Talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Carrieruggieri (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy#Declaration of COI)

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Articles for creation

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted from this draft on 19 August 2016 by reviewer Joe Roe (talk · contribs).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pre Acceptance comments at WP:AFC

Pre-acceptance comments

AfC comment

Please remove ALL copyrighted content before submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project talk page

I have flagged this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Request_for_comments in the hope of getting expert advice --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jydog, I am the creator of this article. It has been vetted by several reviewers since February. I have addressed numerous critiques from various editors. However, no reviewer has identified this article as spam. Ringbang, rejected the April 2016 version due to it appearing to be a "fringe theory." I re-wrote the article emphasizing 3rd party research sources.The article is grounded in 3rd party research sources and secondary sources. Only 8 or 10 of the 62 references are primary sources. The bibliography I added is largely primary sources. Could that be a problem? I could delete the bibliography section if that gives the appearance of advertisement. The goal of the article is to explain what AEDP is, the context of its development, and the neuroscience and psychological theory underlying its claims in how it helps. AEDP is considered a psychotherapy worthy of inclusion in the American Psychological Association's psychotherapy training DVD series.

I agree wth JoeRay that the content is too dense for the average reader, and that the lead paragraph is too long. I will be working on those issues. Carrieruggieri (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because while this draft is long and promotional, it really should either be deleted via AFD or improved. This article may need to be blown up and started over, but WP:G11 isn't usually the mechanism for that. --Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Based on the two objections above (one from an uninvolved editor), I've removed the CSD template. This article has already been through AfC, and although the prose needs work, is not "unambiguous promotion" per WP:CSD#G11. If the nominator still wishes to discuss deletion, they should probably do so at AfD. Joe Roe (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a textbook

This article reads like it was copied out of a textbook and most of the content that I've read so far doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. —PermStrump(talk) 23:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See a related discussion at the Teahouse. It also strikes me that no criticism of the therapy is discussed in the article. Is this because there are no sources that are critical of it, or have they been ignored? Cordless Larry (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for someone from the psychology portal to chime in. But in the meantime, I wonder if it would be possible to remove the issue in the box that states that the article reads like a personal opinion. I have combed through and I cannot find a single opinion, or personal feeling. The entire article is an effort to distill a vast amount of information and psychology background in order to understand the information. Not a bit of is sourced from my brain. I am reporting on my understanding of what scholars, much smarter than me, have researched and practiced. It is also not possible for an article to be both too "technical," "read like a textbook," and also appear to reflect personal feelings and opinions.

As to the issue of a lack of critique: There are not any written critiques that I could find. This psychotherapy model is so integrated in contemporary neuroscience and psychotherapy research, as well as traditional psychological theory, that I think critiques will be far off in the next wave of paradigm change. There are technical critiques, but these are much too technical and would require way too much background education to understand: such as, AEDP does not formally address a central theme originating in psychoanalytic psychotherapy that has influenced just about all psychotherapies, and that is the issue of "transference."

I have taken the critique that the article is too technical to heart, and I am happy to work on that. However, I have to say that if I try to read a topic on wikipedia in the area of physics or mathematics, I don't understand these writings. I have zero background or frame of reference from which to understand. At the same time, and for that reason, I have no reason to look up such a topic. And, I wouldn't expect to understand.

