Talk:Identification (psychology)

This page is in need of some linguistic cleanup. I've removed the formal 'we' but while giving a good brief guide to the basics of identification the sentence structure is very choppy. --Moloch09 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable copy edits

Hi all. I have reverted some recent copy editing from Duxwing due to multiple concerns. These include:

• Unintentionally altered meaning (e.g. "took strong exception to" is not equivalent to "strongly excepted")
• Grammar errors (e.g. "Freud indicate the way", "described such many types of identification")
• Circular explanations ("During this process of identification children unconsciously identify")

If anyone thinks I am out of line then please let me know (including Duxwing himself/herself). Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be himself. :)

• Why is "took strong exception to" not equivalent to "strongly excepted"?
• That was a typo. Reverting a huge edit because of it is just as inconsiderate and selfish as not breaking the edit up into :smaller ones.
• D'oh! Completely my fault.

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Duxwing. First, "excepted" is to denote something as not belonging to a particular category, while to take "exception to" is to disagree with something. Second, I would disagree that my revision was "inconsiderate and selfish". It was important to revert the edit to make clear that the edit was not of sufficient standard. The revision was therefore as nuanced as you could expect given your somewhat blunt approach. Third, and perhaps most importantly, please take more care in attempting to copy edit generally (there is no reason for a copy editor to add typos), and particularly when dealing with a scientific topic. Scientific language requires a level of precision above that which is required on a more day-to-day basis. You don't appear to have borne this in mind here, nor in some of your previous Wikipedia contributions.

I hope this sounds reasonable. If this does not resonate with you then I welcome your (and other editor's) feedback. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement re: lede (introductory paragraphs)

Two Wikipedians recently disagreed regarding the first editor's (Chas. Caltrop) changes to the lede (diff), followed by the second editor's (Beyond My Ken) revert, and subsequent back-and-forth reverts, such that the current version of the article (11:40 UTC, 7 January 2019) is the "original" version before the first editor's changes.

I favor the original version of the lede, i.e., I agree with the second editor, because at present the article focuses on the classic psychoanalytic (Freudian) concept of identification. Therefore, to include a term from phenomenology in the lede, without subsequent discussion of, for example, Jacques Lacan and R.D. Laing, in the article, serves to confuse rather than clarify.

A possible compromise solution to the current disagreement would be to expand the article to include a section (or sections) discussing identification from the phenomenological tradition (and other perspectives, if one has the time and energy to do so). The article touches on ego psychology (Anna Freud), and mentions contemporary psychoanalytic views, so adding additional perspectives would constitute a reasonable expansion of the topic.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chas. Caltrop: Your thoughts?

@Beyond My Ken: And yours?

Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A reply

Yes; expand away.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that expansion is appropriate, as long as clarity is maintained. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Indenification

Identification 37.111.149.190 (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rocket account 2401:1900:1085:7394:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)