From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citation style[edit]

Boghog recently made many changes to references in this article, many of which I have reverted: per Wikipedia:Citation templates, the last1, first1, last2, first2, ... fields are correct; removing information such as first names and journal wikilinks from citation templates is unhelpful, and removing such info from only a few references is inconsistent. It would be good if this article had a consistent citation style, per WP:CITEVAR, but until such a style is established for this article per consensus, do not remove information from citations. Biogeographist (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Biogeographist. I am quite willing to followup any of my edits with additional edits to fix any problems and to make things completely consistent. One of the problems with this article is that it has an inconsistent citation style with respect to first authors. Some times first names are spelled out in full, sometimes first initials with periods are used, and sometimes initials without periods. One option to replace all the first names with initials without periods using either |vauthors= or leave "last1, first1, last2, first2, ..." in place and add |name-list-format=vanc. Or we can leave it in its current inconsistent state. Boghog (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog: It is not a good idea to remove full author names from citation templates because the extra information provided by full author names is useful in several ways: it disambiguates authors with the same last name and initials; it provides a more complete identity of the authors for people unfamiliar with the literature (and many readers of Wikipedia are likely to be less familiar with the literature than specialists); it provides more search results when users search for full names.
If an article's citation style calls for last name and initials only, it is better to use the name-list-format field of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate COinS data for automated citation harvesting by reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such as name-list-format (and the other display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page.
Regarding the citation style of this article, I am partial to displaying full names due to the value of the information that I mentioned above. I think of initials as a convention used to save space (and thereby save on printing costs) in print media, or in content that is published in print and other formats. Wikipedia is not distributed in print, so there is no need to use initials to save on printing costs. Biogeographist (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your very reasoned reply. I think your strongest but also weakest argument is providing the most complete database possible. It is generally acknowledged that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Therefore IMHO, it is a mistake to harvest Wikipedia COinS data since it may be subject vandalism or honest mistakes. One really should go back to a reliable secondary source of bibliographic information such as PubMed. Hence one only needs to harvest database identifiers such as PMID and then using these identifiers, recreate the citation from scratch using the numerous tools available for this purpose. The most important citation information are the links back to the original source. Second is the title which gives a sense what the citation is about. Third in importance are authors and journal names that gives an impression about the reliability the of source for specialists that are familiar with the field. For the general reader, authors names, whether abbreviated or not, will not be very meaningful. If someone is really interested in particular author, one should go back to the original source where the author affiliation and full name of the author are displayed.
I do not have any strong feeling on how the citations are formatted in this particular article, so I will not make any further edits to this article. Boghog (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog: That's an interesting counterargument, but there are some weaknesses in what you have said too.
First, I would not cite WP:WINARS, as you did, to argue that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates because Wikipedia users should not be using citation data from Wikipedia. That reminds me of the saying, "Don't vote! It only encourages them!", where the voters are Wikipedia editors improving citation data, and "them" are the users of Wikipedia. (OK, this analogy doesn't work—but it's funny.) As an editor, I take pride in my ability to add reliable citation data to Wikipedia, and I believe that the articles wherein I've been able to thoroughly vet the citation data (not this article, obviously!) contain accurate, reliable bibliographic data. Furthermore, the bibliographic data in those articles may be more complete than the corresponding data in PubMed in the case of references for which PubMed does not have, for example, full names, or DOIs. (I've noticed in my research that some PubMed records are missing DOIs for articles that have DOIs on the publisher's site.) WP:WINARS is important to keep in mind, but it doesn't serve as support for the argument that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates.
Second, your assertion that Wikipedia users don't care about author names disregards the variability in the subject matter of Wikipedia articles and in the purposes of Wikipedia users. The importance of authors may vary by field: in the humanities, where the subject matter is often personal experiences and opinions, who authored a source is often extremely important; in the empirical sciences, where the subject matter is often impersonal data and models, who authored a source is less important. Psychotherapy straddles the two cultures of the humanities and empirical sciences; many researchers are thoroughly in the empirical science camp, but many clinicians are mostly in the humanities camp, and some people are both researchers and clinicians (by "researchers" I mean large-n researchers; clinicians of course are always doing n=1 research, which can be aggregated into large-n research but typically isn't). Biogeographist (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by Boghog for the same reason we already discussed over two years ago above. Biogeographist (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And we are still back to an inconsistent mess of given names in citations. If someone is really interested in the first names of authors in a source, they will follow the links to the original publication. Boghog (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no good reason to make readers leave Wikipedia to figure out who wrote a cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Treatments duration[edit]

The "Treatments duration" section badly needs a rewrite. It includes no coverage of the relevant literature, and instead provides discusses relapse rates in depression, which is fairly unrelated: "According to the American Psychological Association, experts suggests that those who have had two depressive episodes in recent years, or three episodes over their life, should be treated on an ongoing basis to prevent recurrent depression:[17] At least 60% of individuals who have had one depressive episode will have another, 70% of individuals who have had two depressive episodes will have a third, and 90% of individuals with three episodes will have a fourth episode." Please consider editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talkcontribs) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section is misleading for the reasons stated above, and I removed the section until it can be improved. Biogeographist (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Poorly illustrated[edit]

This article has only one photo currently. Could we find some more? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, If you can, explain me that[edit]

In the intro is written that psychotherapy may be "concucted with groups, including families." But the Family psychotherapy is different from the Group psychotherapy. I tried to edit it but my English is insufficient. Explain me please why I was wrong. Thank you. Chomsky (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

In the broad sense of the word a family is still a group of people. It links to both group therapy and family therapy, so the reader shouldn't think that these are the same thing. As it stands, I don't see a problem with the current way it's written.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Chomsky (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, allow me to notice you that I did not understand what is "psychotherapy conducted with groups" until I visited the link. The construction "psychotherapy concucted with groups" is hard to understand (especially if the groups are exemplified by "families"). When the article was rewieved at 26 August 2006 it had excellent intro. As well as the Simple English Wikipedia has good intro. And the, too. I can't bear your wrong intro supported by a single source which even appears in contradiction with it. Chomsky (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How the group psychotherapies can contain the family psychotherapies?[edit]

Any psychotherapies (except the family psychotherapies) contain only partially the same which contain the group psychotherapies (for example, that members are not acquaintances). The family psychotherapies would have to contain fully the same which contain the group psychotherapies. This they can't satisfy. They can't be the representatives of the group psychotherapies, belong to them. Do you agree? Chomsky (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)