Psychoanalysis/Archive 5

{{talk archive navigation}}

Unconscious

The primary aspect to psychoanalysis is the unconscious mind. This is very evident from the fact that all psychoanalysts who have existed in history - 1. Freudian school 2. Jungian school of Analytical Psychology 3. Anna Freud School 4. Kleinian Object Relations School 5. Stephen Mitchell School of Relational Psychoanalysis say one thing: and that is that psychoanalysis is about the unconscious mind.

There are other psychotherepeutic therapies - cognitive therapy is behavioral, and linked to CBT. Psychiatry is medical and biological.

To deny the unconscious as being the central facet of psychoanalysis would mean completely misrepresenting the research done by Freud, who did not "create" the discipline, but invented it. All he - and his followers talk about is the unconscious mind.

If the article wants to be based on reliable sources, it must go by the existing research and practice of psychoanalysis. MrsCaptcha11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a source and tweaked the definition to fit it.Maunus ·maunus · 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Only about unconsciousness

od

—I'm not entirely convinced this definition is better. The fact that Freud believed that retrieval of these unconscious thoughts and conscious recollection of them would help the individual seems to be rooted in conscious effects. He also believed that introspection was valuable and that would if anything be conscious. By being aware of the unconscious, does it not become conscious? I'm not arguing that the unconsciousness is not the central tennet, but it certainly isn't alone in being important. CFCF Carl Fredrik 📧 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Could anyone respond to these concerns? CFCF Carl Fredrik 📧 07:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire point of the relation between psychoanalysis and the unconscious is to bring unconscious processes into consciousness so that it can be addressed by conscious strategies of intervention. That does obviously not mean that the unconscious is not central to psychoanalysis - but the opposite. Please present some sources about the relation between psychoanalysis and the unconscious if further discussion of this is to be a fruitful .Maunus ·maunus · 09:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments concerning writing

Maunus' definition "is" better than the poorly written, uncited text added by CFCF, since rather than beginning with some vague generality about the unconscious, it properly acknowledges that psychoanalysis is in the first place a set of psychotherapeutic techniques. Maunus' definition is better in other ways as well, and might even be acceptable, though it still probably could be improved further. FreeKnowledgeCreator19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FKC, once again, we are not here to fight about whose definition is better or worse. Your confrontational, argumentative, divisive, insecure attitude that makes you take things personally on one hand and make attacks on others in the same breath is not going to help you or this article or Wikipedia. Clearly, the discussion/improvements have moved forward after Frederic and Maunus entered the talkpage, and what I can see both of them doing is trying to improve the definition and add sources, but from your words it is growing more and more apparent that you are looking for nothing more than an opportunity to create fights and scapegoat someone or the other. MrsCaptcha02:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussing whose definition is better or worse is necessary if the aim of editing is to improve the article. Since Maunus' version is better than that of CFCF, it was reasonable of me to say so. FreeKnowledgeCreator03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be given an award for writing a better definition, and neither is anyone going to be arrested for writing a "poorly worded" one. If that has been acknowledged, maybe we should focus on the final article rather than on users' identities. And now, a little request. I hope that puts an end to this tedious argument with you, FKC. MrsCaptcha05:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging in argument for the sake of it. I am interested in discussing how to improve the article. So, I reiterate that I think the content added by Maunus is significantly better than the content added by CFCF, which was indeed poorly written - and that I think one has the right to suggest that something is poorly written without having one's comments removed as violation of CIVIL. FreeKnowledgeCreator20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is uncivil in that it followed a number of rude unprovoked remarks to me and MrsCaptcha and neither concerns the message or content of the text. It is a poor argument in that it carries no weight — I can call everything you write poorly written, or everything you propose poorly written in return — that does not make it so. You did nothing to explain why it was "poorly written" beyond lambast me for following your suggestions (see above before my initial edit). Manaus, it was very wrong of you to reopen this hatt, it only promotes further fruitless discussion and in removing my comment you violated TPO. I will make a note that I have not rescinded my concerns that there may be need to take action if discussion on this page does not adhere to CIVIL. CFCF Carl Fredrik 📧 07:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My calling your addition poorly written was an observation, and was not intended as an argument. I had already explained the problems with your addition a number times previously, and I will do so again. Your addition read, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques, many of which relate to the unconscious mind." That sentence does not begin by properly identifying psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy, a basic fact that ought to be mentioned in the first sentence, and by stating that "many" of the theories and techniques relate to the unconscious it implies, without evidence, that some do not. If you make poorly written and uncited additions to articles, then you can expect them to be criticized. I certainly will try to be as civil as possible, and I suggest that you for your part try to stop seeing any kind of criticism of your edits as inherently uncivil. As Maunus pointed out, by hatting the discussion, you effectively tried to silence an editor who disagrees with you, and that is not how things are meant to work here. FreeKnowledgeCreator08:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Saying something is poorly written without explaining why is not an observation, it does nothing beyond imply disdain towards others and attempts to invalidate their contributions based upon no rationale. If you mean it was stylistically poor you could have suggested an improvement. If it was grammatically poor you could have gone ahead and fixed that immediately. As for your two points, they are both invalid:

You say: "it does not begin by properly identifying psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy" — but that was there in the very next sentence. Splitting sentences in two increases the readability, one of the major criticisms Wikipedia has faced over the years. Psychoanalysis is not solely a psychotherapy either, and implying that it is always used in a therapeutic context is incorrect.

We have been through this, and it is nicely encapsulated in the essay: SKYISBLUE. You're not going to find a reference for this, this is the problem with all our definitions on Wikipedia. Listing every possible detail in the first sentence is not a solution — it is part of the problem, if not the core of the problem of READABILITY.

CFCF Carl Fredrik 📧 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

An observation is an observation even if it comes without an explanation. Your assertion that my calling your addition poorly written implies disdain for you unfortunately suggests, as I said, that you tend to see any criticism of your editing as inherently uncivil. That psychoanalysis is a form of psychotherapy is a fundamental fact that ought to be in the very first sentence; your point that it was mentioned in the "second" sentence would be relevant only if it did not matter where in the lead something is mentioned. It does nothing to make the article more readable to shift basic facts that ought to go first into later sentences. You assert that my other point is not valid, but your response is totally irrelevant. The words "You're not going to find a reference for this" are not a justification for original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator08:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You have not implied that previously, and you were previously very uncivil to MrsCaptcha. This is what my interpretation is based off, not some tendency against criticism.

Once again, two shorter sentences is better than one long. A longer list is far worse in every way. Fewer people will read it, and fewer people will understand it. If that means we split up important information and only mention it in sentence two, that is a good thing — not a bad thing. It absolutely matters where in the lede things are mentioned, but it is not unreasonable to wait until the second sentence to mention this.

CFCF Carl Fredrik 📧 08:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't be further engaged in a discussion about you personally. As for the article, the first sentence currently reads, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind", which is not necessarily absolutely perfect but is at least basically satisfactory. It is quite a short sentence and there is no need to make it shorter, least of all by shifting a basic fact such as that psychoanalysis is a form of psychotherapy into a later sentence. FreeKnowledgeCreator08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion of the wording of the definition sentence ought to be based on sources, otherwise it is simply a timesink. So spend a little time googling and present any results that you think call for a tweak to the definition.Maunus ·maunus · 09:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Maunus is right. There have been far more words added to the talk page than have been added to the article in the same period. And I've just added more.... dammit.... Kim Dent-Brown11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Schools of thought

I shall be adding a section to the article regarding the different schools of thought soon, similar to the ones that I detailed above. MrsCaptcha12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers

I've added "p." when writing refs because the other book refs use it (the ones with page numbers; lots are missing). But the journal articles don't, and it's easier to write the book refs without it. Does anyone mind if I remove it from the other refs? SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I'll remove them with my next edit. If anyone does object later, I'll be happy to put them back, so just let me know. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

