Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		3	4	11			18
FL			1	1			2
GA	6	15	27	69		10	127
B	30	191	314	316		94	945
C	29	338	1,101	1,967		462	3,897
Start	7	162	847	3,272		2,256	6,544
Stub		6	122	1,350	1	1,843	3,322
List	7	11	47	99	1	10	175
Category					1,937		1,937
Disambig					32		32
File					40		40
Portal					3		3
Project					14		14
Template					86		86
NA		7	45	155	357		564
Other					113		113
Assessed	79	733	2,508	7,240	2,584	4,675	17,819
Unassessed			1	12		402	415
Total	79	733	2,509	7,252	2,584	5,077	18,234
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 71,324			Ω = 4.80

Mentioning bipolar diagnosis in BLPs

Please comment at WT:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. —PermStrump(talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Edit needed in Resources section

I don't know how to edit information in the boxes on the Project's home page. Under Resources, Open Directory (dmoz.org) has closed, so we should either remove it as a resource or link to the archive.

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017 Editorial: Core models and topics Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Links WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development). Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon. As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata. GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions. Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months. Olivia Solon in San Francisco, Why the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

body positivity in fashion

I plan to add a sections on Christian Siriano, the winner of Project Runway, and a fashion disgner. He believes in the bueaty of the body and how he can dress the women to look and feel beautiful. One example includes Leslie Jones, a comedian. Not one disigner would dress her for the Reboot of Ghost busters. When word got out on social media Siriano happily took her in.

https://theundefeated.com/features/leslie-jones-said-no-one-would-help-dress-her-for-ghostbusters-premiere/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Siriano

Duplicate pages on Hypersexuality

There are two pages addressing "hypersexuality." Nymphomaniac redirects to one, Nymphomania redirects to the other. One appears to be a legitimate article, the other is flagged in various ways as being a problem. In my opinion, Hypersexuality should be kept and Hypersexual disorder should be removed completely and the various redirects sorted out accordingly.____

John_B._Watson needs copyedit

Can people please fix John_B._Watson (American psychologist who established the psychological school of behaviorism.)

Article currently says

he described the relationship between brain myelination and learning ability in rats at different ages.

Watson showed that the degree of myelination was largely related to wand learning.

That text has been in the article for close to ten years now.

It apparently originally read

Watson showed that the degree of myelinization was largely unrelated to learning ability.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_B._Watson&oldid=334490993#Dissertation_on_animal_behavior ]

I don't know what it should say, and so don't want to mess with it myself.

Could someone please make this read correctly?

Thanks -- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Areo magazine, The Crimson White, and The Post Millennial

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Areo magazine, The Crimson White, and The Post Millennial for the Bo Winegard article. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Sources for Bo Winegard. — Newslinger talk 03:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you do an AfC review?

If you can conduct an AfC (Articles for Creation) review of the draft article below, that would be awesome. :0)

Draft:M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual

I would have just published the article, since I am not a new editor. But I had inadvertently submitted the article for AfC review in 2018 (it was not accepted), therefore I thought it only proper to resubmit for AfC review.

While I believe the article meets notability criteria, it is not a long article.

Note: If you have not conducted an AfC review before, please read how to get involved and the reviewing instructions and then, if you believe you meet the criteria, add your name to the list of AfC participants. Make sure to use the AfC Helper Script (to install the script go to your user preferences and check the checkbox at: Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script).

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article review needed for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States

I nominated Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for a Good Article Review. WP:PSYCH is an interested WikiProject for the article. If you (anyone reading this) could conduct the GA review, that would be awesome. :0) I nominated it under the Culture, sociology and psychology subtopic. If you have not conducted a good article review before, take a look at the good article reviewer instructions to see what is involved. If you decide to conduct the review (thank you!), please be sure to read Markworthen/Veterans-benefits-GA-nom where I provide some important history/background info about the article, e.g., 2015 SME (subject matter experts) review; 2015 GA nomination feedback; 2019 Peer Review; 2020 Guild of Copy Editors review, etc. Much appreciated   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality a B-class article?

I believe that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality meets this WikiProject's C-class criteria, but not B-class. Two other editors disagree. I am therefore posting this question at the three WikiProjects with interest in the article—the other two are WP:LGBT and WP:BOOK. Please weigh in at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality#Article rating. Thank you   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Another topic has superseded this one. In fact it's immediately below! ↓↓   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC opened for Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality is within the scope of WP:PSYCH.

 Question: To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?

→ Share your insights and suggestions at Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight.

Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for reviewers of Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Carrieruggieri is looking for reviewers for her WP:AFC submission at Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, about the psychotherapy AEDP. The article was nominated for deletion in 2017 and the result was to redirect to Diana Fosha, the creator of the psychotherapy. (See the deletion discussion for details and the draft talk page for further details.) Carrieruggieri has since rewritten the article and is looking to have it reviewed and reinstated. Perhaps Markworthen and other editors could take a look at Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy and make any necessary revisions if you think that it should be reinstated to article space. I am generally in favor of covering AEDP in Wikipedia, but I think editors other than me should evaluate the article. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still looking for help! Thank you in advance. Carrie Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse#The_Invisible_Gorilla

If someone competent would like to help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Psychology portal

Portal:Psychology had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Psychology § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Bicameralism (psychology)

• Bicameralism (psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a notice that this is an article needing a lot of work, especially in relation to sourcing. Not helping is that Julian Jaynes' ideas have not been seriously discussed by mainstream psychologists, and touch other fields; it's more part of popular culture. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Jaynes’ work *has* been influential in cognitive science — Dennett is deeply indebted to him, for example. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read Richard Dawkins write not unfavourably about the idea, albeit briefly and among others, in some discussion of the evolution of religion. GPinkerton (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Verbal Behavior major rewrite

I don't know enough to see if this is sensible, but it's clearly major.[1] @DevilTrombone: I've brought this here because you've already been reverted once and a quick glance at some of the edits have left me wondering about them. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

what exactly is your concern? --DevilTrombone (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mother-Infant Bonding Disorders

Can anyone experienced evaluate this? I'm a little suspicious that it is WP:OR/WP:SYN especially because the titles of the references don't have much to do with "bonding disorders". Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I've taken a look. Thanks! - MapleSoy (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Marked for deletion but not deleted

I'm not sure what the status is with Maladaptive daydreaming which was/is marked for deletion. I'm cross-posting this to Psychiatry also for a decision. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Intelligence_quotient#Cleaning_up_Criticism_and_views_section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intelligence_quotient#Cleaning_up_Criticism_and_views_section. Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

looking for help with accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy article

Hi, Is anyone willing to take a red pen to my draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. I can't seem to understand how to write from a neutral point of view. Happy for any edits that will make this article acceptable. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

could someone within PSYCH take over the draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Hello,

I'm hoping someone inside the WP:PSYCH will take over the Draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy project. It has been declined and this time there is no resubmit button. The reviewer thinks it should be "blown up" and does not think it is notable. There is extensive discussion of previous drafts and submissions on the talk page.

To summarize the concerns are 1.COI: I have explained my association and declared that I am a therapist who practices AEDP and I am associate editor for its internal journal. But I don't receive any financial benefit from my association and I am not a supervisor or a faculty. 2. In this recent decline the reviewer believes it is not notable. But that has not been an issue for other reviewers. Clearly it is very notable: there are now 5 training DVD's published on the APA site for psychotherapy training series. I think aedp should be on wikipedia because people who are interested in going into therapy have come across these letters and are curious. if you go to psychology today "find a therapist" aedp is on the list of therapies - it is the only major therapy (by major I mean has world wide practitioners - world wide on-going trainings many times a year - and a rigorous certification process and is taught in psychotherapy training programs and is about to publish 2 separate outcome research projects - one of which involves close to 100 subjects). 3.it's length (though reviewers are not bothered by the length). It is easy to deal with this because the "map of the change process" section makes up about a 1/3 of the article. It could be deleted or radically shortened, though that would be unfortunate because I think someone who is curious about aedp would appreciate this section of a the practical application of all that goes before (this is what it looks like in practice if you are a client). 4.The technical language problem has been resolved. If you look at the history, you will see that I have put in 100's of hours re-wording previous drafts in order to remove anything technical or text-bookish and still retain the substance. So if someone take this over, your job will be easy in that sense. 5. The references really are closely read and match the content. I purchased deepdyve and have read every article. So despite several reviewers impression, the article is written from a NPV. If you would like me to share the articles I captured from deepdyve I will figure out how to share them with you, or at least the relevant parts (I regret that I did not include page numbers for the articles). Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Carrieruggieri - Either I am being misquoted or I used templates that said something that is not what I intended to say. It is true that I Rejected the draft, and said that it needed to be blown up and started over. I did not mean that the topic is not notable. The draft, as presented, is not encyclopedic, and is not about to become encyclopedic. I did say that an article on the topic is needed. It just cannot be, in my opinion, based on this draft. The current draft is much too long, and is about the same length as the article that was deleted.

The submitter seems to be saying that multiple reviewers agreed with her that her draft should be accepted. I see that User:Timtrent would have accepted the draft. The draft is not very different from the version that was rejected by User:Sulfurboy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I did overlook the submitter's COI declaration, and that her conflict of interest is not the sort of conflict of interest that Wikipedia is primarily concerned about. In re-reviewing, the issue is not so much conflict of interest as such but tone. The draft is written as if the author is trying to sell something, such as therapy.

If there is not enough comment here, because this project is semi-active, we can discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and all, I would second the rejection and recommendation of WP:TNT. The whole thing reads like a brochure trying to sell something. There is nothing formal, neutral or dispassionate about this article. It continues to synthesize and use fringe connections with established practices and psychology to create notability and credibility for this branch. I also see nothing that would establish standalone notability.

These factors and negative marks against it are likely hard to be seen by the page creator. The inherent COI of creating a wiki page for a form of psychology that you practice for a living is a horrible idea on multiple levels. This is likely what is causing all the problems with this article in the first place. It should be blown up and re-written by someone less involved.

Coming to the Psych wikiproject is fine, but comes across as WP:OTHERPARENT. The issue with this page is not one that needs examination from a specialized/subject-informed eye. Instead, the issues are related to policy failings that could be spotted by any editor, even one that has zero knowledge of the field of psychology. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, As you know, my view and yours differ in that I believe the draft as it stands would be better from community attention rather than being reworked by the creating editor. Often I have found that the wisdom of crowds is better than my own wisdom. Often Have found the reverse, too! Maybe that is conceit.

I would have accepted this on that simple basis, and let it take its chance. I had not noticed a prior AfD (Why not? No idea), but even that doesn't really matter, the more so since I think you advised us that it is different.

I'm still pretty sure (0.9 probability) that any promotional tone would have been edited away by others. It might have been deleted. While that saddens me for the work on it, if that is what the community wants so be it. Fiddle Faddle 06:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia on TNT:”if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links.” I don’t think the article’s content is “of no value.” And, why expect someone to read through 75+ references and create a non- technical translation of a topic that is not only a field which is overloaded with jargon but also has its own version of jargon. And, you can’t say what aedp is without learning about it anymore than I could write about a topic on physics or math or anything else. Please give an example of what sounds promotional? It seems to be that you are suspicious that it’s promotional because maybe that’s one of Wikipedia’s headaches- people trying to get traffic through Wikipedia.i can appreciate your problem with that. But this isn’t why I’m advocating for the article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

AEDP proposes a theory of how psychotherapy can influence a positive change in a clients overall wellbeing as well as proposes a methodology for achieving positive change“. Is this an example of what seems promotional? Positive is not an adjective here: the word is used in the context of aedp being developed on models of change theory (in which change is not necessarily positive). But I can see that the word positive could be deleted without altering the meaning. I think there are other examples like this - someone who has read psychotherapy research articles and knows the idiosyncratic language could easily go through and correct this type of thing. Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, TNT is not compulsory, but instead a recommendation. A rejection in AfC means the article will not be considered further in it's current form. This does not mean minor tweaks or rephrasing a few words, it means a complete overhaul which is why TNT is a good recommendation. The systemic issues have been pointed ad nauseam in multiple venues starting at the AfD for the original article. Also, the constant (sometimes not so) subtle suggestion that we're basically too stupid to understand the nuances of psychology to appropriately judge the article is getting quite old.

