Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pseudoscience

Inclusion of this category requires proper sourcing. Given the wide spread practice within health services it also requires a balanceof sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This category is not usefull. Pseudoscience is a term who's not precisely defined. It's an expression of the philosophical school of critical rationalism and in parts in analytic philosophy. Futher it's used by privat, so called sceptic, organisations like Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The term ignores that psychoanalysis is accepted in different scientific contexts and scientific subjects. The influence of psychoanalysis range from bible exegesis to neuroscience.

To claim that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience means to overstate the critical rationalism in science. Futher it's difficult to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Other categories of scientiffic methods are also relevant. E.g. the term Protoscience form Kuhn. Why is there no catagory Category:Protoscience? Right, because it's not usefull. Theres no way to distinguish "real" science from protocience. A lot of definitions in philosophy of science are relevant. Thomas Kuhn, for example, a really important philosopher, deny the scientiffic status of nearly all social sciences and humane disciplines. But that doesn't mean those disciplines are disqualified now. That means because of ther subject they are not able to define a consitant paradigm like Kuhn determinated.

To set a cagagory like pseudoscience reveals a wrong appreciation of science and philosophy of science. --WSC ^® 10:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm no banner-waver for psychoanalysis and have attempted to balance this article with references that are more sceptical of its effectiveness as a clinical intervention. But to label it as pseudoscience is not appropriate. It has a clinical application in mainstream health provision and a wide cultural influence on film, literature and criticism. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been called pseudoscience by numerous scientific sources, whether or not its used for things unrelated to science is a different question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be the first to accept that at present this article is in a very poor state. As someone who knows a little about the topic, there is over much on psychoanalysis as a form of treatment (and what there is, is badly biased towards rather old, uncritical and poor quality studies.) There is little or nothing on its cultural aspects, eg in literary criticism, film studies, etc. However there is simply no adequate reason for placing psychoanalysis in the pseudoscience category. There may indeed be some RSs who describe psychoanalysis in these terms. But that does not mean that the consensus across all RSs is as such. Even luminaries such as Chomsky don't actually use the term 'pseudoscience' - the reference you cite doesn't contain the term although to be fair he does say "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis." However even if he and several others had used the pseudoscience term this would not be conclusive proof that the general view among all RSs is that psychoanalysis belongs in the pseudoscience category. To describe psychoanalysis as such is a highly partial, unusual and largely unsupported personal opinion. By all means let's cite Chomsky for what he does say - and let's also cite Masson more thoroughly, and other critics too. But there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment, and there is a very large part of the legacy of psychoanalysis which makes no claims whatsoever to being scientific. Freud, for all his faults, deserves to rank alongside late 19th century thinkers such as Darwin and Marx. Only one of these was truly a scientist although all three claimed the title. But all three have shaped the way we think today and all were working before Kuhn reshaped our ideas of what the scientific method involves. To class psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience alongside such trivial fringe topics as the Nibiru cataclysm and Ear candling is to completely misunderstand a massive influence on 20th century culture. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a test. Pick the most reliable scientific journal you can think of, and see what they say about psychoanalysis generally, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I never heard, a scientific journal says anything. It is the author who says somthing. Sometimes in one journal different oppinions are exchanged. --WSC ^® 13:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Editorials. 2. See what the majority of sources in the journal says, try the journals Science and Nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just come from WP:NPOVN and stated there that the category should be removed entirely from WP. I'm questioning whether the pejorative term "pseudoscience" should be used in the lead at all. The only source for this is Popper, whose use of the term pseudoscience is quite different to everyone else's.

WP policy is to represent an NPOV summary of viewpoints. If there are more reliable sources calling psychoanalysis pseudoscience and intending the pejorative effect, link to them, else change the language to something less loaded. WP:LABEL seems to be relevant to this and I've started a discussion on the talk page about pejorative language use in general on WP.

For what it's worth, I have some experience of psychoanalysis and am not a fan. I agree entirely with Kim Dent-Brown's comments. Psychoanalysis is a broad term and, as such, remains very prominent in psychotherapy. Furthermore, it has a significant role in our culture and even our language -- needless to say there are dozens of reliable sources to back this up. WykiP (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Astrology has a significant cultural role too. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Our Astrology article currently has (or links to) significant cultural description. WykiP (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kim - Popper is not an authority in this respect its not a philosophy of science issue. It needs far more substantiation to even be included as a criticism ----Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, why do you say it is not a philosophy of science issue? Is it not just a case of neutrally represented the sources?

If we are to keep the Criticism section then personally, I don't mind a small note that Popper (as a minority opinion) called psychoanalysis pseudoscience.

Perhaps you would like to comment on my WP guideline proposal on pejorative language. WykiP (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation of effectiveness

--- As this section currently stands it is horrible. Filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Unreadable. Please delete and allow someone else to write it.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.26.77 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As promised heres my improvement of the chapter. It contains more and high quality studys, more explanations for our readers and is much more balenced as the current chapter. Some translation-mistakes doesn't hurt the quality of the studys I've chosen. I managed to "accommodate" the study Cartoon Diabolo loves so much. But before I include the following paragraph into the article I'd like to give the opportunity for all interested users to discuss the paragraph here. I hope it's possible to discuss that without any tricks and annoy the noticeboards. --WSC ^® 08:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Based on the theories of psychoanalysis, a lot of different types of psychotherapies have been developed over time. In psychotherapy research, these types of therapies are divided in different groups, based on the duration of the treatment, and the rough methodical approach. The primary groups are the Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) with a duration of 30 sessions at the most, and the Long Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (LTPP). Sometimes more specific groups like psychodynamic supportive therapy (pst) or psychoanalytic group psychotherapy) are evaluated.

The STPP is well evaluated. A lot of studys showes that the efficacy and effectiveness of STPP is comparable to other kinds of psychotherapies like cognitiv behavioral therapy (CBT), the best evaluated therapy. Indeed psychoanalytic researcher neglected the empirical psychotherapy research for a long time. Thats why a lot more and more differenciated studys exists for CBT. Particularly the evaluation of efficacy in specific disorders. Some meta-analyses have shown psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy to be effective, with outcomes comparable or greater than other kinds of psychotherapy or antidepressant drugs.

STPP is efficient in anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, personality disorders, substance use disorders and others. The use of psychodynamic psychotherapies for treading schizoprenia is vague.

A meta-analysis exist for the effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies, no matter if they are described as short or long term. Compared with cognitiv behavioral therapy in personality disorders both showes equal effects.

