Discussion Utilisateur:Analytikone

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Bonjour. Pourquoi commentez-vous vos contributions en anglais ? Est-ce pour vous donner un genre ou êtes-vous anglophone, et dans ce cas, votre niveau de compréhension du français est-il suffisant pour que vous vous permetiez de supprimer ou de restaurer de grands passages de textes ? (->Jn) 17 novembre 2006 à 12:24 (CET)

Bonjour. Indeed I am Italian. Sorry for commenting and replying in English, I will presently explain my reasons for it.

My comprehension of written French is advanced, and I often read books (fiction and scientific ones) and articles in French.

I already contributed to French Wikipedia before registering as Analytikone, for example by adding the following paragraph (which I reinstated, motivating my choice in the discussion page) in the article "Schizophrénie":

Cependant, le rapport INSERM "Psychothérapie: Trois approches évaluées" (2004)[1], (objet des critiques de Perron et coll. sur le site de la Société Psychanalytique de Paris[2]; les réponses de Cottraux à ces critiques ont été publiées sur le site de la AFFORTHECC[3]) relate que deux méta-analyses rassemblant les travaux effectués sur des patients schizophrènes stabilisés et suivis en ambulatoire montrent peu ou pas d’effet de la psychothérapie psychodynamique ou psychanalyse; et que une étude qui concerne des patients hospitalisés (en phase aiguë) ne met pas en évidence d’effet additionnel de la thérapie psychodynamique sur le traitement médicamenteux.

It still takes me a longish time and the use of a dictionary to write in French, so I have written in English in comments and discussions so far; I hope that this didn't bother French Wikipedia users too much; indeed, I also counted on the fact that most internet users can read English. Of course, I always contribute to the articles in the best French I can attain with the help of a grammar book and a dictionary (it is up to French-speaking users to judge its correctness as they could do for the paragraph aforementioned; which, by the way, has not been modified for linguistic reasons by this day; and of course, I can only be grateful for any correction which helps me to improve my French).

In passing, I regret to say that I didn't find your tone very polite ("votre niveau de compréhension du français est-il suffisant pour que vous vous permetiez de supprimer ou de restaurer de grands passages de textes?"), since my comments, albeit in English, denoted my comprehension of the text I modified. Regards, --Analytikone 17 novembre 2006 à 14:04 (CET)

I don't have a clue if your reading of french is sufficient : you answer in english don't you ? My reason for asking is that the words you deleted were saying that a report has been deleted from the ministry of health's website (and for instance, it's a well-known fact and it has been a little scandal in the press)... You deleted that, saying the report was on the Inserm's website... Well, Inserm is not the ministry of health ! It's a research institute, not a political instance. Therefore, publishing reports there have no incidence on the world. (->Jn) 17 novembre 2006 à 15:01 (CET)
Jn wrote: "My reason for asking is that the words you deleted were saying that a report has been deleted from the ministry of health's website (and for instance, it's a well-known fact and it has been a little scandal in the press)... You deleted that, saying the report was on the Inserm's website... Well, Inserm is not the ministry of health ! It's a research institute, not a political instance."

Indeed, I mistakenly remembered that the report had been deleted from the INSERM site (I know INSERM is a research institute, but since (I quote from French Wikipedia) "en France, l’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM) est un organisme de recherche médicale, placé sous la double tutelle du ministère de la recherche et du ministère de la santé" it didn't strike me as unplausible that a report of its had been removed due to pressures from the minister) and thought that it had been reinstated in it (instead, I learn from Vdrpatrice that it has always been available there); the text I deleted ("L'expertise a été retirée par le Minsitre de la Santé au vu de son manque d'objectivité. D'autres recherches moins orientées son en cours.") doesn't mention the site of the ministry explicitly, and I thought that it referred to the fact that the minister had retired the expertise from the INSERM site. Also, in the discussion I had about the article "schizophrénie" [[1]] the most explicit reference to the fact that the expertise had been removed from the ministry site and not from the INSERM one, was the following: " A ma connaissance, "radier" signifie seulement que le ministre l'a fait retirer de son site internet"; in my mistaken recollection of the fact, I didn't notice it. Anyway, the text I deleted was POV because it presupposed that the INSERM report was biased ("D'autres recherches moins orientées son en cours.").

So, this is an issue of mistaken memory, not of misunderstanding of French, even if I can see now why you interpreted it in the latter way; as for your tone, I don't know if I can revise my previous judgement...

Jn wrote: "I don't have a clue if your reading of french is sufficient : you answer in english don't you ?"

It is perfectly possible, and it is my case, that one has a good command of reading comprehension in a language even if he hasn't had the time yet to practice the production of it in written of spoken form; that's why writing in French still takes me a long time and I prefer to use English for comments and discussions (but of course not for contributions to articles, for which I take all the time needed).

Jn wrote:"Therefore, publishing reports there [on the INSERM site] have no incidence on the world."

Well, the community of researchers is part of the world, and it is quite possible that any internet user interested in psychoterapies (and not only the experts of psychology) finds the report on the INSERM site thanks to a search engine; besides the INSERM site contains the "dossiers de presse" of many of its expertises, dossiers which are intended for the general public [2]

In France, there was the project to make a law to give a specific status to shrinks. At this time, they are not doctors or paramedics, they don't have more or less to prove than astrologists for instance, they even don't have a deontologic code to respect : without their strong lobbying, they would be condamned for illegal medical practice. Well that is a political problem, and this story about a vanished report is part of that political problem. What the Inserm publishes or not has strictly no incidence on nothing but science itself. I respect a lot science as I'm a searcher myself, but I know for sure that only the politics decide. (->Jn) 17 novembre 2006 à 17:17 (CET)

When I wrote "it didn't strike me as unplausible that a report of its had been removed due to pressures from the minister" I just meant "factually unplausible" and didn't want to justify the decision of the minister in the least, which I consider a despicable act of censorship. I deleted the text "L'expertise a été retirée par le Minsitre de la Santé au vu de son manque d'objectivité. D'autres recherches moins orientées son en cours." not certainly because I wanted to erase the memory of this act of censorship, but because I thought that it undermined in a POV way the reliability of the expertise (I mistakenly believed that the expertise had been removed by the minister from the INSERM site, but that later it had been reinstated; consequently the emphasis on its removal seemed to me unjustified and tending to undermine its reliability).

As for the legal regulation of the status of psychotherapysts, I strongly approve it.

I respect science a lot too, and believe that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience which should be allowed as a psychotherapy only for those psychological disorders for which there is some scientific evidence of its efficacy (even a practice with pseudoscientific theoretical basis can have some efficacy, even if not for the reasons believed by pseudoscientists; it seems, according to the expertise, that psychodynamic therapy (but nothing is known about psychoanalysis proper) is effective for the treatment of some personality disorders)), and after the patient has been informed about the alternative, and possibly more effective, therapies. However, I think that if the pseudoscientific character of the basis of psychoanalysis-inspired therapies became widely known, as it is desirable, these therapies would lose much of their positive effects; so I really don't know how much space it could be allowed to psychoanalysis-inspired practices.

Well, the report has been politicaly asked, scientificaly made but was then politicaly trashed (well, as you say, it's on the Inserm's site... Same thing) because it didn't say what everybody wanted to hear.

Anyway, even if I think that there is a need for regulations by the law, I don't agree that "what the Inserm publishes or not has strictly no incidence on nothing but science itself." In my opinion, the divulgation of the studies on the efficacy of therapies (divulgation which also the INSERM site contributes to) can do a lot in guiding people to choose the scientifically supported therapies. --Analytikone 17 novembre 2006 à 19:45 (CET)

Well we could ask the Inserm to perform a study about their incidence on the world. (->Jn)

[modifier] Buongiorno

Buongiorno Analytikone, e scusa per mio Italiano che non è perfetto.

