This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
--- 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.
[1]
The STPP is well evaluated. [2] 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. [3] Thats why a lot more and more differenciated studys exists for CBT. Particularly the evaluation of efficacy in specific disorders. [4] [2] 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. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
STPP is efficient in anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, personality disorders, substance use disorders and others. [11] The use of psychodynamic psychotherapies for treading schizoprenia is vague. [12]
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. [13]
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. [11] [14] [15] Futher tries to randomize patients in multiannual psychotherapies failed because the patients won't consent. [16] [17] 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. [11] [18]
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. [19] [20] [21] [22]
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." [3]
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. [23] Other studies show a significant reduction of sickness absence and consultation of the health system in a 7 year follow up. [24]
Okay, if nobody enter a caveat anymore, I will add the draft into the article. -- WSC ® 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
In fact let me start:
Kim should look at them as well. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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:
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:
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
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)
Only disruptive comments. User warned. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
Is psychoanalysis not Freud's field? What do reliable sources say? They should be cited anyway. WykiP ( talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 --
can someone confirm the intended reference? Depthdiver ( talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
There is citation needed 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 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
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |ayear=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |ayear=
ignored (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
--- 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.
[1]
The STPP is well evaluated. [2] 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. [3] Thats why a lot more and more differenciated studys exists for CBT. Particularly the evaluation of efficacy in specific disorders. [4] [2] 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. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
STPP is efficient in anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, personality disorders, substance use disorders and others. [11] The use of psychodynamic psychotherapies for treading schizoprenia is vague. [12]
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. [13]
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. [11] [14] [15] Futher tries to randomize patients in multiannual psychotherapies failed because the patients won't consent. [16] [17] 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. [11] [18]
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. [19] [20] [21] [22]
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." [3]
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. [23] Other studies show a significant reduction of sickness absence and consultation of the health system in a 7 year follow up. [24]
Okay, if nobody enter a caveat anymore, I will add the draft into the article. -- WSC ® 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
In fact let me start:
Kim should look at them as well. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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:
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:
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
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)
Only disruptive comments. User warned. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
Is psychoanalysis not Freud's field? What do reliable sources say? They should be cited anyway. WykiP ( talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 --
can someone confirm the intended reference? Depthdiver ( talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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.){{
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
There is citation needed 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 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
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |ayear=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |ayear=
ignored (
help)