Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::You might find this discussion interesting too . Glad we cleared that up, I really could have sworn I knew you. --] 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::You might find this discussion interesting too . Glad we cleared that up, I really could have sworn I knew you. --] 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I think you will find it is covered by ] and ] as well...but I don't understand your problem at all, because if the concept is valid and widely recognised there will be plenty of verifiable and reliable sources for it.
:::You said: ''Most of the encyclopedic articles on here are not based on 'empirical evidence', and many not even on evidence that is published in peer-reviewed journals/books.''
:::That may be so, but I am afraid ALL of them are supposed to be based on that kind of evidence, particularly nin areas related to science and medical matters. However I see no point in continuing to argue, you surely would do better to spend the same time looking for valid sources instead? --] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:19, 20 February 2007
Welcome
Hello Grace E. Dougle! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as the PTSD thing goes, the list that was added is not appropiate. While I appreciate sarcasm, you'll find few other people do. A lot of psychological articles on Misplaced Pages are messy, and I sort of gave up even trying back when I was editing from IPs, but the simplest thing to do is open up a straw poll. Anyone who knows anything about psychology or PTSD will know that list is both too broad and yet, too specific. --Elaragirl01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Pls do not remove the tags unless you add a relevant citation. Doing so is not consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. DPeterson 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Reverting Bipolar article:
Rather than continuing to revert what many editors feel is an inappropriate section, the proper Misplaced Pages practice would be to begin some dispute resolution process. I have done so, I hope you will participate and cooperate and not continue to merely revert the edits.DPeterson13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want an article on this topic please find some real encyclopaedic information from sources that accord with WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:OR. Please see discussion on merging and redirect . --Zeraeph18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you seem to be somewhat misinformed about both the book, and, at least one of, it's authors. Randy Kreger is, at best, trained as a Public Relations Officer, hardly an academic. The book is not supported by any scientific studies or "peer reviewed" in any academic sense. The book is agenda driven, verges, at times, upon incitment to hatred, and appears to be virtually unknown outside a tightly knit and rather self appointed online culture of psychology in it's loosest sense.
Regardless, if the concept of "Non-bp" is notable I am sure you will have no trouble in finding plenty of sources that are verifiable and from reliable sources with which to build a suitably encyclopaedic article. I can even get you started by informing you that a very well accredited academic called Michael J Formica seems to be writing a book on "counterborderline", I am not to sure how far progressed this is. --Zeraeph20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me asking, but do I know you from somewhere? You seem awfully familiar?
Whatever one might say in the general sense, Misplaced Pages is an encylopaedia, (see WP:NOT, so that articles related to psychology do most definately require the backing of empirical evidence and academic peer review and acknowledgement, not any personal perception of "common sense", which is after all very subjective...for example, the world in not and ideal place, that does not mean "Mein Kampf" is the solution, even though it represented one man's "common sense" of such.--Zeraeph21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I am afraid it is not just my reasoning (though personally I find the prevalence of self appointed, unccountable and unregulated *expertise*, particularly in online psychology, truly terrifying), it is also Misplaced Pages protocol. But don't worry, if your topic is truly valid you will always be able to find verifiable academic sources for it somewhere, it's just a matter of looking, and when you have found them, the resulting article will be so much more worthwhile and carry so much more weight for you.
You might find this discussion interesting too . Glad we cleared that up, I really could have sworn I knew you. --Zeraeph22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find it is covered by WP:OR and WP:NOTE as well...but I don't understand your problem at all, because if the concept is valid and widely recognised there will be plenty of verifiable and reliable sources for it.
You said: Most of the encyclopedic articles on here are not based on 'empirical evidence', and many not even on evidence that is published in peer-reviewed journals/books.
That may be so, but I am afraid ALL of them are supposed to be based on that kind of evidence, particularly nin areas related to science and medical matters. However I see no point in continuing to argue, you surely would do better to spend the same time looking for valid sources instead? --Zeraeph23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