Its nearly impossible to evaluate LTPP in randomizing studies compared with short term psychotherapies. A psychoanalytic or psychodynamic therapy how its put into practice around the world takes often 100 session at the minimum sometimes with several sessions a week. A classical psychoanalysis for example is not limited during 3 to 5 session a week. Its impossible to to keep plausible terms of settlement or even the control terms like manualisation of the therapeutic methods in multiannual psychotherapies. Futher tries to randomize patients in multiannual psychotherapies failed because the patients won't consent. Thats why randomized controlled trials are rare in LTPP. Particularly longer treatment conditions seems to be unable to evaluate with randomize controlled studies. Thats why psychotherapy researcher go back to studies with prospective and/or naturalistic designe. With these studies only the effectivness is measurable, not the experimental efficacy.

Only a few metaanalysis for longer psychodynamic psychotherapies are published and show different outcomes reaching from very large effects to small effects as compared to shorter forms of psychotherapy.

The results of follow-up assessments in several meta analysis showed, that effects of short and long time psychodynamic psychotherapy are stable and often increases after the end of the treatment "in contrast, the benefits of other (nonpsychodynamic) empirically supported therapies tend to decay over time for the most common disorders."

Longer psychodynamic psychotherapies, like "classical" psychoanalyses or analytic psychotherapy (usually with 300 sessions 2-3 times weekly) are only evaluated with naturalistic or catamnestic studies. These studies showes stable and high effects. Other studies show a significant reduction of sickness absence and consultation of the health system in a 7 year follow up.

Thanks for this draft, WSC. Yes there are quite a few language errors but I'll be happy to help copyedit those once we get the draft in place. Personally I think the draft as it stands is a bit over-charitable to psychoanalytic psychotherapy. To read this, you'd think it would be the therapy of choice in many circumstances but if you look at the ground it clearly isn't! The issue of course being cost effectiveness, in that other therapies can produce comparable improvements in a shorter time at less cost. I don't think the review as drafted pays sufficient attention to negative findings but to be honest I'd be willing to see its inclusion and we can shape it up further once it's in the article. Anyone else have a view on it, since WSC has been kind enough to post it here and ask for feedback? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Thank you for your offer to copyediting my paragraph. It seems that regrettably theres a need for copyediting. You wrote that PP ain't the therapy of choise in many circumstances. What sources makes you beliefe it isn't? What is missing to make that clear? I know one study, that CBT ain't usefull in trichotillomania published 1998. Do you think it's necessary to add these findings in the CBT-article? Futher, I doubt, that a study examined the cost-effectivness-outcome and the treatment-effectivness of CBT in a 7 year follow up. Nevertheless I think my revision is more detailed than the current one. --WSC ^® 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if nobody enter a caveat anymore, I will add the draft into the article. --WSC ^® 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Submissions of user CartoonDiablo

That draft seems to remove a lot of material critical of psychoanalysis like the INSERM study for instance. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The INSERM-public health survey is, deference to your beliefs in psychotherapy research, still mentioned. I personally believe that this survey is irrelevant. The meaningfulness of this study is exhausted in the draft. In about 10 other high quality meta analyses positiv results were found. The INSERM-survey exclude positiv outcomes of psychotherapy research for psychoanalysis not because there not existing, but in the design of the survey. It showes thers a lack of studies for specific disorders in 2004. Futher it exclude existing meta analyses e.g. for STPP in depression. You can't comprehend the absence of this positiv results, because the quality of the survey is poor. E.g. the survey doesn't even cited the included studys or makes comprehensible inclusion criteria for the used studies. Its a accommodate to your beliefs to mention this survey at all. Insofar I try to include this survey against one's conscience.

What critical material did I remove exactly? --WSC ^® 11:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind it's just cited in passing. I think a way to speed this process up is if you list the studies you mentioned here but that are not mentioned in the article section. That way we can just put them in. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's not necessary. My draft is much more neutal and more detailed than the current one. It would be a profit for the article to include my text into the article. Even if there are some translation errors. If you haven't any more comments I wait for more detailed explanations of Kim Dent-Brown. --WSC ^® 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well we can't actually do that because like you said it has grammatical errors but also because it's not written in wiki format it's written like a narrative of LTPP and STPP. What you can do is list the studies you used in the version that aren't in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind I did it myself and came to these studies that are not listed yet:

• Raymond et al.
• Gerber et al.
• Anderson and Lambert
• Abbas et al. (three studies, one doesn't pass MEDRS or is irreverent to effectiveness)
• Seligman et al. (second study seems irrelevant since it only shows that an approach to evaluating effectiveness failed but that's debatable).
• Smit et al.
• Beutel et al. (primary source, fails MEDRS).

Overall a good amount of material that we should consider. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One Second I thought you ment that seriously. It's a great pity, that you try to act as you are expert again. --WSC ^® 09:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC

Look, your version essentially says "LTPP and STPP has been studied," which is not how you do wiki format because people aren't going to go through 10+ links for studies to get the results. The point is to show what the effectiveness actually is (ie what the actual results are).

To the point about studies, yes some of them would in fact fail MEDRS I don't see how being snarky is going to change that.

So let me put it sufficiently, we either cite the actual results of the studies (ie what the quality of treatment was or the numerical value etc.) or we don't cite them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact let me start:

• Raymond et al. - textbook, relevant if used for specifics
• Gerber et al. - APA develops scale for measuring psychoanalysis. Of 103 comparisons 6 are superior, 5 are inferior, 28 have no difference, and 63 are adequate. Basis for APA possibly admitting psychoanalysis as "empirically validated" treatment.
• Anderson and Lambert - STPP is 34-71% effective. As good or slightly better to other therapies in follow up.
• Abbas et al. - (2009) STPP is 78-91% effective in treating somatic disorders compared to no treatment. (2010) STPP 69% effective at treating depression, as or less effective in post-treatment as other therapies. (2012) I-STPP is 84% effective at treating interpersonal disorders and 151% effective at treating depression compared to no treatment.
• Seligman et al. - Psychoanalysis is as effective as other treatments.
• Smit et al. - LTPP overall 33% effective at treating mental disorders.

Kim should look at them as well. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiabolo, I say that with every consideration, but you have no idea of what you are taking about. You wrote (e.g.): "Anderson and Lambert - STPP is 34-71% effective." But these numbers, 34-71, arn't percentage points of effectivity. That means the Effect size (ES).

What you are wrote about the selection of sources is inexplicable for me. Please leave me and others the detailed work on this. --WSC ^® 12:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I know what ES is, I was under the impression it was ES for effectiveness? That is, it was effective in 34-71% of people but we technically don't know what the degree of effectiveness is. I probably should of clarified that but that's what I meant. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now I'm a bit confused. Can you please repeat that more clearly. --WSC ^® 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all the burden is on you to include the edit per BRD. That aside, the edit not only doesn't work with the point of the section and not only fails Wikiformat and MEDRS but fails basic English. We can edit the section but we are not using that version. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry CD I gave you and others the chance to discuss that since 15th Dez. You try to discuss that but your concerns are only based on missunderstandings like you don't even know what a effect size is. You show you haven't basic knowledge about the issue. Now you try to delate reliable sources. That makes me belief you just try to enforce your POV. A POV which is not even a special point in the scientiffic debat but self-elaborated. With a minor insight and no reflexion about your actual knowledge about that issue. Your behavior is not acceptable.

