Template talk:Psychoanalysis

Susan Sutherland Isaacs

Why does she deserve a place on this template? Her article does not make a compelling case for her theoretical contributions to psychoanalysis. Steve carlson 06:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a linguist with a side-interest in psychology, I find the article on Freud, at this point (2007Oct17), to sound like a sophomoric spoof and a mockery of Freud, anthropomorphizing eels, and referring to gossip attributed to Jung stated in a way which Jung himself would probably find tasteless and unprofessional. I hope a degreed or licensed psychology professional will seek to clean up this article, which, as it is, undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Not that Freud or his theories are flawless, but the article, at this point, reads like Mad Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.131.121 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does anybody think about removing bowlby and attachment theory from the box? Its really not a psychoanalytic theory. Fainites ^barley 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to whoever is responsible for it, I think it should be removed. In fact, a problem that I and a couple of friends are currently wrestling with is how to sort out the appalling mess that 'psychoanalysis' currently constitutes on wikipedia: the topic has gathered unto itself an enormous mass of stuff that isn't properly related and usually isn't properly sourced either. I have had a mild blitz on several articles, during which I have added quotes from Freud where previously -- astoundingly! -- there were none. I think at a later stage someone should think about re-casting *all* the p/a articles and the p/a template as *classical psychoanalysis*: the Freudian picture should be presented clearly *as itself*, rather than in some messily corrupted bastardisation that mixes in post-Freudians and anti-Freudians and apostates and everything else that anyone ever thought sounded like any of them... Is a 'classical psychoanalysis' template too much to hope for, do you think...?? Pfistermeister (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We on the attachment pages were inclined to removal anyway but didn't want to tread on toes. I have a vague recollection of adding Bowlby just because attachment theory was already there. I'll do that thing then. I did notice a lot of good work had been done on psychoanalysis lately. Hooray! It means I don't have to hesitate before linking. Have you seen this little gem? Drive theory (psychoanalysis). Can't you divide classical and modern psychoanalysis into two sections on the same template? Fainites ^barley 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up your 'little gem' (Drive theory (psychoanalysis)). I am now going to lie down in a dark room for 2 or 3 days. Thank you for your consideration... Pfistermeister (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your id doesn't creep up behind you in the dark. Fainites ^barley 19:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Template Content

Whether Jung or Adler should be here can be disputed, for obvious reasons. I suggest removing them. Analytical Psychology should definitely be removed from the template, since it is not psychoanalysis. Also, please remove The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis from the list of important works - just why, exactly, does the one book on that list not written by Freud have to be by Lacan? Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of responses, shall I assume that there are no objections to my removing book by Lacan from that list? Skoojal (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to Analytical Psychology being a school of psychoanalysis, which is outright misinformation. I will make further suggested changes in the absence of objections (I have done this now, and before anyone complains about it, note that I suggested it beforehand and that no one bothered to object). Skoojal (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M

Fancy psi symbol?

I noticed the psi symbol shown in this template is different than the one in the psychology article by being gray at the top. Looking around I found no other such rendering of this symbol in this context and wondered if there is a reason for the dfference. It seems to be a stylisic flourish that has no basis in any source. Sort of like putting drop shadows on the stars of the US flag 'cause it looks nice. Unless there is a compelling reason to prefer it, I think it should be replaced with the more common and simple black psi image. Thoughts? – JBarta (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]