Talk:Intensive interaction

Improvements to the article

Following a request from user 'Intensive Interaction Leeds' regarding how he might proceed in improving the article, here is some text copied from my response to his request (made at the COI noticeboard and on his talk page):

(a) the article needs to be re-written so that it doesn't appear to have been cribbed from the Intensive Interaction Institute website,

(b) it should probably be much shorter than at present,

(c) an encyclopaedia article isn't the place for a list of 30 specialist works, it should be replaced (maybe keep 2 or 3 key works) with a link to the institute bibliography,

and (d) the three [since reduced to two] references cited in the article are insufficient for an article of this length.

Contributions from specialists are welcomed in Wikipedia, but there are pitfalls that need to be avoided (including WP:SELFCITE, which could be easily negotiated here by actioning point (c) above).

In addition to those points, there are long outstanding issues with this article detailed in the template at the top of the article, namely...

1) 'needs more citations for verification'

2) 'contains content that reads like an advertisement'

3) 'possibly contains original research'

For clarity, point 1 refers to citations within the text of the article to verify individual elements of text, not to the inclusion of specialist works located at the end of the article in the bibliography.

Point 2 is probably a by-product of the fact that most of the article seems to have originated as a lightly revised version of material located in the 'Find Out More' section of the website of the Intensive Interaction Institute. As I mentioned above, this needs to be dramatically changed, including for tone.

The most obvious elements that need to be removed, and which create tone issues are, I'd suggest:

History (paragraph 1): remove the word 'effective' (it is unnecessary and self-evident in that context).

History (paras 2-6): these are far too detailed for an encyclopaedia entry and should either be removed wholesale or replaced with a brief para to give the general gist. If the phrase 'these having previously been absent from their lives' is to be retained it should be reworded in a less emotive tone. The phrase 'created a lot of interest across the UK' should definitely be removed, as claims like this are very difficult to prove in independent sources.

History (para 8): the following text is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and should be removed: 'Interest worldwide is growing and developing. There are a range of books and other materials now available and a burgeoning community of Intensive Interaction practitioners.'

Returning to the issues mentioned on the template at the top of the article, Point 3 (original research) is probably a by-product of the fact that there are insufficient citations within the text, thus making most of the material essentially unsourced.

As a general observation, the Intended Use section is far too long, detailed and list-based and should be reduced to a brief paragraph of coherent text which gives the general gist.

In relation to the whole article, it is intended for the general reader (not for practitioners or other interested parties). The general reader would benefit from the article being as concise as possible but clearly written and informative, including just the key points about what Intensive Interaction is and a brief note about its history. The non-critical further detail can then be sourced at the institute website by those wishing to investigate further.

Finally, there seems to be a slight disconnect between user Intensive Interaction Leeds' claim (on their talkpage) that they have been 'trying [...] to add both increased detail and accuracy to the current poor quality content' and the fact that most of the article paraphrases from the Intensive Interaction Institute website (which might reasonably be assumed to be an authoritative source).

While it would be good to take the article away from its current position of paraphrasing institute sources, that will need to be done by adding new (in-text) citations to support the changes (otherwise it will immediately begin to look like own research).

Hopefully these notes are of some assistance. Evidently there are significant improvements that can be made to this article, in terms both of content and of bringing it in line with Wikipedia norms. Axad12 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this - this is exactly the clear guidance I was asking for. When I have time I will follow this guidance as recommended. Thank you again for your time and trouble. G.S.R.Firth (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Axad12,

Thanks you again for your help in explaining how to improve this 'Intensive Interaction' page.

Over the past few months I have done quite a bit to follow your advice, and wondered if I have done enough to address and therefore remove the points listed at the top of the article i.e. 1) it 'needs more citations for verification'; 2) it 'contains content that reads like an advertisement'; and 3) it 'possibly contains original research'. If not, is there anything else you recommend I do?

Cheers

Graham Firth. G.S.R.Firth (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Graham,

A few points...