From my understanding of the criteria for a wikipedia article (neutral point of view, notability, reliable published sources), the article does meet these criteria. However, I think someone from the psychology portal could be very helpful in making critiques and suggesting or making edits. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reagrding the essay tag, sentences such as "A comparison of AEDP to its more contemporary influences, such as psychoanalysis, intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy, and experiential-affect focused therapies, is offered to provide context for key constructs and methods" sound like they belong in an essay to me. "Is offered" sounds like the writer of the article is offering this comparison, which is what an essay would do, whereas an encyclopedia article should just summarise what the sources say about the subject. I agree about the need for some expert input - you may well be right about the lack of critical sources, but it would be good to get a second opinion. I also take your point about the technical wording. Articles about even relatively simply topics such as trains can be very difficult to read. I do think we can strive for better, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:SELFREF for some guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful feedback Cordless Larry, I think I understand. At least I can make the correction you recommended. link is helpful, thank you Roger. So writing "is offered" is a self-reference? I think I get it. Totally new concept to me. Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the comparison came from a source, Carrieruggieri, you could write "Scholar X offers a comparison of AEDP to its more contemporary influences...", but to introduce your own comparisons probably counts as original research, which should be avoided. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that removing the "is offered" alone doesn't fix the problem. The comparison is still yours/the article's, rather than being based on a source (unless I am mistaken). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Carrieruggieri's comment: "I have been waiting for someone from the psychology portal to chime in." I think I added this to my watchlist after seeing it mentioned at WT:PSYCH. In any case, I'm a member of that project and that is my line of work. My initial reaction is that this article relies too much on primary sources that really should only be used to supplement the material available in secondary sources instead of the basis for the majority of the article. I believe the over-reliance on primary sources, especially those written by AEDP's developers, is a big part of the essay-like feel that Cordless Larry is talking about and also the textbook feel that I was talking about. —PermStrump(talk) 21:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Permstrump, the article relies on secondary and 3rd party sources. Only 8 or 10 of the 55 references are primary sources. I know it's a chore, but if you were to track the references, you would see that the information is clearly secondary and 3rd party sources. My writing and presentation was to figure out how to present the material from the point of view of second and third party sources. Maybe that is why it seems textbookish?

Could you direct me to an article on psychotherapy in wikipedia that represents how a wikipedia article should be written? That would help a great deal. I am not understanding the the textbook feel vs. encyclopedic.

Are we in agreement that the article meets wikipedia criteria for being notable, verifiable with reliable sources and from a neutral point of view? If the problem is style, a frame of reference would help me with making needed changes. Thank-you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you direct me to an article on psychotherapy in wikipedia that represents how a wikipedia article should be written?" I will start by saying a lot of psychology-related articles have a lot of issues, so that is a harder question to answer than it should be. Cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy are probably in the best shape, though they both have sections with issues. I definitely appreciate the brevity of the IPT article relative to CBT, though there has been the most research on CBT by far, so clearly there's going to be more to say about it, but it is quite long. They've both been on my to-do list for a while and periodically I've tried to tweak the wording to be more neutral and improve the sourcing, but I haven't made it all the way through either article yet. This is a previous version of the IPT article that I thought relied btoo heavily on primary sources, so that version, specifically the history section, might be a good example of things to avoid (IMO).

It seems like AEDP has enough coverage in secondary sources for an article (see update underlined below), but maybe not for the current level of detail because right now a lot of space is dedicated to explaining the intricacies of the modality, which are better left to a manual or textbook. I think the CBT and IPT articles give more of an overview of the main components of the treatment, but the majority of information is about what research says about them as opposed to instructions on how to perform them.

I think this might be a good third-party source for summarizing the main components of AEDP. As primary research, it doesn't (*corrected*) satisfy WP:MEDRS as far as claims about AEDP's effectiveness, but the couple of paragraphs in the introduction that explain the core concepts could either be a good model or source for describing the treatment without the textbook details or essay-like language. LMK if you can't access the full text and I can paste the parts I'm talking about here. —PermStrump(talk) 23:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! And, thank you for that reference, I can't believe I missed that one! I would love what you can send, I can't access the full text. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PermStrump, on the issue of the focus of modality in the article, I want to try to pitch to you the reasoning behind this emphasis. The modality mirrors the theory, and the modality is what the research is concerned with: AEDP modality was developed out of contemporary psychotherapy research and neuroscience research on factors that promote positive change in psychotherapy. The examples of therapist's statements are not there for the purposes of an "how to," but are there to help the reader understand a concept. I think if one is only curious about the main components of the treatment, then that is satisfied, and if if one wants to understand the 'how', that too is satisfied. This is an important point because as it is stated in the article, Fosha's development of the theory is based upon her belief that a "model of therapy must be based on theory of what brings about positive change in psychotherapy." When a client, a colleague, or any interested person asks me what AEDP is, the next question is "but how does it work?" Trying to answer that question is what led me to want to write this article for wikipedia. I'm trying to get my hands on the article you recommended so that I can model what you suggested as a good way to explain core concepts for a wikipedia article. Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update to comment above: I just realized that some of the sources that I thought were about this topic were actually about plain experiential dynamic therapy and mentioned the accelerated version, but weren't really about the accelerated version, so I need to look into it for notability a little bit more before giving an opinion. —PermStrump(talk) 00:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment that it passed WP:N when this article was at AfC was based mainly on these refs: [1] (dedicated entry in a third party encyclopaedia), the fact that it was prominently feature in an APA video series, and generally a lot of google scholar hits and mentions in the literature. Joe Roe (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The following list of further reading was removed from the article on 22 August 2016 (quite rightly, as it is far too long and of limited to use to the general reader), but I thought I'd preserve it here in case it's of use in improving this article further in future:

