Welcome!

edit

Hello, XjerNewYork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Stanley Graham (psychologist) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.    –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The page for Stanley Graham (psychologist) completely mischaracterizes his career. He never sought publicity, but this does not diminish his achievements nor change his long-held positions. He was the co-founder and long time director of the Fifth Avenue Center of Counselling and Psychotherapy which was for many years the largest community mental health clinic not affiliated with a hospital. He was the long time director of the Greenwich Institute for Psychoanalytic Studies which trained many of the psychotherapists in the New York City area. He was president of at least two divisions of the American Psychological Association.
The page, as it stands, mischaracterizes him as being in favor of short-term therapy. All of his contemporaries in his field know that he was in favor of long-term therapy. So much for referenced information.
Frankly I am outraged by your deleting information which is true and which certainly should be on the page, and at the same time leaving information which is misleading. I understand Wikipedia's policy for removing unreferenced information which could be challenged, but I think the policy refers to material which could reasonably be challenged, not material that could unreasonably be challenged. If this is allowed to stand, it says more about Wikipedia than it says about my father. XjerNewYork (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply