Talk:Positive psychotherapy

Disconnect with positive psychology

This account of Positive Psychotherapy is completely disconnected with the field of Positive psychology. Doesn't anyone see a problem here?Pasado (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would like to clarify that the article is not describing Seligman’s Positive psychology. It refers to a completely different psychotherapeutic method developed by Nossrat Peseschkian in the late 1960s, several decades before the emergence of Positive psychology as a field.

This distinction is already stated in the lead section of the article, which notes that Positive Psychotherapy (PPT) should not be confused with Positive psychology and that the two fields have no shared theoretical foundations. They differ in origin, concepts, and aims.

If the distinction is not sufficiently clear in the current version, I am happy to further improve the opening paragraph to avoid misunderstandings. ResearcherPsycho (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Recently added image

Does the image added recently illustrate the subject in an informative or interesting way? - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here based on the large 2023 content additions; the text from those that persists to the current version contains many indications of possible LLM use and thus needs review for accuracy/hallucinations, sourcing issues, tone and the like. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the maintenance tags.

I apologise for the delayed response. After reviewing the notifications, I recognise the issues with primary sources, close paraphrasing, and the overall length of the current article. I am now preparing a revised version in my sandbox that will be much shorter and aligned with current Wikipedia policies.

I would also like to address the banner referring to “large language model content” or “hallucinated content”. The article was not written or edited by AI tools; all contributions were made by me manually, however I did use an online translator DeepL back in 2023. However, I understand that earlier paraphrasing may have resulted in phrasing that resembles LLM-generated text, and I will correct this during the rewrite. If possible, I would kindly ask whether this wording could be replaced with tags that more accurately describe the actual issues (for example: over-reliance on primary sources, close paraphrasing, or tone concerns). The current phrasing may unintentionally give the impression of fabricated information, which is not the case, although the article clearly needs improvement.

I also realised that other psychotherapy articles on Wikipedia (e.g., CBT and psychodynamic therapy) use a cleaner structure, with brief summaries in the main article and dedicated pages for key concepts. This approach seems much more appropriate, and I will follow the same model to keep the main article concise and neutral.

Thank you for your work on maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. ResearcherPsycho (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

May I also kindly clarify one more point regarding the wording “hallucinated information” and “fictitious references” in the banner. All references I added were real, verifiable, and taken from peer-reviewed journals, indexed academic databases, or books published by reputable publishers. No fabricated sources or fictional material were ever included.

I fully agree that some sections require restructuring, improved sourcing, and removal of primary-source dependence, and I am already addressing these issues in the revised version. However, the current wording suggesting hallucinated or fictitious material may be misleading to readers. If possible, I would be grateful if this part of the banner could be replaced by more accurate tags reflecting the actual concerns (such as overuse of primary sources, close paraphrasing, or tone issues).

Thank you very much for your consideration. ResearcherPsycho (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about WikiProject Skepticism banner

Hello. I noticed that the WikiProject Skepticism banner has been added to this article. I wanted to check whether this assignment is intentional, as Positive Psychotherapy (as developed by Nossrat Peseschkian) is not related to pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or unverified therapeutic practices.

The method has a long publication history, peer-reviewed research, and is taught within accredited psychotherapy training programs in multiple countries.

If the banner was added simply for routine monitoring, I understand. However, if there is no specific reason to keep this article within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, I would kindly ask whether the banner could be reconsidered.

Thank you for your time and assistance. ResearcherPsycho (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)