Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Unscientific" as the article's fourth word.

I have added a few days ago, in the very beginning of the article, that psychoanalysis is unscientific. Since then, the term "unscientific" has been replaced by "questionably scientific". I am opening up this discussion, because after doing so, I am going to put back in place the term "unscientific", but I do respect your opinions, which is why I open up this discussion here. Science is the discipline of gathering knowledge via scientific method. According to Webster, scientific method is " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Freud did not employ such a method, as his "experiments" were based on the study of a very very little amount of volunteers. Psychoanalysis, like homeopathy and many other "alternative sciences", has spread like wildfire. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis is not science. I am not saying the subconscious does not exist, I am saying that sufficient proof (if any at all) has not been brought to support this idea. If it had, psychoanalysis would be a recognized subdomain of scientific psychology.

But it is not. Some people "believe" in psychoanalysis, some don't. Science is not a domain where one can argue whether or not a theory applies the scientific method. It is not questionable. A thing either applies the scientific method, or it doesn't. Psychoanalysis does not, and is therefore unscientific. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits violate WP:NPOV, and should be reverted. No doubt it can be sourced that psychoanalysis is unscientific, just as it could be sourced that it is scientific; likewise, we could source the statement that Freud was a charlatan, or that he was the greatest scientific genius of the 20th century. It isn't Wikipedia's job to take sides on issues like this, but to neutrally present the main published views. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to know that the Arbitration Committee held a case related to this issue a few years ago; its ruling can be found here. On the subject of psychoanalysis, it stated that, "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." So, it would be fine to say somewhere in the lead that critics have argued that psychoanalysis isn't a science or scientific in any way, but we can't assert that as fact or present it as Wikipedia's view. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd moved the info out of the lead before reading. Obviously doesn't belong there. Szzuk (talk)

It doesn't make sense to define something by what it isn't. I have moved the question of scientificness further down in the first paragraph. I also agree that the article should not generally describe opinions about the validity of psychoanalysis as fact - in so far as anyone has claimed that psychoanalysis is scientific we can describe the debate between them and those who deny the scientific basis of the theory. We do not need to describe the theory as "unscientific". Just like we don't define astrology or christianity as "unscientific" theories in the lead of those articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments violate WP:Lead, the information isn't discussed in the article body. It's a simple criticism and has been placed in the criticism secion. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When there is a criticism section that also means that per WP:LEAD, the lead must give a summary of the criticisms...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• • This isn't a featured or even good article. Its a fairly bad one that doesn't need to look worse. I can add a few words if you wish. Szzuk (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But your argument was non-conformity with WP:LEAD. I agree its a bad article and with your pithy wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pithy wording is the best solution in the circumstances. I re-organised the criticism section and removed the banner it had some time ago, it required fairly substantial deletions so I'm aware of the problem. I've no particular answer other than it requires more thought than I have time to give it, I may come back to it. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 Comments

These are comments made in 2010 that may still be up for discussion

A Very Poor Article That Smells Funny

Short note re: Victorian era. Do check your history on this. I'm not at present able to recollect any good sources, but I remember from undergraduate studies that it was the Edwardian era that was sexually repressive. The Victorians not so much. A look through any decent history of the period will identify as much. If anyone is still reading these things, that is.--Slenney (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An even more belated comment. Freud developed psychoanalysis in Vienna at the very end of the nineteenth century, so effectively from the beginning of the twentieth century. This has nothing to do with England. Far from sexual repression being a feature of that era in Vienna, sexual matters were openly discussed, and featured in popular books and plays.Esterson (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

I suppose this makes sense if it were clarified:

Some more recent forms of psychoanalysis seek, among other things, to help patients gain self-esteem through greater trust of the self, overcome the fear of death and its effects on current behavior, and maintain several relationships that appear to be incompatible.

Fred Bauder 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Research" section, this sentence appears: "In the past 30 years or so, the criticisms have centered on the issue of empirical verification,[37] in spite of many empirical, prospective research studies that have been empirically validated." This doesn't make sense as written, to refer to empirical studies that have been empirically validated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.188.104 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The article also contains statements to the effect that the lack of empirical research has and is being rectified. This is just plain untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.161.133 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I had a friend who had to undergo it to become a child psychotherapist and it was weekly for 5 years at £125 a week. Actually it took her 7 years as the analyst said she was "stuck". Thats why its not available on the NHS! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of Your friend? Really?95.89.164.91 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased in favor of p/a. afaik it is commonly accepted in mainstream scientific psychology that p/a is pseudoscience. As this is only mentioned in the criticism section, it creates the appearance that p/a is commonly accepted as true but has just a few critics. O.mangold (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Criticisms

While, obviously, an article on the subject of Sigmund Freud himself might be enlightened by noting the allegations of an inherent fascistic element to his ideas, I fail to see their relevance in regards to the subject of Psychoanalysis itself. In fact, arguments could be presented identifying the both the quotation and its inclusion in the article as one of several species of Ad Hominem. Neither the political disposition and attitudes of the discipline's practitioners, or the postulated compatibility of the discipline itself to an ill-favored political system have any significance on an objective judgment of it's validity regardless of their validity otherwise. A Science, however disputed in it's legitimacy, can only judged on its provability-- criticisms of it's application are attached to those who have applied it. I would, however, be willing to accept that I simply failed to comprehend this argument in some way. In this case I would only protest that some nuance or ambiguity in the phrasing be rethought. Lky 76.214.49.166 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Appended to reflect newly registered account.... Badfolk (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Micropsychoanalysis and Silvio Fanti

I would like to let anyone know about my intention of including micropsychoanalysis in the theories section. Micropsychoanalysis was founded by Silvio Fanti in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is a very innovative school of psychoanalysis popular in Switzerland, France and norther Italy. I will wait a few days for comments and reactions and then I will add the entry. I hope anyone agrees and the entry is welcomed. Thank you. --Thespanishdub (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The following link may deserve your attention es:Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Micropsicoanálisis This article has been deleted from es because of not being neutral and being a primary source instead.--Rapel (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the chapter "Micropsychoanalysis" that had been deleted by a user without providing valid sources. Thanks Bluebird33 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jung

Jung has not been mentioned in the article. Neither have other psychoanalysts been mentioned. Fellowscientist (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. SylvesterSherman (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History 1890s

Some paragraphs in the History 1890s section contained inaccurate information, and I have replaced them with three new paragraphs. Esterson (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reputation

Given the rising support for psychoanalysis in neuro-science and recent studies showing PsA as a treatment for diseases as depression and personality disorder to have additional and longer lasting effects than shorter treatments, the passage in the introduction ("Today, the worldwide reputation of psychoanalysis has declined to a low ebb. Its theories have been criticised on numerous fronts including the view that they constitute pseudo-science, but psychoanalysis still has many practitioners of various schools.") should be deleted or modified. 84.180.251.71 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the first statement before seeing your comment, since it struck me as a bit fatuous, but the second statement seems to be reasonable enough even if there is a resurgence. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

