Jump to content

Talk:Focusing (psychotherapy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major anon edit

[edit]

A major anon edit has been applied [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Focusing&curid=911776&diff=30825084&oldid=27584343}. There's quite a bit of opinion in the new version, but there is enough new, good content that I decided not to revert it. The article would benefit from a proper review, especially of this edit. --- Charles Stewart 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is confusing, vague, off-topic, opinionated, and promotional of individual focusing practitioners. Completely non-representative of what focusing is or aims to do. I suggest a complete rewrite, based on the introduction to the Focusing book, and that's it -- no added fluff or opinion, not even Gendlin's later thought. Softlavender 11:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

(see comment above)

As an advocate for the reader who will come to this article wondering what the heck Focusing is and whether it can help them with their personal and psychological problems, I have used the K.I.S.S. principle and used ONLY what would benefit the newcomer and the uninformed. One must remember that this is a psychology article and not a philosophy article. Speculative and advanced material should either be on Gendlin's Wikipedia article or in a subsection (with appropriate subheading) to this article, at the bottom. Material mentioning or promoting other practitioners and contributors to the process is questionable at best -- if it must be included, in order not to muddy the clear simple gist of the article, it should be added at the bottom of the article under a heading called "Further developments." I question whether the mentioning of this practioner information (and other abstruse information) is germane to this article, or more appropriate to be kept on the Focusing Institute's own web page.

In short, what I have done is take the information from the book Focusing and put it in simple digested terms, to form a clear and simple introductory article on what focusing is. I hope uninformed readers find it helpful and useful. Softlavender 11:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Focusing" — to capitalize or not to capitalize?

[edit]

Of course an editor or proofreader would insist on perfect consistency one way or another; but though it seems important to capitalize the word to distinguish it as a specific technique, and to differentiate it from the ordinary meaning of the word, to capitalize it every single time is mightily oppressive. Conversely, to have it lowercase every time seems somewhat misleading, as the fact of it as a unique process seems denied. Taking my cue from the Focusing Institute's website, I have capitalized somewhat, but not always.

Opinions? I feel that if we must be consistent, lowercase throughout is definitely preferable. Gendlin himself does not capitalize the word in his book Focusing. Softlavender 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Returns here after two long absences) We wouldn't capitalise psychoanalysis, so we shouldn't capitalise focusing as the technique. Of course, the book title should be capitalised, and placed in italics. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 09:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that psychoanalysis is a noun. But since focusing can be used as a verb as in "I am focusing on the eye chart." it needs to be capitalized when used as a noun to make the grammar clear.Pasado (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeable edits were made, but they actually muddy things further

[edit]

I see that a whole new angle to this has been added by IlanS - touting something that looks related to Gendlin's Focusing, but is not the only related thing. As such, I think it actually diminishes the article. I don't want to simply "revert" because I think that some of what s/he wrote will be useful eventually. Although I am not an expert, I will try to "clean things up" a bit, and also supply some references, but will not be able to do this for a week or so. (Today, a few very minor things only!) Please help if you can! - Martha (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er...couldn't keep my itchy fingers off it! so did what I could today! - Martha (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like unbalanced promotion

[edit]

If I have time I will come back to this page. Caught it in passing. Aside from issues of typos, etc., this article has zero credibility & reads like naive promotion. Whole Sight (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Whole Sight. Besides issues with tone, it lacks neutral sources. Given the strong claims made about Focusing, one would expect references to studies or surveys. Currently all references appear to be to books advocating focusing, etc. Hkfscp11 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any self-promotional quality of this article is typical of many other articles on psychotherapy, and that such typicality reflects the amount of self-promotion that goes on in the field of psychotherapy in general. For an overview of related controversies in the field of psychotherapy see, for example:
If you are serious about cleaning up this article, you could start by tagging it with one or more appropriate cleanup tags. An easy (but not always a sufficient) way to add balance to articles on psychotherapy is to add a "Criticism" section; I made a list of such sections that you can browse at Talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy § Examples of criticism sections in other psychotherapy articles. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EFT

[edit]

There is one article that covers both forms of EFT, emotionally focused therapy and emotion-focused therapy, but the latter form of EFT more explicitly incorporates Focusing. Hence I changed the wikilink from the former to the latter. This is entirely in accord with MOS:EGG, which states: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." The changed form of the link is the form that is more relevant to Focusing, and since the target article covers both forms of EFT (as explained in the lead paragraph and subsequent sections of the EFT article), there is nothing about the changed link that is unreasonable or does not make sense, per MOS:EGG. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Focusing (psychotherapy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Focusing_(psychotherapy)&oldid=1210008033"