text:
Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 1

For newer comments, please see the talk page.

=2005=

My apologies
I noticed that major sections (mine) were missing, and I reverted to an earlier version, unfortunately, I did not realize that the lasted versions were at the top of the page. Nevertheless, I am going to add back the major edits that have been made, including Freud Wars, and adaptions. --Joseph Wayne Hicks 04:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Strange conclusion.
One section of this article had a number of syntax problems. I think I may have fixed most of them. However the end of one paragraph says: "the Freudian method can be adapted to a variety of cultures, but it cannot be employed in its widest scope as Freud and Firestone would advocate." The context of this sentence does not support the stated conclusion. I still ask, "Why not?" If the answer is implied in the paragraph itself, the paragraph may need some more work.P0M 03:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't understand your objection. Could you rephrase?--whicky1978 June 28, 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Does that mean that the Freudian method can be adapted to some but not all cultures? -- And that therefore although it has some kind of theoretical "widest scope" it doesn't actually fulfill that promise? Does it mean that the Freudian method can be adapted to some (but not all) cultures and that within the cultures that it can be adapted to it has a narrowed scope? Both possibilities seem to be entirely matters of opinion. Did Freud and Firestone "advocate" that the Freudian method should be employed in all cultures? Did they "advocate" that it could be used, but only partially? Whatever the correct construction on these words is, they seem to be entirely unsupported by either evidence or analysis, so as a reader who knows a fair amount about depth psychology but hasn't been steeped in the minutiae of Freudianism, my bewildered question is still, "Why not?" P0M 29 June 2005 03:17 (UTC)

 * Encyclopedias usually do not provide articulated analysis or evidence to support an idea, but rather give a general, global, disclosure of the available facts. So a summary is presented here of what the research supports, and what the experts in the field report.

 * You know alot about psychology? Is psychology a hobby for you or a career? Have you taken any classes in social science or even earned a degree in the field? The reason I ask, is that I have a BA in psychology, and Freud comes up often in psychology, particularly in the fields of human development, counseling psychology, and clinical psychology.--whicky1978 June 29, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Grünbaum argues that it is falsifiable, and in fact turns out to be false. that has to be the single most badly constructed sentence ever. it is absolutely unclear what/who turns out to be false...psychoanalysis? or grunbaum when he says it is falsifiable.

Free Psychoanalysis Techniques
Hello,

I have tried out a method for doing psychoanalysis alone in front of a computer. It can also be done on paper.

In both approaches, one freely associates, no matter how embarrassing it seems, always writing down what comes to mind.

In the computer version, perfect secrecy can be reached by never saving the file. With paper, close to perfect secrecy can be achieved by ripping the paper apart and flushing it down the toilet.

I spoke to a psychiatrist about this technique. He first said it is auto-erotic in that it only concerns oneself and not another person. He then admitted that even with this technique, the element of fearing to be observed would be present, because one would still fear getting caught writing down the associations. So this technique can still be worthwhile, he said, recommending me to try it out.

I tried it out and it works. It can be used to achieve clarity and clear problem definitions. These can then be stated in conversations with humans to more effectively create a valve for the problems, and in this way they can gradually evaporate.

Best regards,

Vidar Jensen,

vidarajensen@gmail.com

 * I believe this qualifies as original research. If no-one objects, I'll move it the archival page in a day or two. // Pathoschild 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
The talk page was becoming quite difficult to use, so I archived older comments. Are there any objections to this? // Pathoschild 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis
Hypnosis needs alot of work too. Sam Spade 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A very poor article
The article is often factually incorrect, and it lacks a neutral pov. Modern psychology and medicine consider psychoanalysis quaint at best.

There is little objective data supporting the efficacy of psychoanalysis, as a quick pubmed search will show. What journal articles there are listed appear to bad literature papers than anything of scientific merit. There is strong opinion in the scientific and medical communities that analysis, particularly in its most rigid forms, is of little merit. Indeed, there is not a single link to any sort of objective nedical research in this article. There is a reason--there is little or no unbiased research showing analyisis is useful. For example: REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Current data do not support the use of psychodynamic psychotherapy techniques for hospitalised people with schizophrenia. If psychoanalytic therapy is being used for people with schizophrenia there is an urgent need for trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001360.

The claims about Freud are sychophantic,similar to L. Ron Hubbard praize on a Scientology website. Some of the claims are also factually incorrect, too.

