Talk:Hypnosis

neologism

Somebody has coded the foot of this article such that it has added this article to: Category:1820s_neologisms

In doing so, that somebody have made a very serious error in fact. The term that was a "neologism" in the 1820s was hypnotism. The entity was only (sloppily) referred to as "hypnosis" in the 1890s, due to the influence of various French authors.

I have done everything that I can to change the coding at the foot of this article that generates the appearance of "hypnosis" in the category to no avail. I know that it can be done, as I have seen similar differences-from-actual-article-title displayed in category listings before, but have no idea about how to go about reversing this serious historical error. Help please. Lindsay658 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That change was made just a day or so ago by user:Doomhope without any supporting evidence, so undoing the change when challenged as you have done here is easy. I don't even have to have an opinion as to whether you are correct in your assertion. Providing a source would, of course, reinforce your assertion.

Don't put {{help}} templates in section headers, please. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"Medical hypnosis is often considered pseudoscience or quackery"

This sentence is not backed up by evidence. The reference article is not even about hypnosis, it just mentions in the introduction "Treatments such as relaxation techniques, chiropractic, therapeutic massage, special diets, megavitamins, acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, hypnosis and psychoanalysis are often considered as “pseudoscience” or “quackery” with no credible or respectable place in medicine, because in evaluation they have not been shown to “work”". And the article doesn't provide any references to actual surveys that would support that claim. @Bon courage, why did you choose to include that information? We don't even know in what field hypnosis is "often considered a quackery", who thinks it's a quackery? Most people, scientists?

The edit I made, which was canceled by @Bon courage, offered another comparison to placebo, which is supported by evidence that shows similarities in their mechanism. Can you tell me why you think that information is not valid and why you canceled it? Skalidrisalba (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Cite 23 is also used to support the "pseudoscience" terminology in the field of clinical psychology.

That said, we really should move the references out of the lede and rely on citations in the body, per WP:LEDE. Regardless, the label of pseudoscience seems legitimate. I think the addition of your cite comparing it to placebo would be legitimate somewhere in the body of the article, but there's no reason to remove the pseudoscience label. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Cite 23 explains that hypnosis can induce false memories, it does not claim hypnosis is a pseudoscience, but merely that some claims about it are not validated…

Besides, it is extremely odd that in the same paragraph where that quackery claim is on the wiki hypnosis page, the first sentence is “Hypnosis-based therapies for the management of irritable bowel syndrome and menopause are supported by evidence.”. Why would it be regarded as pseudoscience if we’ve proved some of it works?

That sentence, not only is extremely biased, but does not have any valid reference to it, so why should we keep it? Skalidrisalba (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be cutting hairs mighty thin. Cite 23 is literally Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. As to the IBS and menopause quotes, a quick skim makes me dubious about those papers (one of which literally has no authors listed).

Might be time to go through our cites and verify a lot of them. We may have some cruft that's been added over the years which has been overlooked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So if my book is called "about dogs" and that I talk about dog-like behaviors in cats, it means that cats are dogs?

Regardless of your opinion and doubts about other people's contributions, the point of the lead section is that it is a good introduction to what's contained inside the article. The article explores a lot of aspects of hypnosis that have strong evidence in them, so ending the intro with this biased sentence that hypnosis is quackery is not true to the rest of the article, nor is it true to evidence.

The article mentions the placebo comparison as well, and I find it important in the lead section as a disambiguation of this: " In contrast, non-state theories see hypnosis as, variously, a type of placebo effect, a redefinition of an interaction with a therapist or a form of imaginative role enactment.", which can suggest that hypnosis is a placebo itself (meaning that hypnosis is deceptive like a placebo). It isn't, it is a technique that uses similar mechanisms that occur in the brain when a person takes a placebo. So it is not a placebo per se, even in the non state theory. Skalidrisalba (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So if my book is called "about dogs" and that I talk about dog-like behaviors in cats, it means that cats are dogs?

Don't resort to straw man arguments, it detracts from your point.

it is a technique that uses similar mechanisms that occur in the brain when a person takes a placebo

Again, splitting hairs mighty thin to push a specific POV. I disagree with this edit, but will not edit myself to avoid edit warring. You really should be seeking consensus first for these changes, given they've been clearly disputed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You disagree with the edit I just made about changing "placebo" to "nondeceptive placebo"? This is not controversial, I'm just clarifying a point that was already present in the lead section because I find it misleading.

