Talk:Milton H. Erickson

message: "Communicating by Metaphor - This is explored extensively in Sydney Rosen's 'My Voice Will Go With You', but a beautiful example is given in the first chapter of David Gordon's book Phoenix:"
"Beautiful" necessary? (Encyclopedic, for that matter?)
"Compare Erickson's metaphorical strategies with the teaching tales of the Sufis (those of Nasreddin eg.) and the Zen tradition of Koans, each also designed to act on the unconscious mind."
I don't think an imperative belongs in an encyclopedia article; perhaps "Erickson's metaphorical strategies can be compared to..." Obviously they can be compared with chocolate ice cream, but I believe "compared to" implies similarity, and this rewrite avoids the command.
I disagree.  One could argue that there is a significant similarity between such tales and those of Erickson.  With the intention to affect the Unconscious...or lead one in the direction of enlightenment. One might include th parables of Jesus, as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32CD:B130:E5DE:E605:A08E:98E3 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sufficiently bold. Your suggestions have been followed... but in the future, you can knock nearly fourteen months off of the response time by doing it yourself. ;) Jonathansfox (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Erickson's work is controversial in many respects, and was when he was alive.  Even more controversial are the many "neo-Ericksonian" interpretations of it.  The article doesn't mention any of this.  There are also several references to NLP here but no mention of the controversy surrounding the relationship between NLP and Erickson's work.  
: Erickson's work is mostly well-regarded, but NLP is highly controversial and considered by many to be a fraud or a cult, as the wiki article on NLP mentions. The references to NLP in the article on Erickson imply that Erickson himself endorsed NLP which is not necessarily true.  I would vote for removing most of the NLP references and noting the ones that remain that Erickson's ideas were used by NLP but he did not create or endorse it. 
195.93.21.104 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy/Balance 

message: Which is genuine, Henry or Hyland?
According to The Milton H. Erickson Foundation:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww%2Eerickson%2Dfoundation%2Eorg+Hyland
Kadzuwo 02:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On his middle name 

message: Should "MD" be removed from the name line? Is that typical Wiki practice to include it?
Thanks ~ Dpr 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title-MD 

message: The article contains /a lot/ of text with low relevancy to the person of Erickson. All parts about techniques should be shortened (by someone knowledgeable) and the deleted content moved into article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contributions to make this both accurate and useful to readers.  I acknowledge that I have a bias in favor of my father's works.  I monitor this site to do my part in assuring accuracy.   RoxannaErickson (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic article or did someone start a new book here? 

message: I'd like to merge the Milton Model page to a subsection on this page.. --Comaze 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really appropriate as I see it. One is a (long!) biographical article. The other is a linguistic model based upon a person's work. 2 very different things. FT2 (Talk) 14:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, alternatively I could expand the Milton model article.. --Comaze 15:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Model (NLP) 

message: <removed as junk or vandalism Julia Rossi (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training program  

message: I just hope this wiki page has nothing to do with this article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches
it links to this page, and rants around time and over about "Ericksonian" methods of this and that. Maybe the author just had read a book (good advice btw!), but I'd advice to look for any similarities. Stay vigilant! --Sigmundur (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article... 

message: Someone added the detail that he was self-taught, but this is not backed up by any reference. Neither does it say what he was self-taught in. Please specify or remove. Milton trained as a general practitioner of medicine and simultaneously as a psychiatrist. (This is stated later).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennanyoung (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be appropriate to say he was self-taught in hypnosis? There's no mention of it being a significant part of his training in psychiatry, and indeed the point is made that hypnosis subsequently became important in therapy largely because of his work. <BR>Bn (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Taught? 

message: The article contains this line:  "his extensive research into ... hypnosis" but there is no reference to any research or experimentation.  He did, in fact, do experiments, such as his picture hanging experiment into waking vs. hypnotic states (as documented in his collective works. 70.27.2.240 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research? 

message: I flagged a paragraph with the dubious template because it contradicts the quotation from Erickson below it, and the allegation is inadequately sourced. Further, it does not make any coherent point. It doesn't say who the technique originated with, if not Erickson. Who embedded those impossible parts in it, Erickson or Bandler? Is the claim that Erickson taught others in detail something he did not and could not do himself? Was this a technique he employed before his second paralysis at age 51 and then taught verbally from memory? If this is in fact a controversial point in the field, then a more explicit statement of it must be properly sourced. (I didn't fix the misspelling of "imbedded" because I doubt the paragraph should be retained.) <BR> Bn (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandler and Handshake Induction 

message: The first sentence of the last paragraph in the section Milton H. Erickson#Controversy is:
:Self-professed "skeptical hypnotist" Alex Tsander cited Masson's concerns in his 2005 book Beyond Erickson: A Fresh Look at "The Emperor of Hypnosis", the title of which alludes to Charcot's characterisation in the previous century as "The Emperor of the Neuroses". 
I'm wondering whether "The Emperor of the Neuroses" shouldn't be "The Emperor of Neuroses". It would parallel "The Emperor of Hypnosis" better. Perhaps the French title had "Les...", but in English the definite article would probably be dropped. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: <BR>
The article says he was a psychiatrist, but there is no mention of where he obtained his degrees or training!! Does anyone know? best wishes Veryscarymary (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: qualifications?

message: The following paragraph is highly dubious:
:This induction works because shaking hands is one of the actions learned and operated as a single "chunk" of behavior; tying shoelaces is another classic example. If the behavior is diverted or frozen midway, the person literally has no mental space for this - he is stopped in the middle of unconsciously executing a behavior that hasn't got a "middle". The mind responds by suspending itself in trance until either something happens to give a new direction, or it "snaps out".
Shaking hands and tying shoes are not fixed action patterns. The processes do have "middles" and there is no explanation of why this would lead to a trance or why you would eventually "snap out" of it. At the very least it needs a citation. Eebster the Great (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk psychiatry 

message: Someone just did a total overhaul of the article and now it is, according to them, "approved by the Milton H. Erickson Foundation". I'm not rushing to revert it since the previous version's "Personal history" section was largely unsourced (apparently), but this new edit also wiped previously sourced statements and replaced everything with presumably favorable ("approved") material. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: Someone put a neutrality tag in the biography section here that says relevant discussion will be found in the talk page, but did not put any discussion in the talk page. User:2607:FEA8:809F:7100:DC0F:5005:89C9:5850 are you referring to the COI section above? That does seem unresolved. Kire1975 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,  I did a big overhaul in 2020 after noting that the existing article was replete with errors.   I am the daughter of MH Erickson, and yes, there is potential conflict of interest, but I am committed to make this as accurate as it can be.   I am currently editing his collected works into affordable digital format to make primary writings more accessible to readers.    RoxannaErickson (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag?