This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rational emotive behavior therapy.
|
I really don't think that holding an irrational belief is going to lead to an atomic holocaust. Edited. Oddity- ( talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a further explanation on what "absolutistic and jehovian dictates" are and see some citations from Albert Ellis or another contributor to REBT that show a hostility toward "absolutistic and jehovian dictates". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drc923 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
please cite examples of this "scientific research"
Isn't REBT merely Stoicism by another name, and shouldn't the same critiques apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.201.188 ( talk) 23:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
81.191.24.1
How do you report vandalism of an article? The following paragraph is an obvious case of this.
"Other significant people in my life, ABSOLUTELY MUST treat me kindly and fairly at all times, or else I can’t stand it, and they are bad, rotten, and evil persons who should be severely blamed, damned, and vindictively punished for their horrible treatment of me." This leads to feelings of anger, rage, fury, and vindictiveness and lead to actions like fights, feuds, wars, genocide, and ultimately, an atomic holocaust." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 October 2007
This is not vandalism and are a the words of Ellis. The thing is that Ellis used these exxagerated words to make a point and make people think. But I agreee that in a encyclopedia they seem a bit out of place. They may therefore be replaced by more diplomatic statements. -- Loveslob ( talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how the topic of this article should be written – "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy" or "rational emotive behavior therapy" – at the psychology WikiProject. / skagedal talk 07:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to uncapitalized name.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I request this is moved to Rational emotive behavior therapy, per discussion here. I have notified the user who moved the article in the opposite direction in August 2007. / skagedal talk 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Would someone American and familiar with the level of used of this therapy please add and reference to the History section of this article. There is no context in this article as to its level of use in current practice. I never see it used in Australia, and have not seen it referred to in Clinical Practice Guidelines in the US. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is overly detailed - probably needs to be written for a more general audience. Earlypsychosis ( talk) 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna, can you please explain why you put a {{sic}} template in the middle of the title of Ellis book? Sic is "used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." But what is the error?? "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: It Works for Me - It Can Work for You" I don't see it. Lova Falk talk 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've commenced an article on Harold Greenwald. He was a prominent therapist and best-selling author, mainly for his book on call girls. One of the things he did was to start something called "direct decision therapy." He wrote a book on the topic in the eighties and was very widely quoted in the papers at the time. I became interested in Greenwald because he was the brother of the choreographer Michael Kidd, and he's plainly notable enough in his own right to be worthy of an article. However, I know nothing about psychology and I want to be sure that the article does not give undue deference to what may be (for all I know) a fringe theory. I notice that "direct decision therapy," which was a variation on REBT, is not even mentioned in this article, which makes me nervous. Some expert suggestions on the subject would be appreciated. Please note that the Greenwald article is under construction and that at this point I haven't gotten to his call girls book, which was made into a movie and was his major claim to notability. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the best-selling books of all time, Wayne Dyer's Your Erroneous Zones, is based on the principles of REBT (Ellis dixit). Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in the article? -- Savig ( talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This source says nothing about what these 4 beliefs are, the source is only a scoring sheet for these beliefs. I also think it is very confusing to say earlier in the article that there are 3 core beliefs that disturb humans and later in the article that there are 4 beliefs. I think that either it should be clarified, a better source provided and the section expanded or the four beliefs would be removed.
Best regards
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rational emotive behavior therapy.
|
I really don't think that holding an irrational belief is going to lead to an atomic holocaust. Edited. Oddity- ( talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a further explanation on what "absolutistic and jehovian dictates" are and see some citations from Albert Ellis or another contributor to REBT that show a hostility toward "absolutistic and jehovian dictates". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drc923 ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
please cite examples of this "scientific research"
Isn't REBT merely Stoicism by another name, and shouldn't the same critiques apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.201.188 ( talk) 23:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
81.191.24.1
How do you report vandalism of an article? The following paragraph is an obvious case of this.
"Other significant people in my life, ABSOLUTELY MUST treat me kindly and fairly at all times, or else I can’t stand it, and they are bad, rotten, and evil persons who should be severely blamed, damned, and vindictively punished for their horrible treatment of me." This leads to feelings of anger, rage, fury, and vindictiveness and lead to actions like fights, feuds, wars, genocide, and ultimately, an atomic holocaust." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 October 2007
This is not vandalism and are a the words of Ellis. The thing is that Ellis used these exxagerated words to make a point and make people think. But I agreee that in a encyclopedia they seem a bit out of place. They may therefore be replaced by more diplomatic statements. -- Loveslob ( talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how the topic of this article should be written – "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy" or "rational emotive behavior therapy" – at the psychology WikiProject. / skagedal talk 07:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to uncapitalized name.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I request this is moved to Rational emotive behavior therapy, per discussion here. I have notified the user who moved the article in the opposite direction in August 2007. / skagedal talk 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Would someone American and familiar with the level of used of this therapy please add and reference to the History section of this article. There is no context in this article as to its level of use in current practice. I never see it used in Australia, and have not seen it referred to in Clinical Practice Guidelines in the US. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is overly detailed - probably needs to be written for a more general audience. Earlypsychosis ( talk) 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi User:JPaestpreornJeolhlna, can you please explain why you put a {{sic}} template in the middle of the title of Ellis book? Sic is "used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." But what is the error?? "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: It Works for Me - It Can Work for You" I don't see it. Lova Falk talk 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've commenced an article on Harold Greenwald. He was a prominent therapist and best-selling author, mainly for his book on call girls. One of the things he did was to start something called "direct decision therapy." He wrote a book on the topic in the eighties and was very widely quoted in the papers at the time. I became interested in Greenwald because he was the brother of the choreographer Michael Kidd, and he's plainly notable enough in his own right to be worthy of an article. However, I know nothing about psychology and I want to be sure that the article does not give undue deference to what may be (for all I know) a fringe theory. I notice that "direct decision therapy," which was a variation on REBT, is not even mentioned in this article, which makes me nervous. Some expert suggestions on the subject would be appreciated. Please note that the Greenwald article is under construction and that at this point I haven't gotten to his call girls book, which was made into a movie and was his major claim to notability. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the best-selling books of all time, Wayne Dyer's Your Erroneous Zones, is based on the principles of REBT (Ellis dixit). Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in the article? -- Savig ( talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This source says nothing about what these 4 beliefs are, the source is only a scoring sheet for these beliefs. I also think it is very confusing to say earlier in the article that there are 3 core beliefs that disturb humans and later in the article that there are 4 beliefs. I think that either it should be clarified, a better source provided and the section expanded or the four beliefs would be removed.
Best regards