Talk:Emotional reasoning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessie0131.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mamaluke78. Peer reviewers: Taylorherr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing
Hey everybody, I just wanted to let you all know that I will be editing this page as part of a class assignment. I am a novice when it comes to editing on Wikipedia, but I will do my best to make my contribution presentable. Constructive criticism is appreciated, but please do not delete sentences, phrases, etc that you do not agree with. I would much rather you come to me and explain why you feel I should change or remove something. By the way, I am not saying that other contributors here actually do just delete other people's work, but I just wanted to put that out there as a a general reminder if such situation came up. Anyways, hope this comment isn't too long and I look forward to your feedback! --SDarsi (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Check List: Answers by Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 1. The title is short and simple. It doesn’t look like an essay, or ask a question. This is True. 2. The first sentence is direct and useful; it clearly defines the subject, with the topic of the article in bold. This is true. 3. The lead section is a clear summary, not an introduction or argument. A reader could stop at the end of the lead and have a good overview of the most important aspects of the topic. The lead section is not clear. It needs to be explained better. The reader would not get a good overview. Emotional reasoning could be based on a phobia, an event, etc. It should be explained better. 5. It doesn’t contain excessive quotations, or copy any sources (even if you’ve given them credit). Does not give credit always. 6. The writing is clear to a non-expert; you’ve explained acronyms and jargon in simple English the first time you use them. No the writing is not clear to the non-expert. 7. It lets readers decide for themselves, without any persuasive language that aims to sway a reader to a conclusion. It isn't written well enough to allow understanding. 8. You've proof-read it all the way through. Grammar and spelling are correct, sentences are complete sentences, and there is no first-person (“I/we”) or second-person (“you”) writing. Use of first person "I" in lead section. "I know my spouse is unfaithful because I feel jealous." 9. The formatting is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, without too many headings. Bulleted lists are used sparingly or not at all. 10. Every claim is cited to a reliable source — like a textbook or academic journal — and it doesn't cite any blog posts. No, it doesn't. 11. The text includes links to other Wikipedia articles the first time each relevant topic is mentioned. I do not see where it does. 12. At least one related Wikipedia article links back to this one. No. 13. You've thanked people who helped you. Check your User Talk page, and the Talk page of your article. If anyone offered help or feedback, say thanks! Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Self fulfilling prophecy
I do not believe the example of self fulfilling prophecy in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction is a correct example of emotional reasoning or cognitive distortion. I think its more of a cognitive bias, though im sure there is a lot of overlap. Perhaps someone could provide a better example? --Amarg9494 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert of copy edit
Hi, I noticed that you made a partial manual revert of my copy edit with the summary "revert to more reliable version". Reliability is generally used in regard to sources, and I didn't change any of the sources or citations in the article. Per my edit summary, my edits were primarily for "clarity, consistency, tone". I changed the phrasing to what I felt better served an encyclopedic article, but I don't remember changing the meaning of anything. While there was certainly room for improvement, and I feel that you may have done a bit there, by reverting you also re-introduced some MOS issues and awkward phrasing. Also, your revert removed an inline cleanup tag without discussing or dealing with the issue, which is a minor breach of policy. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding or if you have any other reasons for reverting my copy edit. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for messaging me. In the past week, many articles have been subjected to well-intentioned rewording by a sudden inrush of new editors who do not really know what they are doing. Though your edits had reverted some of the problems created by their inept editing, I thought that the best thing to do was to restore a version before the problem edits.


 * What I have done now is to manually restore those of your edits that applied as much to the good version as the problem version - i.e. edits that I could see that you would have made if the problem edits had not been there. If there are other parts of your edits that you wish to restore, I have no objection. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. We've probably had an influx of new editors with time on their hands.  The Guild of Copy Editors noticed some "enthusiastic newcomers" who may not have the best gasp of the language or encyclopedic writing.  Thanks for going over it again.  I took one more pass at the article and made some changes for conciseness and clarity, encyclopedic tone (going a little more formal than "mix up" and "do"), and MOS minutia (not repeating the subject in section headers, list formatting, MOS:CURLY).  I removed the copy edit tag, as I feel it's about as good as can be expected until more citations are added to deal with the verifiability issues. I'm least certain about the schema material, but I hope it's decent. Feel free to tweak it around a bit more. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)