Talk:Crazy Therapies

Latest comment: 5 years ago by 81.146.53.202 in topic Really?

POV edit

The reviews section reads like promotional material. They are also excessively wordy. Why is it important to have in this article statements saying people should buy this book? We are not trying to sell it. If we are going to have reviews, I would like to see some that address the substance of the arguments in the book, not just a thumbs up or down on the book in its entirety. It is also important to maintain NPOV to include critical reviews, and to provide context about why those reviews are notable.

It may also be that it's more appropriate to mention arguments made in this book in articles about therapy, than it is to just have an article touting the book itself. -- Beland 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes I agree Beland. I will add more substance to the article. Docleaf

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crazy Therapies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Really? edit

"Crazy Therapies is one of a few books by evidence-based practitioners that has attempted to expose pseudoscience and quackery within the psychotherapy field"

Really? I thought there were quite a few e.g. Freud and Jung have been accused many times of quackery and non-evidence based medicine in many books.

As for the title - is "crazy" really an appropriate term for a book aimed at patients? Very insensitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.53.202 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply