Talk:Certified Sex Addiction Therapist

merge

I suggest a merge with the article on the Institute because

Most of the references in the Institute article are either not about the Institute ()but rather sex addiction in general) . Of the references given, almost all of them are either blogs or general works on sex addiction, or mere mentions. In this article too, many of the references are about sex addiction, rather than the certification.

A WP article also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release-- but these articles are considerably devoted to praise the certification or institute, or else talking about the overall importance of the general subject.

I have a suggestion that will preserve the information: merge the two articles. I suggest merging under the name of the certification, because I think that's what people want information about. There's a good deal of duplicated content--such duplicated content, incidentally, is to me one of the surest signs of promotionalism. . Alternatively, acting as an editor, not an administrator, I will remove the promotional parts and irrelevant references from the two articles. This takes more than routine rewriting, but I'm willing to do it, as I've worked a good deal with articles like this. If anyone does not like what I do, we can ask for a third opinion, The principle is better one strong article than 2 weaker ones. I'm willing to do it either way, but my first choice is a merge. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I would vote no to a merge. If you're willing to edit out the promotional parts, that would be acceptable to me. I think both of these subjects deserve their own page, and maybe the similar info can be confined to the most relevant page. IITAP holds conferences and offers other certification. And the CSAT degree is going to be of interest to people researching sex addiction and to anyone seeking out this kind of professional. This is one reason why I think a merge would be limiting for readers.

I thought the references were valid for the context. Although it's true that there isn't a lot written about IITAP at present that I could find. Citation 15 refers to the SAST which is mentioned at the end of the article. Citation 1 refers to IITAP as a governing body issuing CSATs - and in that article there is a section titled CSAT which links to IITAP. Also the Daily Beast is a Newsweek site and the linked article was the cover story that appeared in the print edition. The reference in the context of the Wiki article is about IITAP being a leading expert and the fact that Newsweek interviewed IITAP for their cover story backed this up I thought. I think the fact that the IITAP website itself is so promotional might throw Wiki editors off. It is a bit of a disappointment because they really do provide a lot of resources for professionals and the public, their site does not look very professional at this time unfortunately. There are other similar organizations in the sexology field that have Wiki pages - here's a list: List_of_sexology_organizations Some have very short articles, and I think it spells it out more for readers to have accompanying articles for these organizations. Please let me know if you need any help. TBliss (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I reread the CSAT article -- I don't know what strikes you as promotional. The only thing that I can think of is that Patrick Carnes is regarding as the founder. The fact is - he is regarded as the founder. His book was the first on the subject, and his extensive research provides the leading information on the subject. The rest of the article is neutral. And the only overlap is that Patrick Carnes is the founder, and that there was a need for quality control. I don't really get where you're coming from with your editorial criticism.TBliss (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)