In general, I think you are doing a very good job of editing the article, but I have a quibble with this edit, since I am not sure it is worth mentioning Juliet Mitchell by name in the lead. You altered "Several of Freud's colleagues and students went on to establish their own disciplines—including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology—while Freud retained the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought" to "Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought, a position accepted by several of his colleagues and students who went on to establish their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology"; in this instance, I think the previous version may have been better. FreeKnowledgeCreator21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

od

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I agree about the name in the lead. The problem is that we stick very closely to her point, so I quickly added in-text attribution. I'm hoping we can find other sources about the same issue, so that we can make the same point more generically. I'm not happy with that paragraph in general, but I can't at the moment see how to fix it. It currently says:

Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought, a position accepted by colleagues and students who established their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler and Carl Jung.efn|Alfred Adler developed the school of thought known as individual psychology, while Carl Jung established analytical psychology.Mitchell, Juliet. "Psychoanalysis and Feminism: A Radical Reassessment of Freudian Psychoanalysis". Penguin Books, 2000, 341. Neo-Freudians who contributed to later developments include Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner.Birnbach, Martin. "Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy", Stanford University Press, 1961, 3.

I'll remove her name for now, and we can talk about how to develop it. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. By the way, if you don't like any of my edits, feel free to revert. I won't mind. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

od

Sarah, I don't think that, once again, we are here to decide whether we like someone's edits or not, and whether we should revert them or not. We must focus our judgment on the article instead. I have fixed the references. I still don't exactly understand why you changed the referencing digits/numbers into alphabets and/or how or why you did so. Jumping from ref "a" to ref 4 and 5 was more about an unlogical structure than anything else, that's all. MrsCaptcha16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I restored an older version of those sentences that perhaps works better. It now reads:

Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan.Birnbach, Martin. "Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy", Stanford University Press, 1961, 3.efn|Alfred Adler developed the school of thought known as individual psychology, while Carl Jung established analytical psychology. Freud retained the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought.Mitchell, Juliet. "Psychoanalysis and Feminism: A Radical Reassessment of Freudian Psychoanalysis". Penguin Books, 2000, 341.

reflist

notelist

SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My only remaining concern is that perhaps it would have been worth mentioning that Jung's discipline is called analytical psychology and Adler's individual psychology? That information was in earlier versions of the lead, but was removed. I can see that it could be regarded as off-topic, but I believe it does help to explain what psychoanalysis is to distinguish it by name from other systems or therapeutic practices. FreeKnowledgeCreator20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's in a footnote now. I can't see the point of explaining what psychoanalysis isn't, before we explain what it is. There was an earlier version of that sentence that might make more sense. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is in a footnote, where no one is likely to see it. The first sentence of the lead ("Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind, which together form a method for the treatment of mental-health disorders") explains what psychoanalysis is, so I do not believe there should be any concern about "explaining what psychoanalysis isn't, before we explain what it is". Which earlier version of the sentence did you have in mind? FreeKnowledgeCreator20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It began life as "Psychoanalysis (or Freudian psychology) is a body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and continued by others."

"continued by others" became: "and these have been criticized, expanded and developed in different directions mostly by his students (Alfred Adler and Carl G. Jung, and later the neo-Freudians as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and H. S. Sullivan).

Then it became a second sentence: "Psychoanalysis expanded, criticized and developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students (Alfred Adler and Carl G. Jung, and later the neo-Freudians as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and H. S. Sullivan)."

Which became: "Psychoanalysis has expanded, been criticized and developed in different directions, mostly by some of Freud's former students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, Wilhelm Reich and later by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Jacques Lacan."

Then it was split into three sentences: "Since then, psychoanalysis has expanded and been revised, reformed and developed in different directions. This was initially by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who went on to develop their own ideas independently from Freud. Later neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Jacques Lacan."

Then expanded: "Since then, psychoanalysis has been revised and developed in different directions. Some of Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Jung, went on to develop their own ideas independently. Freud insisted on retaining the term "psychoanalysis" for his school of thought, and Adler and Jung accepted this. The Neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan."

Analytical psychology was added: "Over time, psychoanalysis has been revised and developed in different directions. Some of Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Jung, went on to develop their own ideas independently. Jung established the discipline of Analytical Psychology, while Freud insisted on retaining the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought, and Adler and Jung accepted this. The Neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Harry Stack Sullivan."

