Jump to content

Talk:Conflict tactics scale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism

[edit]

The criticism section consists mostly of lengthy quotes challenging criticism of the CTS. This seems quite unbalanced, especially for a "criticism" section. Kaldari (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Can anyone clean up the WP:QUOTEFARM? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was easy. Simply deleting all the counter criticism seemed most appropriate per WP:UNDUE. Too much of the bully pulpit given to Straus. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-criticism (present mainly at: [1] is important because in it the author tries to respond to what he thinks is invalid criticism to the CTS. Without any kind of counter-criticism, this article violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If we include it, we are not giving undue exposure to Straus's POV because he was the creator of the CTS and, as such, he has the right to see his counter-criticism exposed. (BTW, "bully pulpit"? WTF does that even mean?) Faunas (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bully pulpit is a platform for uninterrupted pontification.
Straus and his adherents should make their case in the first section of the article, then stand back and let the criticism have its turn. We should not host any arguments where one side is given two chances to tell their story. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Criticism section has some info which is considered falsehood by "Straus and his adherents" that goes unresponded (especially the part about CTS comparing "slaps" to more serious violence, amongst other things) and, so, counter-criticism should be included. Of course, if we can find any counter-counter criticism we should include it. Faunas (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A double dose of back and forth is not good encyclopedic writing. What Straus adherents should put into the first section ought to include support for bulwarks of fact that will later be attacked by critics. If these fortifications are strong enough the reader will see the criticism as having fallen short. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to present assertions, criticism and counter-criticism is to break up the article into themes, each theme hosting both positive and negative assessments of the CTS. This prevents having a criticism ghetto. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict tactics scale → Conflict Tactics Scale – Should be capitalized per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Name is the title of a measurement instrument. All sources in article capitalize the name as well (see reflist in article) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the scale itself capitalizes the title. (See [2]) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author is a primary source, and MOS concerns like those of MOS:CAPS are not tied to what particular groups of sources are doing, anyway, but what is best for our readers' ability to parse what we're writing. See the essay WP:Specialized-style fallacy for an explanation why. The short version is that specialized publications in virtually every field capitalize all sorts of things that are not capitalized in more general-audience writing, and it isn't possible for MOS to "honor" the stylistic wishes of every narrow field of endeavor, or virtually everything in WP would be capitalized by someone as the "right" way to do it in journals and whatever in their areas of expertise. WP:NOT#JOURNAL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not. There is no the Conflict Tactics Scale (capitalized or not), as even its creators very clearly indicate, repeatedly. There is no "it" here, but a "they", and our own article on this topic is demonstrably written incorrectly:
  • Straus, Murray A. (2007). "Conflict Tactics Scales". In Jackson, Nicky Ali. Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence.
  • Straus, Murray A. (February 1979). "Measuring intra family conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales". Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 (1): 75–88
  • Straus, Murray A.; Douglas, Emily M. (October 2004). "A Short Form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and Typologies for Severity and Mutuality". Violence and Victims 19 (5): 507
  • Straus, Murray A.; Hamby, Sherry L.; Boney-McCoy, Susan; Sugarman, David B. (May 1996). "The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data" (PDF). Journal of Family Issues 17 (3): 283–316
  • Straus, Murray A.; Hamby, Sherry L. (1997). "Measuring Physical and Psychological Maltreatment of Children with the Conflict Tactics Scales". In Kantor, Glenda Kaufman; Jasinski, Jana L. Out of the Darkness: Contemporary Research Perspectives on Family Violence
  • etc., etc.
Even if Straus et al. were not writing of CTS in the plural, Tayste's argument above would not necessarily be a useful analysis, anyway, under MOS:CAPS (or various external style guides that do not over-capitalize, either). Being singular and identifiable doesn't automatically make something a proper name, nor capitalized in everyday English. Cf. general relativity, etc.; while some sources capitalize theories, methodologies, and the like, many do not, and WP does not. This it's-one-case-within-a-general-class logic doesn't work. My cat is my cat, not my Cat, even though he is a singular, identifiable member of the general class of cats.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, pending clarification (and probably still oppose), per MOS:CAPS; if in doubt we do not capitalize, and there's clearly room for doubt here. The main reason for the doubt is the obfuscatory way in which this article is written, misleadingly describing the CTS as a "measurement instrument" as if it were a device like a seismograph or a volt meter. It's really unclear what the CTS actually is at all. In another field, analytic psychology, we are capitalizing several "instruments" (i.e. personality tests), such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator and the related Keirsey Temperament Sorter. These have the character of publications with titles; they are not methodologies or theoretical frameworks (though they are backed by some). If the CTS is simply a publication, a paper or manual, then it should be capitalized in title case as the title of a published work, but only when referring to it as a publication. The references list in this article lists a large number of publications by the creators of the CTSes, and none of them are actually titled "Conflict Tactics Scale", and even the authors treat it uniformly as a plural class of "instruments", not a single thing (see details above). So, this "it's a title" view does not seem to be applicable. As a methodology, it should not be capitalized, since we do not capitalize methods and practices (see, e.g. scrum (software development), method acting, agile development, scientific method, etc., etc.). As a theoretical framework, it should not be capitalized, since we do not capitalize (except where they contain proper names, e.g. someone's surname) hypotheses, theories, or even laws of nature: Rao–Blackwell theorem, general relativity, laws of motion, etc. It's quite clear that we do not capitalize statistical analysis methods, approaches, tests, and practices: minimum-variance unbiased estimator, mathematical analysis, stochastic analysis, measure-theoretic probability theory, etc. It's also clear we do not capitalize names of methods of presenting statistical data: control chart, correlogram, forest plot, stem-and-leaf display. Nor forms of applied statistics: environmental statistics, bioinformatics, geostatistics, probabilistic design, etc. PS: It's quite possible that capitalization of some other "instruments" in other fields, e.g. the MBTI and KTS, on Wikipedia needs to be reexamined from a MOS perspective. It's quite possible that they're capitalized here simply because people in some fields like to capitalize them and no one thought to check yet whether this comports with MOS. It's possible also that MOS needs a revision to include certain kinds of tests / "instruments" as creative works with capitalized titles. That's probably a discussion that should be had at WT:MOS. Absent such a discussion and a consensus to so capitalize, I think this RM should go lower case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: It's a scale like the MBTI, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, or other social science scales. It's not a methodology or a method for presenting data. Like many scales, it was indeed published in a peer-review article, but the scale itself is a separate entity. I can link you a copy of the scale if you like. Ping me if you want it or have further questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep addressing the topic in the singular, as if to highlight "it" as "a scale" like various other singular scales mentioned by both of us, "published in a peer-review[ed] article", but an actual examination of the very articles in question shows treatment by "its" (their) creators in the plural. This strongly calls into question the idea that this is a proper name for a published scale, rather than a categorization of a number of related scales that various papers by the authors describe. By contrast, both the MBTI and CES-D are singular, and presented as such in single papers by their originators. I'm not totally averse to the idea of social science scales being treated by MOS:TITLES as capitalized-title published works, if a consensus discussion at WT:MOS goes that way, but I'm skeptical this topic qualifies. It seems to be a categorizing umbrella term for a number of such scales, and the fact that the originators of the term like to capitalize it isn't of any WP concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's "scales". (We often treat it as one scale though tbh). But still a single measurement device. Again, it's always capitalized by the sources. CTS and CTS2 are still presented in single papers by their originators though. The citations you gave are just various versions of it (original, short, revised, etc.) and one citation in an encyclopedia (it's common to publish scales in encyclopedias in addition to the original papers). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of this move discussion