CartoonDiablo is including a checklist based on a single french study comparing three kinds of therapy. He/she is arguing that since the study supposedly passes WP:MEDRS it has to be included. That of course is not what WP:MEDRS means - that policy shows that sources that don't live up to the MEDRS standard cannot be included - it foes not say that sources that do must be included. Inclusion of any material is subject to consensus. I do not believe the table should be included because it gives undue weight to a single study, it is also based on the flawed assumption that psychoanalysis is a form of therapy which it is not necessarily (that would be psychotherapy). It is not the case that psychoanalysis is primarily a clinical therapeutic theory - it cannot be simply defined by its clinical results in a checklist. Furthermore if we are to include the french study it could be much better communciated in the form of one or two prose sentences - the checklist is a hhuge amount of undue weight to this particular study and its conception of what psychoanalysis should be able to do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I've addressed quality concerns on the CBT discussion let me summarize by saying that it is a tertiary source and quite possible the largest evaluation of psychological effectiveness that exists as it reviews dozens of meta-studies.

Regarding consensus, consensus is not required before adding in information and I think if it was used to exclude the largest source on the material available it wouldn't be used properly as well. You cannot use consensus for exclusion of an obvious RS and I think the chart has the proper weight given that it reflects the largest source of the material thus far. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not required before adding it, but it is required before re-adding it when contested by several editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The study is already mentioned in the criticism section with about as much weight as it deserves. The amount of weight that the 8 year old study should be allootted is of course determined by the amount of weight that the study receives in descriptions of criticism of psychoanalysis. If you can show that recent critiques of psychoanalysis feature this study prominently then we could do it as well. I think you can't because other types of critiques (such as the critique of male chauvinism and exaggerated focus on sexuality) are much more prominent. This is because psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See my reply in the CBT talk addressing citations. Whether or not psychoanalysis is supposed to be used clinically is completely irrelevant to the validity of the study; the fact is psychoanalysis is used clinically and the study sought to evaluate its effectiveness.

My point is consensus that the chart should be excluded is incorrect because it is due weight, the study is cited by hundreds if not over a thousand and is the single largest evaluation of psychotheraputic effectiveness that there is (unless someone happens to find any other territary sources that review dozens of meta-sources). CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

yes it is irrelevant to the validity of the study, but not to the relevance of the study to this article. Consensus is not incorrect - consensus is the only way to determine what is correct here on wikipedia. There is no grounds on which something can be included in an article unless there is consensus to do so. Now as long as it is just you and me contradicting eachother there is no possibility of consensus, so either we must get more people to participate in the discussion or try to work towards a compromise. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the article it's the same, unless psychoanalysis wasn't used as a form of therapy then the criticism of effectiveness would be irrelevant. As it stands, it is used as a therapy so the criticism is relevant.

I've said numerous times, there can be reasons for why the chart should be excluded but none of them seem to occur here or in the CBT article. Unless you can find another large tertiary or secondary source questioning its findings, then the chart has proper weight and validity given that academically it has more weight then any other study on the subject.

Right now it seems to be excluded for improper use of WP:Weight and Wikipedia:Relevance. I'll wait for a third opinion but if it upholds the consensus on CBT or if no third opinion arrives in the foreseeable future, I'll go to dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting more input is dispute resolution, and there is nothing improper in arguing that including a huge table with a checklist gives undue weight to the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis. What you can do is to find sources about psychoanalysis that present its clinical results in the way that you propose. If you can show me that there are other sources about psychoanalysis that does that that would go a long way towards convincing me that it is not undue weight to include it. Merely repeating that you don't think it is undue weight isn't very convincing I'm afraid. I don't need to find another tertiary source that questions its findings, because I am not arguing that the findings are wrong, I am arguing that devoting a large table to them gives undue weight to one particular criticism out of the many many criticisms of psychoanalysis that exist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the overview by shedler 2009? [1] --WSC ^® 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Psychodynamic psychotherapy != Psychoanalysis. The issue I have is that the topic of this artic le is very broad including many different psychoanalytic approaches only some of which are clinical and these are evaluations of specific therapeutic applications of specific psychoanalytical frameworks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Article describes not only a "classical" psa. but the modern developments of psychoanalysis. A part of these developments are psychodynamic psychotherapies. The author itself wrote: "I use the terms psychoanalytic and psychodynamic interchangeably." To separate Psychoanalysis & PP would be artificial. At least in this case. --WSC ^® 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To Polisher, on what? To Widescreen and Maunus, both types fall under the umbrella of this article and fit the broadness that Widescreen sees as necciessary.

Regarding everything else see the discussion on CBT. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic Tenets

I doubt that human behavior being determined by drives is still a basic tenet of modern Psychoanalysis. The whole list in the introdution should be updated. 46.237.197.25 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The table of the study (again)

Once again we're arguing over the table and again let me say that it should be included. Since the prior discussion wasn't conclusive, let me again start by saying the study is the single largest study cited in the article, it used 100+ secondary studies meaning it looked at tens of thousands of people. It was even verified as abiding by WP:MEDRS in the previous discussion. Aside from Widescreen's assertion that it's a "small study" (ie the largest study in the entire article) I don't see any valid reason to exclude it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear CartoonDiablo, all aspects have already been mentioned. Remember: [2] and [3]. My arguments are still the same. Why do I have to demonstrate them again?

But I will assume good faith. You found a little Study which includes a table you maybe find helpfull, because it's a tertiary source. Tertiary sources count as particularly good sources. You also claim, this survey was often cited (more than 100 times).

1. My main argument is, that you try to push ONE table, taken by ONE govermental survey into the articles. But there are houndreds of studys like this in the field of psychotherapy reserch. Also tertiary sources but much more cited than the one you try to present. Studys which get much more attention in scientistic circles than yours. I gave you some examples. But you claim these excellent studies are not tertiary sources. It seems to me you try to ignore other results.
2. Your survey was just 7 times cited by other scientific authors. By tricking the citatiation databases I found only 7 (If I remember correctly. It's verifiable). If I don't use these tricks, you can only find 2 cites. That means compared to other tertiary and secondary studies in this research area, your stuy is marginal. But you try to present it as ONLY source to write about the effectivness of Psychotherapie in Wikipedia. What about the other results? Why is your source so much better than all the rest. And we are talking about houndreds of studies.
3. Wikipedia is a Enzyklopedia. We try to inform our readers about a hole area of science. Not only about one single marginal study. If you think everything is correct, just becouse you can find a source by ignoring all others, I think you don't get the point what NPOV means. Maybe you know only one study. But thats your special point of view. I know a lot more than only one table taken by only one study. And I know, the results, you try to present are doubious. Just becouse there are other results in psychotherapy reserch.