I'm also unclear as to why you still have not properly declared as a paid editor. You seem to be under the impression that to be considered a paid editor you must have received an explicit payment for the creation of the article. This is not true. Anyone who has a financial stake in promoting a subject is considered a paid editor. By your own admission, your practice focuses around employing AEDP. As such, you have a clear financial stake in promoting the subject. The very first next step you should take is to properly declare per the guidelines of WP:PAID Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I am not a paid for my role as assistant editor. It's a volunteer position. I apologize for giving off the feeling that I think editors are too stupid to understand the nuances of psychology. I don't think that. But, you are right that I have had an attitude: it's been my experience that scientists tend to have a distain for psychology and especially for psychotherapy. I can understand this because the vocabulary is full of jargon and observation is often treated as fact. So quite the opposite. I feel some of you think I am self-promoting, or trying to pull a fast one, or parent shopping, or trying to infect wikipedia with "pseudo-science", or concealing a COI. I'm glad you mentioned that so I could clear that up. My intentions have been under continuous scrutiny, which I understand because you need to protect wikipedia from these things that really do happen. But, I have no evidence that the article has even been read for its content - only for it's 'tone' or potential implications. It's not been seen by anyone, as far as I can tell, that I have taken care of every single request and suggestion. I can't figure out what seems promotional or not neutral and I think this is where a PSYCH who knows the literature can be helpful because I would hope they would see I'm not writing in a promotional or not-original research manner, at least not intentionally. The articles, especially research articles should remain linked to the content they are linked to because that is a hell of a lot of work for someone to have to do all over again. Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: Above you asked another editor: Please give an example of what sounds promotional? An example is in the first paragraph, which says: "It is featured by the American Psychological Association in its psychotherapy training DVD Systems of Psychotherapy Series, and Psychotherapy Supervision Series." This sentence sounds promotional; there is no good reason for this sentence to be in the article. The sentence, or one very similar to it, was also included at the start of the version of the article that was nominated for deletion in September 2017. The sentence was removed in subsequent editing in draft, as seen in this version of the article from November 2017. But then later you restored the sentence! That sentence is a good example of how the article has improved in some ways since it was moved to draft but has deteriorated (or at least not improved) in other ways. Biogeographist (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Carrieruggieri, No one is talking about your role as an editor. We are talking about the fact that you are a psychotherapist that advertises your services in relation to AEDP. This means you have a financial stake in promoting the subject and thus are a paid editor. Maybe you should heed some of these suggestions instead of fighting them all at every turn. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sulfurboy (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I heeded every single suggestion - I have only been arguing when I had needed to keep it from being blown up, or when accused of concealing my association, or accused of having selfish motivations to promote my interests, or to promote AEDP. I simply really don't understand what sounds promotional (I never would have thought of the phrase "featured in" as promotional until Biogeoghraphist just pointed it out). I did not intentionally delete biogeoghaphist's changes because I didn't notice them except for a major contribution that was to do with substance and not style. I have a pretty thick skin but after feeling like a source of suspicion, it's hard to not defend myself and the article from some of the people who actually don't understand psychology but want to say that it's pseudoscience. And to be labeled as a parent-shopper for asking for eyes from PSYCH is really demeaning, even though I think someone is just putting a tag to a perception, but it feels bad and therefore, perhaps that is the defensive tone you rightly detect. I don't think it would harm wikipedia if a nicer manner toward writers was adopted, such as, "hey great effort, nice writing, we see you put a lot of work into this, wikipedia appreciates it. But you've done your best lets have someone else work it into a wikipedia style." Instead, it's a lot of suspicion aimed at my motivations: I am trying to promote aedp, myself, parent-shop, conceal my association (i.e., lie, deceive), and then be told that my work of over 4 years should be blown up with TNT! Also, once again for the 1000th time I do not financially benefit in anyway whatsoever from my association with aedp. I have a psychotherapy practice and my clients come to me because I am an expert in trauma. Yes, they are interested in what aedp is, but, they come to me for trauma whether or not I edit articles for the aedp internal journal. BTW, I write articles for pleasure. That is why I was doing this. Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: I agree, Sulfurboy is being too harsh and suspicious. It's obvious to me that you've put so much work into this because you love it—not because someone is paying you to do it, which is what being a "paid editor" means, per WP:PAID. And you've already sufficiently disclosed any other potential COI at Draft talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, in my opinion. Something I said in October 2017 is still relevant: these problems are endemic in the psychotherapy literature and nobody who has been intensively socialized into the psychotherapy milieu could be expected to step out of that culture and into Wikipedia's culture without a lot of experience editing (other articles and topics in) Wikipedia. Contra Sulfurboy, the problem is not paid editing, it's that you are an AEDP cultural insider and we need an outsider point of view (this is like the emic and etic distinction). You already know this, but nobody else has stepped up to take responsibility for the article, unfortunately. Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of support Biogeographist, I understand how being a cultural insider can make it difficult to understand how other's may read the content and tone. I hope someone can benefit from my work into it. The hardest part is translating technical language and matching references to content. I am happy to provide someone with the references I got from a resource called deepdyve - I can't copy/paste cause of copyright, but I can screenshot relevant portions - otherwise, as you know, the cost is prohibitive for each article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Biogeographist, I'm really sorry about deleting your improvements that was not intentional. I went through the whole thing all over again in early 2020. I still don't see how it's promotional - oh! featured in? Ok. I can see that now. Didn't I need to mention the DVD series to establish notability? Well, I think someone could really just fix those sorts of things pretty easily. That's obviously not something I can do - its hard for me to see how it might appear to others. Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy is wrong about lack of notability. Notability has never been the issue with this article; even DGG, who nominated the article for deletion in 2017, said that the subject was notable then, and it still is. The way it is written has always been the problem. Subsequent edits should have been focused on style and WP:NPOV. There has never been any need to establish notability. Biogeographist (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at Draft talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy again and noticed that I mentioned that sentence about the APA videos in October 2017, which likely lead to the sentence's removal (temporarily!). What I said then was appropriate and made me chuckle when I read it again now: On a related note, the APA's video series does not need to be mentioned in the lead. Mentioning the videos there makes it sound like AEDP is trying too hard to be legit. Yes, I know, the various psychotherapies do jockey to be legit, but that jockeying doesn't need to take place on Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I comment on one point, and that is that User:Carrieruggieri completely misses one point. She says that, contrary to the statements of some reviewers, the draft is written from a neutral point of view. No, no, no. She means that she thinks that she wrote it from a neutral point of view. At least two reviewers think that she did not, and an author is not the judge of whether an article is written from a neutral point of view, only of whether the author tried to write it from a neutral point of view. This is a case where, the more she insists that it IS NPOV (as opposed to that she tried to make it NPOV), the more obvious it is that she is not the best judge. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I never meant to say that the topic is not notable. I used the wrong template to reject it because there was no right template. Someone who can read English can see that I said that there should be an article on AEDP, just not this article. I never had notability issues. I had tone issues, and length issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, my understanding from reading WP: NPV means the article should be written from reliable secondary sources. The article is written from reliable secondary sources. That to me is the most important criteria for NPV. I understand what biogeographist said about it sounding promotional to Wikipedian ears while it doesn’t sound that way to me at all. That is a non-judgemental assessment and doesn’t cause one to feel defensive. But probably 90% of the hours were in finding and reading and using the 2cd and 3rd party sources. That is a lot ! (And I really mean a lot! More than I ever put into any piece of writing ) of work. So you are using NPV to say it sounds promotional but someone might read NPV and think I wrote it from primary sources or cooked it up in my head. So I have to defend my work and my integrity - it would be very rude to push a non-NPV after being told not to- It’s been frustrating that my efforts have no way to be really seen- cause whose going to read the references? As to the template- how is one to know what takes precedence- what you write within the text or the big red box that says NOT notable along with a stop sign? If it stays like that it will discourage someone who might like to work on it. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion from a distance and it's time I give my two cents. I will first comment on the alleged NPOV issues. I'm someone who is decently familiar with Wikipedia's policies and psychology topics, although I have not heard of AEDP in particular up to this point. After skimming the article, I have come to the conclusion that the original writer is not meaning to push a non-NPOV view, but that they're simply not familiar with Wikipedia's style of writing. There are just a few words here and there that Wikipedians would take issue with. The biggest culprit I've spotted would definitely be the sentence that states that it's "featured by the APA in its psychotherapy training DVD System...". While this might've been a simple way of establishing notability (which is important) this reads like the writer is trying to validate the legitimacy of this psychotherapy. It doesn't belong in the lead and I'd strongly consider removing it all together. Then you got other phrases in the lead like "informed by" and "is recognized as an effective treatment". Some Wikipedians would take issue with the wording here. I'd write "based on" and "is an effective treatment". It's more neutral that way and seems less like someone trying to justify its value.