I'm ready to discuss that paragraph with you, when you find serious concerns. --WSC ^® 09:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom says NOT to place this in the Pseudoscience category

I agree with the position to not use the PS category for psychoanalysis, but that decision is based on the PS Arbcom. Otherwise psychoanalysis is often described/labeled/characterized as pseudoscience, but that doesn't override the Arbcom decision for using the PS "category" on the article. The Arbcom decision still allows ("requires"... as always ) us to follow the sources, and thus psychoanalysis is listed at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. We do document that it is often characterized as pseudoscience, which is not the same as categorizing or classifying it as an absolute pseudoscience. We just document that RS have done so. That doesn't settle the issue at all. Whether it is or is not is another matter entirely. We just follow the sources.

Here is the box used to notify of the PS Arcom decision:

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Note the first two of the four groupings allow for using the PS Category, but psychoanalysis falls in the third grouping ("questionable science") and we must not use the Category for it. It is even mentioned as an example! We can (and must) still document that some RS (of many types, including scientific skeptics) do call it a pseudoscience. Some of those RS are very notable and controversial, but we still use them, even if we don't like them. That's the Wikipedian way.

BTW, attempts to defend pseudoscientific subjects and fight against the use of the term pseudoscience have been such a problem that the Arbcom has special "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to such editors:

So....beware. Editors have been banned or blocked very quickly, and any admin can do it.

As far as pejorative terms, Wikipedia is uncensored and we don't care a flying hoot whether a term is pejorative or not, the only exception being in BLPs. There we are a bit more careful, but even then, if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. We use the source's voice, and when doing so we do not censor the source. Editorializing and editorial censorship are very unwikipedian. We must present things in the same manner and spirit as the sources. If a source presents a subject with a bite or punch to it, we try to preserve the source's tone and convey it the way the RS does. Doing otherwise violates proper use of the source and actually misrepresents it. Editors aren't allowed to do that. The same obviously applies if a source is favorable.

We are obviously not required to use pejorative terms when they are unnecessary, but we should not avoid them when they are the proper term to use. We don't exclude any words in the dictionary from coverage here, nor the concepts and controversies associated with them. The deciding factor is how RS use them. There is no question that the word "pseudoscience" is often used in a decidedly pejorative manner. That is something we should document and not shy away from.

This really freaks out believers in those ideas and practices to which the term is applied, and understandably so, but that is of no concern to us. Using the word in the lede at Homeopathy has probably been the biggest battle of this type. Every true believer and quack has tried to get it deleted, but because it is one of the most notable examples of grossly pseudoscientific piffle, and myriad RS describe it as pseudoscience, we document that fact and don't hide it. (It appears that the quacks have succeeded at getting it deleted from the lede at present, but the article is still in the category, which is proper.)

We cannot whitewash Wikipedia articles out of concern for the feelings of such people. We are not allowed to censor reality to appease the feelings of readers or believers in pseudoscience. We must objectively document "the sum total of human knowledge," which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. All existing encyclopedias have been censored, but this is a totally different encyclopedia. Everything notable gets covered here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On another page a user asked:

• "When I read Final Decision/Principals/#17 (20.1.17) of the PS Arbcom it notes the principal that psychoanalysis should not be "characterized" as pseudoscience and was "Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)". What does that mean?"

In the context of all that was discussed, written, and decided in that Arbcom, it means that Wikipedia editors must not use Wikipedia's voice to characterize psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, or to add it to Category:Pseudoscience. Otherwise, they expressly allow that articles "may contain information to that effect" (psychoanalysis as pseudoscience) if it is attributed to RS. Wikipedia takes no side in the matter, but does report that others have done so. Fair enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Only disruptive comments. User warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Arbcom shouldn't decide that. Its a issue which is only resolvebale by scientific sources. But in this case I'm agree with the arbcom. --WSC ® 08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) What is and is not pseudoscience isn't determined here, but we do determine (and Arbcom decisions do help) the content of articles (everything on the subject from RS, both scientific and others), and that's a different subject than what is or is not pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) But where's the different? Of course the Arbcom can't determine what is or is not pseudoscience! The Arbcom has nothing to do with this scientific debate. But it determine how wikipedia constitute this issue. Thats nothing but a determination. And thats a question the Arbcom can't decide. We, as enzyclopedists, can only recur the sources. All own decisions how a subject is presendet are a violation of NOR! No matter if you, I or the Arbcom doing it. --WSC ® 06:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC) End of discussion per your warning. Continuation will only result in a ban for you. Don't reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom does not (any more?) rule on content. And the decision is almost 7 years old. Ages for Wikipedia. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Psychoanalytic theory (ie Freud) definitely should have it but psychoanalysis is a kind of in-between in this case. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a reasonable compromise (Psychoanalytic theory has the category already). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Breuer and psychoanalysis

Is psychoanalysis not Freud's field? What do reliable sources say? They should be cited anyway. WykiP (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it was really, popularised by him anyway, his eventually and for some time dominant faction, but the first sentence was talking about the roots of it, and so see start of history section and article on Freud's mentor Josef Breuer (various sources there about his clinical work and their joint publication being seen as the start or foundation of psychoanalysis). Sighola (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