Ti voglio dire una cosa à propio del articolo "critique de la psychanalyse" e di mio punto di visto a questo argomento. Wikipédia non e fata per essere "particularly useful for the large number of people it can reach". Se un utente viene su Wikipédia per questo, è un errore. E molto facile di mettere in forma un articolo affinché sia falsamente neutro, pero è l'aproche che deve essere neutro affinché l'articolo egli o realmente. Ed il rifiuto di altri contributi, l'aggressività, ed i fiotti di parola nella pagina di discussione è rivelatore di ciò. E per questo che Vdrpatrice "a des convictions et buts trop fort" per participare a Wikipédia. Cordialmente. --Yugiz (me répondre; p; c) 9 décembre 2006 à 12:42 (CET)


Bonjour Yugiz. I will answer to you in English so that my comment can be readable to most users; but if you prefer, I can translate it in Italian; I am sorry, but writing in French still takes me too long a time. Anyway, I can read French as well as English, and if you like you can write to me in your mother tongue.

Well, maybe I disagree with you about the importance of the intentions of contributors to Wikipedia. I am not interested in the motives of people who edit articles of Wikipedia; I would abstain from what we call in Italy "processo alle intenzioni". If contributors want to divulge some given theory or some criticism of a theory, because they think this has some social utility, it is fine to me, even if I disagree with their ideas, as long as they respect wikipedia guidelines about neutrality; and it is even better if they state their motives. When I wrote

even if one strongly believes that Freud was a charlatan, and strongly wants that this fact be divulged, he just has to write "the author x, in the article y, writes that Freud was a charlatan, for these alleged reasons", and the neutral point of view is respected.

I didn't mean to say that one should adopt this style to hide his motives; this way of writing is not falsely neutral, but really such (provided that one doesn't systematically delete neutral citations of contrasting views), because in this way the article doesn't endorse the criticism, but just mentions it.

Anyway, I of course agree with you that aggressiveness is to be avoided; moreover, I also think, as I wrote to Vdrpatrice, that notable replies to criticism of psychoanalysis by psychoanalysts should probably be included in the article "critique de la psychanalyse", because that would be the suitable place for them.

So I think that one shouldn't object to someone's contributing to Wikipedia for the strength of his beliefs or for his intentions, but only criticize him if he doesn't respect wikipedia guidelines. Best regards, --Analytikone 10 décembre 2006 à 04:28 (CET)

Tout d'abord, merci de m'autoriser à parler français, je doit bien admettre que je préfère. Ce qui est plutôt encourageant c'est que nous sommes d'accord sur beaucoup de points. La seule différence entre nous, est sur la définition pratique de la neutralité. On peut lire ici :
« les articles doivent être écrits de façon à ne pas prendre parti pour un point de vue plutôt qu'un autre. Au contraire, il s'agit de présenter tous les points de vue pertinents, mais sans en adopter aucun. Il ne faut a priori jamais affirmer, sous-entendre ou même laisser croire qu'un des points de vue est d'une quelconque façon meilleur, égal ou moins bon qu'un autre. »
A la lecture de cela, on constate que l'article est loin d'être neutre, et qu'il ne suffit pas d'écrire que X a dit Y. Car si vous voulez, je vous écrit un article entier sous cette forme qui sera, et de loin, non neutre. Il suffit de choisir ces citations, pour qu'elles aillent (ou semble aller) toujours dans le sens voulut. Et dès lors qu'un contributeur refuse toute contribution d'un autre, sous prétexte qu'il ne va pas dans son sens, il fait sauter le garde fou, qu'est la communauté wikipédia. Je vous laisse établir les parallèles qui vous semblent pertinents.
Bref, je crois qu'il est utile de garder un esprit critique sur chaque article et contributeur, tout en étant constructif, et pour ce dernier point (être constructif) il convient de savoir faire des concessions, et donc d'avoir une attitude ouvert à la neutralité. Bien cordialement. --Yugiz (me répondre; p; c) 10 décembre 2006 à 07:57 (CET)

[modifier] Thank you...

First of all please excuse my poor English level. But I cordially thank you for your comments. I think that the referees of Wikipédia did not seize the stakes of the criticism of the psychoanalysis. It is as if referees of football wanted to arbitrate a meeting without knowing football. But I made the decision to leave Wikipédia, at least for a moment, in order to take retreat. I am tired a little. Still large thank you with you.

--Vdrpatrice 9 décembre 2006 à 13:53 (CET)