From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
| WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-Class) |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Buddhism and psychology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
| WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-Class) |
Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
|
|
|
[edit] Related texts
Today, an IP anon added a Fryba text to the "Bibliography" of this article. While I'm vaguely familiar with (and own) Fryba's "Art of Happiness," I did not use it in writing this article. So I moved the newly added Fryba text to a new section called "Related texts." I'm curious to know:
- Am I correct in assuming that there is a benefit to including in the "Bibliography" only sources that were used to write (and that are actually referenced in) the article?
- Am I correct in creating a "Related texts" section (after all, if something is on the web that is related to this topic but was not used to write this article, then it can be included in "External links")? Is there a (more) standard WP section title for such?
Thanks for any civil, constructive feedback,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Assuming this "Related texts" (or something similarly named) section stands, then personally I view this as an open door for everyone to add their favorite Buddhism-and-psychology-related publication (including articles, etc., but excluding self-published spam, etc. -- just where is that fine line?). Given that such a list probably extends into the hundreds, this could actually develop into a thoughtful reference section ...? Just an after-thought, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have the impression that psychological knowledge included in this article is seriously outdated. For instance, the weak points of the medical model were discovered decades ago and at least two significant health models have been developed since that time: holistic and ecological. [Scobin, 23:53, 30 May 2008]