French feminist psychoanalysis

Dear friend. Feminist French psychoanalysis is a field that vastly changed the current horizons in psychoanalysis. It is recognized for almost half a century. I think that it is very valuable that the Wikipedia readers will be aware of this tendency. Many psychoanalysts today will agree, thanks to the efforts of French feminist psychoanalysts, that the psychoanalysis issued from Freud onwards was paternalistic and that its insistance on the phallic paradigm was disastrous to women. I think that this must be reflected in the page. I know that for the moment the section is not sufficient, but it is important to start. Others can continue slowly and build the whole mini chapter. More names should be added, mainly from the American field of psychoanalysis, but my hope is that others will join the effort. I will appreciate if you will contribute in helping to build this chapter. It is time to take this direction out of the limited "feminist" section. I have put the small section back, in view of developing it together. Best wishes Artethical (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Artethical (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I will be very happy to discuss this. I am putting some efforts to raise the awareness to feminist theory art and psychoanalysis in its importance to the general fields, not just to "feminism". This is not so easy task, and I am happy to to try to clarify the issue. However, being aware of the enormity of the task, I usually go by already established figures who influence the fields (art, psychoanalysis, culture) as such. Inasmuch as psychoanalysis was and is not "neutral" but biased toward structures of the subject that fit male desires, the feminist analysis is a section in it. However, you willsee that other small sections for the moment are not more developped (like the cultural psychoanalysis - names for the moment). There is hope here to put not what we wish to happen in the field but what has already established itself as a field. I can support this with many references, but - this will take time and patience, and help from other editors. Looking forward Artethical (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Andrew.I can open the discussion by saying that for Freud (his own definitions) male is subject, female is objwct. Following this, in Object-relations theory and for Melanie Klein, the mother is the object of the child (subject). In Lacan, the Father and the Phallus informs and shapes subjectivity. The woman either is lack or object or a lacking object. French feminist psychoanalysis developed a new field with critical look at all of those. Here the female, woman, and mother (depends on the theory) is subject. This transform the field in a very deep level. This is surely another field of psychoanalysis. American psychoanalysts contributed no less to this field, we can add Jessica Benjamin and others. All post Freudians, and most also post Lacanian. Does any of this makes a basis to clarify the field in few words? and then put the names? If this is a case, I need your help here, it is too long. I saw also a general problem in the structure of the page - I do not want to try to touch it alone - we can discuss this later? Artethical (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artethical. Unfortunately I do not feel like I can commit meaningfully to helping you with your Wikipedia project. This is mainly because I am not a subject matter expert, but also because I feel generally stretched by my own Wikipedia antics. I do hope therefore that you find other likeminded individuals (of any gender) who you can collaborate with. I also am probably not the best person to help with using the Wikipedia tools (like image upload). Fortunately there are many tutorials available, and other more skilled editors are generally happy to help if these have not shone light. For the meantime then I will have to restrict myself to discussing your proposed edit.

On that note, I think it might be best to elaborate on what I think you would need to do in order to have confidence that your edit will not be reverted. First and foremost it should be referenced. I do understand that this is time consuming and often difficult, but it is Wikipedia’s primary quality assurance mechanism and not negotiable. Second, it must be meaningful to a (somewhat…) lay audience. This means that terms like “abjection”, “matrixial trans-subjectivity” and “primal mother-phantasies” should be explained properly. This also means that name dropping out of context is insufficient. What those people have contributed must be made clear, as well as why it is significant. This latter point is also particularly important in the Wikipedia context, as every person and his or her dog wants to have their pet theory up on Wikipedia and Wikipedia must ensure that fringe theories do not clutter the articles.

Anyway, I hope this helps and let me know if anything is unclear. Best of luck with the editing. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, this is very helpful. I will put together a line that explain why feminist psychoanalysis is a major section for many years now, and will add the references. I will also add few American important feminist psychoanalysts, and few references to show that this field is a serious field of reference for many researchers. This might take time, I hope to do this as soon as I reach the library. Best wishes Artethical (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks dear Andrewfor your advise, I tried to follow it: I am putting now a section well referenced, and hope to work on this together with other editors to get it better in the future. Feminist psychoanalysis is an enormous field, I believe that many readers will benefit from finding some major references. Artethical (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artethical. I just had a look and it does seem vastly improved. I still have some concerns about the extent of jargon and name-dropping, as well as how marginal the viewpoint might be, but there are who would be better placed to assess these things. I will therefore leave it to them. Best of luck with the editing. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, can someone define what the Lacanian "lack" is in this section? I don't think an average reader will just know what it is. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear CartoonDiablo, I will take this challange briefly Artethical (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I get what's being said but can we really phrase it like we known for certain that human beings have a "lack" (and also it needs a citation but I'm sure Lacan did say that).

I feel like it should be rephrased to make the assumptions more clear, something like "For Lacan, human subjects inherently lack satisfaction and the "woman" can fulfill this lack." Right now it's written as if Lacan was explaining objective reality when it is largely his own theory. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear CartoonDiablo, it is interesting what you say, but unfortunately this is not what Lacan meant by "lack". I will soon try to repharase even better, but for the moment, forgive me for not taking up your suggestion: when Lacan talks about "lack" he doesn't intend the lack of satisfaction the way you have just formulated. This makes sense, but this is not this theory. I leave it for the moment, and I will check a bit more. Artethical (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section vs. Evaluation of Effectiveness

The criticism section here is poorly sourced. The first sentence of the section make a broad statement: "Psychoanalysis has progressively moved towards the fringes of mental health care." The "source" for this statement, however, doesn't give evidence for this claim; it's just a little odds & ends note that pokes fun at the French (http://tinyur l.com/n688j8s). The second sentence is "Its usefulness as a technique has not been demonstrated," but the source for *this* statement is an editorial, not any kind of scientific publication (http://tinyur l.com/kjx9mge). Farther down, we have "A French 2004 report from INSERM said that psychoanalytic therapy is far less effective than other psychotherapies (including cognitive behavioral therapy)," but in the "Evaluation of Effectiveness" section, references to the same report offer a more nuanced conclusion: "According to a 2004 French review conducted by INSERM, psychoanalysis was presumed or proven effective at treating panic disorder, post-traumatic stress and personality disorders" (but not for schizophrenia).

In the section on Freud, we include this odd tidbit: "Freud's psychoanalysis was criticized by his wife, Martha. René Laforgue reported Martha Freud saying, 'I must admit that if I did not realize how seriously my husband takes his treatments, I should think that psychoanalysis is a form of pornography.' To Martha there was something vulgar about psychoanalysis, and she dissociated herself from it."

Etc. etc. I don't want to belabor the details. I think the quality of the section is poor. But because it's been controversial, I wanted to ask for guidance in revising it. I would try to 1. move appropriate material to the "evaluation of effectiveness" section; 2. remove poorly sourced material; 3. separate the criticism of (contemporary) psychoanalysis as a discipline from the criticism of Freud and his writings; 4. try to identify what specific elements of psychoanalysis are being critiqued by whom; and 5. Remove the silly stuff.

Thoughts? Giordanob (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism section does need to be fixed. The sources do not support the statements, and there are other problems. The situation seems to indicate issues of "original research" and point-of-view. A solution would be to replace the poorly sourced parts with more accurate reporting based on better source material.GretDrabba (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

reference without publication details

Westen & Gabbard 2002 is referenced twice but I can't find the publication details anywhere on the page - google search throws up these likely possibilities --

Westen, D. and Gabbard, G. O. ( 2002). Developments in cognitive neuroscience: I. Conflict, compromise, and connectionism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50, 53—98.