Indeed, psychoanalysis clearly meets the definition of quackery and pseudoscience. Whenever the article is edited and criticized for these sort of flaws, the proponents of psychoanalysis immediately swoop down and destroy these neutral, objective comments.

The result of this is a bad page with an embarassing bias.

For more objective sources for the laymen, the Skeptic's dictionaryprovides a good starting place. The problem is that with analysis, so much is wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. // 24.225.95.253, 00:41, September 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to "a very poor article"
The last contributor complains that there is "not a single link" to "objective medical research" in the article. He then says that "there is little or no unbiased research showing analysis is useful."

The latter comment is flatly untrue. There is a massive amount of research on psychoanalytically orientied psychotherapy, and a significant amount on full-fledged psychoanalysis. A link to an open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis is the following

I have added this link to the psychoanalysis page. I've also added a section of links to psychoanalysis research papers.

As for the paper on schizophrenia the contributor cites, the article's tentative conclusion that current research data do not fully support the use of psychoanalytic therapy for schizophrenia, and that trials ought to be conducted, says nothing about the use of psychoanalytic therapy for other populations. In fact, few psychoanalytic authors have ever recommended psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Freud, for example, did not. That's not what it was designed for.

A "quick pubmed search" is hardly enough to give one a good sense of research in contemporary psychoanalysis, or any other form of psychotherapy for that matter. The Psycinfo database would be a better place to search, as psychoanalysis research mostly falls under psychology and psychotherapy research, which is primarily done by academic psychologists, not medical researchers.

It also seems odd to me to criticize an article for a lack of "neutrality" but then say that article ought to be more critical of its topic. Calling psychoanalysis "quackery" is not neutral, it is a judgment. Moreover, without support, it is a judgment that is little more than a bias.

Finally, with regard to the claim that contemporary psychology and medicine "consider psychoanalysis quaint at best"- I refer the author to the remarks in the article describing the changes that have occurred in psychoanalysis since Freud died in 1939. When contemporary psychology and medicine (and "skeptics") criticize psychoanalysis, they mostly are criticizing Freud's old work from the early twentieth century. This is a bit like criticizing modern astrophysics by complaining about Tycho's theories. As a recent article in the APA Monitor on Psychology put it, today's psychoanalysis "is not your parents' psychoanalysis." link to article: Of course psychoanalysis will appear "quaint" if critics focus solely on psychoanalytic writings of 70 years ago. The criticism is circular.

It is hard to respond to the above contributor's other complaints, because he does not specify what is "factually incorrect" about the article and which remarks are "syhcophantic" (sic).

I also want to say something in reply to the contributor who said psychoanalysis ought to be referenced as a "pseudoscience." Whether psychoanalysis is a science or a pseudoscience is itself a controversial question, and the answer to this question ought not to be assumed. Arguments have been made in both directions, and a wide diversity of "standards" for what should count as science have been offered by various writers. There is little consensus on how "science" should be defined. -- ( unsigned comment by 172.167.143.241 22:31, October 4, 2005 )
 * thats great, if you make an accoutn this is easier. I would love to see a NPoV article without using terms like psuedoscience. Astrology is a psuedoscience, I don't think this is astrology. Dominick 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to reply of "A Very Poor Article"
First the claim stands, this a very poor article. There is a lack of a neutral point of view. Rather, the article shows a definite bias favoring the unproven claims of psychoanalysis--claims that mainstream psychology and psychiatry have disregarded. These actually prove my point. They are neither scientific nor unbiased.

The articles added are clear not "scientific research" in any sense accepted. The articles fall into two basic classes: theories with no data, relying on supposition and anecdote, such as the article about the death of Freud and about attachment theory) or articles claiming to be data oriented but lacking the rigor required in fields of scientific research. The former sort of articles are more akin to history papers.  They lack such basics of science such as any sort disprovable thesis, reproducible testing, results of the test, and analysis of data.  The latter lack the rigor of experiment design and data analysis required in true scietific work.  Were such papers to be presented in most programs in psychology or medicine, they would be dismissed as inadequate and non-scientific.

The papers cited show that the defender of analysis has no idea how peer reviewed science works. Let's review some of the papers listed:
 * Blatt, S. & Shahar, G. (2004). Psychoanalysis: With whom, for what, and how? Comparisons with psychotherapy--A review of prior paper with no statistical analysis of data, let alone any data analyzed.  Not science, not even good analysis of prior data.