For the other edit to remove the sentence we talk about here, I am indeed waiting for other people's opinion. Skalidrisalba (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure why this is being disputed since the source cited seems plain on the matter. Are there other sources discussing pseudoscience in relation to hypnotism? They could help flesh this aspect out.

Compromise on the claim that hypnosis is pseudoscience

Based on the recent content dispute over this sentence "Medical hypnosis is often considered pseudoscience or quackery", I propose an alternative reference article that tackles this specific issue (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2024.101841) instead of the old reference article that was not about hypnosis but that mentioned the term once in the introduction.

In light of the new article, I propose this alternative: Despite ongoing pseudoscientific uses based on outdated theories, hypnotherapy is a recognized and recommended treatment for certain conditions where its effectiveness has been proven.

This update provides a more reliable and more relevant source and is much more coherent with the rest of the paragraph in the lead section that mentions the effectiveness for certain conditions.

@HandThatFeeds @Bon courage What do you think? Skalidrisalba (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a CAM journal, so falls afoul of WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no specific directive about CAM journal, what matters is the scholar credibility, it is a peer reviewed article published in a journal that has a 2.2 impact factor. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/complementary-therapies-in-clinical-practice/about/insights Skalidrisalba (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't generally use any CAM journals for anything other than mundane factoids. Otherwise we'd be saying the homeopathy and prayer cure diseases. Bon courage (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately your claim is not referenced to any Wikipedia guidelines. Please provide the reference to your claim. Skalidrisalba (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

See above: WP:FRIND. We should be looking for the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any mention of CAM journals. Please quote the relevant section that you used as reference for your claim.

Can you explain your reasons to believe that the old reference article was a better source than the new one using Wikipedia guidelines? Skalidrisalba (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The guideline is not going to enumerate the hundreds of areas of fringe. The old source was from outside the fringe ecosystem, and so better. New sources are welcome, but that are reputable and authoritative please. Bon courage (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is why, to find out whether something is a "fringe" or not, Wikipedia provides guidelines.

You still haven't provided reasons as to why you consider the previous article to be more reliable than the new one, other than your subjective assessment that because it belongs to the realm of "CAM", it should be discarded. Hypnosis is within the realm of alternative medicine, so I don't really know how you expect an article about hypnosis to be in another journal than the ones about alternative medicines... On that note, the old reference article wasn't published by a CAM journal precisely because it was not about hypnosis... Skalidrisalba (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Read Alternative medicine and you will learn that it is not a serious discipline. I think we can stop this, you have no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim that anything published in an alternative medicine journal is not serious is a subjective claim that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please stop using your subjective opinion to engage in edit wars with others.

If you do not see hypnosis as a serious discipline, if you want to write on this article, you should still remain neutral and look for evidence instead of discarding anything that goes against your POV.

There's indeed no need to continue this circular conversation. We need other people's opinion on this. Skalidrisalba (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The source you are citing is no good, it fails WP:RS. We are not going to cite alternative medicine journals. If you want to include such information find a good journal or textbook. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you realize the absurdity of what you are saying? Hypnosis IS an alternative medicine, so the publications about it will be directed to the relevant journals. It's like saying an article about biology should be published in a physics journal... The article I presented has scholar credibility.

And this wiki page already has references that are from "CAM" journals. See reference 113, 19 (it is even the same journal as the reference I proposed), and many others including journals that are specifically about hypnosis. Skalidrisalba (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because a subject may be an alternative medicine doesn't mean we rely on alternative medicine journals. Have you looked around on other alternative medicine Wikipedia articles? Have a look at Bates method, naturopathy, Reiki etc. I have removed the unreliable sources you mention. One of those was also a primary study. We are not going to cite a single trial on Wikipedia. We would need a good review for such content. Ref 19 wasn't needed. We have the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the content on smoking. In a nutshell you haven't provided any reliable sources for any of your claims. I can't see you lasting long on Wikipedia as you are ignoring all our guidelines. I also suspect you are a returning banned user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What about journals of hypnosis? That's an alternative medicine, right? So it's not reliable either?

