User talk:PsychPHD

Edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Welcome to Wikipedia. You have made repeated changes to this article without explaination. The line you wish to add is duplicative of material already in the article and so does not belong there. However, if you feel strongly about it, the proper procedure would be to begin a section on the article's talk page to see if other editors support your position. DPeterson talk 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you again. You seem to have an interest in ACT, just curious about your interest in this advocacy group?  DPeterson talk 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But three publications in peer-reviewed journals makes my point -- that's probably more than anyone else has done on the subject! And that CV seems dated because it doesn't even list a recent one in Medscape that I've come across. It seems to me that four or more peer-reviewed journal articles definitely makes her a bona fide expert on the matter. Like I said, I wouldn't have bothered pointing it out except for the "they are not licensed" statement, which seems like it's intended to undermine their credibility. If that were taken out, I would say the statement about their publications is not necessary. But if stays in, I think it is important to balance it out.

As for your question about my interest in the issues, it's actually more personal than professional. As you can probably understand, I'd rather not get into the details in a public place like this! PsychPHD 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DPeterson"

Again, she is not a clinician, so really does not understand clinical issues and the papers are opinion pieces not research. They are not licensed mental health professionals. They are advocates...but are lay-people, not professionals in the relevant field. Writing editorials does not make one an expert in a particular field. Furthermore, the statement you wish to add is already there in the article, and therefore not necessary to state again.

Since identities are masked...I am curious about your personal interest here. I've enjoyed your comments. DPeterson talk 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy: Leaders are not Licensed mental health professionals
Actually, its the same question. If the statement is factual and attributable to a reliable source then it belongs in the article...That is what an encyclopedia article presents: factual and verifiable material that is attributable to a reliable source  DPeterson talk 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, one other point is that, not being licensed and having no clinical experinece severely limits their ability to fully and accuractely comment on the subject...except as interested advocates/lay-persons. They have written extensively on their advocacy web-site...none of their "publications" are scientific research studies...the materials are opinion pieces; editoial type writings...which are certainly appropriate for an advocacy group. Regardless, they are not licensed and so this factual statement has a place in an article about the group...it is led by individuals who are very interested and concerned about the subject their small group represents and they are not licensed mental health professionals. The poll will be a big help and we can see what the consensus is regarding these questions...which is the way Wikipedia works. Enjoy the work.  DPeterson talk 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)