Other than that... I honestly wasn't able to find much of anything that could be considered NPOV. The article's tone seems to largely be in the same vein as the B-class article Cognitive behavioral therapy. Maybe the tone was less neutral before I checked it, but right now it seems fine, other than the issues I mentioned above. I was more annoyed by how all the in-line citations precede the period (they should follow it) and how the article tells the reader several times to "see X below" (Wikipedia article's don't do that). This article is way better than your typical first article; I see no reason not to publish it after fixing these minor quibbles.

As for the COI issues, Carrieruggieri seems to have disclosed any COI, so I'm not sure what is the problem here? It's not like they invented AEDP or are promoting a book they wrote. They're just a student as far as I know. And as for notability, while I have not checked any of the sources directly, they do seem to be reliable from a distance. If this actually are secondary sources on top of that, I can't see how anyone would question the notability of this psychotherapy. Lastly, the article's length is not problematic in the least. "Much too long to be an encyclopedic discussion of a therapeutic technique"? The article on cognitive behavioral therapy is like twice the length. The length is fine.

Long story short, I really don't see any massive issues preventing this draft from being published. Change some wording, remove that APA DVD sentence and the 'see belows', then fix the position of the in-line citations (place them after the period). That's all I have to add.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything Megaman en m has said. I especially agree that it is extremely annoying that all the inline citations improperly precede punctuation. As can be seen in this version of the article from November 2017, I had managed to clean up all of the inline citations so that they properly followed the punctuation, but then Carrieruggieri reverted all of that. Such subversion of my editing efforts by Carrieruggieri caused me to stop working on the article. After someone else steps up and makes all the needed corrections, the article should be published. Biogeographist (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have declared my COI on my user page. It is also on the talk page of the draft. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Biogeographist, I'm very sorry about messing up your edits. Regarding the punctuation, I thought that I was being inconsistent with the inline punctuation, and I went through to make it consistent. I feel very badly about that and all the edits I unknowingly undid. I don't know how much work and time you put into it - I hope not too much. You are right to be highly annoyed! I am happy to go through and fix the inline citations - am I allowed to do that? I think I am instructed to stop working on it? If I have permission to fix that I am happy to save someone from the tedium. Also, how to I ping a name (do I put @ before it? or double [[ ? Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can go through the draft and fix the inline citations; that would be helpful. {{Reply to}} or {{re}} is one way to ping; {{u}} is another way. The two ways produce slightly different formatting. Click on those links to see examples. Also, regarding content, the Criticism section mentions some criticism of metaprocessing by Sass, but doesn't mention Fosha's response/rebuttal to Sass in the same issue. I think it would be important to mention the latter. Biogeographist (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

{{re Biogeographist}} ok, will do. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Biogeographist Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

{{reply to Biogeographist}} I hope I got the format correct this time. I change the inline citations to be outside of the punctuation. I added Fosha's comment to Sass, and I took out the (see the map of the change. process as megamen n m suggested). I also took out the sentence about the DVD and added the DVD as a reference to supervision and short-term therapy part of the sentence about applications. I think that is everything. Let me know if you think there is anything more. Carrieruggieri (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Biogeographist Will you be removing the redirect so that the article can be moved to the main space?Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)