Individual psychology was added: "Several of Freud's colleagues and students went on to establish their own disciplines—including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology—while Freud retained the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought. The neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner.

Then tightened and in its own paragraph: "Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by colleagues and students of Freud, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. Freud retained the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought."

SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've merged it with part of the first para, so that it's topped and tailed by psychoanalysis:

Freud first used the term "psychoanalysis" (in French) in 1896; his book "Die Traumdeutung" ("The Interpretation of Dreams"), which he saw as his "most significant work", appeared in November 1899.Gay, Peter. "Freud: A Life for Our Time". New York: W. W. Norton, 1988, 3–4, 103. Psychoanalysis was later developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung,efn|Alfred Adler developed the school of thought known as individual psychology, while Carl Jung established analytical psychology. and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan.Birnbach, Martin. "Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy", Stanford University Press, 1961, 3. Freud retained the term "psychoanalysis" for his own school of thought.Mitchell, Juliet. "Psychoanalysis and Feminism: A Radical Reassessment of Freudian Psychoanalysis". Penguin Books, 2000, 341.

Reference and footnote templates

"moved from above"

Why is your first reference marked as "a", and the next ones going to 4 and 5? There is a problem with the numbering there that needs to be fixed, which has to do something with the way you have coded/tagged it. MrsCaptcha08:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The ones marked with a letter are footnotes, as opposed to citations, which are marked with a number. See tl|efn. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do your references in the article have to start with "a" and then jump to 3 and 4 and 5? I corrected it and you took it back to the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If at all you want to create sub-references you must do so appropriately, not merely go back to the old edit lazily. This seems to be a general problem here: revert hastily (because it takes less effort of course) instead of try to read, understand, and make corrections/changes as per the way the edit history is progressing. But reading and editing and making corrections and adding material in the appropriate manner/format is a lot more hard work to most of us it seems. MrsCaptcha12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

MrsCaptcha, I've moved your queries about this into one section, in case you didn't see the reply. This is one of the ways, probably the most common way, in which references and footnotes are separated on Wikipedia. Using the tl|efn template produces letters for footnotes as the default. It can be changed to some other label (e.g. Roman numerals or "note 1"), but the former is no better than the default and the latter produces more visual clutter.

Does anyone else not want to use tl|efn? SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this again, because you have separated some of the footnotes from their sources, so that instead of one note after the first sentence, there are now four numbers: two unsourced footnotes and two unconnected citations. In other parts of the text you've left tl|efn in place. Please wait for others to comment on whether they object to using tl|efn. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can enable Reference tooltips by going to your preferences -- gadgets -- browsing, where it's currently the second-last in the list of options. That allows you to read the references and footnotes in a pop-up box when you hover over them. SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My problem is not with the efn tag, but with the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha13:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The options are:

(a) not to use the efn or similar templates, and not to have a separate footnote section; quotations would be included after the citations within the same link;

(b) use the default efn template; this produces a separate footnote section like this, with a, b, c for notes, and 1, 2, 3 for citations;

(c) use the efn template, but choose some other way of marking the notes, such as A, B, C, or "note 1", "note 2", "note 3".

SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as my own reasoning tells me, the numbering should be 1, A, 2, B, 3, C... what is the difference between numbered references and lettered references, semantically and conceptually? Why not just follow the traditional numbered references like we do on all articles? MrsCaptcha08:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic Tenets of Psychoanalysis

These points that have been detailed need more reliable sources. Should I put up a notice there or shall we wait? MrsCaptcha16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The source for the first six points is Erich Fromm, "The Revision of Psychoanalysis", and for the 7th point Richard D. Chessick (professor emeritus of psychiatry, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), "The Future of Psychoanalysis". SlimVirgin SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Psychiatry is not connected to psychoanalysis; it is a different field within mental health dealing with medicine, just as cognitive behaviour therapy is a different field dealing with a different approach from psychoanalysis. MrsCaptcha13:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic Tenets of Psychoanalysis in lead

Can we delete the basic tenets from the lead entirely? It should be a summary only and overloads this section of our article.Charlotte13523:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that rather than remove that material altogether, it would make sense to summarize it more briefly. I don't particularly like bullet point lists in any case. FreeKnowledgeCreator23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Meta-analyses not adequately explained

The article contains a discussion of the efficacy of psychoanalysis based on some statistical meta-analyses, starting with: ""Meta-analyses of Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) have found effect sizes ranging from .34–.71 compared to no treatment and was found to be slightly better than other therapies in follow up.91"". There's no indication of what the outcome variable might be -and whether or not it is the same in each of the studies- in this or the following sentences. I'm assuming the effect sizes are measured in multiples of standard deviations. —nbsp;Preceding 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Psychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

John Beebe?

In section link|Special:Permalink/825326954|Variations in technique, this sentence caught my eye: Quote|As object relations theory evolved, supplemented by the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Beebe, techniques with patients who had more severe problems with basic trust (Erikson, 1950) and a history of maternal deprivation (see the works of Augusta Alpert) led to new techniques with adults. Am I the only one who suspects that the wikilink to Jungian analyst John Beebe is out of place here? Is there a secondary source that confirms Beebe's relevance in this sentence? (By the way, the breezy narration of this section, not to mention some other sections, with nary an inline citation to a secondary source in sight, looks a more than a little suspect to my eye.) Perhaps the editor who inserted Beebe's name meant to refer to Beatrice Beebe (b.nbsp;1946), but although she seems much more relevant to the topic at hand than John Beebe, she is much younger than the other people mentioned in the sentence—Augusta Alpert (1898–1968), Erik Erikson (1902–1994), John Bowlby (1907–1990), and Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999)—and she is already mentioned among her contemporaries elsewhere in the article. User:Profjsb added the sentence in Diff||prev|159745710|this edit (September 2007), and User:Art LaPella added the link to John Beebe in Diff||prev|165973621|this edit (October 2007). Biogeographist00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this subject, so I presumably made that 2007 edit just because the name and occupation matched. Art LaPella03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed John Beebe from the sentence. He can be restored to the sentence if someone can present a secondary source and a good argument that he belongs in this sentence. This section and others still need more inline citations to secondary sources. Biogeographist17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience status

There seem to be a lot of edits to add the "pseudoscience" template to the page. One reversion mentioned that "There was an arbitration committee ruling that explicitly ruled psychoanalysis should not be identified as pseudoscience", which seems plausible but I don't know where. Could we have a link to that kept on this talk page, to keep it clearer that this should not be changed in the article without consensus / further arbitration? (To me, psychoanalysis sure "seems" like a pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to whether it should be marked as such on Wikipedia, per NOR.) Throne3d19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: I expect this can be found in the talk page archives, somewhere, but I'm suggesting we keep it up the top of the talk page, similar to how Talk:Aluminium mentions the spelling issue up top in the orange-ish boxes. Throne3d19:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this page, and see further details here. The arbitration committee was explicit in its statement on the subject: "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." The IPs that have persistently tried to have psychoanalysis classified as a pseudoscience are acting in a grossly disruptive manner by ignoring this. It is, of course, possible that the arbitration committee will eventually reconsider its ruling, but until and unless that happens Wikipedia is not going to classify psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. FreeKnowledgeCreator21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh – those notices are placed rather prominently on the relevant pages; I would've expected the IP to notice them. (I'm not sure I'd characterize the behavior as "grossly" disruptive, but agree it's disruptive.)

My question remains, though: should we add this information to a box at the top of "this" talk page, to warn people off faster in the future? I don't know what standard of agreement is necessary to decide to add a permanent fixture like this to a talk page, so don't want to be bold and just add it. I expect it would reduce the occurrence of this disruption in the future. Throne3d17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it if you like. I don't see anyone objecting. FreeKnowledgeCreator21:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

done

: It seemed like something where "agreement" would be better than "lack of objection" – that's the reason I was asking, not just to have a response saying one person doesn't object – but I've gone ahead and added it now. Throne3d04:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)