Talk:Taibi Kahler

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement because the individual's work has national implications for the USA —it has been used by NASA and former President Clinton— and Process Communication Model is in current use on five continents. aeon-lakes 05:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality; primary sourcing
I realize the article is in the process of being expanded, so this challenge to neutrality is directed toward future editors. Much of the description of Kahler's identity and achievements comes from Kahler himself; see WP:UGC. This heavy reliance on primary sources needs to be augmented substantially with non-biased secondary and tertiary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS. Secondly, if Kahler is notable in the scientific community, there needs to be evidence from the scientific community (especially review articles or other widely accepted scientific publications) in addition to comments from famous but non-scientific figures such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Sundayclose (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence of his primary publications, review articles and discussion thereof are available in the peer reviewed Transactional Analysis Journal. Which is behind the SAGE paywall and so not available to all. I could add links, but only viewers with a personal or academic SAGE subscription would be able to see them. Given that this individual is notable enough to be listed as of interest by two wiki projects (Biography and Psychology) then I suggest that we take what we can get for now. Assistance with finding sources that can replace the primary sources is more helpful than criticising what there is. aeon-lakes 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please indent your comments with colons.Sources do not have to be linked to websites. That's no excuse for inadequate sourcing or use of mostly primary sources. If secondary/tertiary sources confirm information in the article and his notability, cite them. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. Until we see those citations, this article is poorly sourced and subject to having major parts of it challenged and removed. Wikipedia cannot source itself (see WP:CIRCULAR); thus notability by being named in wikiprojects provides no evidence of notability. As for "Assistance with finding sources that can replace the primary sources is more helpful than criticising what there is": No, you're thinking is wrong there. The article is poorly sourced. Pointing out that problem is a MAJOR part of improving Wikipedia. Look at articles besides one or two; the sourcing and neutrality templates were created for a reason and are used widely to improve articles. The responsibility for providing sources is on those who wish to write or restore the information. See WP:BURDEN. Some of us have interests broader than one or two articles. Sundayclose (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am aware that this article is of poor quality, relatively obscure and cites sources that don't come up to wikipedia standards. If it was good or major or I was expecting any interest from other editors I wouldn't have picked it for a first edit project. It was that way when I found it — I was aware of all those points before you pointed them out. If your interests are so broad, you could go and "help" someone else now? There are over 4 million other articles to choose from. Or if you actually want to be helpful to a newbie, then confine yourself to this Talk page on this topic, rather than editing it —and mentor me. If I make an error, then use this page to offer advice and links to reasons why it's wrong so I can fix it myself and actually learn how this place works behind the scenes. aeon-lakes 21:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind helping any new editor. But I will not "confine myself to this Talk page on this topic", which is an absurd request. I am trying to improve Wikipedia, especially in areas of my expertise. That is not confined to one talk page. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have if I can, but that doesn't mean I will sit back if you run roughshod over Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in the process make articles worse rather than better (unintentional though that may be). I understand that you or any new editor may be a little fuzzy when it comes to policies, but if the policies are pointed out and linked, click the link and read them. That's the only way any editor can learn. I do expect any editor, new or otherwise, to not assume expertise in a subject matter if it doesn't exist; competence is required to edit regardless of how lofty the editor's intentions might be. Any editor, myself included, who wishes to edit must accept the fact that all contributions can and will be mercilessly edited if it improves the article. I also expect editors to not make false accusations about anyone, not just me. Like many new editors, you mistake my comments intended to improve Wikipedia as being directed at you personally. Now, if you have questions, feel free to ask me or any editor. If I can help, I will. By the same token, if I see a problem, I will point it out. Sundayclose (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you confine yourself to this talk page alone. That would indeed be absurd. I am suggesting that if you actually want to be helpful to this new user, that you don't revert my edits on this page —but instead use this talk page to mentor my editing of this page. I doubt many other editors will come along. If you see a problem, point it out and teach me how to fix it, don't reflexively revert it. If you know of a template that can make it better, link to it here and help me use it. If you know of specifically useful formatting guidelines, link to them here, I will use them. I'll find out faster with help and be grateful of the assistance.


 * All of my editing activity to date has focussed on this page and ensuring that the concepts on this page are linked to the other pages which already mentioned them. It is my first editing project and thus far I have found you unhelpful, rules-lawyerly and merely obstructive. If you don't want to abide by the advice Please do not bite the newcomers and help, why not take a step back and leave me to it? This article was a problem long before you followed my edit of Process Communication Model here and that's why I chose to edit it and make it better. aeon-lakes 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're asking me not to revert your bad edits, as if that is helpful to Wikipedia. That's even more absurd than asking me to only comment on one talk page. The "lawyerly" accusation is common, not among new editors, but among editors who have been told about policies but wish to ignore them. You don't "make it better" by adding to the problems. Do the legwork instead of asking others to ignore the problems: read about the policies, find the appropriate sources, conform your edits to those sources, and then edit. If you find me destructive to the project, the appropriate next step is for you to report it on an administrator's board and let others examine my edits. But of course that also would result in everyone examining your edits as well. Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to slow down the discussion and bring the discussion back to the article's content.
 * What I see here is that two editors are both adding helpful text and tags to the article. Furthermore, both editors have raised valid issues in the discussion: Sundayclose is adding tags and other edits that are supportive in that they pin-point what has to be improved, and aeon-lakes is saying that help in the form of advice or tutoring would be more welcome to him/her. I see no reason not to assume good faith on the side of both editors.
 * The article does need improvement. Otherwise it risks to be be proposed for deletion, which could for example lead to a deadline of 7 days for improving the article being imposed. In particular, secondary sources are needed.
 * --Chris Howard (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: There might be some valid secondary sources to be found in this list (link); it would be worth checking that out if someone has time. --Chris Howard (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome, voice of reason. Have a pouring oil on troubled water award, or whatever the equivalent might be round here —and lets talk about improving this page. :-) And thank you also for that link page. Although I'm aware of a number of those listed references from elsewhere, I don't have them all. My reference list as it exists so far is on my Sandbox


 * Would this book, Parlez-vous Personality, be an acceptable secondary reference? It is out of print, but I do have it. Likewise Effective Classroom Management and Communicating Effectively: Tools for Educational Leaders? They are however better sources for information about his model and its application, not about him. And this is a biography page. Primary sources for his authored works are easy — they are on my sandbox. The difficulty is finding adequate secondary sources that corroborate his life, rather than describe his work. Any suggestions gratefully received. aeon-lakes 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice words on an award, thanks! Concerning your last sentences, if biographical details are hard to find, you could start by identifying adequate secondary sources on his work.
 * Concerning your question about the books, what I would do is to try to see whether he is referenced in books that have a well-known author (a good indication would be if there is already a Wikipedia article on the author) or a sound scientific publisher (looking up the WP article on the publisher is a good idea). The specific books you mention seem to relate mostly to coaching, which is a somewhat controversial topic on Wikipedia in itself, so for this topic I would not rely too much on such books, even if I do not want to make a verdict at this point on whether some of the references you indicated could possibly be used as additional references alongside more relevant references. --Chris Howard (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro/lede paragraph
I've removed the line about multiple awards and moved the "genius" reference to the Background. The lede is more neutral in tone that way, I think. Eventually I think the lede para should merely read:

Taibi Kahler Ph.D (1943–present) is a psychologist, author, expert interviewer, presidential communications advisor and developer of the Process Communication Model.

..with the rest of the detail in the body of the article. aeon-lakes (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)