Talk:Creative problem-solving

message: There doesn't appear to be anything about cognitive re-framing in the article, although it's mentioned by name. It's just not described. If anyone working with one of the WikiProjects this article is part of could help on that front, that would be good. If not, then can that mention be removed?
WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information 

message: The formatting for this page needs to be completely redone, even API services that use Wikipedia for data can't read the page due to the awfully poor formatting presented. Any editors willing to help would be appreciated. Tsuser (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I'm dubious of this topic, especially capitalized like it is. I don't think there's anything close to an objective definition of "Creative Problem Solving"; it looks like this article just gets into particular authors' definitions. This sounds NPOV, for example: "[creative solutions] need to be encouraged." Why? Who says? (I don't disagree, but it seems nonencyclopedic. —Ben FrantzDale 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Please discuss here in the talk pages whether or not "Synectics" belongs in this article.  Removing it, re-inserting it, removing it, re-inserting it, etc. -- without discussion -- is not appropriate. VoteFair (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synectics 

message: Yet again, for about the third time, someone wants to delete this article.  Please read past discussions on this topic!  The most recent appears in the "Advertisement" section above.  Please read it!
I am an internationally recognized subject-matter expert on this subject.  Yet today's deletion request -- plus, just now, an inappropriate reversion with no discussion! -- are leaving me with the desire to further reduce my contributions to Wikipedia.
I plan to write additional clarifications -- about what is causing the demise of Wikipedia -- in the WikiProject Editor Retention article (or elsewhere if I can find a better location).  Alas, not only is Wikipedia losing valuable contributors -- plus me too if this continues -- but also the quality of the articles is declining as a result of editors making changes without an understanding of the subject, and without understanding who the subject-matter experts in the field are. VoteFair (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another request for deletion 

message: Please undo the special revert done yesterday by Wikipedia-editor-with-special-permissions User:Sue_Rangell.  I'm not doing it myself because I would be regarded as getting into a revert war.  The removed content includes very valid references, which are important to Wikipedia's credibility.  And the revert re-introduced some truly promotional content that I removed long ago.  Although it is increasingly less common, I am a Wikipedia contributor who is also a subject-matter expert (on this topic).  Specifically I am the author of a how-to book on creative problem solving that has been published around the world in 9 languages.  (FYI, only the U.S. English-language edition is self-published; the other editions were published by notable publishers.)
Also note that the special reversion was done without discussion here.  Please discuss here any concerns!  Thanks! VoteFair (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please undo special -- and very inappropriate -- revert  

message: I've tagged the two sentences below from the second paragraph of the lede as dubious:
"However, creativity often does not involve creative problem solving, especially in fields such as music, poetry, and art. Creativity requires newness or novelty as a characteristic of what is created, but creativity does not necessarily imply that what is created has value or is appreciated by other people."
Compare to the first sentence of Creativity: "Creativity refers to the invention or origination of any new thing (a product, solution, artwork, literary work, joke, etc.) that has value."
It doesn't appear that the distinction is indeed a distinction at all, and makes me wonder if this article would fit WP:POVFORK criteria. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction vs creativity is dubious, unsourced, and contradicted in other articles

message: To begin with, this entry is focused on Elementary school application as it related to Arts Integration. That being said, Art is both a process and the product from which results from said process. Teachers can promote CPS by fostering the desire to combine students ideas and feelings in new ways. When promoted properly, the CPS process can produce many products; paintings, songs, dances, and literary art (the use of words.)
During CPS students are encouraged to demonstrate divergent perspectives, and the unexpected is embraced. Scaffolding is a crucial part of the learning process for CPS. Students who fail to receive appropriate scaffolding can become reluctant learners for fear of exposing their lack of knowledge. 
Visualization is a key element of CPS. Visualization encompasses five distinct mental actions. Those mental actions are (1) transfer long-term memories into temporary visual memory (2) zoom in to identify details (3) embellish images (4) rotate images (5) scan visually with your mind’s eye.  
68.115.232.26 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Problem Solving  

message: I am new to this discussion, jand have tried to get caught up with the controversy over the creative problem solving page. The page as it stands is a hodgepodge that does not accurately reflect the depth and distinction of the topic. I would like to propose a complete rewrite of this page, resulting in an article with historical and academic accuracy, and (of course) with no bias. I have an M.S. in Creativity, and would like to take a stab at this new version, but wish to follow the rules, not posting a major update without prior approval of those who have been caretaking this page. Does this sound like a reasonable and workable idea? Thanks, all. Paulreali (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do make incremental changes to this page to improve it. However, do it in steps -- not as a single replacement -- because many portions have already been peer-reviewed. Also I suggest watching the edits on the Creativity page so that you better understand what is controversial and what is Wikipedia-worthy.  (That page gets lots of people who think they are improving the article, yet their edits simply attempt to impose their own beliefs and their own writing style.) I no longer edit the Creative Problem Solving page itself because some people perceive a subject-matter expert as having a conflict of interest, yet I am interested to see what happens to this page, partly because it affects whether on not I contribute to Wikipedia fundraising efforts. VoteFair (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed: Complete rewrite 

message: Your article manages to have a good general structure in place, is unbiased, and is definitely in a place to grow out to become a really good article. It manages to stick to the information presented without any attempt to persuade readers to one or another viewpoint from what I currently see. The structure also follows a very logical flow of information. A couple of tweaks can still be made to really solidify the effort already put into the article. The biggest tweak would be to find several more sources from textbooks, journal articles, etc. to back up the information in the article as well as be used to expand and reinforce the information within the article. There are several statements, especially in the technique and tools section, that is never backed up by a source or the source was misplaced. Another tweak would be to remove the quote or use it in a more necessary way. In its current state the quote is a bit unnecessary. The main change would be to keep working on finding sources though. With all of this said, the structure and unbiased language is the current strength of the article and something I hope to apply more strongly into an article I am currently editing for a class. Good job and keep going!Carlton7567 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Letter 

message: This article has a good backbone to start from and is unbiased. The sections are organized in a way that is easy to understand and makes sense. There are a few things that I would suggest to make it better. More sources from journals and textbooks would add a lot of important unbiased information to this article. Adding more information would help this article as well. It is very short and there could be many things added to it. There are some sources that are used multiple times and some sources links do not work so, fixing those would be great for this article. In all, this article is a great place to start and can be a really good article with more information and unbiased sources added. Good job! Hayleeelmore (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Letter