Talk:Antipsychology
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
We are the authors of the book PsychoHeresy and were the ones to coin the term psychoheresy. It has NEVER meant antipsychology. Those individuals who say so have never read our material. We have already edited the antipsychology page and hope that neither our names nor the word psychoheresy is ever associated with the term antipsychology.
Martin and Deidre Bobgan Authors of Psychoheresy
Someone should remove the redirect command from the "Psychoheresy" page then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.70.157 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
POV tag
[edit]This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Removed Tags:
"It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since February 2007."
"It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since November 2008."
"It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Tagged since November 2008."
clearly the term antipsychology is worthy of an encyclopedic explanation. though this term may be offensive to our highly respected psychologists, it is nonetheless a scientifically supported phenomenon. references to antipsychology abound Google Scholar. this article should and could be vastly expanded with reference to current research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.156.57 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)