Talk:Equine-assisted psychotherapy

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted on 15 January 2015 by reviewer Mahensingha (talk · contribs).

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Balance

Let's work on balance. There are positive and negative materials out there. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the best positive materials? jps (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need to dig them up, and to be quite honest, I can't do it now; I am leaving town for a day or so shortly, so I'd appreciate you giving me a few days. A quick search for you is here, the phrase "Equine-assisted therapy" is usually the most common term, "Equine-related" is a neologism I haven't seen in the literature. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pure WP:OWNership. We've got to wait for you to complete your travels before the article can be improved! Not good. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see [1] for "equine-assisted psychotherapy." Montanabw ^(talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in here that justifies your revert. If you cannot justify it with better sourcing than is currently happening in this article, why did you do the revert? On what basis? If you can't point to the best sources, what is the point of starting the discussion? I see an excellent source on which to base the article -- a meta-analysis that seems to outline both pro- and con-sides rather fairly. I see no criticism of this reliable sources in the articles that cite it. So why are you insisting on pushing back against the edits by Alexbrn? jps (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The move to equine-assisted therapy seemed a little bold, and I initially reverted it, but on second thought, given how new the field is and how thin this article is at present, it probably was best to move it; we can always put a better article back under this title as research develops, which it will. As for the research, we've been discussing that in about five different places and it makes sense to consolidate the discussion in one spot, which is probably the EAT article. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]