User talk:Mckenzie.galster

Welcome!
Hello, Mckenzie.galster, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys,

So I reviewed chapter 5 and looked up structuralism on wikipedia. It came up with an article with this banner

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (July 2014)

So I think this is something we could possibly go with

Weston.clark (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We need 2 possible topics. another good one is the American Board of Professional Psychology...its pretty lacking in information.

We need to decided which is our top choice and which is a backup if we go with these two.

Any suggestions on other topics?

Weston.clark (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I also think Marcia K. Johnson would be an interesting topic

Weston.clark (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the American Board of Professional Psychology, there are no sources included. Leading to information that is not credible on the minimal information that is on the page. As for Marcia K. Johnson, there is minimal information, but definitely something to get us started. As well as, she is more recent in 'history', therefore there should be plenty of information to find that is still relatable to multiple studies and research information being used today.

I'd say Marcia first, back up ABPP. IsabelleVivian (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the structuralism and ABPP pages, as well as Arnold Lazarus. He would be interesting to research and the article is lacking in almost every area. Bottom line I think we should include one of the people and either structuralism or ABPP as our choices. Mckenzie.galster (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So right now its either Marcia or Arnold as first choice and then Sturcturalism and ABPP for second choice.

I'd be ok with either of the people. Arnold because he is the most lacking, but Marcia is more recent so she may be easier to find info on. My vote is Arnold.

As far as the backup, I vote ABPP.

Weston.clark (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Lazarus then ABPP is my vote

Mckenzie.galster (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lazarus, maybe bias going into behavioral psychology myself. He also is lacking more information. As for a back up, I think ABPP is important to be knowledgeable about, for us and the world of Wiki!

So Lazarus, then ABPP sounds great to me! IsabelleVivian (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The A. Lazarus one looks like a good first choice to me as we have a recommended structure to follow in the handout on writing wikis on Psychologists, not to mention he seems pretty interesting. I would definitely choose not to do the ABPP as it seems like it wouldn't be a lot of fun doing research on a professional entity. So I would choose Structuralism as the back up. It looks like we have a consensus for Lazarus as our first choice though. Franklin.berg (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that structuralism does sound a little more interesting than ABPP, but it seems like ABPP would be more beneficial to wikipedia users. It's a toss up but my vote is for structuralism as the back up since it would be more fun. Mckenzie.galster (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am good to do Structuralism as a back up IsabelleVivian (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on your article choices
I think that Arnold Lazarus is an excellent choice. He is an important figure, and had a long career with much recognition. When people get awards, there are often articles about them in journals and newsletters. Also, since Lazarus passed away in 2013, there will be obituaries, also a great source of info.
 * Regarding structuralism, note that the warning banner is dated 2014, and the history indicates that there has been a lot of work on the article since then. It may well be that the banner is no longer relevant. J.R. Council (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Assignment #4
Hello!

Looking at the Arnold Lazarus Wiki page, there are a lot of issues as we discussed earlier.

1. All of the Citations are in red, as unsuitable and wrong. So this is a major issue because the information could be invalid. to start with. There is no conversation on the Talk page and history is ver minimal. We really need to add some subtitles and quality information on background, career and significance in the psychology field, and any other information we find.

2. I have found some resources that we could possibly use for this

Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration (Second Edition) is a book that Arnold had participation writing in. He wrote Chapter 5 about his Multimodal Therapy. I also found an Obituary from a Newspaper, that is also placed online

Arnold A. Lazarus Obituary. (13, October 9). Topic Towns- Princetion's Weekly Community Newspaper. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.towntopics.com/wordpress/2013/10/09/obituaries-10-9-13/

Norcross, J. C., & Goldfried, M. R. (2005). Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration. New York: Oxford University Press.

I really hope these work!

3. Due to his more recent death, when researching him it was a lot of his publications. So where would you recommend finding background information? He has a good amount of publications, how many should we include or what is the determining factor of the publications importance?

IsabelleVivian (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1. I agree with Isabelle; the references aren't very reliable for the little information the original author(s) provided. My main issue with what is already provided is the lack of specific information. The page is full of very generalized statements about accomplishments, but no specific details are given

2. The library has a book written by Lazarus that focuses on personal enrichment via imagery. I think it would be a good place to find information regarding his contributions to behavior therapy. The second citation is an article I found regarding Lazarus's use of emotive imagery in treating phobias in children

Lazarus, A. A. (1977). In the mind's eye : The power of imagery for personal enrichment. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.

Lazarus, A. A., & Abramovitz, A. (n.d.). The use of “Emotive Imagery” In the Treatment of Children's Phobias. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 108(453), 191-195. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/108/453/191.short

3. Dr. Council,  the article is lacking in a lot of specific details. Is there a limit to how detailed we should be when listing accomplishments of Lazarus? Also, what happens if the red citations that Isabelle pointed out are invalid? Do we just rewrite the entire article?

Weston.clark (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

assignment 4
Isabelle and Weston I copied and pasted your assignment to my sandbox talk page since that's where the assignment description said he wanted it. I'm not sure why. That's where mine is too and Franklin you should put yours there as well.

Thanks!! Mckenzie.galster (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)