Talk:Inner Relationship Focusing

See Also section

There is no obvious specific connection between Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy. Therefore I am removing this mention. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Check your talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

These discussions belong on the article talk page, not user talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Softlavender#Inner Relationship Focusing:) Regarding your latest revision to Inner Relationship Focusing, it's correct that Focusing should not be linked in See also per WP:MOS. However, it's not correct that there is, as you said, "no obvious specific connection to Emotionally focused therapy"; emotionally focused therapy incorporates Focusing in its core set of techniques, and one of the major books on emotionally focused therapy recommends Ann Weiser Cornell's work (if I remember correctly, the recommendation is in Elliott, Watson, Goldman & Greenberg's 2004 book Learning Emotion-Focused Therapy and/or Greenberg's 2011 book Emotion-Focused Therapy, both published by the American Psychological Association). Both are forms of experiential psychotherapy, and Cornell's work has influenced emotionally focused therapy, if not vice versa. Biogeographist (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that MOS:SEEALSO states: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." As I have argued above, Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy are more than indirectly related since they are both forms of experiential psychotherapy one of which has influenced the other, but even if you were to argue that they are only indirectly related, it would still be appropriate to include Emotionally focused therapy in the See also section of this page "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" per MOS:SEEALSO. Biogeographist (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses both Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy: Elliott, Robert (March 2013). "Person-centered/experiential psychotherapy for anxiety difficulties: theory, research and practice" (PDF). Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies. 12 (1): 16–32. doi:10.1080/14779757.2013.767750. The author is Robert Elliott, a well-known psychotherapy researcher and a former editor of Psychotherapy Research who has contributed much to emotionally focused therapy and to the experiential psychotherapies in general. Notice that in the author note Elliott acknowledges Ann Weiser Cornell for her contribution to the theory section. Biogeographist (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If as you say there is a relationship or connection between Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy, then Inner Relationship Focusing should be mentioned in, or listed as a See Also in, the article on Emotionally focused therapy. Right now it is not. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So why not reciprocally link them? Biogeographist (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, if as you say there is a relationship or connection between Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy, then Inner Relationship Focusing should be mentioned in, or listed as a See Also in, the article on Emotionally focused therapy. Right now it is not. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Then I would be correct to act on the assumption that if I add reciprocal links, you will not revert my edit? Biogeographist (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That would have been the case all along. As it stands, your adding the See Also link to this article was an unsubstantiated coatrack-y link amounting almost to spam. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not add spam to Wikipedia; I remove spam whenever I see it. The connection between these two psychotherapies was obvious to me. The fact that it was not obvious to you does not mean that my contributions to Wikipedia are spam.

I had never heard of WP:COATRACK; while reading WP:COATRACK now, I saw no reference to See also sections; WP:COATRACK applies to the body of the article. WP:COATRACK states: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality has been written to make a point about a tangential subject." And the section What is not a coatrack states: "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require." Again, this seems to refer only to the body of the article, but even if it were to apply to the See also section, it makes it clear that it is "reasonable to include brief information"—especially since MOS:SEEALSO states: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

You state that it "would have been the case all along" that "if I add reciprocal links, you will not revert my edit" as if that were obvious; but it was not obvious to me (nor did I notice that reciprocal links were missing until you pointed it out later, after I clarified that these two psychotherapies are related). Your stated rationale for deleting the See also section was "no obvious specific connection between Inner Relationship Focusing and Emotionally focused therapy", not a lack of reciprocal links. If you had simply stated that Inner Relationship Focusing needed to be added to See also in Emotionally focused therapy, which I hadn't noticed, we could have emended that situation and avoided this long conversation. But through this conversation I have learned more about WP:MOS and perhaps you've learned more about the connections among experiential psychotherapies. Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked What links here and discovered that in the See also section of Internal Family Systems Model there is a link to Inner Relationship Focusing but there is no reciprocal link from the See also section of Inner Relationship Focusing back to Internal Family Systems Model. I wonder who inserted that nonreciprocal link in the See also section of Internal Family Systems Model? A look at that article's history shows that, in fact, YOU did! Hence you have not only accused me of making an "unsubstantiated" edit as if it were WP:SPAM and WP:COATRACK when it is not; you added exactly the same kind of "unsubstantiated" and nonreciprocal See also link to another article. Do we need to do some online Inner Relationship Focusing right now to uncover what is going on inside you that is driving you to hypocritically disparage my legitimate contribution, when you have made exactly the same kind of contribution to another article? (I'm only half joking.) Biogeographist (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inner Relationship Focusing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202225525/http://www.focusing.org.uk/pdfs/focusing_styles.pdf to http://www.focusing.org.uk/pdfs/focusing_styles.pdf

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) 03:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)