 * Brakel, L. (2005). The psychoanalytic assumption of the primary process:  Extrapsychoanalytic evidence and findings  Numerous design flaws in the experiment, such as: Terms, such as various processes, not sufficiently defined; Lack of explanation of experimental population selection; aasumptions that favor the complex and indirect not the simple (violating Occam's Razor), etc.  Any of the design flaws would get this paper laughed out a top drawer psychology Ph.D. program.

 * Fonagy,P.(1997) Attachment, the development of the self, and its pathology in personality disorders A review of other analytic papers--definitely not science.

 * Freedman, N, Lasky, R., & Hurvich, M. (2001), Transformation Cycles as Organizers of Psychoanalytic Process: The Method of Sequential Specification A reivew of other psychoanaalytic works. Really, akin to creationists citing other creationists.

 * Masling, J.(1999). An Evaluation of Empirical Research Linked to Psychoanalytic Theory Not a shred of verifiable research or reproducible data.

 * Shaver, P. & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-Related Psychodynamics. Merely a review of the literature and suppositions.

 * Solms, M. (1999). The Interpretation of Dreams and the neurosciences No data, etc.

And the rest are the same sort.

Notably, all these papers cited appear in psychoanalytic journals--not in peer reviewed medical or psychology journals. These are biased papers from biased sources. In no sense do they meet the demands of modern scientific papers.

There is a huge difference between scholarship and science. Unfortunately, true believers in psychoanylis confuse the two. Science calls for an intellectual rigor that most psychoanalyis scholarship, as well as the above poster, lack. You can find all sorts of "scientific" papers justifying creationism, graphology, and other forms of quackery. Nevertheless, just because some group assert claims of scientific validity does not make the claims scientific or reasonable. Psychoanalysis, chiropractic, and creationism are examples of this. The irony is that such pseudosciences, such as creationists and psychoanalysts, argue that the other is fakery. -- ( unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 03:20, October 8, 2005 )

Response
I'll take the above criticisms in order.

1. The contributor says that the article shows "a definite bias favoring the unproven claims of psychoanalysis." First, as I read the article, it simply describes what these claims are, and how they are related. The contributor cites no specific examples of where it "favors" these claims. To present such an offhand criticism without supporting citations, I would argue, is both poor scholarship and poor science. Citation of evidence is a basic principle of both scholarly and scientific writing.

Second, I am struck by the contributor's word "unproven." In my 10 years of undergraduate and graduate study of psychology, I have not heard any researcher (psychoanalytic, behavioral, ognitive, or other) state that his or her research has "proven" anything. It is generally accepted that research provides support for and falsification of claims, but never definitive proof, because data are always open to interpretation. The fact that psychoanalysis' claims are "unproven," then, does not distinguish it from any other discipline, scientific or otherwise. Claims can never be definitively proven. This is hardly a real criticism.

2. The contibutor writes that "The articles added are clear not "scientific research" in any sense accepted." To support this criticism s/he elaborates in the following way: "The articles fall into two basic classes: theories with no data, relying on supposition and anecdote, such as the article about the death of Freud and about attachment theory) or articles claiming to be data oriented but lacking the rigor required in fields of scientific research. The former sort of articles are more akin to history papers.  They lack such basics of science such as any sort disprovable thesis, reproducible testing, results of the test, and analysis of data.  The latter lack the rigor of experiment design and data analysis required in true scietific [sic] work.  Were such papers to be presented in most programs in psychology or medicine, they would be dismissed as inadequate and non-scientific."

I agree with the contributor's distinction between the "two classes" of articles in the section. There are indeed two classes. What the contributor calls articles "more akin to history papers" are in fact what researchers call "literature reviews" of research. The other class of articles (which the other does not define) are actual quantitative research papers. I am surprised that the contributor would claim that literature reviews are not scientific simply because they are not themselves quantitative studies. They are not intended to be quantitative research papers themselves, but to summarize the existing research. That's what they are for: nothing less, nothing more. Literature reviews are a generally accepted genre of work published in peer-reviewed psychology journals. To verify this claim, the contributor is welcome to actually look at some peer-reviewed psychology journals.