Image

On removing the image: There is no discussion here about the decision to remove the image. The inclusion of the image went through the wikipedia copyright process. Somewhere there must be documentation of the permission given by the author of the image to use it for the article. The diagram helps to understand the section on Theory of change/model of therapy. Why does it's inclusion call into question the copyright status of the article in general? Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's not encyclopedic, not because of copyright infringement. MOS:IMAGES says "Avoid entering textual information as images for more information." In this case, the flowchart gave the article a very textbook-like feel, as does the information it was meant to clarify, which should probably be condensed to the information available in secondary sources. I will take a closer look at it later. —PermStrump(talk) 16:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding image, PermStrump, for me the image is a visual for all the text in the section theory of change/model of therapy. It doesn't actually add information, it condenses the text into a visual. If you would have one more look and make a judgement, then I will go with your judgement. Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

correction on an edit

I think Joe Roe (?) re-wrote the lead paragraph, and I like what he did. However, I just noticed that the sentence "...initially developed by Diana Fosha" is incorrect. The problem is the word "initially". So far Diana Fosha is the only developer of AEDP. She has co-authored articles, and AEDP trainers and clinicians have elaborated on aspects (I did not use these sources), however the major concepts are completely from Fosha 2001, 2009, and 2013 as cited in the first sentence. I did not remove this wording, I will wait for the author of that sentence to respond. Carrieruggieri (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "initially" was supposed to refer to the book mentioned rather than Fosha, i.e. it was first published with that book, then expanded in later publications. But please go ahead and change it! Joe Roe (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved back to draft for further revision

I have just copied the article back to Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, where it can be revised per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. I can probably help revise it, if I can find enough time to contribute. I am well read in the psychotherapy literature, and I think I have a good sense of what this article may need to address the problems mentioned (see my comment in the deletion discussion). Biogeographist (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, I think that the article should probably have been moved rather than copied and pasted. The attribution of edits is lost when you do the latter. I suggest following the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves to fix this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Thanks, that didn't occur to me. I will follow those instructions and we'll see what an administrator can do to improve the situation. Biogeographist (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of edits

Hello, this is carrie ruggieri ok so I at least know where to communicate. And thank you very much for responding so quickly and moving the article to the draft page. I am very willing to write in encyclopedic style. But I honestly don't understand what that means - because I really think I did. And I don't know how to be any more neutral than writing from the point of view of 3rd party and secondary sources. If it is a source problem that is easy to fix because there are many many more 3rd party sources since this was published. If it seems like a "personal essay" or my point of view, then that is simply my writing style that conveys warmth. Again, how can it not be from a neutral point of view if every sentence is referenced and the writing was structured around all the references I could find -- that are NOT primary. Because references lead back to the originator doesn't mean it is a biased piece of writing -- how can one write about psychoanalysis and not reference Freud for example, or write about behaviorism and not reference Skinner and Watson. Actually, I am looking at the behaviorism article right now -- It gets quite dense and is a beautiful synthesis. I like that article. I think it is what people expect when they go to wikipedia. I don't see how mine is different.

I studied experimental psychology and clinical psychology at the New School for Social Research - I was there for 6 years and involved in many research endeavors. I do understand how to write from a neutral point of view. I understand how to use references. I understand how to critique - goodness I learned how to be merciless. If there is a psychologist who can look at this I think it would be very clear why this is a non-biased, neutral point of view article. Please don't punish me for writing with a tone of warmth and feeling - its one of my assets. Perhaps it is a reflection of the lack of female editors that gives the typical articles a certain more muscular feel - Im reaching for an understanding here.

As I explained, no one has critiqued aedp, at least not in a publication. And, the reason for that is because contemporary therapies are in reaction to models of the previous zeitgeist - which was cognitive therapy. So maybe in a decade there will be lots of critique on aedp and emotion focused therapies because a neuro-focused approach will muscle in to replace its present status.

As a neutral writer I cannot write a critique if it is not referenced. If you want, I can think of many areas to critique - legitimate critiques. but I don't have references.

Please highlight a paragraph or something, anything, or a section and say write this like (and maybe give me an example from another article). 17:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrieruggieri (talk • contribs)

I completely understand where you are coming from, but you don't understand this place, Wikipedia.

We don't care who you say you are nor what you say you have studied; what matters is what you do here, and how well your edits follow community norms, as expressed in the policies and guidelines. You might want to have a read of WP:EXPERT. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Judog, I just read WP:Expert. I still, even mores after reading it, believe that my edits follow the community norms. I gave my background because I feel misunderstood and I thought by giving my background it would help you all see where I am coming from Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, I cannot find your suggestions and the deletion section discussion. I would like to have them and perhaps we can work together to make this article fit in with the wikipedia standards. thank you Carrie Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the heading "Another round of edits" above User:Carrieruggieri's comment to separate this discussion from the previous topic (the move back to draft namespace).

@Carrieruggieri: I want to emphasize that you shouldn't construe the criticism of the article as blame, since 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.

To begin, I will try to find examples of good Wikipedia articles on psychotherapy, and I will return to list any examples that I find. (Wish me luck! It will probably be a short list!) Biogeographist (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri: The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. Use your web browser's "Find" command to search for my username on the page, and you will find my comment. Biogeographist (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie, unfortunately, like a lot of academics who come here, you cannot see that you don't know what you are doing here in Wikipedia. Arguing instead of trying to learn how Wikipedia actually works. If that is the path you want to take, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I don't want to argue. I do want to learn. It helps to know that I am not the only person to feel bewildered. Thank you Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of criticism sections in other psychotherapy articles

To begin, here's a list of criticism sections in other psychotherapy articles. We can discuss these further if needed, but I will begin by simply listing them as resources.

Some of the sections listed above are stronger than others; in particular, I think that many of these criticism sections could be considerably expanded. A possible next step, which I don't have time to do now but could do later, is to evaluate which of the above-listed articles are strongest and have the most potential to serve as a model for the future direction of the article on AEDP.

On a related note, but slightly off-topic: I was surprised, while looking for examples, to find articles that I expected to report criticism of their subjects but didn't, such as Transference, which I tagged with Template:POV and commented on its talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to find examples of good articles on Wikipedia may be the lists of featured articles and good articles. A couple of related topics in good articles are Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and Psychodrama, which I don't consider to be extraordinary articles but do seem to be relatively clearly written. Note that the article on NVC was once nominated for deletion, which shows that being nominated for deletion does not preclude an article from eventually ascending to good-article status. I wonder why there are not more articles about psychotherapy in the good-article and featured-article lists? Biogeographist (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank yo Biogeographist, I will look at this carefully. I think I have some ideas about how to restructure the entire article. Perhaps if it was a lot shorter and focused upon the main concepts as opposed to getting into the deeper layers. I like to have context when I learn something new, but maybe that is not an encyclopedia approach. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler word choice, and other issues

@Carrieruggieri: I looked at your most recent edits, and I think you are headed in the right direction, but I think even simpler words would be preferable in many places. For example:

Instead of the heading "Foundational constructs", simply "Key concepts".
Instead of the heading "AEDP's therapeutic stance: Undoing aloneness", simply "Undoing aloneness".
Instead of the heading "Emotion: the core of pathogenesis and the core of healing", simply "Emotion".
Split the heading "Transformance and metaprocessing" into two one-word headings.
Don't use multiple terms for the same concept; use the simplest term: for example, instead of mixing "meta-therapeutic processing" and "metaprocessing" just use "metaprocessing" throughout.

The "4 states, 3 state transformations" table does not need to be a table, since the first column is just headings. Change the first column into headings and the second column into body text. Description of the states could be considerably simpler. Fosha has a much simpler description of the states in at least one of her publications.

I would remove the claims that metaprocessing is a "unique" contribution of AEDP. I see that the source (Iwakabe & Conceição) calls it "unique", but I doubt that it is truly unique; it seems to me that many Focusing practitioners emphasize what is mostly the same thing as metaprocessing (but the Focusing theorists use different language). Also note these relevant sentences from Iwakabe & Conceição's last paragraph:

The two authors who conducted the qualitative analysis had somewhat similar expectations and biases, since they were both interested in emotional change processes in AEDP. Although our knowledge of AEDP sensitized us to the subtlety of the emotional exchanges between the therapist and her clients, the credibility check in future studies may also employ researchers with different theoretical orientations who may be in a better position to uncover biases and expectations that the affiliation and knowledge of a particular theory may unwittingly and paradoxically generate.

AEDP's language is unique, but many of the psychotherapies use their own unique language, so using unique language is paradoxically not a uniquely differentiating factor. Plus, such claims of uniqueness are probably one of the reasons why another editor tagged this article with Template:Advert. Flashy uniqueness claims sound too much like marketing.

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) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biogeographist, Wow! Thank you for very precise suggestions. And, I also appreciate your feedback on "unique" and languaging. I will follow all your suggestions. I appreciate your help in making this article a good contribution to wikipedia. Carrieruggieri (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biogeographist, I cannot figure out how to remove the table without losing the text. And I cannot copy/paste the text out of the table. Can you please advise? thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri: I have changed the table to body text, but the text still needs to be simplified. I also removed some redundant passages (for example, there were statements in the section on "Emotion" that had already been said in the "Overview"). Biogeographist (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

I've added Template:Page numbers improve to the article because more and/or more precise page numbers are needed. Adding Template:Rp (with the relevant page numbers, for example: {{rp|123–124}}) next to repeated references (for example, all references to Fosha's major book should have precise page number ranges) would probably be a good way to remedy this, given the article's existing use of footnotes. Biogeographist (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformance Journal

I've removed the reference to Transformance Journal, which appears to be an internal publication of the AEDP Institute. The publication does not have an ISSN as academic journals do; it is not available in libraries according to WorldCat; it is not indexed in Google Scholar (which is setting the bar low, since Google Scholar is not very selective) nor is it indexed in PsycINFO. See, for example, WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." For these reasons, Transformance Journal does not appear to be an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-therapeutic processing

Biogeographist, I don't know how to start a new section, I had to delete this sentence you created: "Meta-therapeutic processing, which psychiatrist and psychoanalyst James Grotstein recognized as a technical innovation by Diana Fosha, was later incorporated into focusing-oriented therapy, a method of psychotherapy originally developed by Eugene Gendlin, whose ideas also influenced Fosha's development of AEDP" because it is not the case that meta-therpautic processing was incorporated into Focusing, though I see the similarity. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, I put that sentence back in the draft: if you were referencing Ann Weiser Cornell, then what you write is correct. Thank you. Great finding. Carrie Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri: You can create a new section at the end of this page by clicking on the "New section" tab at the top of the page. I restored the reference about meta-therapeutic processing in Focusing. Read it and you will see that the claim is correct. I also consolidated (for lack of a better word) a couple of duplicate references using Template:Rp. There may be other references that remain to be consolidated in this way, but I have not thoroughly reviewed the references. Biogeographist (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist, great reference - thank you!Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I followed the new link from the afc editor to an old message. I think I can ping you by using @. Here is a try: @biogeographist Carrieruggieri (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

@DGG: In September 2017 you nominated this article for deletion with the summary: "This is a textbook chapter, written from the POV of a supporter of the movement. I am unable to edit this into an encycopedia article, but I will withdraw the afd if someone can manage to do it. I hope that will be possible, for there are sufficient references that the topic should be covered." I did not edit this article prior to the AfD discussion, but I have tried to help revise the article since then, and I wanted to ask if, in your opinion, the article is getting closer to a state that could eventually be acceptable for mainspace. This is the older version that you nominated for deletion, which you could compare to the current version. Thanks for any feedback you can give. Your response may help me decide whether to continue working on this article or not. Anyone else is welcome to comment as well, of course. Biogeographist (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

let me start with some general comments and questions.

1(Critiques) "As to the issue of a lack of critique: There are not any written critiques that I could find" is an indication that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable for coverage in an encyclopedia. If the only material in relation to a subject is advocating it, then the article will inevitably be promotional. (I am aware that the literature of psychologically-based therapy consists in considerable part of publications advocating one particular method without even mentioning the possibility that other methods might exist. but no such publication will really meet the standard of MEDRS.)

2(NPOV) "Again, how can it not be from a neutral point of view if every sentence is referenced and the writing was structured around all the references I could find -- that are NOT primary". When writing a NPOV article, one selects sources in a balanced manner. References to positive sources only -- no matter how many references there are -- is not NPOV.