Please CartoonDiabolo, think about the foundations of our project. It's not our purpose to spread wrong information. --WSC ^® 18:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Find a larger study cited in the article. There is not a bigger study that looked at more people or cited more secondary sources. Unless you can find one, your argument that it's a "little study" has absolutely no validity whatsoever. To the other points:

1. No it's based on 111 meta studies, making it a tertiary source, not just "one study".
2. That's because you incorrectly spelled "psychotherapie" (the correct spelling is "psychotherapy") as the actual results say otherwise.
3. Yes and a chart based on 111 meta studies is completely reliable and informative. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Find a larger study cited in the article." - This isn't a argument. Our article is not the foundation for anything. There are much better sources been not cited in our article. Thats why our article is poor and one sided.

1. Maybe it's based an 111 meta studies. Thats no quality warranty. Especially when there are much more studies like that. And much better.
2. In the futher discussion I show you, thats not tru! [4]. You find results for psychotherapy AND INSERM. That dosen't mean they cited your study.
3. Thats what you say. I say something else entirely. The different is: I got a clue of psychotherapy research. --WSC ^® 08:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So you, Widescreen, you personally have the expertise to say that 111 meta studies collected by a government panel is inaccurate? Wikipedia policy is based on WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and by those clearly a table based the study is justified. And no, no matter how you search for it you get at least a thousand results. And again citations are irrelevant, even if the study had less than 10 citations it wouldn't change the fact that it's based on 111 meta studies collected by a government panel on health. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I havn't. But I have the expertise, to know much more studies than the one you try to push into the article. And I have the expertise to know scientiffic standards to classify an scientiffic release. It doesn't matter how much meta studies your study go back to. It's necessary by any study to have basic scientiffic standars, like to mention the studies they have taken as foundation for there results. I didn't found a list of studies the autors of your study used. You also won't accept that there are much more studies with other results but with higher quality and much more citatiation. As example I've showed you this book with more than 1700 citatiations by other scientific authors. You think you found a single study seems to display the results you want to see and all the encyclopaedical work is done. But thats a mistake.

Futhermore you search for "psychotherapy" and "INSERM". I still count only 7 citatiations. Once again your strategy is superficial, non-scientific and non-encyclopaedical and got only one aim: overstate the relevance of this study. --WSC ^® 10:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case you have no argument for excluding the chart. The fact is the chart isn't based on what I think the effectiveness is, it's based on 111 meta-studies collected by an RS which is well above what WP:MEDRS requires. However your only argument is how accurate you think the study and since you are not a scientific expert or RS, the argument is completely worthless.

And again citations are irrelevent to the fact that it's 111 meta-studies collected by a scientific RS. Unless you have an actual argument I'll reinstate the content sometime soon. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You still dosen't realize, how wide the field of psychotherapy research is. I told you a dozend times there are much more overlooks, guidlines like that. Besides, your study recieved a lot of criticism from other scientific authors. And there are a lot of more arguments to exclude the study. For example the fact that the studie only point on special diseases. Not a generally effectivness. The quantity of studies being evaluated doesen't matter if the quality of evaluation is lousy. For example, the authors of the study doesn't even cited the studies they take as basis for they results. I've scan the study but didn't found any evidence how much studies they have evaluated. Not the number 111 Studies. I don't know were you take this information from, when you say the basis are 111 Meta-analysis? Please tell me! --WSC ^® 05:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously edit warring over this pretty much as soon as it's unprotected? May I offer a suggestions? Whether the table is currently included or not, discuss it here on the talk page (which you should have been doing the last 3 days) until a decision has been made. If you need to, get a third opinion or start a RFC or even post to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Because edit warring over this is pretty lame. {{mytwocents}} -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx but there was a discussion an dispute resolution noticeboard with an, as I think, clear conclusion. see for yourself! Than CD holds still for a copple of month and trys to push the table again into the article. How often do I have to discuss this? Till he gets enouth? --WSC ^® 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the nth time there was no decision in that dispute resolution, (it was closed from lack of activity) and the only argument given is Widescreen's opinion. Since this dragging out again It'll go to dispute resolution again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I speak into a empty chamber. Nobodys there who knows enogh to value this little study right. So we can discuss this for years. A solution would be, you would lean about psychotherapy research. And not only have a knowledge about ONE single survey. If you had knowledge about that field, you wouldn't write such nonsese like that. --WSC ^® 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For reference here is the dispute resolution discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok that might be helpfull. --WSC ^® 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

A small copyedit:

• In the first sentence of the Evaluation of effectiveness, "Several meta-analysis..." should read "Several meta-analyses..."

Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so Done but without the piped link - meta-analyses already exists as a redirect to the appropriate page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

French survey third round

The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:

1. The sentence: "Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy." Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
2. "The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "of over a hundred secondary studies" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
3. "secondary studies" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine (without a source!). But in de:wp [5] you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Wikipedia works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
4. "to find some level of effectiveness" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
5. "Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency." The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.

There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more cited by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. --WSC ^® 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there one place where this discussion is taking place? I think it is very dubious to give such prominence to one study, especially when there is a substantial debate about the 'evidence' base for CBT. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Psychoanalysis#To_help_update.2Frevise_Evaluation_of_effectiveness_etc_per_WP:MEDRS, below. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiabolos mission

In this revert CartoonDiabolo shows that he is more stubborn than willing to learn.

He wrote: "Restored unexplained removal of content." No I'm gonna explain why I changed the text: It's because your "prose" was wrong and my prose was right. Thats all! (here's some more "prose" for CartoonDiabolo to read: [6] [7]) --WSC ^® 19:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In error I think and hope. Your first edit removed material that sought to hype the French Study. Your second edit was properly sourced and provided balance so was in the correct place. If DC thought it belonged elsewhere then the proper edit was to move it or raise the issue here. Either way lets see what the reaction is. If CD reverts then I suggest you don't respond in kind but raise and discuss the edit here and we will see what other editors think. I also suggest you don't comment on CD per se but restrict comments to content issue----Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I suggest it be reverted because this edit:

According to a 2004 French study conducted by INSERM,psychoanalysis with cognitive behavioral therapy compared and family or couples therapy got less proven effects at specific disorders than cognitive behavioral therapy.

not only doesn't explain what the study did, it's not even grammatically correct or coherent. As to the other section, it had nothing to do with effectiveness and I'm not well versed with the rest of the article so the responsibility to move it isn't on me.

I think both of you know that edit wouldn't hold up anywhere. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue for me was deleting the synthesis paragraph. Improving the grammar is easy ----Snowded ^TALK 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And there is no "synthesis" the study did in fact use 100+ secondary meta-analysis to come to that conclusion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We've been through that discussion extensively around your now deleted table. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that, CartoonDiablo? The study itself gives no information about the quantity of the studys they have used. Your self counted number of used studys might be wrong. I told you once bevor you counted studys twice. In the conclusion, the authors of the study said that they only estimated if a treatment is proven or not. Make sure you really understand the difference what effective (effectiveness) and efficacy means. I also make this (translation) mistake in our long discussion. --WSC ^® 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No answer is also an answer! --WSC ^® 07:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly obligated to respond but to the points, yes it does in fact go through 100+ secondary sources and says such in the study which has nothing to do with whether or not a visual representation of it (via table or image) is appropriate. CartoonDiablo (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are obliged but that is another issue. The issue however is how many studies have their been? Is 100 representative? Were the studies directly on the subject? What we have is good enough, no need to try and hype it over the other references in the article ----Snowded ^TALK 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that the fact that its 100+ secondary studies (ie 100+ reviews of multiple other studies) shouldn't be mentioned? CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad, CartoonDiablo decided to respond my question. You say, it's a fact that the study go back to 100+ "reviews" of multiple other studies. Could you please name the exact quantity of studies they use. Or better cite a textpassage here where the exact quantity is mentioned? And could you please cite one of the studies they used here? --WSC ^® 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic counting doesn't count as OR/SYN: WP:CALC. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really! Then please try to count the studys and find an exact number. I'm curious about it. When you have the right number, please tell us all. Here is the link to the so called study! I wish you success. --WSC ^® 12:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS

To update this section per WP:MEDRS, please note:

• The conclusions of the 2001 Cochrane review regarding schizophrenia were found to be up to date in 2009 [8].
• The Cochrane review of "Psychological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending" is currently withdrawn [9][10].
• A currently uncited meta-analysis on the effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (including psychoanalysis) originally published in JAMA in 2008 concluded that "There is evidence that LTPP is an effective treatment for complex mental disorders." [11] The work has been methodologically reviewed [12]. The meta-analysis has recently been updated [13].

Some more general considerations:

• The article by de Maat et al [14], published in a minor journal at the time not indexed by Medline [15], has been given undue weight. I also have methodological concerns about related studies published by the same group (eg [16]), and I feel it's better to stick to core journals such as JAMA. Indeed, the entire first paragraph of the section needs reevaluation (to an outsider, it looks suspiciously like the result of edit warring).
• On editorial grounds, the final paragraph of the Evaluation of effectiveness section (There are different forms of psychoanalysis and ... Other psychoanalytic schools include the Kleinian, Lacanian, and Winnicottian schools.) appear to be misplaced as it has nothing directly to do with effectiveness.
• By contrast, he opening paragraph of the Research section is focused on efficacy/effectiveness, but seems to ignore WP:MEDRS. I think it should be removed.
• I have similar concerns about two sentence in the Evaluation of effectiveness section which are currently sourced with a dead link: Experiences of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists and research into infant and child development have led to new insights. Theories have been further developed and the results of empirical research are now more integrated in the psychoanalytic theory.[67]
• The entire second paragraph (beginning Research on psychodynamic treatment of some populations...) also needs to be overhauled per WP:MEDRS. Weight seems to be given to "Initial Results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Client Survey" from 1998 [17], while the strongest available current evidence for schizophrenia (from the Cochrane review) is presented as a POV: Others argue that supporting empirical data already exist.
• There's also an unreferenced claim that Dr. Hyman Spotnitz and the practitioners of his theory known as Modern Psychoanalysis, a specific sub-specialty, still report (2007) much success in using their enhanced version of psychoanalytic technique in the treatment of schizophrenia. I have been unable to find on PubMed any source authored by Spotnitz regarding effectiveness that satisfies WP:MEDRS.

Useful book sources on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness:

• What Works with Children, Adolescents, and Adults? A Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy (Alan Carr, 2008) [18]
• Psychotherapy Is Worth It: A Comprehensive Review of Its Cost-Effectiveness (ed Susan G. Lazar, 2010) [19]

I hope this helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I made this independent review, per WP:MEDRS two weeks ago while the page was completely protected. I see the Evaluation of effectiveness section is now being edited again. Is there consensus for the updates/changes suggested above? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My assessment:

1. The first de Maat studie is good rated. But the second published in harv rev psychiatry (citation index 2.197) seems to be valid.
2. The sentence: "Experiences of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists and research into infant and child development have led to new insights. Theories have been further developed and the results of empirical research are now more integrated in the psychoanalytic theory." Is nothing but correct. But not good sourced. My suggestion as source is: this book.

Please see WP:NONENG. Use of sources in languages other than English is contemplated on en.wp but not encouraged unless there's a gap in the reliable sources available in the English language. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Hyman Spotnitz was not found at PubMed. That doesen't mean he don't exist! I've never heard of him, but he seems to be a popular author: [20] That doesen't mean he have to mentioned.

Futher I think it's pointless to discuss single studies in this wide field. We should select some current textbooks and overviews to estimate the efficacy. So we don't have to discuss if any of this studies hit the MEDRS criterias. An current textbook makes this unnecessary. --WSC ^® 08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Up-to-date Cochrane reviews definitely meet WP:MEDRS and are an excellent source for best evidence of efficacy. Given their high methodological quality, pertinent systematic reviews and meta-analyses from this source [21], are generally ranked at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, and deserve to be weighted accordingly. While other systematic reviews of primary studies (with/without meta-analyses) are also appropriate secondary sources for evidence of effectiveness, their methodological quality does vary; MEDRS recommends using core journals where possible [22]. As regards books, I've had a look at Carr 2009 [23], including the section on meta-analyses and reviews of "Psychodynamic psychotherapy" (starting on page 33), which I agree could be helpful. (No mention of Spotnitz in this book either.)

Imo, a key goal here should be to reframe this section per MEDRS, rather than tunneling editorial attention onto a single source (eg [24]). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Cochrane review. Thats why I'm cautious. I know a not good controlled RTC, what compared STPP with CBT. CBT was more effective than STPP but not significant. It's a iranian study (whatever that means) [25] reviewed by leichsenring. Relevant for schizophrenia is futher: Grawe 1994 [26], Karon and Vandenbos 1972 [27]; Mueser und Berenbaum 1990 [28].

Your sources are good. Alan Carr seems to be relevant and usefull. But it's 3 years old. You can find a lot good sources if you want to. --WSC ^® 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, more books to look at, I agree. Thanks. For effectiveness in schizophrenia, we have the Cochrane review: whenever you're looking at evidence of efficacy of any therapeutic intervention, Cochrane really is a must. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Another gap in education of mine. I really don't know the quality of the mentioned studys. But they current exist. But Leichsenring, who reviewed them knows them? --WSC ^® 04:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

All in all I have to say that the chapter evaluation of effectivness is more about the treatment of schizophrenia than anything else. The classical psychoanalysis doesen't claim that it's usefull to treat schizophrenia with PA. I think this special issue overstated in the article. --WSC ^® 07:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an article on classical psychoanalysis? IRWolfie- (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but the treatment of schizophrenia taks marginal place in the psychodynamic and psychoanalytic theories and therapies. But it takes the half of the chapter "evaluation". Thats disproportionate. --WSC ^® 09:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The most reliable sources give it due weight, so should we, and it is mentioned in three other places in the article. Also, " Psychoanalysts mainly work with neurosis and hysteria in particular; however, adapted forms of psychoanalysis are used in working with schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis or mental disorder. " So it is important to higlight that there is no evidence of efficacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How I described, there are some evidence of efficacy, wich were well reviewed. So (1) the statement PD-treatment of schizophrenia isn't efficacious is wrong. (2) The issue schizophrenia is still overstate in the article. There are a lot more an much important findings in psychotherapie reseach than this issue. Therefore the chapter is not balanced. Futher, it's not our work to assess an study, like the one from de Maat! It's right to use only core journals as primary source. But if the study of de Maat is reviewed by others in core journals like in American Psychologist, there judgement about the study is much significant than ours. --WSC ^® 12:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that American Psychologist may be a core journal within its particular field (psychology) does not necessarily make it a core journal for the evaluation of clinical efficacy--the subject of this subsection. This recent edit [29] seems to give undue weight to the individual interpretations of the author of a non-systematic review [30], especially given the serious methodological difficulties in evaluating such long-term interventions. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"The fact that American Psychologist may be a core journal in its particular field (psychology) does not necessarily make it a core journal for the evaluation of clinical efficacy--the subject of this subsection." - No? Why not? In Archives of General Psychiatry you can publish about a lot of issues. So you can say it isn't a core journal in this particular field. Would you say arch gen psychiatry isn't a "core journal"? What is the core journal for this special subsection? I think this argument is pure sophistry. Sorry! If you don't like the findings, write a own systematic review what denys the outcome of several meta analyses. Why don't you have a look at the impact factor based list of "core journals"? [31] This is no kindergarden you can deny findings you don't like.

In this article, five PDT meta analyses were revied who find a increase of effectivness in follow ups. Thats a fact. Especially in LTPP and with "complex" disorders (not non-comorbid arachnophobia). I could mention the single meta analysis. Why shold this findings be concealed? Can you give me a clarification of your agressive revert? [32] --WSC ^® 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. As indicated in the edit summary [33] my considered revert was clearly explained on the talk page (see above [34]). —MistyMorn (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, ther's no explanation for your agressive revert. I can only find superficial dropping of random WP:RULES who got nothing to to with the subject. Futher I can find a lot of sophistry, like American Psychologist is not a core journal but Arch Gen Psychiatry is. Please make sure that you are really understand what a "core journal" is. Please make sure if you are willing to improve the chapter with source based informations.

To make that clear: (1) Are you still want to claim, that American Psychologist is NOT a core journal in the field of psychotherapy research? (2) Are you still try to deny the findigs of several meta analyses? --WSC ^® 15:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uptdate: The author MistyMorn is not willing to have a clarification about this issue. He/She wronte on my talkpage that he/she is not willing to hear what this kind of argumentation really is. [35] I'm not glad about that. But I won't let such a sophistry pass. Everybody can estimate MistyMorns argumentation, like American Psychologist ani't a core journals and such things. I can understand why it's much better for MistyMorn to be silent on such curious argumentations. Thats why I revert the changes of MistyMorn. But I will wait till tomorrow to give MistyMorn the cance to surmount the faux-indignation. --WSC ^® 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith, rather than attacking editors. You haven't countered the argument, rather just attacked her/him. Read WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats not true! I wrote, that American Psychologist is of course a core journal, and gave a link to a impact factor based list of so called "core journals" in Psychology. I never heard the term "core journal" befor. Than I make clear, that every single of the mentioned meta-analyses, are reliable sources. Just like the article my changes based on. Further I make clear, that those arguments are sophistry. Thats no attack on the author but on the authors arguments. Please notice this different! --WSC ^® 16:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fyi, American Psychologist is not on NLM's list of "core clinical journals", also known as the "Abridged Index Medicus". —MistyMorn (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You are really funny! Have you ever take a look on this list? Ther are only three journals about psychiatry and psychologie. And only american jounals. I should have known better! What about the British Journal of psychiatry? Or the german Nervenarzt and Psychotherapeut. Think a bit more international! ;o)

