Talk:Guided imagery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guided imagery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal 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 Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Guided imagery"

An article called Guided affective imagery already exists, as well as one called Cancer guided imagery, which both appear to be talking about the same phenomena. Apart from appearing to promote one particular medical practitioner's approach to the subject, in my opinion this article doesn't add anything that doesn't already appear in the encyclopedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not objective

This article seems one-sided to me, as if it were written by a devotee of guided imagery. It explains the practices of guided imagery in excellent detail, but offers very little in the way of critical analysis. Even the Clinical investigation and scientific research section says very little about investigation and research, focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of the practice when it could, for example, discuss academic research into the efficacy of the practice.

In general, the article seems not to be written with an objective tone of voice. For example, the following assertion, which is provided without citation:

The maintenance of, or "holding in mind" imagery, whether voluntary or involuntary, places considerable demands upon cognitive attentional resources, including working memory, redirecting them away from a specific cognitive task or general-purpose concentration and toward the imagery.

could be rewritten as:

Proponents of guided imagery believe that the maintenance of, or "holding in mind" imagery, whether voluntary or involuntary, places considerable demands upon cognitive attentional resources, including working memory, redirecting them away from a specific cognitive task or general-purpose concentration and toward the imagery.

I do not object to guided imagery a priori and the practice may be backed by very good science, but it is hard to come away with that impression given the way the article is written right now.

--LibreLearner (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]