3In terms of fixing the article, the most important need--besides the addition of true nPOV sources -- is to shorten the article to a reasonable length, perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 the present size. The other key needs are to give any available information about therapeutic success, and some indication of the number of practitioners.

4 The nature of the discussion here, and the nature of the article, leads to a very obvious question: Carrieruggieri, what is your connection with the program? If it is just as a practitioner, you have a direct COI,and it needs to be mentioned. If it as a pr agent for the inventor, or any other direct financial capacity, it needs fuller disclosure. See WP:COI for the rules. I do not want to work on it further until this is clarified. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I don't disagree with any of your points. Your first point is the most important issue for me, and I guess I will stop trying to work on this article due to that first point alone. Perhaps in a few years there will be enough independent third-party critique of AEDP to reconsider this article. Biogeographist (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and @Biogeopraphist: I wrote the original version of the article. And the responses to the issues noted (1-4) are my responses in quotes. Biogeogrpahist, you stated that you will stop working on the article to due issue 1. The lack of critique. The lack of notable critique is not due to the subject matter of the article, AEDP, but is due to the nature of the overall field of contemporary psychotherapy. There are articles published in wikipedia on contemporay psychotherapies. I have read them all and I have read their critiques. I suppose any critique that applies to any of these psychotherapies also applies to AEDP. Contemporary psychotherapies are built upon substantive critiques of long established psychotherapies such as cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. The critiques are based upon advances in psychotherapy research. And the methods of contemporary psychotherapies are increasingly grounded in the research. If we were to wait for contemporary psychotherapies become challenged by new research findings or new technologies, we'd be waiting very many years. It was easier to critique psychotherapies when the methodology was more deeply grounded in theory as opposed to research and neuroscience. So, I think maybe someone who is wiser than me can come up with a way to address this problem. We could talk about phenomena described by AEDP that is observed but not yet verified by research, or is still an open-ended discussion about what it is or what it means. However, this is not exactly a critique. Or maybe it is. At the same time there is the requirement to not be too technical or too textbookish.

But I think if AEDP cannot be on wikipedia due to lack of critique, then emotion focused therapy and attachment based psychotherapy, compassion focused therapy, along with a some others must also be deleted. I think the critiques section in emotion focused therapy is about psychotherapy in general, so it is not exactly a critique of emotion focused therapy. And the statement that Ecker critiques eft for stating that the change factor in eft is emotion, is bending the perspective in order to create a critique section. Ecker knows and eft knows, that there are many change factors.

But, I will create a critique section if it is required. Again, compare this article to other's published. AEDP is more rigorous in its grounding of theory in research. There are more research based references than theoretical references. I think that makes AEDP an exceptionally solid contemporary model of psychotherapy.

2. TheAEDP article is heavily referenced with 3rd party sources. They are not positive or negative sources they are 3rd party sources that verify a claim. I have compared the quality of 3rd party sources in this aedp article with other articles on a psychotherapy, and this AEDP article has many more 3rd party sources.

3. that is easy to do. There is a massive research underway and perhaps some preliminary results. There are also many dissertations. And it is easy to get the number of practitioners.

