Talk:Otto F. Kernberg

message: The article itself is well written, but it really could use some sources to support some statements.  For example, something that is a reliable source on the disagreements between Dr. Kernberg and Dr. Kohut. RalphLendertalk 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take another look, it is there. It is also common knowledge that does not need to be footnoted. This is it: Consolini, G. (1999). Kernberg Versus Kohut: A (Case) Study in Contrasts. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 71-86. --DorisHノート 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the references...but there should be a citation to support the statements in the KvK section..."common knowledge" is not a substitute for the having reliable sources.  Furthermore, the reader without such "common knowledge," who is reading the article to get information, should have sources cited for followup.  RalphLendertalk 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Your were able to add a template, so why not venture to do a citation. This is not the place to get support for your proposed policy change. If you want a citation, fix it yourself.--DorisHノート 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A variety of "Kohut states" or "Kernberg says" and opinion statements need some citations here.  I've marked those. Generally, POV statements, original research, and statements of opinion should not be in articles...unless there is supporting reliable sources. DPetersontalk 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, as per reasons given above. (Text is fully sourced.)Please, read the discussion and answer in context before posting a helpful reply.--DorisHノート 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but this is not a topic I am very familiar with and so cannot add sources.  But, as an interested reader and editor with knowledge in a variety of related topics, I do think that reliable sources are needed, especially on the disagreements between Drs. K & K.  Rember, no one "ownes" article in wikipedia and so I do have a right to put in requests for citations.  the text really isn't fully sourced at all, in my opinion. RalphLendertalk 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting opinion, really. But what counts for the article is reality. ≈8-0 --DorisHノート 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So I reverted this again. I might consider supporting your request if you can tell me exactly where Consolini is misquoted, and how someone quoteable understands his paper in a different way. --DorisHノート 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "exactly where Consolini is misquoted, and how someonw quoteable understands his paper.."RalphLendertalk 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who says the sources are no good. So which sources are no good? If you object to the piece on Kohut, it is obviously Consolini? If you object to existing sources then you will have to explain that. Do you understand that?--DorisHノート 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I was not clear, and if so, I am sorry.  I don't think the sources that are in the article are "no good."  Those are fine.  I just believe additional sources are needed to support various statements.  Again, I still don't know what you mean by "it is obviously Consolini?"  What do you mean by "consolini?"  RalphLendertalk 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want additional sources? --DorisHノート 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources needed

message: 1 autism
2 symbiosis
3 Differentiation self/object
4 integration of self/object
5 ego/superego/id consolidated
3 -failure of the child to differentiate between self and other results in a psychotic personality organization; one has failed to accomplish the first developmental task and is stuck in stage II. (seems failure @ 2 results in stuck @ 3?)
4- failure of this results in a borderline personality organization; one has failed to accomplish the second developmental task and is stuck in stage III. (seems failure @ 3 results in stuck @ 4?)
--Rick (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: developmental stages

message: Do you have a reference/source that Kernberg is dead? --Christian2003 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Substituted at 02:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment