Talk:Sophrology

History

An earlier version of this article was deleted on October 12, 2012, as being unambiguous advertising. This one is a little more ambiguous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi {u|Arthur Rubin}, thanks for your opinion re: the redirect. I agree that meditation isn't quite right; the only category listed is "hypnosis" but that doesn't seem right either. Suggestions on how to proceed?--Karinpower (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Caycedo

I propose that the article Alfonso Caycedo be merged into this article (Sophrology), per WP:BLP1E, as any notability he has is derived from this topic. However, deleting both as not being notable seems acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this article fails almost completely, to explain what Sophrology is, instead it touches on Alfonso Caycedo work in Sophrology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.j.n.hunt (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps nobody knows what Sophrology is? OK, that would support a reverse merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this article, such as it is, is about "Caycedian Sophrology" rather than general Sophrology, merging this article into Alfonso Caycedo seems to make more sense. AndroidCat (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: the question is not so much about the quality of the current article, as about whether Sophrology is independently notable. My view is that that this sophrology exists as a current active discipline that continues withouth the active input of Caycedo. There is also peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of the discipline, although most of it is in French. For example, work on pain perception in the elderly or the treatment of anxiety. 12:50, 3 March 2017‎ by klbrain

Rewrite

As in most english-speaking countries, nobody knows what Sophrology is and I am afraid this article is of little help. It needs to give a good overview of both Caycedian Sophrology (as it is mainly used in that sense) and other forms. I propose something like:

• Intro
• Caycedian Sophrology -> summary of the French page (very extensive). Could include the merge of the Caycedo article.
• Other Forms -> I will leave what is available here as I have little proficiency here.
• Sophrology in the world (avoiding commercial links) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanopee (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should introduce the French-speaking part. I would give such structure to the talk, after the Intro (mixing the current one with the French Intro):

• Origins
  • Western roots
  • Eastern roots
  • Spread in French-speaking countries (the part on Dr. Abrezol)
  • Caycedian sophrology (French part)
• Aims and uses
• Current applications of sophrology
• Fundamental Principles
  • Positive Action
  • Objective reality
    • Key concepts are
  • Body consciousness
• Criticism (French part)
• Certificates and practice (French part)

From the French part, I would just drop the parts that are too specific for France, so that people from other countries wouldn't understand. From the current page, I would drop the parts that look too promotional.

--Borisba (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased article

Most sources are sofrology books, the part about sofrology in Switzerland is around the life of Abrezol but this part is pulled out of his own book and biased ("unique benefits of sofrology ")

At no point in the article it is indicated that there is no evidence for actual effect of sofrology (while there is such mentions on French page for example).

This article is really biased, and would need a huge rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.231.228 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

... or deletion. Discussion by other than sofrologists seems minimal, at best. I admit I haven't read the French language sources, but an expert knowledge of the language and familiarity with the subject would be required to determine if source was unaffiliated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A comment: just because a technique doesn't work, that is not an argument to delete it. For example, I do not believe in the usefulness of astrology for predicting the future, but it is certainly a notable topic. Klbrain (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the solution to such bias is: to include something from the French part (including criticism and lack of scientific evidence) and to reduce the part on Dr. Abrezol (that seems to me the most promotional one).

--Borisba (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There are no claims of biomedical effectiveness, so it skirts around our restrictions in WP:MEDRS. I agree that the lack of criticism gives a one-sided view of the topic, so I've made a start by translating a sentence from the French article's Reviews section, fr:Sophrologie #Critiques. There is more that could be added from that section. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a few English-language sources available, such as doi:10.1080/00029157.1967.10402559 doi:10.1080/00029157.1973.10402258 doi:10.1080/00029157.1964.10402403 ISBN 978-2-86898-995-6, though I can't comment on their reliability. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is still written in a self-promotion tone. I added an advert tag. Asterix757 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up

This article was full of crap (dubious fringe material without a decent source in sight). I have cleaned it up. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade

This article needs a serious re-write. Instead of promoting dubious and pseudo-scientific claims that are abundant in sophrology, the article should be written in such a manner that it exposes them. Proposal: start with a basic description, followed by a clear and unambiguous statement that sophrology is not based on empirical evidence and is basically a French repackaging of old nonsense. We should translate and include parts of the "Criticism" section of the French article. However, having a long article promoting pseudo-scientific claims and then including a section on "Criticism" is wrong: it promotes rather than debunk these claims, and it legitimises them (as if the claims were commonly-accepted, and "oh, there are also some critics"). Each paragraph presenting the claims of sophrology should be accompanied by a paragraph debunking them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.175.78 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)