The contributor also seems to dislike the fact that the majority of the articles linked to are literature reviews, rather than actual studies. In an encyclopedia article, as I understand it, the goal is precisely to review and summarize. That's why I chose these particular articles- to give a broad overview of psychoanalytic research. Citations of a large number of actual studies can be found in the literature reviews themselves. Is it really too much trouble for the contributor to look for these citations in the lit reviews, or must I include every citation to a study in the literature reviews as a reference in the body of the wikipedia article itself?

Reacting to the actual research papers presented, the contributor claims that they "lack rigor of experiment design and data analysis." Well, all I can say to this is that, like anyone else, the contributor is welcome to critique the research papers. I think few will disagree when I state that such critique is part of the scientific process. I recommend that s/he write up his criticisms and submit them to one of the journals in which these articles appear. I will also say, though, that I find myself wondering if s/he is familiar with how research in the social sciences usually works, and the standards that are used there, which of necessity are rarely those of the physical sciences.

3. The contributor then says that "all these papers cited appear in psychoanalytic journals--not in peer reviewed medical or psychology journals. These are biased papers from biased sources.  In no sense do they meet the demands of modern scientific papers." In case it is unclear, I want to note, first, that the articles are all from peer-reviewed journals. As for the statement that the psychoanalytic research papers are biased because they appear in psychoanalytic journals, well, I wonder whether the contributor would claim that physics papers are biased because they appear in physics journals, or biology papers are biased because they appear in biology journals. This doesn't seem to me to be a fair criticism. Would the contributor argue that to meet his standards of objectivity, all articles must appear in journals outside of their disciplines?

4. The contributor writes that there is "a huge difference between scholarship and science." Yes, there are profound differences in methodology, but it is worth noting that all scientific research depends on scholarship. Scientists do not just go out and look for findings randomly, they ground their studies in their own scholarly reading and synthesis of the existing literature- syntheses that are aided by scholarly literature reviews. If scholarship inherently lacked adequate intellectual rigor, as the contributor seems to be suggesting, then we'd have to trash every bit of scientific research out there. All research depends on prior scholarship on previous research. By the way, I should also note that the standard format of empirical dissertations in psychology doctoral programs includes a review of the scientific literature.

Overall, my impression is that this contributor has had little exposure to actual research in the social sciences,and is holding to an idealistic view of science so that he can use it to attack ideas he dislikes. Psychoanalytically, one may wonder if her/his charge of "pseudoscience" is a projection, as his own scholarship lacks adequate citation and lacks an adequate review of the literature at issue, psychoanalytic and psychological. Previously, s/he assumed psychoanalysis lacked research, without adequately checking (with the exception of the "brief pubmed search"). Now s/he assumes that the research cited is not representative of work done in the social sciences (that "such papers" would be "dismissed" by "most programs" of psychology- I guess Columbia, Yaleand NYU, all of which do psychoanalytic research, don't count), again without adequately checking. What I see here is a person with some big preconceptions about psychoanalysis who really isn't bothering to test them.

Addendum: An example of this, by the way, can be found in the author's recent revision of the paragraph on psychoanalytic treatment of psychosis, where among other things s/he conflates psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy (two significantly different approaches), and misses the well-known work of Karon and colleagues, who have been studying psychoanalytic psychotherapy of schizophrenia for several decades and had positive findings. To fix this problems and make this section NPOV, I've retained her/his references but added the Karon work. There are, incidently, a number of other complexities about psychoanalytic treatment of schizophrenia that complicate the whole thing (for example, the wide variety of ways of working with patients that are called "psychodynamic," and the massive overlap between some psychodynamic therapy techniques and those of many other therapies) but for a wikipedia article it doesn't seem appropriate to go into too much detail. -- ( unsigned comment by Leo Bolero at 15:25, October 8, 2005 )

A response to the above
The above editor is apparently being obstreperous. I will merely touch upon a few of the errors.

In my years of medical training and practice, I have seen researcher use terms such as "provable," "proven," and similar. For example, someone would state that acetaminophen is a proven treatment myalgia in some cases. Be this as it may, psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria for science, as Popper and others have noted.

Citing the citing of B.P. Karon shows the above editor's bias. A search of PubMedfor research by Karon shows no recent publications. Karon's body of work simply cannot be called adequate research to show that analysis is effective. That is why Karon's work is not considered sufficient in the two cites I posted. And the responder who linked to Karon shows ignorance of the standard for research of health sciences, as these articles searched the literature on schizophrenia long after the bulk of Karon's work on schizophrenia was done. The reason is simple reason for this is that Karon's work has been superceded by more empirically rooted work. (Also, 28 articles shown in PubMed is hardly a huge body of work, with much of done before the advent of second and third generation antipsychotics.) Simply put, science has passed by Karon's work.

