Talk:Eastern Orthodox psychotherapy

Better source tag
Why is a better source needed? An official Orthodox Christian publication isn't enough to say what the Orthodox believe in? How else can you prove a term is Christian Orthodox?! It's madness!!2.216.16.104 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because if this is some sort of official Orthodox term, it would be reflected in some source better than a diocese newsletter. If it is, one would expect coverage of that fact in a reliable third party source, or at the very least an official Orthodox Church publication, not just a newsletter from one local diocese. Informal newsletters are rarely sufficient. Remember, we are not ”proving” anything here on WP. That would be original research. We need sources that allow us to verify things that have already been covered in reliable sources (WP:V). Novaseminary (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "official term" in Orthodox Christianity. It is not like the Latin Church. They don't have an "Official Catechism" If a lot of people use it than (more so if they are Bishops and priests..) it is an orthodox term. That is that. It is official enough because the article is written by the Metropolitan, not just by anyone.I am sure you haven't read anything from the sources here, yet you keep making assumptions Romanity1 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Further more the term is mentioned in two other sources (third party ones) one of them you put yourself. So, either you are not even reading your own sources...or...? Vandalizing a bit maybe? Please stop. I would also like to thank you for some of the addittions you made here because I find them interesting. Are you in any Catholic apologetic team or seminary my friend? Just asking because of your username Romanity1 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So then no, the term is not ”a term of the Orthodox Church.” That sentence needs to go or be clarified. And all of the sources I added I found on google books or google scholar (and made sure they were from reputable publishers). Rather than battling over tags, if you added similar good sources that are easy to verify (instead of obscure local newsletters), I would remove the tag happily. I knew nothing about this subject until coming to the article (and still didn't have a real read the old version). But personal knowledge is not what WP is built on. Please read WP:V & WP:RS. Novaseminary (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The newsletter was published officially by the Orthodox Church in America, and the article is from an Orthodox Bishop. It might be "obscure" to you, but not for the Orthodox, and what we want to establish is that the term is Orthodox (i.e. is used by the Orthodox). If you actually told me before that you just didin't how it is worded than we could have agreed, without polemics. I really don't care if you say that it is an Orthodox Term, or a term used in the Orthodox Church. It's the same thing. But making so many changes without giving anyone some breath of air or explaining is considered "polemical" where I come from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_editor_feedback#Sad:_Contribution_reverted Hopefully you were just overzealous. We can continue adding to this, and as a sign of Good faith I will post here the changes for you to see before adding them, O.K.?

First I want to put this sentence in, with this reference. Please tell me if it is O.k.:

--- "According to Dr. Andrew (Zoran) Vujisić,Bishop elect for Latin America and the Caribbean, prime goal of Orthodox pshychotherapy, is to solve problems of ontological origin> Its basis is existential experience, which makes it phenomenological in nature." , ---

Feel free to comment what needs changing. Thank you for your time.Romanity1 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will wait at least 24 hours before transferring this to the article, so you may have time to examine it. Thanks, again, for your valuable contribution.Romanity1 (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how useful this sentence is to an average reader who is educated but not versed in this sort of language (WP:JARGON). Dissertations (as this appears to be) can be useful, but of course, they are trying to prove or support a hypothesis. So for background and the like they may be fine, but unless somebody else covers the conclusions and assertions in reliable third-party sources, you run the risk of giving a particular viewpoint or take on an issue too much weight (WP:UNDUE). We need to follow WP:NPOV. For that reason, especially until an article has a lot of third-party secondary sources, this sort of thing is less helpful. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source). So the sentence you want to add might be ideal for a news or magazine article (secondary source). And then referencing that secondary source would be fine here. I would focus less on adding academic or theological articles from proponents and practicioners of this idea than from sources more affiliated with the idea itself. As an analogy, we don't want to rely too much on a person's own take of their life; rather, we favor biographys, news articles, etc., written by others. It is the same thing with more abstract ideas. I've added another source. I would consider using some of the sources I have added to expand the article. Novaseminary (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)