Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 4

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 Template:;)) 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)

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 , 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)