Westen, D. and Gabbard, G. O. ( 2002). Developments in cognitive neuroscience: II. Implications for theories of transference. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50, 99—134.

can someone confirm the intended reference? Depthdiver (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Feynman quote

According to article, Feynman dismissed psychoanalytics as witch doctors. Maybe I am missing something here but for me it looks like he has been partially misinterpreted. Here is more complete quotation than what is now in article: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/richard-feynman-briefly-on-psychology-t967.html

For me it looks like he criticised psychoanalysis (and psychology in general) but in same time implied it is best we got at the moment and it might anyway work. What do you think? Would it be good idea to replace the current quotation with a longer version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.83.141 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased view....

the article has become tendentious in way thats not bearable any more. It is clearly anti-psychoanalysis now. Especially the effectiveness and critics sections. Most information in the latter section is plainly wrong or twisted. The citations of minor scientits are given prominence by placing them in text-boxes. This leads to the conclusion, thats those views would be especially valid, but actually they are rather platitudinous. I started cleaning the sections from a more neutral standpoint. Please feel free to continue (or reply if you disagree). 37.4.82.173 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very dubious of the quality and neutrality of the subsequent content changes in Evaluation of Effectiveness. It clearly gives a leading impression that psychoanalysis has been found in scientific reviews to be more effective than other therapies and medications; this is HIGHLY MISLEADING.

"Meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 come to the conclusion that there is support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed." Both the citations are in fact to articles in 2013, neither being the major 2012 Smit et al. study in Clinical Psychology Review which concluded: "We found the evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP {Long-term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy} to be limited and conflicting."

"Other meta-analyses published in the recent years showed psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy to be effective, with outcomes comparable or greater than other kinds of psychotherapy or antidepressant drugs" {3 sources whose abstracts seem to indicate far more limited claims] "but these arguments have also been subjected to various criticisms" {several comment type sources, as if meta-analyses haven't been done showing anything other than effectiveness}.

Basically it seems that after the 2012 meta-analysis was done (Smit, as welll as John Ioannidis "one of the most eminent methodologists and meta-analysts in the world") casting doubt on long-term psychoanalysis, another was done (Leichsenring et al.) to refute it (actually a repeat/update of a prior widely criticised meta-analysis and itself then again severely critiqued (For example "undertaken and reported in flagrant violation of the usual rules") Sighola5 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly describing the research on the effectiveness of therapies based on psychoanalysis has to take into account at least the following things: 1) AFAIK it has been demonstrated that most people recover spontaneously after sufficient time 2) much evidence supports the view that therapy is effective regardless of what theory it is based on. So psychoanalysis could be completely untrue as a scientific theory and still psychoanalytical therapy might work. The fact that "it works" might be really uninteresting if it does not work much or if the same benefits are achievable via some other means (especially if it is cheaper). Many studies do not control for these factors, for example the Helsinki-trial claims that therapies based on psychoanalysis are as good as any other forms of therapy. However, there is no comparison group (that is to people that did not receive any therapy), many of the patients used in the study participated in many forms of therapy (which the authors claim was impossible to control for), the drop-out rates are high, power weak, and the effect sizes minimal. For people pondering on whether or not to take therapy and of what school this kind of info could be useful. 88.112.19.167 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis Page Does Not Meet Wiki Standards

This page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for objectivity. It downplays or completely ignores the growing body of work by scientists that validate many of the claims of psychoanalysis. It also ignores the fact that many neuroscientific phenomena now regarded as factual were first postulated by psychoanalysis. This is not hidden information. A simple google search turns up pages of articles and books on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.117.199 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia references about psychoanalysis

This article has needed better sourcing for a while, so I've been looking up some sources. There are more where these come from. These should be informative reading for improving this article.

• Aggarwal, Neil K. (2015). "Transference in Psychoanalysis: Classical, Contemporary, and Cultural Contexts". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 545–548. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.27072-4. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Graf-Nold, Angela (2015). "Jung, Carl Gustav (1875–1961)". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 902–906. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.61063-2. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Mühlleitner, Elke (2015). "Psychoanalysis, History of". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 326–329. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03045-2. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Ng, Roger M.K. (2015). "Psychology of the Real Self: Psychoanalytic Perspectives". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 400–405. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.27055-4. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Tasman, Allan (2015). "Psychoanalysis: Current Status". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 336–343. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.27014-1. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

• Yorke, Clifford (2015). "Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939)". In Wright, James D. (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed.). Elsevier. pp. 413–419. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.61036-X. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5. Retrieved 9 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.)

Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Freud's being Jewish not Relevant?

