Talk:Narrative psychology

Psychology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rescued article

I have just rescued an article up for G13 deletion at Articles for Creation and moved it to Talk:Narrative psychology/Rescued AFC submission. There seems to be a lot of good stuff in it that could be merged into the existing article. It might even be that it could entirely replace the existing article. There arer certainly a lot of good references that could at least go in as further reading. I'll leave that for editors here to decide, but if the material is used the subpage here should not be deleted to preserve the history for licensing reasons (although it could be blanked and replaced with a do not delete message). Spinning Spark 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an extraordinary amount of vandalism on the Narrative psychology page that exists in some archaic version of the original article written by; John McKinnon. As it is, I didn't think that it was possible that this article would receive so much attention. I have, as a result, created a new page entitled Narrative Psychology and request that it replace the convoluted definition that exists on the page where the confusing responses and additions make it almost unreadable and nearly impossible to understand. I hope that those people who are sincerely interested in the process of Narrative psychology will add to it's definition in a way that broadens, not limits, the definition in a way that is not objectionable or confusing to the general public, even if the additions are not exactly what the author intends to be more exacting. The way it is, seems to be almost political, each addition being of a special interest. The existence of narrative psychology is not to redefine,rather; it is, in it's own right, an effort to achieve contact with lucidity.

Thank you,

John Donald McKinnon

Narrative Psychologist Graduate of University of Wisconsin, Green Bay (2001). Independent Degree Program.68.117.108.181 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)68.117.108.181 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everything is among the least objectionable possibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOHN MCKINNON (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Chatman is not spelled with two -t's. Sorry about that.

The last of the dying science of Narrative Psychology. It is with hope no one depends upon the title and definition of narrative Psychology for help in any way shape or form.

It seems that this happens to everybody... using language to define the motive beyond the the text/ picture, etc. is doomed to; no end. A simple definition will not, due to the subjectivity -psychology as an "art form" carries on into the center of an element of strategy befor science. It`has now, on this page, in my opinion reached a point of non-sense... non-science. Now, where is the contribution toward the sincere, careful, deep concern for the welfare of our fellow human beings? Or is the ego of this new format lost in a relevancy of shady impertence? I can't recommend any further study of Narrative Psychology beyond finger painting.

Sincerely,

John Donald McKinnon, Narrative Psychologist, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay (2001}.JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]