Talk:Process-oriented psychology

message: It is my understanding that there are two schools of psychology with similar names, "Process-Oriented Psychology" developed by the Mindels which is derived from Jungian Psychology and
"Process Psychology" which is founded on Whitehead's Process Philosophy. I don't have the expertise to contribute an entry but wish to acknowledge the distinction.
LAWinans (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Process-Oriented Psychology & Process Psychology?

message: Due to the recent POV editing I will be keeping a close eye on this article to ensure that it conforms to the NPOV and related policies.  Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input Jamesstillwell - I will look at the Controversy section for WP:NPOV issues. Depthdiver (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral editing policy reminder 

message: I propose that Process Oriented Coma Work be merged into Process Oriented Psychology. 
The Process Oriented Coma Work page and the Process Oriented Psychology page both have similar issues relating to questions of non-notability, promotional material, unreliable sources and self-published sources. The Process Oriented Coma Work currently links from the Process Oriented Psychology page. There is duplication, shared sources and overlap in the two pages.  The two pages are not sufficiently distinct to justify separate pages. The coma page is relatively short and can easily be moved into the slightly broader Process Oriented Psychology page without becoming unwieldy. It will help with the editing of both pages. 
Felicitatious (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I think I’m going to take action on this merge since no one has objected over many months, and myself and another editor supported the proposal (see above).  I just reviewed the Coma work page and found it largely comprised of speculative, unreferenced opinion either pro or against the technique and then some poorly linked studies that do not seem to be directly related.  Once the non-encyclopaedic content is removed, I don’t really find anything worth including in this main article.  Hope that isn’t too harsh – and certainly another editor may want salvage more.  No doubt some more research could fill out more detail, but I will leave that for future editing. At this point, I think the existing Process oriented psychology article already has an adequate and fair representation of reliable sources on the topic of what is called Process oriented coma work.  So, I'll boldly go ahead and do an "extreme" selective merge. Depthdiver (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I raised concerns about this section  (see above) more than a month ago, and in the absence of a response, I’m going to boldly start addressing some of the issues to try and improve the encyclopaedic tone.  Main thing I’m seeing is a set of edits that advance a POV which seeks to discredit the topic - this includes reverts of neutral presentation of the material, selective quoting, commentary without encyclopaedic tone, giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to marginal/questionable sources, and original research/speculation/ WP:SYN. Depthdiver (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section