Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (psychology)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. As a note, the page appears to have been moved to Flying monkeys (popular psychology). (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys (psychology)[edit]

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

Flying monkeys (psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · monkeys (psychology) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#DICDEF This term is broadly defined slang term. Not a psychology concept. The first citation is to a video that opens with a drawing of Donald Trump's penis.

Flying monkeys references a scene in the Wizard of Oz. It is often used to refer to chaotic movement and to conjure up images of the chaos (e.g., it is the title of a song, many bars, private clubs, etc.). It also appears in the urban dictionary as a common derogatory chat room and forum slang associated with annoying or toxic people.

I think the article is problematic in the sense that (1) Wikipedia is not a dictionary for a broadly used slang term WP:NOT#DICDEF, (2) there is no citation in this article to support that this is terminology used in the psychology profession, and (3) this is certainly not a word specific to clinical narcissism.

A Google Scholar search will turn up hundreds of topics using this term like "Apparatus and method for assisting a disabled person to hand write with a writing instrument".

The originator of this article has added it to the "See also" section of 50 articles including Children in the military, Insult, Jealousy, Espionage, Boldness, Apathy ‎and many other unrelated subjects.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
  1. The very first sentence says that is popular psychology although it is more than that. The expression is widely used and referenced in quite a few psychology publications such as Psych Central. There are books specifically on this subject on Amazon for example.
  2. Popular psychology often has in important role in covering important everyday concepts overlooked in psychological studies. Other examples are psychological manipulation, guilt trip, personal boundaries, emotional blackmail, attention seeking and emotional baggage. Studies do not have much to say about manipulation for example although obviously it is a fundamentally important subject.
  3. The concept clearly passes WP:NOTE.
  4. The article also covers "abuse by proxy" which has proxy war as an allied well established concept.
  5. It is far more than just "slang". It can clearly be seen to be a psychological concept.
  6. There are parallels with gaslighting which is a well established psychological concept but it takes its name from a well known film. To try to find psychological references, searches would have to be properly focused.
  7. The OP's mistake was to search for it in an unfocussed way thus drawing in its literary origins. Probably the best way of teasing out focussed references is to search for "flying monkeys" and "narcissism" together:
    1. "flying monkeys" narcissism on Google general
    2. "flying monkeys" narcissism on Google scholar
    3. "flying monkeys" narcissism on Google news
    4. "flying monkeys" narcissism on Google books
  8. "The originator of this article has added it to the "See also" section of 50 articles including Children in the military, Insult, Jealousy, Espionage, Boldness, Apathy ‎and many other unrelated subjects." That is a very odd thing to say. The OPs statement is clearly wrong. Just a quick glance at the articles given as examples show that there is no "see also" link to flying monkeys (psychology) nor has there ever been. I have made nothing like 50 "see also" references to flying monkeys (psychology) and would certainly not make any links from unrelated articles. (I have just spotted that Espionage has a relevant "see also" link to flying monkeys (psychology) but my general point still applies). --Penbat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I think this type of article is damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Certainly, there are no substantive clinical references in the article to classify this as "psychology". Self published books like "Bill the Sociopathic Flying Monkey" and "The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" do not rise to the level of "psychology". The Otto Fenichel and Sigmund Freud references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Penbat, as it is your article, I can understand/respect your desire to keep it. Let's see how others feel about it. Thanks for your comments. --Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please stop making clearly incorrect statements. This is the second one now. "The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" has nothing whatever to do with psychology. I would not claim for a second that it did and it is not referenced in flying monkeys (psychology). That is my point, you need to focus on the material which is relevant.--Penbat (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PENBAT PLEASE DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS IN THIS THREAD OR CHANGE MY VOTE AGAIN. --Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure your account has not been hacked ? I may have to take advice on this. This is most uncharacteristic of you. I don't remember you making such robust vociferous comments before. You do not seem to know basic AFD procedures like you can not vote twice and you made at least two blatantly incorrect or irrelevant statements above. (Just to clarify I changed "Strong Delete" above to "Comment" as obviously the OP does not vote twice. Perhaps someone else will kindly fix it.)--Penbat (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like I will need to mount a sock puppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc. This is such a full on attack.--Penbat (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw your article on Google. I read it and I think, professionally, that it should be considered for deletion. Nothing more. As you know, I haven't participated in its development nor have I edited it. I just question its appropriateness for Wikipedia and am raising the issue. As for the accuracy of my comments, I was referring to the references used in your article. Hopefully this will clear that up:
  • "Bill the Sociopathic Flying Monkey" is citation #3 in your references
  • "The Flying Monkeys of Burlington, Vermont" is citation #7 in your references
There is no insult intended and no attack. As I said earlier, I respect your feelings on this topic. I seek to have only one vote in this matter. Why don't we step back and let others review this matter and comment. We made our cases. -- Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh right I overlooked that. But that reference is clearly only used to support these two sentences: "The phrase, originally winged monkeys, is derived from L. Frank Baum's classic children's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The wicked witch sent them to carry out her attacks." Obviously explaining the cultural origin of the expression "flying monkey" is justified and has has no psychology content as it just proves some context. So why bring it up at all ?--Penbat (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the pages this article is linked at are due to its inclusion in the "Abuse" template, where it is titled "proxy abuse". RobDuch (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real thing. I added a reference to Business Insider. A lot of places seem to use this expression and mention what it is. If there is an officially recognized term in psychological college textbooks, then you can just redirect to that article. Dream Focus 22:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does that article establish WP:NOTE? It is not a popular psychology source, it doesn't site any references, nor does the author have any credentials... it's just a rehash of social media psychology and lingo where people you don't share your beliefs, people who don't like you, people who are self-centered (narcissists), people who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and sociopaths are all grouped in the same bucket. Examine her definition, "Sociopaths (apparently the same as narcissists) don't necessarily work alone either. If they're really intent on destroying you, they may rely on a gang of "flying monkeys" to make your life miserable. It's a reference to The Wizard of Oz, where the flying monkeys do all the Wicked Witch of the West's dirty work". What does this mean? If someone convinces people that someone else is doing something wrong or acting badly, and they agree, they "flying monkeys"? Redskins vs Cowboys fans? Democrats vs republicans? Social media psychology and it's lingo is not well thought out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-psyc (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Penbat. The new title of Flying monkeys (popular psychology) is a good compromise. This article has been on my watchlist for quite some time as I came across the term when I didn't know what it meant, and looked it up on Wikipedia. So I think it's useful. The article is more than a dictionary definition and the sources, while not being rigorous, are above the line in terms of allowing an article to be written that meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any other articles on Wikipedia that have "(popular psychology}" as part of the title? Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Please do NOT delete this article. This page is an extremely useful collection of information that improves the lives of countless victims of domestic abuse and is a very real concept that is often referred to during recovery. While not the original research, it's public availability on wikipedia is often the first people land on. Given its utility I can only think of one reason why anyone would mark it for deletion 2605:A000:1133:8151:0:0:0:3D9 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Keep. I have sympathy with deletes as this is not an accepted psychological term in the lexicon. However, it used by "popular psychologists" and "self-help" books, and it helps the article has been renamed to reflect this. I spent time tidying it up, and the article does have several references to the term both online (e.g Business Insider, Medium, and HuffPo), but more substantially in books (of which several are quoted in the article; but I could see several more in google book searches [2]). I do think the article now meets a technical pass of GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flying_monkeys_(psychology)&oldid=899518816"