Template talk:Psychotherapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please limit the listed people to therapists[edit]

I am removing some non-therapists that are currently listed in the list of people in this template (specifically, I am removing: Gordon Allport, Mikhail Bakhtin, Albert Bandura, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger, Paul Ricoeur, and Martin Seligman), because this list of people should be limited to clinicians/therapists; the list will grow to unmanageable length if we include all famous non-therapists who have influenced the practice of psychotherapy. It is certain that the practice of psychotherapy has been influenced by innumerable theoretical and experimental psychologists, philosophers, literary theorists, neuroscientists, and so on. But the list of people in this template should be limited to famous clinicians who have practiced therapy. Non-clinicians who have influenced the practice of psychotherapy can be mentioned in the articles on the specific approaches or techniques that they influenced. Biogeographist (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Biogeographist:: Paul Ricoeur was actually one of the most famous psychotherapists in Europe. He had a renowned clinical practice. The rest I understand. But, I recommend you put Ricoeur back up there for two reasons: 1) he brought about work in the field of psychotherapy that no other therapist before him did, and 2) he had a clinical practice as a renowned psychotherapist. Urstadt (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - @Biogeographist:: scratch that, I double-checked my sources and I was thinking of Binswanger. Ricoeur was a philosopher so you were right to remove him. Apologies. Urstadt (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - @Biogeographist:: by the way, if we're going to limit the list to "practicing clinicians", we need to double-check some of the names up there, e.g. Skinner was never a therapist. Upon graduation, he worked as a researcher and teacher. Never did a lick of therapy in his career. If we're removing Allport and Seligman for that reason, we need to remove Skinner, too. Urstadt (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Urstadt: I completely agree about Skinner. I have not read his published autobiographies or biography, but as far as I know you are correct. I will go ahead and remove him as well. Biogeographist (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - @Biogeographist:: Thank you kindly, Sir. Urstadt (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More women[edit]

I would like to see more women in the people section. I would add Judith V. Jordan, a prominent therapist and theorist of relational-cultural therapy, but I can't find her date of birth so it's not yet possible to place her here because entries are ordered by date of birth. I would also like to add Laura S. Brown, a prominent therapist and theorist of feminist therapy, but she does not yet have an article. Biogeographist (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Anna Freud? Awkturtle (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anna Freud seems like a good suggestion; I will add her. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technique diversity[edit]

At the moment the technique list is predominantly behaviour. How about we include some of the main techniques from the other schools. Some other possibilities are: cognitive restructuring from CBT, psychodynamic interpretations and dream interpretation from psychodynamic, empathic reflections, Focusing (psychotherapy), and empty chair from the experiential therapies. Thoughts? Awkturtle (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awkturtle: This is a very good suggestion; the only problem I see is how to choose which techniques to include, since there are so many of them. I would suggest that the best way to start is to make a list of candidate techniques here on the talk page, below. Or another solution, which I think may be even better, is to start a new list titled something like List of psychotherapy techniques, and then to discuss the candidate techniques on the talk page of that list. Then the most important techniques from that list could be added to this template, but again the problem arises of how to choose which techniques are "most important". I have long been concerned that the coverage of psychotherapy on Wikipedia focuses too much on "brand-name" psychotherapy packages or schools, and not enough on discrete therapeutic techniques or procedures (although in addition to these, common factors and principles are also important). A list of psychotherapy techniques would be a big step toward remedying this lack of emphasis on techniques or procedures. I have been collecting a list of references that serve as examples of different ways of organizing psychotherapy/counseling techniques, and I could share those references on the talk page of the new list. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awkturtle: On second thought, while there are many psychotherapy techniques, there may not be enough articles on them in Wikipedia to justify a new list of psychotherapy techniques, because stand-alone lists in Wikipedia are typically lists of items that have a Wikipedia article dedicated to each item. More appropriate would be a glossary of psychotherapy techniques. A glossary is a special kind of list with explanatory (encyclopedia-style) definitions; this would be appropriate for a list of items many of which are not likely to ever have a dedicated article written about them, which I suspect is true of many psychotherapy techniques. Another issue that occurred to me after writing the previous paragraph is that four of the six techniques that you mentioned above are linked to sections of articles instead of to whole articles as is typical in navigation templates, and I am not sure whether it is a good idea to link to sections in navigation templates. Navigation templates are typically for linking to related articles, not to sections of articles. I will add cognitive restructuring to the techniques section in this template since that is a whole article that is clearly relevant. Focusing (psychotherapy) is already listed in the humanistic section; it is an interesting edge case since it is both a stand-alone "technique" and something like a brand-name "school" (focusing-oriented psychotherapy). Biogeographist (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Biogeographist: Limiting the navigation to only whole articles does make sense, so I'm happy with that. Dream Interpretation does have it's own page though, so meets that criteria (actually 2 pages, I saw Dream interpretation and Psychoanalytic dream interpretation, when looking. And the idea of a glossary sounds good to. Awkturtle (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awkturtle: Yes, dream interpretation would be an appropriate technique. Although the Dream interpretation article is not strong on its use in psychotherapy, I think it would be more appropriate than Psychoanalytic dream interpretation because dream interpretation is not only used by psychoanalysts; for example, there's a chapter on "experiential dream interpretation" in Eugene Gendlin's book Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy (1996). Biogeographist (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphabetized vs. DOB[edit]

To editor Biogeographist: hello, you seem to be an involved editor active with this template, so let me ask... why are DOB's used to sort the people? Few readers will know the birth dates, and to me it appears that these important people would be much easier for readers to find if their names were alphabetized to their surnames, isn't that true? P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Seems the list of people would appear much shorter if the dates were omitted altogether. Those dates are, after all, included in the lead sentences of the people's articles. PS added by P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 16:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view is that the chronological order gives a little more context for the names, providing an overview of the development of the field and the place of each person in history, which provides so much more informational value than an (effectively random) alphabetical list. The list of names in the template is not a comprehensive index (Category:Psychotherapists is a better place to browse through all psychotherapists with a Wikipedia article) and is not very long, so I don't find it difficult to find particular names in the list; navigation templates are more for casual browsing than for searching anyway. See also: Template talk:Psychology § Birth-death dates. Biogeographist (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]