Talk:Psychobabble (jargon)

message: I just changed the name from Psycho-babble to Psychobabble (jargon) for 2 reasons: (1) to disambiguate it from the new article about the Psycho-Babble web site and (2) while we're at it, let's correct the spelling to WITHOUT a hyphen. (See all the dictionary references below on this talk page.)Nadirsofar 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, for example: "Users of psychological jargon may argue that cynics have invented the term as a defence against the cynics' own deep, repressed fears and traumas." --PolyGnome 09:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: name change

message: === definition=== 
The anonymous 12-Jan-2005 edit changed psychobabble from a derogatory term for jargon to a derogatory term for the entire field of psychology. There is no support for that definition. These dictionaries all define psychobabble as jargon only and NOT as the field:
* Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed (1989)
* Dictionary of Psychology (A. Colman, editor; Oxford, 2001)
* New Oxford American Dictionary (2001)
* American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed (1996)
* Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11th ed (2003)
* Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed (1993)
* Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary
* Princeton University's WordNet (online) -nadirsofar 25 June 2005
=== coinage=== 
In a bit of searching, I still find no corroboration for the Walt Richmond attribution. Oxford's psych dictionary credits Rosen and dates it to 1977. RH says it was popularized by Rosen's 1977 book but doesn't credit him with coinage. MWC dates it to 1975. No reference was given for the "dates from the 1960s" line. I say that the 1961 Richmond credit should be considered  original research for now and deleted. "Popularized by Rosen's book" seems indisputable, even if a Richmond source is found later.
(Anyway the "era of origin for widespread" psychoanalysis was, like, the 1920s-50s; by the 1960s it had peaked; group counseling wasn't "spreading wide" until the 1970s.) -nadirsofar 25 June 2005
=== spelling === 
All the above dictionaries spell it WITHOUT the hyphen. I don't know what the guidelines are for changing the title, but I think it should be done. (Um, how do you change the title?) -nadirsofar 25 June 2005
Six months is enough warning. This article was originally, correctly, without a hyphen. I don't know why the 2003 edit was made to hyphenate it, but whoever did it can't overrule the OED, M-W, RH, etc etc. So it's fixed. I also corrected the spelling in the articles that link here when I updated those links.Nadirsofar 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting & changes 

message: All the above dictionaries spell it WITHOUT the hyphen. I don't know what the guidelines are for changing the title, but I think it should be done. (Um, how do you change the title?) -nadirsofar 25 June 2005
Six months is enough warning. This article was originally, correctly, without a hyphen. I don't know why the 2003 edit was made to hyphenate it, but whoever did it can't overrule the OED, M-W, RH, etc etc. So it's fixed. I also corrected the spelling in the articles that link here when I updated those links.Nadirsofar 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: The article uses the word 'grandiloquent', which I (as a native English speaker) have never heard, and I think needs re-wording. I'm not however sure what would be a good replacement/fix here. Ideas anyone? -- Palfrey 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: So far not one piece of evidence or one voice of support has been raised here to support the idea that "psycho-babble" is used to disparage the whole field.  If no further support is voiced by October 15, 2005, let's eliminate that usage as unverified.  At the most, it deserves a mention as a usage of the term -- not leading mention as the usage of the term, as is the case now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this.  The article's still going to need more work; someone seems to have used it to slide past the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" rule:  "Aha!  I think that the whole field of psychology is a bunch of claptrap and I use the term 'psychobabble' to express my contempt!  If I say I'm just explaining what people who use the word 'psychobabble' mean when they use it, I can express at length my own disdain!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any support for 'psycho-babble == field'? 

message: The following was inserted directly in the article by  in this edit:
:NO. I COINED THE TERM IN 1975 WHEN WRITING A BOOK REVIEW FOR THE BOSTON PHOENIX OF RUSSELL JACOBY'S BOOK, SOCIAL AMNESIA, IN APRIL 1975. YOU WILL FIND NO EARLIER USE OF WORD, BECAUSE I HADN'T INVENTED IT YET! IN OCTOBER OF 1975, I WROTE COVER STORY "PSYCHOBABBLE" FOR NEW TIMES MAG, THEN PUBLISHED BOOK BY THAT NAME IN 1977 (ATHENEUM). YOU WILL FIND ME PROPERLY CREDITED IN WILLIAM SAFIRE COLUMN, TIME MAGAZINE, AND NUMEROUS DICTIONARIES. FALSE INFORMATION BELOW IS BIZARRELY IMAGINATIVE! MY E-MAIL IS RICHARDR@WORKMAN.COM. THANKS.
There seems to have been a 1977 book written by a Richard Dean Rosen titled Psychobabble; I can't determine whether it was Atheneum that published it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed -- origin of term 

message: Why has this page been moved from Psychobabble to Psycho-babble (jargon)? The rule should be to keep article headings simple. There is no need to add parenthesis unless it is likely to be confused with another word. The article itself should explain that the word is a kind of jargon. It is adding unnecessary complexity. I think it should be moved back  Lumos3 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the page currently at Psychobabble (jargon) is clearly the most widespread use of the word.  It should be what people get when they link the term "psychobabble". -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychobabble v Psychobabble (jargon)