Talk:Sophrology

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

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.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems theory.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

An earlier version of this article was deleted on October 12, 2012, as being unambiguous advertising. This one is a little more ambiguous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {u|Arthur Rubin}, thanks for your opinion re: the redirect. I agree that meditation isn't quite right; the only category listed is "hypnosis" but that doesn't seem right either. Suggestions on how to proceed?--Karinpower (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caycedo

I propose that the article Alfonso Caycedo be merged into this article (Sophrology), per WP:BLP1E, as any notability he has is derived from this topic. However, deleting both as not being notable seems acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article fails almost completely, to explain what Sophrology is, instead it touches on Alfonso Caycedo work in Sophrology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.j.n.hunt (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps nobody knows what Sophrology is? OK, that would support a reverse merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article, such as it is, is about "Caycedian Sophrology" rather than general Sophrology, merging this article into Alfonso Caycedo seems to make more sense. AndroidCat (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the question is not so much about the quality of the current article, as about whether Sophrology is independently notable. My view is that that this sophrology exists as a current active discipline that continues withouth the active input of Caycedo. There is also peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of the discipline, although most of it is in French. For example, work on pain perception in the elderly ^[1] or the treatment of anxiety^[2]. 12:50, 3 March 2017‎ by klbrain

^ Tocheport, P (March 2012). "[Sophrology in geriatrics, an innovative approach to reducing pain and anxiety]". Soins; la revue de reference infirmiere (763): 16–20. PMID 22533280.
^ Ducloux, D (2008). "[Sophrology, an ally against anxiety]". Krankenpflege. Soins infirmiers. 101 (11): 46–9. PMID 19055247.

Rewrite

As in most english-speaking countries, nobody knows what Sophrology is and I am afraid this article is of little help. It needs to give a good overview of both Caycedian Sophrology (as it is mainly used in that sense) and other forms. I propose something like:

Intro
Caycedian Sophrology -> summary of the French page (very extensive). Could include the merge of the Caycedo article.
Other Forms -> I will leave what is available here as I have little proficiency here.
Sophrology in the world (avoiding commercial links) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanopee (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should introduce the French-speaking part. I would give such structure to the talk, after the Intro (mixing the current one with the French Intro):

Origins
- Western roots
- Eastern roots
- Spread in French-speaking countries (the part on Dr. Abrezol)
- Caycedian sophrology (French part)
Aims and uses
Current applications of sophrology
Fundamental Principles
- Positive Action
- Objective reality
  - Key concepts are
- Body consciousness
Criticism (French part)
Certificates and practice (French part)

From the French part, I would just drop the parts that are too specific for France, so that people from other countries wouldn't understand. From the current page, I would drop the parts that look too promotional.

--Borisba (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

Most sources are sofrology books, the part about sofrology in Switzerland is around the life of Abrezol but this part is pulled out of his own book and biased ("unique benefits of sofrology ")

At no point in the article it is indicated that there is no evidence for actual effect of sofrology (while there is such mentions on French page for example).

This article is really biased, and would need a huge rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.231.228 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... or deletion. Discussion by other than sofrologists seems minimal, at best. I admit I haven't read the French language sources, but an expert knowledge of the language and familiarity with the subject would be required to determine if source was unaffiliated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment: just because a technique doesn't work, that is not an argument to delete it. For example, I do not believe in the usefulness of astrology for predicting the future, but it is certainly a notable topic. Klbrain (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution to such bias is: to include something from the French part (including criticism and lack of scientific evidence) and to reduce the part on Dr. Abrezol (that seems to me the most promotional one).

--Borisba (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no claims of biomedical effectiveness, so it skirts around our restrictions in WP:MEDRS. I agree that the lack of criticism gives a one-sided view of the topic, so I've made a start by translating a sentence from the French article's Reviews section, fr:Sophrologie #Critiques. There is more that could be added from that section. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few English-language sources available, such as doi:10.1080/00029157.1967.10402559 doi:10.1080/00029157.1973.10402258 doi:10.1080/00029157.1964.10402403 ISBN 978-2-86898-995-6, though I can't comment on their reliability. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still written in a self-promotion tone. I added an advert tag. Asterix757 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up

This article was full of crap (dubious fringe material without a decent source in sight). I have cleaned it up. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a spade a spade

This article needs a serious re-write. Instead of promoting dubious and pseudo-scientific claims that are abundant in sophrology, the article should be written in such a manner that it exposes them. Proposal: start with a basic description, followed by a clear and unambiguous statement that sophrology is not based on empirical evidence and is basically a French repackaging of old nonsense. We should translate and include parts of the "Criticism" section of the French article. However, having a long article promoting pseudo-scientific claims and then including a section on "Criticism" is wrong: it promotes rather than debunk these claims, and it legitimises them (as if the claims were commonly-accepted, and "oh, there are also some critics"). Each paragraph presenting the claims of sophrology should be accompanied by a paragraph debunking them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.175.78 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Tocheport, P (March 2012). "[Sophrology in geriatrics, an innovative approach to reducing pain and anxiety]". Soins; la revue de reference infirmiere (763): 16–20. PMID 22533280.

[2] Ducloux, D (2008). "[Sophrology, an ally against anxiety]". Krankenpflege. Soins infirmiers. 101 (11): 46–9. PMID 19055247.

[1]

[2]