Talk:List of psychotherapies

Legitimacy of entries
What is the point of this list, since some of them are legitimate and some are not? Anyone could add their own idiosyncratic therapy to this list. Mattisse(talk) 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a need for the list. If therapies are not legitimate or of wide enough interest to be of use in Wikipedia then the list or the articles it links to can be edited. --Vince 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Illegitimate" therapies should also be listed since this is an encyclopaedia of all knowledge and experience. The individual articles would note if they are controversial. Wikipedia already has fairly clear rules on what is Not notable. Lumos3 10:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult problem as some that are listed here are a bit of stretch. However, it is important to note that several therapies that haven't been well researched until recently are beginning to show results as formal research is performed.  For now, probably best to leave them all in there. User:Zutano99 — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, August 4, 2007


 * I absolutely agree. The term "legitimate" in this context is next to useless, as this is a field which in its entirety borders on the current medical-scientific paradigm. Who could be the objective certifying body for a field such as this? Several modalities are constantly in development integrating knowledge and perspectives from diverging disciplines as well as clinical experience. The best we can do is to try and describe each, their path of development, and of course existing criticism where such is available. __meco 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Radical changes
User:Bss5548 are making a lot of radical changes to the list. I'd like to see some explanation on these edits. __meco 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the deletions . Many had been replaced by external links . I have made these Red Wikipedia links so that they can be identified as possible candiodates for articles.  Lumos3 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To User:Bss5548 Please dont put external links within the article. If there is missing content on Wikipedia leave a red link and then populate the article it points to with a stub which might contain that link as a reference or in its External links section. See External links Thanks . Lumos3 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New additions
I corrected the link to Child psychotherapy as there is such an article although it could be described as 'work in progress'. There is also a new article called attachment-based psychotherapy. Is it OK to add unvalidated, discredited and/or non-mainstream therapies if there are articles on them? Fainites barley 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Adverts?
MOST OF THESE PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC MODALITIES OFFER CERTIFICATIONS ON THEIR SITES. ADVERTS?
 * The preceding comment was left on the article page by JamesClifton, so I moved it here. - Do c  t  orW  04:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Giant Poster-Sized Schools of Therapy Diagram
Is there a Giant Poster Chart and diagram showing visually and how all these schools are interrelated? This would be very useful. I would pay $20 for a poster with 100 schools of therapy and their links. There are smaller charts of course all over showing the contrasts between say DBT and CBT and REBT etc.

Can anybody make one, I don't mean an amateur but a Professor Emeritus of Psychology...

I know such a chart would have a subjective nature and there might be a variety of approaches but any would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.207.224 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote and alphabetical versus categorical structure
There is currently a single explanatory footnote with a long list of references, probably added by. The large number of references seems excessive here. Just choose the best one (e.g., a review article). I will remove them all if someone else does not fix this.

Also, I am not convinced that 's decision to change the list's structure from alphabetical to categorical is, on balance, an improvement. I found it helpful to have an alphabetical index of all the articles on psychotherapies; that was not available anywhere else, whereas a categorization of psychotherapies is available elsewhere: in the main Psychotherapy article and in subcategories of Category:Psychotherapy. Now there is no alphabetical index of psychotherapy articles, and I see that as a loss. I think it would be better to handle the categorization of psychotherapies in the main Psychotherapy article (where the categories can be more fully explained) and in Category:Psychotherapy. I think it's a good idea to indicate which items are discredited/pseudoscience, but that could be done in an alphabetical listing by adding a special named note tag to each relevant item. Biogeographist (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, no issues with trimming the citations. They were just the ones used on the NLP article.For the second issue - without additional information being added into the article, what you're describing is closer to an index rather than a list article. Perhaps we could instead add the "category"-type information in as annotations? Also, definitely happy with your proposed approach for pseudoscientific entries. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think adding categories as note tags could work. Then multiple categories could be added to a single item, and the categories would be easier to dispute without restructuring the list. If an item is labeled as pseudoscientific or broadly discredited then there should also be a footnote with a supporting citation. I don't think there should be a separate category for "CBT" since CBT is so diverse and there is already a separate list of cognitive–behavioral therapies. The way this would work is that items would tagged with one of the following ref tags      and something like the following code would go at the bottom of the list: