFD for Isolation Techniques (Individual). My position is now to replace the content of Isolation Techniques (Individual) with that in User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse and rename article Isolation to facilitate abuse. This creates a better focus, reworking material orginally in Isolation Techniques (Individual) and adding new material.--Penbat (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge the material though I am not sure what would be the best title. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG To avoid any ambiguity are you basically agreeing with my view as laid out in my previous comment ? --Penbat (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the content in your draft with the existing material into one article, though I cannot decide whcih would be the best title. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Staszek Lem. This AFD is lasting an eternity. I have changed my position to accomodate your WP:FORK concern. We only now seem to differ on the new name of the article. DGG is happy with using my new draft but is undecided about the title. It looks to me like I am the only person with the motivation to progress this further. Please clarify where you stand now as this AFD has the real prospect of just dying a death. It is self-evident that my proposal is at least an improvement on the original article put up for AFD.--Penbat (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "abusive isolation" v "isolation to facilite abuse", the second option is self-evidently better as it better reflects the content of my draft and avoids ambiguities. Isolation as torture is a completely separate issue already covered elsewhere, for example in sensory deprivation and solitary confinement.--Penbat (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.