Talk:Transactional analysis

message: It seems to me that right now the article reads like it was written by a disorganized committee.  I am going to rearrange the sections; I believe that at a bare minimum, that this is what is called for.--NBahn (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Editing of the Article 

message: The animated image at the top says nothing by itself or together with the caption text. Can I suggest a proper caption that explains the animation or moving it down to a section of the article that does? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest away!--NBahn (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I had a quick (VERY quick) glance on the section about ego states and I think some differentiation in functional model and structure model is directly needed. Understanding this difference is very important to understand the whole concept of ego states. 
Maybe I will take care about this issue soon, but I will be happy if someone else did it because I have to finish a thesis at the moment... - MAE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.250.60 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ego states 

message: On a superficial look through the article, I cannot see any empirical evidence for this construction actually corresponding to reality. Its not too difficult to invent schemas that seem appealling but which are not actually true. 92.29.142.75 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the Wikipedia is not the place for opinion and/or debate and/or proof. What evidence do you have that everything in the Wikipedia is required to be real? Sam Tomato (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

text: That sounds a bit like Neuro Linguistic Programming which has an extensive criticism section. TA and NPL seem to resemble each other but there is no criticism section of TA. While I am a big fan of theories of plural intra psychic personae I think the article should include a criticism section, if only to let students realise that they are on somewhat shaky ground. How about, Fay Short, Phil Thomas "Textbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy Core Approaches and Therapies" as well as giving a thorough introduction to TA claim that TA is "often regarded as pseudoscience by its critics" (p 323 ). --Timtak (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

text: that link does not say anything about ψ being pseudoscience. instead it explains (or tries to) what psichological motives might make people belive in pseudoscientific ideas.176.63.176.112 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Criticism section? 

message: My complaint is about the confusion: post-Freudian and extra-Freudian are pointing to the same link: Freud. As I am researching psychology, I would rather expect them to point to respective (different) pages so I can find out about each of them; or to nothing at all. What's the reason to point to Freud each time, while the ideas are different by definition, and different from the original research?
Zb00001 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TA is not only post-Freudian but, according to its founder's wishes, consciously extra-Freudian. 

message: I'm not familiar with this topic so the article was my introduction to the material. It references an ego-state refutation by an "Australian TA group" and then later another TA criticism by an "Australian TA analyst". Both citations point to Tony White - his personal blog as well as a published article. As a newcomer, it looks very shady. I have no idea whether or not this analyst or this unnamed TA group is well-known or credible enough to merit their mention. In the history, someone originally noted this "Australian group" as "marginal" but it was scrubbed as being biased.
Can someone who is more knowledgeable about this subject either specifically attribute these criticisms to Tony White and mention he is well-known or credible (I do see he's written books, had awards, etc) if that's the case, or get rid of them? 24.0.209.76 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian TA group 

message: The animation next to the lede is confusing and explains nothing. A simple diagram would be much better here. Maybe the animation could be used later in the article, but I doubt it.  --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Lova Falk talk 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved it lower in the article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still highly annoying, and illustrates nothing. It's just an animated version of a book-jacket illustration, an unenlightening dancing hamsters gimmick sans music.Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation 

message: This article is really a labor to read. I rewrote the introduction and history and moved a few  things around, but it still needs a lot of work. 
 13:06, 28 August 2015‎  678286435
Several mentions of a need for a controversy section should be heeded.
I'm hatting the The "Key Ideas" section here should anyone want to take it on and clean it up.Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly written /disorganized (deleted text copied here)

message: It's poorly organized, and prone to "ride off in all directions." 
First to go will be the History ==> Fifty years later subsection, as (ironically perhaps) it has been waiting more than a decade for even one supporting ref to appear.
The section explaining PAC is a short course in TA, clear overkill for encyclopedic purposes, and calls out to only one supporting source — at that, little more than a glancing afterthought. I estimate half the section could be cut.Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  overdue for editing 

message: @Diannaa - can I ask you to revert the edits you removed on this page today? They are not copyright issues. I am a representative from ITAA and I was making them on behalf of the organisation. 2A01:B340:63:98C3:70FC:AF4F:805C:7C3D (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. Regardless of the copyright issue, the material you wanted to add is not suitable for Wikipedia. What we are looking for is content based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, not content reproduced from an organization's website.  — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert removed edits