Apropos did you know, this article is also beeing published in the german psychotherapeut? --WSC ^® 10:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, please be civil. Per WP:MEDRS, see also the Brandon Hill selected list, where American Psychologist does not appear. Once again, the topic of this subsection is evaluation of clinical effectiveness (of psychotherapy for the treatment of clinical/psychiatric conditions). One does not generally look to a psychology journal to provide the most complete assessment of the all-important methodological issues in randomized trials and their systematic review and meta-analysis. For historical reasons, in the clinical field the core journals and search engines like PubMed happen to be in the English language. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying "Why not?" doesn't change things, it doesn't matter if the journal publishes clinical material, it doesn't turn them into a core clinical journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand your point now. (1) You ain't joking when you say (2) only three journals are relevant for psychotherapie research. You ment this really serious. Sorry. I thought such a nonsense couln't ment serious. Sorry for that. But you are see the problem in your own argumentation. Scientiffic Literatur is scientiffic literature. You can't discuss a high quality journal of psychology away. Sorry. This is wat I called sophistery. Your agressive revert-procedre makes me think I got some sceptics here. I know this kind of users. These are the most pseudoscientiffic users in the star wars universe! So go on make yourself unreliable. Thanks --WSC ^® 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is disruptive, imo. Fwiw, here are some potential WP:MEDRS journal sources about psychotherapy drawn from the list of core clinical journals used by PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Psychotherapy%22[Mesh]%20AND%20%28%222007%2F11%2F21%22[PDat]%20%3A%20%222012%2F11%2F18%22[PDat]%20AND%20%28Review[ptyp]%20OR%20Guideline[ptyp]%29%20AND%20jsubsetaim[text]%29. Just scanning the first page reveals the presence of publications in core general medical journals such as BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, etc (alongside major journals in specialties where psychotherapy is relevant, such as oncology and diabetes). —MistyMorn (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapy and psychotherapy research is not only a medical fild. For example: If have a importend issue about psychiatry you can publish it in New England Journal of Medicine. A non-clinical but also a so called core journal with issues like fundamental research. American Psychologist is somthing like that. A high cited journal in psychology. Your arguemntation is psychiatry-based but not scientiffic based. You can't argue leading journals in psychology away. Please accept that. --WSC ^® 06:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please accept the pertinence of the content guideline WP:MEDRS - Idenitifying reliable medical sources for this section specifically concerning clinical effectiveness. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a redir. There is no such side as "MEDRS". Maybe you mean WP:MEDRES? Futher, I'm not a phisican. And this issure is not a medical one. It's a psychological, or rather a psychological AND a medical issue. So don't nerve me with more random WP:RULES which you don't really understand. Please! --WSC ^® 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is unconstructive. WP:MEDRS (as the guideline is commonly known) is merely a technical redirect to Wikipedia:MEDRS. It is indeed the pertinent content guideline for this section on effectiveness of a form of clinical therapy. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm under the impression you really try to nerve me with this nonsens? So I try to make this point a bit clearer. I don't know why I've to do this, because you seems to have a "core" knowledge about this subject. You know there are people who treat people with pychological disorders by talking with them. This people are called psychotherapists. There are two kind of people who can be psychotherapists. The first group of people are called physicans. The second group of people are psychologist (or soc. workers or pedagogues sometimes). Both, physicans AND psychologist can treat people having problems with psychic disorder. Both groups of this people, who treat others by talking with them, have journals they write about how to treat people with those problems. Physicans AND psychologists. Both groups, Physicans AND psychologists, researches if this talking works. Are they taking good stuff or rather bad stuff with the people who have problems with themselve. Now you say, only the physican journals are good journals. Because some physicans write a thumb WP:RULE here for heart diseases and surgery-treatment and such stuff. I hope I could help you understand the problem. --WSC ^® 14:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to go along some of the way with Widescreen here. Psychotherapy research and treatment is not carried out exclusively by medical doctors such as psychiatrists. In fact most such treatment and research is NOT carried out by medics, but by psychologists and indeed by other professionals. Indeed, I'm a non-medical, non-psychology psychotherapy researcher myself! I don't take the view that WP:MEDRS restricts us purely to journals written by or for medical doctors. In my view its strictures cover the whole range of health subjects, including treatments, research and journals carried out and published by the full range of health professionals. There's a very wide list of journals, including those published by the APA and BPS as well as others such as Psychotherapy Research which are very reliable sources. I'm not sure what is to be gained by excluding the professional journals with the majority of articles on psychotherapy from the discussion here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe the subsection should be retitled "Evaluation of clinical effectiveness". Many of the conditions for which clinical effectiveness of psychodynamic therapies are evaluated are serious ones, such as schizophrenia and depression. I'm really not trying to knock the psychology literature. That's not the point at all. Certainly, consultation of PsychInfo is mandatory for any review (ie secondary study) of psychological studies. But for Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source documenting the most reliable secondary sources on clinical effectiveness (ie systematic review and meta-analysis, per WP:MEDRS) PsychInfo is most certainly not the main port of call. For instance, there is scientific consensus that Cochrane reviews of randomized trials provide the best evidence of efficacy of any specific therapeutic intervention for a given patient population (eg in cases of schizophrenia, depression etc). In this respect, psychodynamic interventions are no different from any other clinical intervention, except as regards particular methodological challenges in designing reliable randomized trials for evaluation of efficacy of, for example, long-term therapies. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have the hard task of evaluating the various methodological pitfalls. Core clinical journals are much better equipped to provide reliable information on such delicate methodological issues, which mainly regard questions of clinical epidemiology (rather than psychology). That's because, unlike with journals in the psychology sector, evaluation of clinical efficacy is a key part of their scientific editorial remit. And that's why they provide more appropriate sources for tertiary Wikipedia content on clinical effectiveness. Per WP:MEDRS. (Which, btw, is not just a redirect, per User:Widescreen's absurd claim above...). —MistyMorn (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "That's because, unlike with journals in the psychology sector, evaluation of clinical efficacy is a key part of their scientific editorial remit" implies (or rather explicitly asserts!) that psychology journals do not have efficacy evaluation as a key part of their role. I don't disagree with you about other editors' need to sharpen up their arguments, nor about the relatively slim evidence re the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. But you really don't need to bolster your position by silly arguments. Of course Cochrane reviews (I have co-authored one) are the gold standard. But I don't recognise the 'core journals' of which you speak as some kind of silver standard, behind which psychology is relegated to bronze. Who has elevated these so-called 'core journals' to this pre-eminence? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, MistyMorn, this argumentation is ridiculous. (1) The so called "core journals" have a wide range of issues the reviwers have to deal with. Thats why they can't estimate any methological question in psychotherapy research. I cite Shedler (2010): "As an experienced research methodologist and psychometrician, I must admit that deciphering some of these articles required hours of study and more than a few consultations with colleagues who conduct and publish outcome research." (2) You always seems to set a opposite between psychology and clinic. Whatever you ment with "clinical", psychology is also a clinical science. As you can see in clinical psychology. Please refrain such sophistry. (3) Our task as authors of a encyclopedia is to reproduce the scientiffic perception. You wrote, that only the Cochrane reviews and - perhaps - some core journal of medicine (not psychology) are relevant sources. Thats a violation of the scientiffic reality and process. As the cochrane society are the only relevant source in psychotherapy research, and such nonsense. The efficacy studies (what seems to be the relevant issue in the helth politics today) as part of the psychotherapy research is a field with a wide scope. CBT-studies are published in "psychological" journals too. That makes them not less signifficant than those how been published in what you called "core journals" in medicine. For example: [36] [37] [38] (search by yourself [39]). At last I'll will give a waring for a tendency I found especially in the english wikipedia. It's the tendency to replace the complex scientiffic process with "official govermental views". Especially in medicin the NHS seems to be the relevant instance. But the NHS or the U.S. NIMH are govermental organisations always dependent from current health policy. Scientiffic questionings are less relevant than policy of cuts. --WSC ^® 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If I can come in from the opposite direction now, Widescreen you need to rein this in a bit. I appreciate that English is not your first language but in your haste to make your case you are not making sense! Much of the above is hard to understand and imprecise and in a field like this one we've really got to be precise in our language. "Scientific" has one 'f'. The Cochrane Collaboration is not a society (and it's a bit of a concern that if I read your earlier contributions right, you had not previously heard of it!) Rather than continuing this argument about hypothetical journals, I will try and find one or two good systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of psychoanalytic treatment, and weave them into the article. Then we can discuss a specific article in a specific journal, rather than discuss hypotheticals! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Clinical Psychology: "Clinical psychology at least has its roots in experimentation, but it is drifting away from science. Concerns about cost–benefit issues are growing, especially in the United States. According to a damning report published last week (T. B. Baker et al. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 9, 67–103; 2008), an alarmingly high proportion of practitioners consider scientific evidence to be less important than their personal — that is, subjective — clinical experience." [40]. That's pretty damning criticism from Nature. I don't think this is something new either, that is why I would be averse to relying on Psychology journals for efficacy, they are a bronze tier, unless specific highly reliable studies are known well known for their quality in terms of quantifying clinical efficacy. As you say, Cochrane reviews are the gold standard. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph based on a meta-analysis recently published in a journal called Clinical Psychology Review. By your standards Wolfie, a third-placed bronze but I've gone through the article itself (I'm lucky enough to have Web of Knowledge access through work) and it's methodologically as sound as a Cochrane review. By the way, the item you linked to in Nature above is an editorial, not a data-driven empirical piece. It's also specifically criticising clinical psychology in the USA and compares it unfavourably with European developments in psychology (which is where the article I've cited was written...) Don't let an American-centric view blind us to the reliability of research written by psychologists. Most psychologists I know (I'm UK-based) have more familiarity with research methods and practice than most doctors I know! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• As a result of this thread and other user conduct issues, I have opened a thread at WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kim, you are giving a paper that has only been cited three times more weight than the Cochrane review. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, I'm not giving it any more weight. I'm not saying "Cochrane says this, but these authors refute it". It draws broadly the same conclusion as the Cochrane review and supports it. The fact that is has already been cited three times when it was only published this year is a sign of its influence, not its lack of the same. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=160&page=1223&journalID=13