I do not agree that Freud's Jewish background is irrelevant. Jews have had an inordinate influence in the field of psychoanalysis and in psychotherapy generally. Freud's Jewish background was part of the reason for his friction with the reactionary, racist Carl Jung. Freud used his position as a scientist to attack Christianity in many of his writings, such as The Future of an Illusion. Reliable sources have said Freud's Jewish background biased him in a lot of ways, particularly against Christianity. "One of Freud's most powerful motives in life was the desire to inflict vengeance on Christianity for its traditional anti-Semitism. This idea has been suggested by Freud himself, and has been alluded to by others. In The Interpretation of Dreams, where Freud tells us so much about himself, he relates one of his dreams in which he is in Rome." Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing as Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression (Anchor Press/Doubleday, NY, 1978).http://mailstar.net/freud.html Also Freud's Jewish background may have influenced his left leaning political views. Why can't just one word be spent pointing out Freud was Jewish?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need bigoted crap like that on Wikipedia unless you have a distinctly reliable source that shows that that has something important to do with the development of psychoanalysis, which you do not. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read there are significant historical and perhaps philosophical connections between psychoanalysis and Judaism. Psychoanalysts (especially Jewish ones, of which there were many) were persecuted in Nazi Germany and later in the postwar Stalinist USSR. On the conceptual level there is lots (and lots) of discussion about the Jewishness or not of psychoanalysis ([1], just the tip of the iceberg), which is an issue someone might want to discuss on Wikipedia if they were going to do it very carefully. It is correct that Freud takes digs specifically at Christian civilization in The Future of an Illusion. But you'd have to say that Moses and Monotheism is a bit of a dig at Jewish orthodoxy as well. Anyway, to discuss Jewishness in the article about psychoanalysis, as opposed to the article about Sigmund Freud, it would probably be best to cite some quality sources and make statements about the overall demographics of practitioners. (The very fact of citing Szasz on Freud's "Anti-Gentilism" suggests a somewhat selective motivation for attributing religious/ethnic alignment only to Freud. If his religion is important because Szasz says so then this viewpoint should be attributed to Szasz in the proper part of the article.) After all we are not going out of our way to describe Carl Jung as Christian, even though he made quite a big deal out of Christianity being the intellectual heritage of "The West". (Ironically the only mention of Christianity in this article now is to mention French philosophers subsequently accusing psychoanalysis of being Christianoid!) shalom, groupuscule (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We have the statement, "His remarks on the superiority of the "Aryan unconscious" and the “corrosive character” of Freud’s “Jewish gospel” have been cited as evidence of an anti-semitism “fundamental to the structure of Jung’s thought”"in the Carl Jung article, compare that to my just proposing Freud be described with the single word Jewish. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your mention of another Wikipedia article strongly suggests that you should carefully review the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources. We don't point to one Wikipedia article with a possible mistake in editing practice to back up making the same mistake in another article. Most of the 6,817,514 articles on Wikipedia need a lot of work, and the way that articles become better is for editors here to read reliable, published sources, preferably of an encyclopedic or reference book nature, that are on the same topics as the articles the editors are editing, and using those sources to determine what to emphasize and what not to bring up. So let me ask you directly: what reliable, professionally edited, published sources have you read on the topic of psychoanalysis, the topic of this article? What sources do you recommend for editing Wikipedia article content about psychoanalysis? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Freud's ethnic and religious background is relevant to his life, but not to psychoanalysis. Just like the fact that Einstein was jewish is irrelevant for the theory of relativity. The fact that some guy has proposed a connection is irrelevant unless this proposal has been generally accepted. Do introductions to psychoanalysis go into Freud's ethnic origins?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Einstein's theory of relativity is a quasi-mathematical theory, although it is not technically mathematics. Mathematics cannot be connected to morality, culture, religion, politics, etc. Freud's psychoanalysis is basically a form of psychotherapy, which has profound implications for society, and can connect to religion, politics, etc. So they are two different matters. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, why is it called an obsession to criticize excessive Jewish influence, but not to criticize excessive Islamic influence. Today, even though Jews are less than 10% of the USA's population, they are 40% of academia, the news media, etc. People on Fox News constantly complain about excessive Islamic influence, but no one is willing to talk about excessive Jewish influence. Why is the one considered bigoted, but not the other? Its also not racist, because a person can choose whether to follow the philosophy of Judaism, although he cannot choose his racial origin. Jewry (the racial or at least allegedly racial group) and Judaism (the religion, both in its theistic and atheistic forms) are two different things. Criticizing Judaism is not the same thing as criticizing the Jewish race. Incidentally, David Bakan suggested in Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition that Freud's Judaism did influence psychoanalysis. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds very much like an unhealthy obsession to be honest. The point about critiqueing "Islamic influence" is so far out the of the field that it is almost funny. Freud was not a follower of Judaism. So you are contradicting yourself and clearly apply a racial or ethnic definition of the term. Has anyone who has written about Psychoanalysis cited Bakan? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are atheistic forms of Judaism, just like there are of Christianity. Freud was a member of B'Nai Brith, a Jewish fraternity that currently sponsors an extremist Jewish political group called the Anti-Defamation League. So no, Freud was not merely a member of the Jewish race, in some sense, he identified with Judaism politically as well.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jewish race? Atheistic christianity? I am not sure we inhabit the same mental planet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism, I guess wikipedia editors don't either. By race, I meant ethnicity, I do not mean a biological race. Races like Caucasian/Aryan, Negro, etc. are made up, but there is such a thing as ethnic identity. And there clearly are atheistic Jews. If Freud was not one, then why was he a member of B'Nai Brith, this is a documented fact. You're only using ad hominem arguments to discredit me, you're not using logic. You're just attacking my character by attacking me as a crackpot. This is a standard tactic left-wing people use, attacking a person's character instead of replying to his arguments. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your argument fails, because you have failed to show why one of the possible identities that could be prefixed to Freud (Jewish, Austrian, Male, White, European, etc.) would be particularly relevant for his theory, to the degree that it merits mention. You have not provided any valid argument in the form of sources about psychoanalysis that prominently mentions Freuds' Jewishness as being relevant to his theory. It is of course possible to show one or few sources that suggest so, but that is the case for any prominent Jewish person, such arguments are a dime a dozen. What you need to show is that it is generally considered relevant. And you have not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

My dictionary defines race as "a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group: we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then." In that sense of the term, cultural Jews could be considered a race, just like certain other communities could, such as the Irish or Germans, for example.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You should get a new dictionary, using "race" as a synonym for "people" or "ethnic group" is likely to get you in trouble, not just when you speak about Jews, where it is clearly inappropriate because of the particular historical contexts of discourse about "the Jewish race".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Christianity, in its narrowest sense, means the religions worshiping Jesus as God and accepting the Trinity and the Bible. However, in a broader sense it includes other religions, like Mormonism, Unitiarianism in the original sense of the term rather than its current universalistic meaning, and Christian Science, that do not worship Jesus, but follow his teachings and are based on those teachings and the Bible. In this broader sense, atheists who follow Jesus' philosophy can be called Christian atheists. Thomas Altizer wrote a book about this called The Gospel of Christian Atheism. There are also atheistic forms of Judaism that do the same thing with Jewish teachings. So what I said is not a contradiction now that I've explained I'm using different definitions for the same terms. A person could not be a trinitarian, biblical Christian, and be an atheist, but he could accept certain Christian teachings and reject others and be an atheist, so it depends on which use of the term Christian one is using. The same goes for Judaism. Freud did not believe in Jehovah, the God of Judaism, but some have argued he believed in an atheistic kind of Judaism. And he clearly in his writings focuses far more on attacking Christianity than Judaism. And as I've explained, I was using race in a different definition than most people use it, so my use of the term was not absurd.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. I'm just going to be subjected to ad hominem attacks if I push this, and its not really important to me, unless I feel later like taking the time to read more about Freud to strengthen my argument, I'm done with this discussion.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it is an ad hominem argument to point out when the words you say mean something that is nonsensical to me. You have now explained your usage which I appreciate, but I still don't see how this necessitates the addition of ethno-religious labels before the names of people whose work is generally not considered to be related to their ethnicity or religion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916045816/http://www.npg-utrecht.nl:80/npg.htm to http://www.npg-utrecht.nl/npg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Martin Charcot

Shouldn't there be more emphasis, in the lede especially, on Jean-Martin Charcot, and the idea that psychoanalysis had its origins before Freud? See, for example, The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories, Eugene Taylor [2]. Rwood128 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the Psychoanalysis process ?

The article is not very fine tuned when it comes to easiness in reading. Can anyone who knows the subject what is the process format in a clinical setting. Is this approach updated with evidence support, if so what are the changes they made. Provide a clean difference in the intro about term difference and relation with psychoanalytic theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.195.73 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Milrod research ???

There is on research by Barbara Milrod that is to empirically support Freud's ideas. I've searched the web and found nothing on that. However I found Barbara Milrod's page ([3]) and don't see there any publications on this topic.