1) The list of Further Reading and Additional Literature is still far, far too long. This is an encyclopaedia article for the general reader. Please either reduce it to a few key texts or remove it altogether. As I said above: "an encyclopaedia article isn't the place for a list of 30 specialist works, it should be replaced (maybe keep 2 or 3 key works) with a link to the institute bibliography".

2) One of the main problems with this article was that too many of the sources led directly back to the Intensive Interaction Institute (and there was too much text directly lifted, or paraphrased, from its website). I'm not at all convinced that this problem has been resolved by adding multiple links to the website of Dave Hewett and to Youtube interviews with Dave Hewett (developer of Intensive Interaction and Honorary Life President (and ?ex? Director) of the Institute).

3) History section, paragraphs 4 & 5, surely these consist primarily of written references which are already in the Further Reading section (which should itself probably be removed wholesale and replaced with a link to the Institute bibliography?).

4) The History section is far too long and detailed and should be cut down to a single brief paragraph. To give an example of what I am talking about here, it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia that in 1984 Melanie Nind joined Harperbury School as a first-year teacher. From a Wikipedia standpoint that is trivia, as is most of the material in the History section. The first paragraph of the History section is the correct level of detail, I would suggest expanding it somewhat and deleting the rest of the material in the History section.

5) As I said back in March: "The phrase 'created a lot of interest across the UK' should definitely be removed, as claims like this are very difficult to prove in independent sources." Also, "If the phrase 'these having previously been absent from their lives' is to be retained it should be reworded in a less emotive tone." However, as far as I can see there is no reason to retain either of those quotes in the article, so those issues can be solved in the significant reduction of the History section.

6) Is there a typo in the section heading "The 'The Fundamentals of Communication"?

7) In the first and second paragraphs there are direct links to archive.org and intensiveinteraction.org. The links should be in the references at the foot of the page, not in the main article text. (There are further instances of this in the first para of the History section and again in the Fundamentals section.)

8) It seems to me that in your changes you have concentrated primarily on thinning out the Further Reading/Additional Literature (but not by enough), adding more citations to appear in the References, and resolving some of the tone issues - all of which were needed.

However, I feel that you've missed the main point of my earlier notes i.e.

"In relation to the whole article, it is intended for the general reader (not for practitioners or other interested parties). The general reader would benefit from the article being as concise as possible but clearly written and informative, including just the key points about what Intensive Interaction is and a brief note about its history. The non-critical further detail can then be sourced at the institute website by those wishing to investigate further."

I'd genuinely suggest that the main article text should be, at the very most, 50% of its current length.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Another quote from back in March: "the following text is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and should be removed: 'Interest worldwide is growing and developing. There are a range of books and other materials now available and a burgeoning community of Intensive Interaction practitioners.'" Axad12 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the article today in line with the points made above.

Most of the material removed from the History was either extreme trivia which had not been sourced (despite first having been flagged for this 7 years ago) or unnecessary mentions of academic papers which were already referenced in the Further Reading section, or material of an apparently promotional nature.

The Further Reading section is still obviously too long. I removed the Additional Literature section altogether, and to be honest I was very tempted to remove the Further Reading section too and replace it with a link to the Bibliography section of the Intensive Interaction Institute website (from which section the material in the Further Reading/Additional Literature sections seemed to have originally derived). Axad12 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Axad,

thanks for all your help with this. If it now works as a Wikipedia entry in terms of its format, style and content, then let's leave it there.

Cheers,

Graham Elliot2610 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Axad,

after doing all the sorting of this page to fit with the Wikipedia entry in terms of its format, style and content - I was wondering if the bit at the top that says ... 'This article has multiple issues' etc, (from 2017) can now be removed? Can I do that? Can you do that?

cheers,

Graham G.S.R.Firth (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Graham.

I think it would be best here to have a 3rd party have a look and see what they think.

I have posted a question to that effect at WikiProject Medicine [1]. Hopefully someone experienced with this sort of article will be able to assist us. Axad12 (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Tags now removed as per very helpful input received at WP:MEDICINE. Axad12 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Axad12, thanks again for all your help with this. Cheers, Graham Elliot2610 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)