Talk:Psychoanalysis

Skip to table of contents

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 6 months

Psychology Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 17, 2007.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Psychoanalysis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Ruling on "Pseudoscience"

The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience". Relevant to this article:

Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Convention Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion. Make sure to sign your comments by pressing the second-to-last button above the edit box, or by typing out ~~~~ at the end of your comment.
See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpatel0820 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Meghantranqui, Bells7, Evynnh76, Kayedwards0, Carlysoenksen.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede Paragraph

It looks like the lede paragraph was cut down to a fraction of its original length a few months ago in this edit by Psychology-Interesst. I know I am a bit late here, but I thought the previous version of the lede was really excellent and am not sure what the rationale was for this change. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the lede to the version from the linked revision. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this lead is far too long. The lead should briefly summarise key points of the rest of the article, but this lead is more than 100 words longer than the lead of the article for humans, one of the broadest and most important topics there is; this article's lead is not sufficiently brief at all.

A lot of this information seems quite unnecessary to talk about with this level of specificity in the lead - e.g. Jacques Lacan and his ideas (especially in the first paragraph), the entire second half of the third paragraph (everything past the mention of transference), or the entire bracketed section of the fourth paragraph.

It feels like the text has some flourishes that are either unnecessary or un-encyclopaedic in tone, like "all his thoughts, all secrets and dreams", or "This includes not least the fact that".

I also don't particularly like how the tone of the text seems to accept everything in the theory as flatly true and factual, when psychoanalysis' factuality is very much questionable. Drywalling (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article - which is literally used as an example of something that constitutes 'questionable science' - has only half of a sentence in its lead dedicated to criticism of its ideas is very bad, I feel. It's not at all presenting a balanced view on the subject, especially with how vague the criticisms are presented, and how the sentence immediately backpedals by presenting the reader with a positive of the theory (that it was influential). Drywalling (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]