4. I was told that I only need to say I am a practitioner, which I have said. I was told that I don't need to do anymore than to say that I am a practitioner. I believe that conversation is within this talk page somewhere. I thought that issue was settled a long time ago. I am not an agent, I am not an employee, I hold no official capacity. I am not writing this article for financial gain. I have not been offered money etc... I began to write this article years ago to challenge myself. And writing is my way to best understand a topic. I think AEDP is very rich and complex so to write a coherent and comprehensive article about it for wikipedia would force me to really learn this topic. That is why i took this on. Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrieruggieri: I agree that a lot of the other articles on brand-name psychotherapies could be deleted for various reasons. There is a certain randomness to the AFD process: articles go to AFD when someone notices that there's a qualifying problem with an article and takes time to go through the AFD procedure. I don't agree with you that Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) should be deleted, though; there are plenty of independent secondary sources that cover EFT, and your comment about Ecker's criticism doesn't make any sense at all, since Ecker is clearly responding to an EFT theorist on an aspect of EFT theory. I like AEDP but I'm not willing to spend more time working on this article if it is just going to be deleted again. I will contribute again if there is someone besides me and you working on this and if it looks like the issues that DGG mentioned are being addressed. Also, I guess I don't agree with DGG's comment about the article's length—I think the length is approximately right (except for the "Map of the change process" section, which I've already said I think is too long). I don't see how the article could be cut in half while retaining necessary differentiating information, but if someone can manage to do it I will be impressed. Biogeographist (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and @sulferboy: dear DGG and sulferboy, I have overhauled the article and addressed the issues that you each identified as problematic. 1. I updated to include references(2cd and 3rd party) since the original article was written in 2016. I have included every reference on AEDP (2CD AND 3RD party) I could find through google scholar. There are original references because if someone wanted to validate the accuracy of my statements the reference is available. I included a research reference section but I think that is not going to be acceptable - just in case, I thought it would be useful for a student who is interested in AEDP but I have no objection to deleting it. 2. I added the critique section that was requested. I did not have references for critiques in 2016 but they have now popped up. There are more but I don't think they add value to the article because they are versions of the same critiques. I could add the critiques that apply to psychotherapy issues in general. I will do that if you want, but I don't think it will add anything of interest to someone who is curious about what AEDP is. 3. I went through and re-wrote anything that sounded technical or jargon-ish. I italicized the necessary technical words but I hope explained them. I tried to write the article so that general simplified sentence is followed by a more in-depth description - I tried to think about how to layer it so that it could be understandable to anyone and also of informative to professionals. So every sentenced I asked if there was an extraneous word, and if it added something important. Therefore, I think that is the reason for the criticism I can't seem to overcome, which is that it is written like a personal essay. 4. The thing about neutral point of view: it is neutral because there is nothing that indicates that I am promoting this form therapy over other forms of therapy. I wrote it for people who, like me, when they want to learn more about a topic they go to wikipedia. There is no other way to learn about a topic in an in-depth way that is readable. I looked at all the other psychotherapy articles and I notice that wikipedia reviewers tend to give this criticism in general to psychotherapy articles. The one article that is does not have this problem with reviewers is EMDR, but I thought that article's emphasis was on the problems with EMDR and did not help a reader understand what EMDR is and how it works. 5.Conflict of interest issue: When I started writing this article in the sandbox in 2014 I was a psychotherapist who had taken some workshops in AEDP. I wanted to challenge myself to write an article for wikipedia because 1. I noticed there wasn't one and 2. I thought it would be a good challenge for me to really learn AEDP - I was curious about the origins of these ideas etc. Now it is 6 years later. I have no official capacity within the institute: I am not yet certified though I am on the track to be and I am years away from being a supervisor. I was never asked to write an article for AEDP on wikipedia. Recently I was asked to be the associate editor for the AEDP journal because for many years I have been writing summaries of the articles for the AEDP listserv. I am one of aedp listserv monitors. Outside of these volunteer roles, I do not gain from the promotion of AEDP. I do not earn money as a supervisor. As a therapist, people do not seek me out because I am an AEDP therapist. 6. Length of article: you felt it was too long. Biogeographist felt it was appropriate given the topic. It is comparable in length to other psychotherapy articles. Also, a quest for the basic information about what AEDP is can gotten from the overview. Each level of reading on is designed to elaborate on the previous or prepare for what comes next. So someone doesn't have to read the whole article if they simply want to know what AEDP is. If someone want to really know from a professional point of view they can read on. But for the full picture everything that is there is necessary. There was a lot I did not include because it would be in the weeds for most people.

I would welcome any advice on how to make the article more encyclopedic. Thank you. Carrieruggieri (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how do I submit this for review?

I have made extensive revision, and added critique section. I think I addressed the problems noted when the article was withdrawn. I'd like to re-submit, but I forgot how. Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrieruggieri,

Done. I've posted it in the question you asked at the Teahouse, but you will want to use {{subst:AFC draft}} to add the button. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion for 2020 revision of 2017 deleted article.

Hi Biogeographist, I read your comment in the talk section of Diana fosha article. you advised me to continue here.

This article is almost completely re-written. I have been working on it everyday for many hours a day since mid-march. There are many new references and I did a lot more cleaning out of technical language. There is also the critique section that had been required but I could not find references for at the time.

How do I address conflict of interest? Is that a formal process (a form to fill out?), or do I just explain my relationship to AEDP in the talk section?

Your help is very much appreciated! Carrieruggieri (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall commenting on the talk page of the Diana Fosha article, and there's no evidence that I commented there, so you must be thinking of something else.

