Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychoanalysis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 17, 2007.

To-do list for Psychoanalysis: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-10-23 Move in-text refs to <ref></ref> tags Do we need separate "Papers" reference lists in External links section? Make sure links for citations in the psychotherapy section of the article work Identify sources that are biased within the psychotherapy section and mark them for editing Add missing details for current updates in psychotherapy and clear evidence for benefits of psychoanalytic therapy using meta-analysis data source

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Psychoanalysis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Ruling on "Pseudoscience" The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience". Relevant to this article: Questionable science: 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.

Convention Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion. Make sure to sign your comments by pressing the second-to-last button above the edit box, or by typing out ~~~~ at the end of your comment. See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

In light of the reasoning behind this revert, namely that no new conclusions may be constructed, I present the two quotations to which my edit refers:

The first comes from An Outline of Psychoanalysis (page 67, Collected Works, Volume 17):"Psychoanalysis makes a basic assumption whose discussion is reserved for philosophical thinking, but whose justification lies in its results. We know two things about what we call our psyche (soul life): firstly, the physical organ and seat of the psyche, the brain (nervous system), and secondly, our acts of consciousness, which are immediately given and cannot be brought closer to us by any description. (...) There is no direct relationship between the two endpoints of our knowledge. If there were, it would at most provide a precise localisation of the processes of consciousness and contribute nothing to our understanding of them." Everything Freud writes here (summarised in the term ‘endpoints’ – along with the statement that they are ‘immediately given’) is what Kant's ‘a priori’ means.

The difficulty lies in the fact that Freud here does not explicitly refer to Kant. He merely explains that the discussion of acts of consciousness and corporeality (in the sense of two unconditional given endpoints) is reserved for philosophical thinking. That Freud dealt specifically with Kant's a priori in the context of consciousness and physicality follows above all from this second quotation: ‘Replace Kant's a priori with the conditions of the psychic apparatus.’ (Collected Works (in German). Vol. XVII (5th ed.). London. Editorial: Imago Publishing: Anna Freud. p. 152.) My mistake was not to have referred to the first of the quotations in my edit, because without this, the impression of a prohibited construction of new conclusions does indeed arise. I hope that it has now become clear that this is not the case, but please provide a critical statement to be on the safe side. L'durre vital (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not constructive. You may combine facts from multiple reliable sources, but you must not combine them in a way that implies a new conclusion that no single source makes (that would be prohibited "original research by synthesis," or WP:SYNTH). --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]