Reimut Reiche, Germany

Reimut Reiche is a well-known psychoanalyst in Germany.

He has written the book:

Psychoanalyse und Klassenkampf - Psychoanalysis and Class Struggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimut_Reiche

Improvements

Clearly, this article is very nascent, and needs improvement. But FreeKnowledgeCreator seems to be trying to create nothing more than an edit war, and we need to sort some of these things out here. Don't simply revert without thinking, please. MrsCaptcha (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I did think before reverting your edits to the lead. My view remains that the original wording ("Psychoanalysis is a set of psychological and psychotherapeutic theories and associated techniques, created by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and stemming partly from the clinical work of Josef Breuer and others") was preferable to your version ("Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques related to the unconscious mind. The discipline was created by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and stemming partly from the clinical work of Josef Breuer and others"). The "related to the unconscious mind" language is vague and unhelpful; removing mention of the fact that psychoanalysis is a set of "psychotherapeutic theories and associated techniques" obscures what psychoanalysis is mainly about, which is treating patients. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

MrsCaptcha, in response to your rude edit summary, "FKC: That unverified statement of yours is exactly the reason why there is a big fat tag on the top of the page since Oct 2013 about lack of sources. At least read Freud before you try to edit psychoanalysis, and see what he and Jung say about unconscious", I have read enough of Freud to be quite sure that psychoanalysis is primarily a psychotherapeutic method for treating patients. Your edits to the lead of this article are unfortunately destructive and unhelpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so that we will add about the psychotherapeutic approaches in the clinic, which I did now. But do not revert blindly even if there are things that are incomplete during the first few edits. Unless we go on with the process of adding stuff, edit by edit, the article will never improve. Secondly, there are several psychotherepeutic techniques that are also NOT associated with the unconscious mind, like cognitive behaviour therapy, for one. To understand psychoanalysis uniquely we have to define/distinguish it. -MrsCaptcha (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FKC - I wasn't intending to be rude. Apologies if I did. The point was to explain why your blind reverts were in fact destructive themselves to any further improvement. Moreover, Freud and Jung and all other psychoanalysts till date extensively talk about the unconscious mind, which is central to psychoanalysis, and what distinguishes it from all other clinical methods. MrsCaptcha (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The lead currently begins, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques related to the unconscious mind, and is a method that is used in the psycho-therapeutic clinic for the treatment of mental health disorders." That is not only poorly written, but also gives a very misleading impression, since it implies that psychoanalysis is primarily concerned with "the unconscious mind", rather than with the patient. I do not see any improvement in your changes to the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Really, which clinical method on this planet would not be concerned with the patient? That is something that any medical work would be concerned with by default. Something being poorly written is not a reason for it to be reverted, and this is not a creative writing class. This is an encyclopedia, and definitions must be arrived at through rigorous changes. You are free to "improve" the quality of my sentence, certainly, but refuting that psychoanalysis has anything to do with the unconscious mind shows that you are not familiar with Freud's works at all. MrsCaptcha (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested that psychoanalysis is not concerned with the unconscious. The point of my objection to your wording was that it wrongly implies that psychoanalysis is mainly concerned with the unconscious rather than with the patient. The objection stands, as you have made no relevant response. Contrary to what you suggest, the fact that an addition to an article is poorly written definitely is a reason to revert it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really, FreeKnowledge. It's not a reason to revert. It's a reason to continue working on it and improving what's wrong. That's different from reverting. Secondly, I must clarify that yes, psychoanalysis is concerned mainly with the unconscious mind of the patient. Once again, you can emphasise on a generic thing like "the patient", and once again, I remind you that all medical practice from heart surgery to gynecology to psychoanalysis is INDEED concerned with the patient! But what distinguishes each of these fields is that they deal with several different organs of the body (heart surgeon for the heart, psychologist for the mind) - and every sub-field, sub-method, deals with a different aspect too. So in psychology, there are many branches. Freud established psychoanalysis with Joseph Breuer to work with the unconscious aspects of the psyche, that were by far neurological to him. He was a neurologist and a man of letters, and he founded the discipline of psychoanalysis. Mind you, not all psychoanalysis is clinical (psychoanalysis is a robust literary/cultural movement too). And not all medical practice is psychoanalytical (dealing with the unconscious mind). Cognitive behaviour therapy too is a psychotherapeutic technique that was established, but deals with behavioural/cognitive aspects that are not to do with the unconscious. This is why it is important that you read a little more about Freud's works. Please start with Interpretation of Dreams and Studies in Hysteria and look up the Sigmund Freud article to understand just how and why his work in establishing psychoanalysis was related to the unconscious mind, and once you get a better grip over these terms, can we have a further discussion. MrsCaptcha (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to "continue working" on your addition to the lead because it added nothing worthwhile; the unconscious was already mentioned, in its proper place, before your low-quality, unnecessary edits. Like any form of psychotherapy, psychoanalysis is concerned with the patient first and foremost, so obviously it's wrong for the lead to begin by talking about the unconscious; rather, it needs to begin by identifying psychoanalysis as psychotherapy, and then to explain things like the unconscious later. The wording you added ("Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques related to the unconscious mind, and is a method that is used in the psycho-therapeutic clinic for the treatment of mental health disorders") is not even grammatical. Not going to respond to most of your comments above, as they are irrelevant, but I'll note that "it is important that you read a little more about Freud's works" is a rude, presumptuous comment. Do learn not to insult total strangers in this fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are at it - I might just sue you for plagiarising my comments to other users on other articles and talkpages in the meanwhile! Hahahaha! (*You're hilarious. You can't be serious.* Copying the message I sent to another user on an article on a completely different tangent? Get a life.) MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That user does not appear to want to discuss article content in a grown-up fashion. That is really too bad. I only hope that the above comment suggests that the user is not going to continue a dispute at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So FKC thinks I'm really out to sue him and that I'm babbling nonsense. Forget about being receptive to sarcasm, this debate is turning uglier, and I would so request anyone else to step in and mediate, as I am at a loss as to how to deal with this. MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want things to "get ugly", then do not insult and patronize total strangers by telling them what books they have or have not read, do not even joke about suing people, and do not make comments that - yes - are irrelevant babble. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator - It was you who began with the sarcasm, copying my comments to other users on other talkpages and articles. Once again, I am asking you to be civil. Your language is not. Anyone reading this can see for themselves. Sharing names of books is not patronisation or insulting when we are working on improving an article as a community on an encyclopedia. You need to stop getting insecure, which is clear from your comments. Taking things personally on Wikipedia's talkpages (like feeling insulted for having someone mention names of books) is not part of civil conduct on your part. Period. I leave this to other users here to interpret, and will not be responding to any of your comments anymore until I find a difference in your tone (and attitude). MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention copying comments, nor do I care, nor do I think anyone cares. Please stop making comments that have no relation to improving the article and interest no one other than you. You implied that I had not read two books by Freud, even though I am a total stranger, and you have no way of knowing what I have or have not read. Virtually anyone would take that kind of nonsense as an insult - as I'm sure you realize. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Those books are not mentioned in the psychoanalysis article, so it was a common suggestion. Once again, this is a sign of taking something personally. I was not patronising you to read anything. Moreover, my remark in the edit summary was not meant to be taken as personally as you took it. Verified sources are a part of Wikipedia. Yes, maybe my tone was wrong - but it was not used in bad faith. You were repeatedly reverting the changes rather than trying to understand them either. I am more than happy to go back to discussing the article's content now. MrsCaptcha (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because your changes were unhelpful and unnecessary, as I tried to explain to you. Someone else just altered the lead to read, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques, many of which relate to the unconscious mind. Together these form a method that is used in the psycho-therapeutic clinic for treatment of mental health disorders". Respectfully, that is poor writing. The reader will be left wondering what a vague statement such as "many of which relate to the unconscious mind" means, and which are the theories and techniques that do not relate to the unconscious mind. It's a useless statement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not useless — unless you demand that every tenet of the field should be crammed into the first sentence. Doing so is what produces the unreadable lists of jargon that do nothing to further knowledge-acquisition of readers. It has one of two effects: they are given an incomplete picture and feigned understanding of the field based off a single sentence, or they move away to some other site which is less jargon-filled. If readers are left wondering — perfect — that might just prompt them to read further into the article to find out. You are not likely to win friends by attacking every editor that comes here and does anything — in fact such behaviour is exactly what causes most editors to be topic-banned. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Saying that "many" theories and techniques relate to the unconscious mind implies some do not. What are they? What is your source for their not relating to the unconscious mind, if you have one? You do realize that you cannot just make something up and place it in an article, don't you? Your comment does not address these obvious and reasonable questions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are acting like small children. There was some definite improvement in MrsCaptcha's new introductory sentence — and I agree it is bad form to revert without a clear rationale. If this article has been tagged for improvement for 3 years without anything happening, then the tag is clearly not serving its intended purpose (hence I removed it). Now let us hope that some spring-cleaning can be done and we can get the article up to a new standard — it desperately needs it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are being needlessly rude, CFCF. Drastically so. You might want to reconsider your approach. The edits to the lead by MrsCaptcha were not improvements, and I've explained why. Your comment does nothing to address the issue. Again, if you consider "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques, many of which relate to the unconscious mind", to be good writing, then I'd ask you to explain how it will help readers curious about which theories and techniques do not relate to the unconscious mind. Again, specifically what are they? Can you name them? And what is your source for the addition? If it is simply uncited text, then it needs to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