• I've added another citation (to the Harvard Review of Psychiatry) to give some context to the de Smit meta-analysis I added earler today. Despite being in a prestigious medical journal it's not as methodologically strong as the de Smit paper, but it gives a good context and a rationale for the more tightly-controlled (and less positive) later work. I know earlier work from 2007 by the same group has been discussed critically above, but I think with the right editorial framing it's possible to cite it without giving it undue weight.

However while adding this review in, I think we must remove the Schedler one reported at the top of this section. It's explicitly a review of psychodynamic treatment, not psychoanalytic treatment. Schedler and colleagues were criticised for including studies that were not psychoanalytic, and replied forcefully that they had never been investigating psychoanalysis in the first place! So it's odd to see their work listed at the top of this section. I'll try and remove and tidy it in a while, but won't do so immediately as others may have a view on whether we should keep or remove it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I want to apologise my English. Sometimes I can't fount a good phrase or formulation, sometimes I have to refer in a dictionary. And sometimes I try to translate good phrases in german in english. Sometimes I don't notice that my english isn't helpfull. That must be confusing sometimes. I try to wirte simple and clear.

I'm a practitioner in psychotherapy and psychiatry. I watched the debate of effectivness in psychotherapy since ten years. Not least because the debate in germany about effecivenss was much harder and because it was a huge debatte in de:wp once. I'm methodological educated but not a real expert in psychotherapy research as you are.

My criticism on your last changes are:

• You forgett to mention about 10 Meta-analyses (I as non-psychotherapy researcher know). Here is a selection:
  • Crits-Christoph 1992 [41]
  • Anderson & Lambert 1995 [42]
  • Leichsenring, Leibig & Rabung 2004 [43]
  • Leichsenring & Leibig 2003 [44]
  • Leichsenring 2001 [45]
  • Abbass et al. 2009 [46]
  • Abbass et al. 2010 [47]
  • Abbass et al. 2006 [48]
  • Messer & Abbass 2010 [49]
  • Leichsenring & Rabung (2008) (2011) [50] [51]
• You wrote that Shadler (2010) should be delated because he received some criticism. But that dosen't mean the criticism is right or evident. E.g. you wrote that Shedler reviewed psychodynamic not psychoanalytic treatments. Thats a artificial differentiation. Psychodynamic therapys are modern psychoanalytic interventions based on the theories of psychoanalysis. A "classical" psychoanalytic intervention (3-5 times a week, open end) is really rare. You can't found such therapies today. In german health-care-system "analytic therapy" are also limeted (300h). These interventions are a approach to the classical psychoanalysis but also a kind of advancement. Also "analytic therapy" can be summarized under the psychodynamic psychotherapies. Futher there are muliple therories which all summarized as "psychodynamic therapies" (e.g. Jung and Adler). Shedler wrote: "I use the terms psychoanalytic and psychodynamic interchangeably." Thats a valid and, as far as I can see, absolute correct opinion.

In the years I watched this debate, the first critic, releases who supported the effectivness of PP received, is that they don't examin psychodynamic but psychoanalytic treatments or vice versa. Thats such a ridiculous reproach. My advice in such a case is, that the author should better known his subject. --WSC ^® 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: can you please mention the 11 studies the smit-study used? I haven't got a access to a science-networks. --WSC ^® 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't say the Schadler study should be removed because it was criticised - what study isn't! But rather because Schadler himself strongly makes the point that it was NOT a study of psychoanalytic therapy. He was criticised for including studies that were not psychoanalytic, but responded that it was not a meta-analysis of psychoanalytic treatments... Therefore it has little place here, I think. WP does have an article on Psychodynamic psychotherapy (though it's not very good!) so we are talking about two different things here. Similar, but not identical. I'd agree that some of the Leichsenring work, being more recent, should be included but I don't think every single meta-analysis should be listed. I don't have the de Smit study at home, I'll try and look up the 11 but each is a single RCT so we needn't be citing them when we have meta-analyses to go on. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I've missunderstood your hint. I know this critic of McKay, D. (2011) [52] and others. These authors reproaches Shedler to use "cognitiv" therapys. Especially one Study receives critic: Bateman & Fonagy (1999) [53]. Bateman & Fonagy developed so called Mentalization-based treatment, a therapy based on a psychoanalytical concept of Mentalization (better have a look at the german article: de:Mentalisierung ;o)). This reproach is so far apart from reality, that I refuse to answer it. But Shedler did: [54]. --WSC ^® 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Futher the Shadler Study is available in full text. Can you please give me the passage, Shedler points out, that he himself strongly makes the point that it was NOT a study of psychoanalytic therapy but psychodynamic. I cited Shedler above: "I use the terms psychoanalytic and psychodynamic interchangeably." (Shedler 2010, p98 (footnote)) --WSC ^® 07:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring cited material

Hello there, I've just restored some material removed by WTC whose edit summary for the removal said "Rev see disk." However I can't see anywehere in this discussion a consensus to remove well-cited information based on reliable sources describing recent, high quality meta-analytic studies. I haven't re-inserted WTC's removal of the finding by the INSERM study that psychoanalysis " ...was said to have 'little or no effect' on treating schizophrenia. " I don't know the INSERM study well enough to comment but the net effect of WTC's removals seems to be to leave poorer quality, older studies which support the effectiveness of psychoanalysis while removing more recent, more critical studies. I'm more than happy to work together here but it has to be on the basis of a certain degree of encyclopaedic thinking. I'm neither an enthusiast nor a detractor of psychoanalysis. But I am interested in presenting a rounded picture of scientific findings on the topic and not simply making this a selective pro-analysis article. Please let's not have any more removals of cited material without consensus. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert Nov. 30.

