Talk:Dodo bird verdict

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dodo bird verdict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dodo bird verdict was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 30, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Good article review

Hi. I did not pass the article for GAN because it just was not ready for nomination. I've left some advice on the review page on where to go from here. --LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student review against class criteria

After reading the article, here are my thoughts: 1- The first paragraph of the history seems to be an introduction to the controversy. At the very least, it should be moved to later in the history section. What currently stands as the second paragraph seems like a better place to begin the history section. The third paragraph in this section also seems better suited for the section describing its controversy. Once the first and third paragraphs are moved (or deleted), the history section should probably be fleshed out with some additional history. 2- In the section "support for the dodo bird verdict," second paragraph, the introductory sentence needs altered to reflect the actual point of the paragraph (to outline the commonalities across therapies). It currently sounds like the whole paragraph is going to be about the therapeutic alliance. 3- In the section "opposition to the dodo bird verdict," first paragraph, the tone is not an objective one. For instance, The comparison of bloodletting and lobotomies to debunct statistical approaches is quite loaded. Mere hinting at the methods of the 1975 paper is not sufficient. Detail them, first, then describe why our modern techniques are more appropriate. 4- In the same section, second paragraph, the last sentence seems out of place. 5- There are some citations in the text (e.g. Hunsley, 2007) that aren't in the references section. 6- Major copyedit revisions are needed in the conclusion section to enhance clarity and readability. Jesserjames (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for page edits

Although the original text was completely accurate, it lacked a great deal of information. We created separate headings and sections that would address the major parts involved to give readers a clearer understanding of the topic. While doing so, we were able to add an additional 40+ sources to support the new information. Vmansoor (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in case anyone was wondering....

...this is the verdict for this "dodo bird" effect:

as scientists have discovered, contrary to popular belief, personality does in fact change over time. but not in the way you might expect. you wont just become a brand new person. youll still be you, just more mature. you will be more conscientious, agreeable, and less neurotic. it's an empirical correlation. no joke.

so, as a result of being less neurotic as you grow older, you tend to, as you might expect, be less neurotic! and thus, the therapy that you just coincidentally happened to be attending at the same time is often mistaken for the reason for your lesser neurosis, when in fact its simply the fact that youre older! so, in short, psychotherapy, no matter what form, does nothing. (this does NOT include psychiatry, ie medicine)

thats my theory anyway. Charles35 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effect sizes

This article quotes some Effect_sizes. However there are lots of types of effect size. I'm not sure quoting the number without the units makes sense? Especially as they are from different papers and therefore maybe different ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C21A:B100:D1C7:E5A2:47C3:724 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can't find claim in source

In the support section it states that "Wampold ''et al.'' 2002, found that 70% of the variability in treatment outcome was due to the therapeutic alliance whereas 10% of the variability was due to a specific treatment."

I checked Wampold 2002, but nowhere does it seem to mention this number. In fact, it only mentions percentages twice, and none of them support the text. Can someone double-check this and remove it? Megaman en m (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible Chuckle

"The Dodo bird debate only took flight in 1975 when ..."

Nicely done, author. I didn't realize Wikipedia was allowed to be funny.

NakedJeffTamer (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]