This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I'm going to delete the reference to Dr. Kulchyky. I am familiar with his work but don't know her. Without further references, this seems slanderous against both of these psychiatrists.

The article itself is well written, but it really could use some sources to support some statements. For example, something that is a reliable source on the disagreements between Dr. Kernberg and Dr. Kohut. RalphLender ^talk 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Take another look, it is there. It is also common knowledge that does not need to be footnoted. This is it: Consolini, G. (1999). Kernberg Versus Kohut: A (Case) Study in Contrasts. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 71-86. -- DorisHノート 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I see the references...but there should be a citation to support the statements in the KvK section..."common knowledge" is not a substitute for the having reliable sources. Furthermore, the reader without such "common knowledge," who is reading the article to get information, should have sources cited for followup. RalphLender ^talk 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Your were able to add a template, so why not venture to do a citation. This is not the place to get support for your proposed policy change. If you want a citation, fix it yourself.-- DorisHノート 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

A variety of "Kohut states" or "Kernberg says" and opinion statements need some citations here. I've marked those. Generally, POV statements, original research, and statements of opinion should not be in articles...unless there is supporting reliable sources. DPeterson ^talk 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Reverted, as per reasons given above. (Text is fully sourced.)Please, read the discussion and answer in context before posting a helpful reply.-- DorisHノート 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but this is not a topic I am very familiar with and so cannot add sources. But, as an interested reader and editor with knowledge in a variety of related topics, I do think that reliable sources are needed, especially on the disagreements between Drs. K & K. Rember, no one "ownes" article in wikipedia and so I do have a right to put in requests for citations. the text really isn't fully sourced at all, in my opinion. RalphLender ^talk 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Interesting opinion, really. But what counts for the article is reality. ≈8-0 -- DorisHノート 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

So I reverted this again. I might consider supporting your request if you can tell me exactly where Consolini is misquoted, and how someone quoteable understands his paper in a different way. -- DorisHノート 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "exactly where Consolini is misquoted, and how someonw quoteable understands his paper.." RalphLender ^talk 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You are the one who says the sources are no good. So which sources are no good? If you object to the piece on Kohut, it is obviously Consolini? If you object to existing sources then you will have to explain that. Do you understand that?-- DorisHノート 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I was not clear, and if so, I am sorry. I don't think the sources that are in the article are "no good." Those are fine. I just believe additional sources are needed to support various statements. Again, I still don't know what you mean by "it is obviously Consolini?" What do you mean by "consolini?" RalphLender ^talk 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Why would you want additional sources? -- DorisHノート 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

1 autism 2 symbiosis 3 Differentiation self/object 4 integration of self/object 5 ego/superego/id consolidated

3 -failure of the child to differentiate between self and other results in a psychotic personality organization; one has failed to accomplish the first developmental task and is stuck in stage II. (seems failure @ 2 results in stuck @ 3?) 4- failure of this results in a borderline personality organization; one has failed to accomplish the second developmental task and is stuck in stage III. (seems failure @ 3 results in stuck @ 4?) -- Rick ( talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you have a reference/source that Kernberg is dead? -- Christian2003 ( talk) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Otto F. Kernberg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)