English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Perspective Getting

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perspective Getting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Perspective Getting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:ESSAY on a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM sourced entirely to primary research, virtually all of which is written by or with Nicholas Epley. The only paper I saw on Scholar that's about this topic (with Epley as one of the authors)—doi:10.1037/pspa0000115—has 70 cites. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Your WP: NEOLOGISM claims are faulty as the definition of "neologism" per Wikipedia's own criteria is that "little or no usage in reliable sources." Firstly, Epley appears to be a "reliable source" in most common usages of the term. Secondly, several of the sources cited in the article are jointly written by Elizabeh Majka and Haotian Zhou, undermining your argument that Epley is the only one who has used the term. Rather than deletion, this article would be a good candidate for further editing as the issue continues to develop. Peacekeepurwar (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Peacekeepurwar, The following passage in WP:NEOLOGISM is the most relevant for my purposes: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction) (emphasis in original). My concern is that this term is not used by reliable secondary sources, discussing the primary sources upon which the article is based. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• @AleatoryPonderings: I would argue the page does cite reliable sources that speak to the concept of directly getting information about another's perspective outside of those that explicitly use the term (i.e. doi:10.1037/a0020938 doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 doi:10.1177/1948550614559650 doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 doi:10.1177/1948550617728995). Although I agree the concept may be esoteric, the psychological salience of the concept as an approach towards interpersonal understanding remains. WP:NEOLOGISM also mentions In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Another alternative to deletion would therefore be titling the article differently to better reflect the psychologically salient concept of directly getting information about another's perspective; this would of course require additional reframing throughout the article. LM14840 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• LM14840: My concern is not that the concept is esoteric. It's that the article constitutes original research. We also already have an article on perspective-taking so using this article as a springboard for one on that general topic seems unwarranted. As for the sources you have provided that are not connected to Nicholas Epley:

• I do not have access to doi:10.1037/a0020938.
• doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/1948550614559650 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/1948550617728995 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings: Yes, I do understand the concern and it is an important one. It seems to me that the concern is with the term 'perspective getting' as a coined term for the social psychological process of directly getting information about another's perspective - which psychologically relevant sources speak to without the explicit use of the term 'perspective getting' (some of which are mentioned above). This is the exact situation mentioned in WP: NEOLOGISM In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. The concern brings up the important point that 'no accepted short-hand term exists,' because to be considered an accepted short-hand term in Wikipedia, there must be secondary sources that explicitly engage the short-hand term. I argue the process of getting direct interpersonal information is a notable, psychologically salient, topic that is well-documented in reliable sources. The process of directly getting information about another's perspective is fundamentally different from the process of inferring another's perspective by thinking about that other person's point of view (which is perspective taking): the former is a bottom-up cognitive process whereas the latter is a top-down cognitive process. The social implications of this fundamental difference are well-documented in previously cited sources, those that explicitly use the term 'perspective getting' to refer to the process of getting direct interpersonal information as well as those that do not. The differences between these two interpersonal processes are particularly salient in the fields of social psychology and social cognition, making them importantly distinct general topics. For these reasons, it would not be intellectually appropriate to consider these two approaches towards interpersonal understanding the same or mention them in the same Wikipedia article (if the suggestion is to add this information to the perspective-taking article). I would still suggest a reframing of this article to generally speak about the social psychological process of getting direct interpersonal information - perspective getting's formal use as a term describing this process would still be mentioned, but not be the focus. LM14840 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• LM14840, Again, the issue is that we require sources that are both reliable and secondary to establish the notability of a term or the concept it denotes. As far as I can see, the additional sources you provided are about the general idea of bottom-up versus top-down processing, not about perspective-getting in particular. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings: Right, apologies for that, I wanted to cite the general ideas I was referring to. Overall, my thinking was that the previously mentioned sources that speak to the social effects/implications of getting direct interpersonal information about a person's perspective, but do not explicitly use the coined term 'perspective getting' to refer to this process, serve as evidence of the concept's psychological salience and notability. For example:

• doi:10.1177/1948550617728995 investigates the impact of direct assessment on the accurate measure of racial attitudes, revealing that the best way to accurately understand a person's racialized perspective is to directly inquire about them - which speaks to the process of getting perspective via direct inquiry.
• doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 investigates the effect of similar experience on empathy and interpersonal understanding, revealing that directly experiencing the same situation as another person leads to greater empathy and interpersonal understanding - which speaks to the process of directly getting perspective via simulation.
• doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 investigates the effect of directly experiencing the same pain as another on the accuracy of pain detection, revealing that directly experiencing the same pain as another leads to more accurate understanding of that person's pain as well as greater empathy towards that person - which speaks to the process of directly getting perspective via simulation.

• AleatoryPonderings: In this case, research explicitly naming the process of getting direct interpersonal information about another as 'perspective getting' can be thought of as secondary research synthesizing, interpreting, and commenting on research describing this process (like the research discussed above) - which also happens to produce original research about that process (i.e. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096, doi:10.1037/pspa0000115, doi:10.1177/0956797616687124).
• AleatoryPonderings: However, if the connection between research along the lines of the research I mentioned above and the concept of getting direct interpersonal information about another's perspective is not explicit enough, I can see how that could create a problem in terms of the concept having its own page. If so, I'd like to revisit the idea of integrating this information into the existing perspective taking page: I was recently advised that you can create a 'related constructs/concepts' section on an existing page where information about different but related concepts that do not have their own page can live. I, of course, do not want to merge any information until consensus is reached on this page. LM14840 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Based on the cited sources, this topic appears to meet WP:GNG, so I suggest improving rather than deleting. Alternately merging into perspective-taking per WP:PRESERVE could be another alternative. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, What is your take on the WP:OR issues that I raised when I nominated this article for deletion? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WP article scopes are based on topics, not terms. As long as there is a coherent topic that we can identify—as appears to be the case, see above—then it is simply a question of what title the article should go under which is decided at RM/merge discussion rather than AfD. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional feedback and for relisting the page for more thorough discussion of options. If others agree the page should remain its own page, perhaps "Getting Direct Interpersonal Information about Another's Perspective (Social Psychology)" or "Direct Interpersonal Information on Perspective (Social Psychology)" would be appropriate titles (?) If the general sentiment is to merge this page with the perspective taking page, I think the perspective getting information can live in a "Related Constructs" subsection at the end of the page. Thoughts/concerns/responses? LM14840 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — Wikipedia should not have an entry called "Perspective Getting" because that is not a "thing" attested to by sources. That title doesn't pass WP:V. Those sources could be used elsewhere, but an admin should delete the title "Perspective Getting". Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and levivich, and the fact that it's bullshit. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Levivich. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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.