After 60.000+ edits you should be aware that the lede does not need explicit references if the explanation is in the body of the text. I am not the one being rude by attacking others for their contributions and trying to invalidate everything they've tried to contribute with. I don't really know what you mean by "good writing" since writing an encyclopedia has a great number of different requirements than other writing. Especially the introductory paragraph should be simple and easy to understand. If that means we sacrifice some detail in favor of readability, so be it. I would direct you to WP:JARGON, WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:LEDE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the body of the text does the article explain which theories and techniques of psychoanalysis do not relate to the unconscious mind? Please do explain this fascinating issue. I'm afraid your comment is mostly quite irrelevant; if other editors add bad writing and uncited claims to articles, it is reasonable to patiently point out that this is what they have done. If someone requests a citation for something you added, you don't get to just dismiss that with lofty complaints. Your edit comment], "Change many -> most if you wish",avoids the issue: what citation do you have showing that the text you added is correct? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Incessantly reverting and cramming in clarification tags is not "patiently pointing out". I already told you that we do not need to detail every aspect of the field in the first sentence, if it does not give a full understanding — that is fine. Would you contest that Freud's theories entirely negated behaviourism and invalidated it entirely? If not it seems apt to clarify that most of psychoanalysis relates to the unconscious mind, but not all of it. As you seemed to object to the notion that the theories all related to the unconscious mind at first — I changed that to many — now you object to that too? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for any of the claims you added? They are original research otherwise. Although you seem to be trying to avoid the point, you simply cannot add something asserting that "many" or "most" of the theories and techniques relate to the unconscious if you have no evidence that such a characterization is correct (and that they do not all relate to the unconscious, for instance). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I already stated that the rest of the article validates them. May I remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, and are very much aware that what was added is not controversial. Nearly every source on the topic explains it in such a manner, including what is the second source on Google The American Psychoanalytic Association. This makes it a clear case of WP:SKYISBLUE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you did state that, but the funny thing is, you provided no evidence of any kind that your statement was correct. Hence the request for citations. That I don't own the article is true, but doesn't mean I have to accept statements made by you without evidence. You made two different, contradictory claims - that many of the theories and techniques relate to the unconscious and that most do - so how could the article validate both of those claims? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

They're not contradictory. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Most" means a majority. "Many" is vague and may mean only a minority. So of course the two statements are potentially contradictory. You've provided no evidence at all that either is correct, which is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Potentially contradictory ≠ contradictory. I have given sources and an explanation, that you choose to ignore it is not my problem. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If the source you had in mind is this from the American Psychoanalytic Association, it does not say that "most" or "many" theories and techniques of psychoanalysis relate to the unconscious. Both of those claims were original research, added by you. They are poor writing, and imply that some theories and techniques do not relate to the unconscious, which you of course have no evidence of. It's improper to add uncited claims, as you have done, and more improper to remove reasonable requests for citations, as you did here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Frederick. Yes, FKC is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative as I pointed out earlier in my messages to him as well. It seems like he does not want any editor on this page besides him, and is creating convoluted discussion circles to drive us around a bush. The article is not going to move forward much at this rate with him, unless he wants to change his attitude. MrsCaptcha (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Psychoanalysis has never been one of the articles I have been most interested in editing, and I have made relatively few edits here. I am not interested in contesting other user's edits for the sake of it, or discussion for the sake of it, the problem rather is that your edits have not been very good in my view and you've refused to listen to explanations of why. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page style and collaboration

Hello folks, I'm coming back to Wikipedia after a couple of years off and I'm disappointed at the exchanges I see above. But rather oddly, encouraged by the improvements in this article from two years ago! So take heart that you are collectively improving things, and may I gently suggest that if you concentrated more on collaborating and less on winning the arguments on the talk page things would improve even faster? Freud would doubtless be amused by the conflicts being acted out here.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)