In my last contribution to this discussion, I make cleare, that User:Kim Dent-Brown forgett to mention about 10 relevant Metaanalyses. He interpreted the study of Shedler wrong. Than he interrupted the Discussion for about a week. He added a Metaanalisis which receive criticism. I try to contact Kim Dent-Brown on his talkpage. [55] But he couldn't give any reliable answer. Than after one week the discussion rests, I reverted the undiscussed contribs. But Kim Dent-Brown won't discusses the recent contribs but reverted it again. [56] I think thats no acceptable behavior of Admins.

You can't suspend the developement of an article just because you havn't enough time to participate currently. Especially by drop reproaches like I reverted without discussion. While you won't discuss your own contribs. Maybe you are a admin, that doesn't mean you can claim special rights! I expect your answer soon. --WSC ^® 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you simply can't remove material which is well-cited to reliable sources like this. I'm about to restore this - please don't remove it again. Deliberate blanking of material in this way counts as a special form of vandalism. OK, now here I am discussing the recent contributions. They are recent, high quality meta-analyses published in high impact factor journals. They gather together data from a number of randomised controlled trials and they therefore make a significant contribution to the evaluation of psychoanalysis. You need to provide a solid, well-argued reason why these studies should not be included (and incidentally why older, poorer quality studies should be retained.) I have not suspended the development of the article: far from it, last week I added new material from two good new sources. You are the one arguing for the status quo.

I am not an administrator in this discussion. I have not and will not use my admin powers on this article. I'm not going to protect it, or block you. I'm just an editor like you with no more or fewer rights and responsibilities. I have moved your reply and this comment of mine to the bottom of the talk page to preserve the continuity of the discussion and keep the newest contributions at the bottom. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you havn't really understand, what NPOV means. It doesen't mean, you can add anything what is nearly "well-cited" by ignoring other "well-cited" material. That mean you unbalanced the paragraph. For example: You write, well sourced, Cameron is the best prime minister ever, by ignoring other sources who say Camaron is the worst one. Now you threat me with your admin status, because its known admins got a better standing at the noticeboards. If I was a rooky in wikipedia, this discussion would be finished at this point because its such a cheek! After I confront you with the outcomes of several different studies I think its on you to find a solid, well-argued reason why those two studies are the only one who are cited. But it seems like your are able to ignore discussions on a large scale.

But I don't want any disagreement (and not only why you are a admin and I have to fear a block when you add my name at the noticeboards). Here's my proposal: revert my last contrib and add a NPOV-Box by yourself. Than come back to an serious discussion without any tricks.

Now a answer to your argumentation: There are much better meta analyses than the one, you as psychotherapy researcher, added. The Leichsenring LTPP-Study is mentioned in APA guidelines and cited about 300 times. The Smit study is cited 3 times an was criticized in one article, as far as I can see. I don't think this is a well-cited study in relation to the others I mentioned. That don't mean, the smit-study should be deleted. That mean you unbalenced the paragraph by overstate this single study by ignoring other, more relevant studies.

Maybe I'm wrong with that, but I thought you are under pressure for failing to offer an explanation for adding only one study. But maybe I misjudge the state of the affair? --WSC ^® 10:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I will never, under any circumstances, take advantage of my position as an admin in an editorial dispute. If other editors/admins are called on to halp adjudicate between our positions then if it helps I will explicitly ask people to ignore the fact that I'm an admin. (Although to be honest I'd rather not mention it at all, as it simply draws attention to the fact!)

I resent the assertion you make that I am editing here with any sort of tricks. I'd be obliged if you would strike that - or substantiate it with exactly what sort of tricks you think I'm playing.

Now, you think some other meta-analyses should be included. Fine, go ahead and add them! I added the most recent ones I could find, on the basis that the most up-to-date studies were the most relevant. Your desire to add other meta-analyses doesn't justify you removing the ones I added; rather it should hopefully spur you on to add the studies you describe. Personally I don't think they are as strong as the two I cited, which is a second reason why I didn't include them. I perfectly understand what NPOV means - it means, for example, that we should take all of what a source says and not cherry-pick. For example, if the INSERM study it's really not reasonable only to cite the parts of the study which were favourable and to remove the parts which said psychoanalysis was ineffective. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this here rather than on my talk page, to keep discussion together. There's no need for you to play anything safe. If you think an NPOV tag is warranted, put one on the article. I won't revert it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You found two meta analysis, you know. I presented (and cited) 10 others here. Don't you know these studies now? Most of these studies are also current. Are you comfortable with that? I, for example, try to wait for an answer before editing. You won't. Thats okay with me. But its a strange behavior to add some uncited studies by ignoring all others and refuse any discussion while editing in other cases. Don't you think others wondering whats the point of that behavior? You suggest to change some statments of the Shedler study. I contradict that, but you didn't even answer that. If you failed in this issue, maybe you are wrong in others too? Are your contributions sacrosanct? You said: "I added the most recent ones I could find, on the basis that the most up-to-date studies were the most relevant." Why don't you add this Study, published 2011, cited 20 times? Or the one of Messer and Abbass, released 2010? I don't think is as easy as you try to make believe. --WSC ^® 12:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead and add the studies you think are missing. It's not adding cited material that I have a problem with, it's the removal of such material. If you feel the article is strengthened by adding in more studies then please go ahead and strengthen it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. --WSC ^® 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I restored the tag (twice now) as it appears that the discussion above is not resolved. The issue seems to be one of balance rather than reference per se. If there are no more contributions over the next few days then its OK to remove it, but not otherwise CartoonD ----Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV-Box reverted by CartoonDiablo

Hi there! CartoonDiablo reverted the POV-Box in chapter criticism without explanation. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo I thougt he got better things to do.

CD: Please can you tell us why you revert the POV-Box? I'd really appreciate that. --WSC ^® 07:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all an ip added it first, not me, second if reliable sources allege it to be pseudoscience it warrants the tag. By removing it you are imposing a POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Make your case with sources, in the meant time you should revert the category until you have agreement. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Crticism revert?

Can someone care to explain why the sourced material was reverted? I sincerely hope no one is going to argue Chomsky, Pinker, Eysnek, Westen etc. are not reliable sources. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are making large drastic changes in controversial areas. You are also not paying attention to the discussion elsewhere. Make a proposal here and we can look at it----Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article (Psychoanalytic theory) and Psychoanalysis cover the same information, but Psychoanalysis is more complete. There doesn't seem to be a reason to have two separate articles on the same subject. Star767 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I have not been very involved in these articles though. I would recommend you to invite editors who have contributed a lot to these two articles, to give their opinion. Lova Falk talk 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I now discover that Star767 is blocked as a sockpuppet. That means there will be nobody performing the merging, if it would have been agreed upon. Now I'll removed the merger templates from both articles. Lova Falk talk 10:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)