Talk:Emotional baggage

Emotional baggage is an ultra-generic concept but this article treats it as though it has some sort of specificity it does not. The examples in sections like 'men','childhood', and 'marriage' ought to be mentioned as possible examples, the way the are presented now seems to be portraying universals or facts. The references for the article seem valid but they are from books on divorce, psychoanalytical works I propose the first sentence out to be something like "Emotional baggage is an everday expression that has correlation with many varied but similar concepts within social sciences, self help movements, and other fields. It's general meaning is unresolved issues of an emotional nature often with an implication that the emotional baggage is detrimental." Anyways I believe this article could use some reshaping.Tjc (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have taken a lead from the above in redoing the article Jacobisq (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since almost the entirety of psychotherapy (a very broad concept) pertains to "emotional baggage", how were two specific issues of psychoanalysis (transference and countertransference ) singled out for this article? Entire libraries are devoted to how psychotherapy attempts to deal with emotional baggage. What makes transference and countertransference stand out among the rest? For that matter, how were the specific examples within "Adult life" and "Childhood" selected as being more relevant to "emotional baggage" than many other human experiences? As I said in the PROD, the article defines "emotional baggage" (but Wikipedia is not a dictionary), then there is a very subjective selection of examples to illustrate the concept. Jacobisq, I think you did a good job in how you described these examples, but in the end I think we still just have a definition followed by a few examples. But before I decide to start an AfD I'm certainly willing to listen to others. Cresix (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see a case for further improving the page more easily than one for deleting it. The examples are not meant to be exhaustive, but to be broadly representative of the main themes the sources seem to turn up - relationships, marriage, parenting childhood, therapy. Other editors with others sources will hopefully input more stuff over time - isn't that how WikiP grows? Jacobisq (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a substantive concept, even if it is an everyday expression - far more substantive than the relative fluff of girly girl for example.--Penbat (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for "girly girl", you can always find something worse than any article, but crap in one place on Wikipedia is not a basis for comparison. Remove the existing crap, but don't use it as a rationale for the existence of another article. As for examples that are "broadly representative", by whose standards? How did you decide that the particular examples are broadly representative? Because there are probably about a thousand other possibilities that are "broadly representative". When all you have is simply a definition followed by a few examples, expanding the examples just on the basis of one or two editors' perspectives still results in a definition followed by a few examples. I don't mean to belabor this concept, but it seems to be arriving on deaf ears: Wikipedia is not a dictionary; and this article is little more than a definition followed by a few POV-selected examples. Cresix (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)