I noticed that you were working on this article recently. A couple of weeks ago or so I looked at some of the edits you were making and I was dismayed by them, as they seemed to be undoing some of the changes that I had made to try to achieve a more neutral point of view. I agree with Sulfurboy's assessment that the article is not much closer to being ready than it was a couple of years ago, though the Criticism section is a welcome addition.

You have likely explained your relationship to AEDP well enough above.

You could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology asking if someone would review and revise this article, and someone may respond. Use {{Reply to}} to ping other editors. I hope you have enjoyed editing and have learned from doing the research. Biogeographist (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biogeographist, I just re-read this comment. I'm sorry, I did not realize that I un-did some of your edits. I'll go back and see what version there was before I did another round of edits and re-incorporate them. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 version made corrections request by afc denial

Anyone in WP PSYCH around to have a look at this article? Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To leave a message for them, click on this link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology and then click on "New section" at the top of that page, give the section a relevant heading, write your request, and include a link to Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. Biogeographist (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question about original research

this article has been rejected twice based on the No original research criteria. I thought original research meant writing based on the articles or research from a primary source. However, I look it up on the wikipedia info page and it states that original research issue is asking editors to not synthesize material, which could imply the editor's personal opinion.

So, I have taken out as much of the primary references as is sensible. and wrote from 2cd and 3rd party sources. I have not synthesized or summarized without basing it on a reference. If someone could highlight sections where it seems it is my synthesis, that could be helpful. Thanks Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of COI

FYI

– Heading was refactored. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student of this model of psychotherapy. I am not certified and I am not a supervisor, therefore I do not receive any financial benefit from my involvement in the AEDP Institute. When I began writing the article in 2016 I did not have a role in the Institute. As of April 2019 I am an associate editor of the institute's journal. I am also a listserv moderator. I am a writer and a psychotherapist. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from draft to mainspace

I moved this page from draft to mainspace obeying this request in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- {{RMassist/core | 1 = Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy | 2 = Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy | discuss = yes | reason = This article was accepted at WP:AFC in August 2016, moved back to draft in October 2017 for further work after a deletion discussion, declined twice this year at AFC, and recently accepted for creation by three editors: me and Megaman en m and Timtrent, in a discussion at WT:PSYCHOLOGY and after further revision of the article. The article should be moved back to mainspace and the AFC front matter removed (everything before the lead). Note that the stated reason for the recent second rejection in the AFC template is incorrect (as admitted by the reviewer in the discussion at WT:PSYCHOLOGY), since notability of the topic has always been established. | sig = Biogeographist (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC) | requester = Biogeographist}}[reply]
Note that the discussion that led to the article's move back out of draft can be read here: Special:Permalink/969217867 § could someone within PSYCH take over the draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. Biogeographist (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language

This article needs to be rewritten to remove the promotional language. Encyclopedias aren't intended to promote a product or service. Polygnotus (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching my error and deleting "empirically validated." I should have written "empirically supported." Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel_word The geocentric model and Flat earth are empirically supported. But they aren't true. Polygnotus (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 AEDP book published by the American Psychological Association (APA) repeatedly uses the term "empirically supported". In psychology anyway,"empirically supported" is not confused with "empirically validated." And "validated" doesn't mean true. Although I understand that readers may interpret "validated" or even "supported" as "true". Would it be ok to say: "AEDP is a model of therapy that is supported by ongoing research" then citing the research? Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since AEDP is a very recently developed form of therapy, and there isn't much research supporting (or debunking) it at the moment (and none of what is available is what I would consider "high quality" research) we'd best avoid giving the impression that it is "supported" (or "debunked") by research or science. When better research with a much larger sample size gets published by an independent source that has nothing to gain from AEDPs success financially and it indicates that AEDP is awesome, we can change the article to reflect that. Polygnotus (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you are coming from. Is there anything else that appears weasel-like? I would like to correct the reasons for the template. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No article on Wikipedia is perfect (for example a lot of them should be updated because stuff keeps happening... everywhere and all the time). This is to be expected when writing an encyclopedia. The trick is to not worry too much about it, someone will probably come along and improve it. David Goodman (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:DGG) placed the weasel template. See https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Accelerated_experiential_dynamic_psychotherapy&type=revision&diff=1116329777&oldid=1116321816 Polygnotus (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The offending statement has been removed. The article was already corrected for problems noted in the tag. The same tag was removed a year ago and the only change in the article was the attempt to update it with the research finding. Can only editor who placed the tag undo it? Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]