References to journal of hypnosis: 3, 6, 10, 15, 31, 47, 74,...

Reference to alternative medicine: 43, 86,..  

And that's just a quick search, there are many more, do you want to bulldoze the whole article?

And no, I'm a brand new editor, I've used wiki for a long time but it's my first time editing. Skalidrisalba (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just like WP:PRIMARY sources can be used to cite what a subject belives, we can cite those journals to quote statements from them about what practitioners believe, but that's it. We cannot use them to support the topic of hypnosis itself. If any cites are doing so, then we need to review & remove them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so a hypnosis journal may be fine for making certain unexceptional claims. But for anything weightier WP:FRIND sourced are best. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In that vein, we also have to consider due weight. We don't want to give too much emphasis to a fringe idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis is not an alternative medicine journal. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis has a good relationship with the American Psychological Association [1]. Clinical hypnosis used by psychologists to reduce pain or anxiety and tackle phobias is not alternative medicine. Reference 43 is a book by Deirdre Barrett, not alternative medicine. Reference 47 is Theodore X. Barber [2], definitely not alternative medicine. Let's not confuse legit research with claims of alternative medicine. Nobody is claiming all of hypnosis is pseudoscience. What is pseudoscience is the alternative medicine claims often found in medical hypnosis to treat disease, there is no good evidence for that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I just realized there was a mix up in terminology, which most probably caused many people to agree that alternative journals are not reliable (alternative medicine, in many definitions, indeed implies the lack of evidence).

The journal I suggested is not about "alternative medicine", but about complementary therapies, and aims to provide evidence, therefore contradicts the definition of alternative that implies the lack of evidence. The other sources I mentioned as belonging to CAM (that are present in the wiki page of hypnosis) also referred to complementary rather than alternative. Skalidrisalba (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Complementary" just means that one uses methods for which there is evidence (medicine) as well as methods for which there is no evidence (alternative medicine). Not that much difference regarding reliability. "Reliable" means you can rely on it, which you cannot if a big part of the field is bologna. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it unbelievable that you all rely on this assumption without actually checking the article I sent, without checking the methodology to see if it actually contains "evidence" or not.

Complementary, alternative, hell it could even be called "the magical journal", as long as they use a reliable method, the name doesn't matter, and the fact that the name is the only argument that was presented on this talk has me worried for the future of this article. Skalidrisalba (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

CAM (medicine) redirects to alternative medicine. Complementary medicine, functional medicine, integrative medicine, holistic medicine, energy medicine are all pseudoscience. The idea of CAM is basically a back-door approach to try and make alternative medicine sound scientific. It doesn't work. It's like how intelligent design is trying to make creationism sound pseudoscientific. I am not convinced we need to rely on "Complementary" medicine journals on our article when we have mainstream psychology journals already discussing this topic. Why use weaker sources when we have the option to use good ones. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We're running in circle here, you're still claiming that a word used in the name of journal reflects its methodology, this is idiotic. The word "complementary" doesn't say anything about the methodology, your argument is irrelevant. Skalidrisalba (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS: if you don't obey it, your edits will be reverted.

OTQ: hypnosis is not pseudoscience, as far as it is used for circus shows. It is pseudoscience as used for healing diseases.

On checking its methodology: Wikipedians are considered unqualified to do that, by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

without actually checking the article I sent It's the rules of Wikipedia. Editors cannot just decide, "well, the source is unreliable, but I like the content, so let's use it". There is no point in reading it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

Why does Hypnotherapy exist as a distinct article? Seems to be a lot of messy overlap with this one. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There's some overlap, but hypnosis in general also encompasses stage hypnosis, self-hypnosis, and other subects. Hypnotherapy is a topic that I think deserves an article on its own to document & debunk its claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Logical. So all the medical stuff should be (re)moved from this one? Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it deserves a mention, but yeah, the bulk of it should be in the Hypnotherapy article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note the edit warring has now spread to the Hypnotherapy article. We should get this content straightened-out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage (talk • contribs) 14:47, October 7, 2024 (UTC)