Talk:Modern psychoanalysis

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.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Copyright issues

Hangon - Permission has been given to quote from any of the pages at http://modernpsychoanalysis.blogspot.com/ including the cited page. Modanalyst 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the copyright holder, you should ideally have a read of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. It also means that we can't link to the external links you're adding, as there's a possible WP:COI conflict of interest if you own one or more of the sites! Thanks for donating, though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be speedily deleted because there is a previous version of the article available ([1]) that does not, as far as I can tell, appear to be a copyright violation. - I have deleted the speedy delete tag. If there are still concerns about the copyright status of the current page (that is, if there is no verification of Modanalyst's claim above) the article should be returned to that stub form (which obviously still needs some help, but we're a work in progress :-). -- SiobhanHansa 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The external links were those originally placed in the Hyman Spotnitz article by someone else also relevant here. I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with all of the procedures here. I understand the need for rules and consistency. We have a disagreement about how they are applied in this case, though given the short time spans involved (a few minutes) it doesn't seem that you or Siobhan have taken the time to carefully consider this.Modanalyst 15:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and accept it. I'll read the links more closely if you read WP:EL and WP:WELCOME. Deal? ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested for you to point me to where I have failed to take time to carefully consider your points. I've tried to be diligent when editing the Hyman Spotnitz and have taken time to explain my edits and point you to pages that will help you gain more familiarity with our standards. Your accusation is unjust, and I don't appreciate it. -- SiobhanHansa 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the suggested WP:EL and WP:WELCOME. I was not trying to be unfair to you Siobhan; it is not easy to know who is doing editing on these articles or what purpose they are doing it for when you are new to this system. I am concerned with modern psychoanalysis only and was particularly concerned that the existing articles contained so little information and then were further cut to delete other information. My comments were made based on the edits that took place over a short period of time (not enough time to carefully examine the sites) and not meant to be taken generally. On the contrary, I think you should be commended for your time and dedication to this task.Modanalyst 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Hyman Spotnitz article and the links when I first deleted them and I did so by reading the article and each of the pages linked to. I made the assumption that they had not changed when I deleted them again after they were re-added, so my actions may have been fast on those occasions, but my initial deletion was not. -- SiobhanHansa 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Siobhan. Unfortunately, there is a great lack of information on the web about Dr. Spotnitz or about modern psychoanalysis. I will try to become more accustomed to your rules and contribute more to these articles in the future.Modanalyst 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

general fixup

adambrower here, trying to whup this thing into shape. i've removed the peacock tag because i believe there's no more peacockery afoot. i've added one ext link to a short paper on the narc. defense which seems to me accessible to the general public & concise. also added a line about the controversy in psych circles about Mod Psych generally and edited out some of the puffery. am searching for something definitive crediting spotnitz with founding Mod Psych although afaik there's no other claimant.--Adambrower 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anon edits removed

the field of psychoanalysis is controversial, and modern psych is controversial *within* that field. i have removed an anon edit by someone with an axe to grind against mod psych because i believe wikipedia is an improper venue in which to vent one's personal feelings. i don't know how to prevent such abuses, but i wish anyone who edits would identify themselves, and of course refrain from using this article as a soapbox. Adambrower 04:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does more harm than good

Hi--Michael Dow here. Someone who does not identify themselves (to my knowledge) continues to revert my editing out of the claim that "many psychoanalysts believe that modern psychoanalysis does more harm than good." This is an outrageous claim, and is wholly unsubstantiated. It defaces the article and is non-encyclopedic. It's an unsubstantiated opinion. It's fine to mention that more studies of modern psychoanalysis are needed or that there is no evidence of its efficacy. But this claim needs to be removed or substantiated. What's more, I have said this in my edits, and not been responded to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.77.110 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]