[edit]

EvergreenFir and SMcCandlish, considering that the result of the move discussion, as determined by BDD, was no consensus, I don't see why the article should have been moved to plural form. Two (or more) versions of the scale existing does not mean that the article title should be plural. There are other topics on Wikipedia that have different versions but have a singular title for their Wikipedia articles, like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). When WP:Spinout articles are needed, we then create those in the case of those articles. In the case of the conflict tactics scale, like EvergreenFir noted above, "We often treat it as one scale." It is usually referred to in a singular way, not a plural way. In my opinion, having a plural title for this topic will create confusion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: The official name of all the versions has "scales" (plural). That's why I moved it. I agree it's often referred to in singular, but even a peer reviewer corrected me on my singular use of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SINGULAR the title should not be plural. Also, mentions of CTS scales on google scholar are often is in the singular (referring to a particular scale, presumably). Tayste (edits) 00:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would revert your move for us then? Tayste (edits) 01:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just needs to be rewritten with neutrality, no more misuse of primary sources, and a clear separation between the published works ("instruments") and the similarly-named class to which they belong. It's demonstrated that conflict tactics scales (CTS) are a class of scales, most but not all created by Straus (the originator of the idea) and his teams; but he says himself that someone else came up with their own independent "feminist version". The scope of this article cannot be "the conflict tactics scale" as some kind of unitary thing, nor "the conflict tactics scales" as a unified body of work, regardless of the capitalization question. That one is easy: Don't capitalize terms for general classes of things, do capitalize names of published works. So, this article should be at Conflict tactics scale (lower-case, singular), and begin with "A conflict tactics scale is ...". The lead needs to be restructured to stop being a confused and confusing Straus promo piece. Specific "instruments" with titles given by their authors, should be capitalized, like the names of MBTI, etc., for consistency, pending a future WT:MOS discussion about how to handle them (someone might want to italicize or quotation-mark them, but I'd bet money against consensus going that way, and external sources don't seem to be doing this. It's possible MOS would lower-case all of them, but it hasn't happened yet, so do what the rest of them do and capitalize.
The CTSes as published works (proper names), i.e. actual "instruments", not a class of instruments by multiple teams of people, are:
  • the original Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) (this is plural in form, because the authors titled it that way, and it shares its acronym with the general class – that's unfortunate, but it's a clear fact).
  • the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) (also plural)
  • the Parent–Child Conflict Tactics Scales (also plural), better known as CTS Parent–Child (or CTS-PC)
  • the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales Short Form (CTS2S) (not plural at the end; the authors' own titling for this thing isn't entirely consistent, but we'd capitalize it this way out of consistency, per MOS:TITLES)
The first three of these should be treated as (because they are) singular things that happen to have plural-format titles, e.g. "The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is a 1996 update that measures a total of 39 behaviors ...", like we would any other published work the title of which ended in -s ("Singles is a 1992 American romantic comedy film ..."). Actually, I just checked, and the authors themselves consistently treat it this way: "The Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugannan, 1996) is the most widely used instrument in research on family violence." Note that it's not "The Conflict Tactics Scales ... are ...."
The following non-Straus output should receive the same treatment:
  • whatever the name of the "feminist version" is, developed by others, if they gave it a name.
  • probably some others; this article doesn't seem exhaustively researched.
Easy stuff to clean up. PS: The Straus, et al., source is a primary source and cannot be used as the citation for the evaluative claim "is the most widely used instrument ...", per WP:PSTS. Evaluative claims require reliable primary sources. We can't quote Straus himself as deeming his own work the most widely used, any more than we can accept Jim-Bob's Restaurant's claim to have the world's best chicken pot pie.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conflict tactics scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conflict tactics scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conflict_tactics_scale&oldid=1201097811"