As to the complaint of conflation of psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, this again is a strawman. Psychoanalytic theory could be viewed as a subtype of a psychodynamic. Consequently, if there is no evidence of psychodynamic techniques being effective, it follows that there is a lack of evidence for its subtype, psychoanylitic. (Of course, one of the problems is that there are few firm definitions in dynamic or analytic theory.  Individuals enter the field, create theories that are difficult or impossible to test, and create terms that lack firm definitions.)

Again, the pscychoanalytic papers cited are not scientific papers in the generally accepted term. The papers cited in the papers are rarely primary research. The reason is there is little scientific literature supporting psychoanalysis. A quick search of the [PubMed]database reveals there are very few papers that involve theory, data generation, and data analysis published in peer reviewed journals.

The fact that he characterizes the issue as a social science is also revealing. What psychoanalysis in treating psychosis is an attempt to treat a condition caused by various problems in the brain, making it a neuroscience issue. Research is revealing that deepression, schizophrenia, and even personality disorders exist primarily due to neurological issues. Consequently, treatment of these is not in the realm of social sciences but rather the health or biological sciences. What may be adequate scholarship in social sciences does meet the stricter criteria for reseach in the biological sciences. Notably, too, the social sciences are moving away from these standards and toward more rigorous research.

And, yes, there are still analysts in major research universities--but their numbers are dwindling. And in my experience, in biological based training, most psychology programs would refuse to accept dynamic papers from trainees.

What the article on psychoanalyis lacks a historical perspective on why psychoanalysis arose. One of the big reasons it occurred was there no effective treatment for mental illness at that time. In the one hundred plus years, more effective therapies have developed--both more effective "talk therapies" and pharmacotherapies. (And even psychosurgeries, such as vagal nerve stimulation and stimulators for severe OCD.) Analysis is a holdover from the days of pre-science where proof of efficacy and research were not required. -- ( unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 at 18:15, October 8, 2005 )

Reply
It is striking that after the above contributor had called psychoanalysis "quackery," compares it to creationism, and derides the article, s/he now complains that the present editor is being "obstreperous." Gosh, wonder what provoked my obstreperosity?

The contributor reiterates the claim that psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria for science, and cited Popper, who has already been cited in the actual article. Popper is one voice among many in the debate over psychoanalysis and science, and moreover, his view of what counts as science has been strongly argued against by influential contemporary philosophers of science such as Lakatos. Many believe that Popper's view of science is outmoded. This issue has not been decided. But at any rate, since Popper's argument is, after all, described in the actual article, I'm not sure why the contributor needs to refer to it again.

Again, the contributor relies on pubmed to support his/her claims. Pubmed simply is not where the bulk of psychotherapy research articles are to be found. Psycinfo is the standard database used for lit searches on psychotherapy research, not pubmed. This is consistent with my impression that the contributor is someone (a medical professional, I gather) who has not been exposed to psychology research.

Re schizophrenia, I am not interested in continuing that debate because it is of minimal relevance for the psychoanalysis article. As I stated above, very few psychoanalysts support the use of psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Re Karon, he is still publishing papers, which would be apparent if the contributor had done a psychinfo search rather than a pubmed search. Karon is a psychologist and publishes much of his work in psychology journals. At any rate, I do agree with the contributor's linked paper's conclusion that more research is required in this regard. I can also accept the assertion that the recent research cited "casts doubt" on Karon's claims. This statement acknowledges the continued uncertainty of the issue, rather than assuming it has already been decided.

I do want to address the contributor's assertion that my citation of Karon is biased. Actually, my own views of psychoanalytic treatment of schizophrenia are more negative than he may be assuming. I think that analysts who use analytic treatment with schizophrenia effectively are really doing something so far from a typical insight-oriented psychodynamic treatment that it is somewhat misleading to call what they do "psychoanalytic." Although these clinicians use psychodynamic case formulation and listening, the actual techniques used (by Karon and most others) are very far from what is typically considered "psychoanalytic." So there is a problem here of how broad the category of "psychoanalytic" ought to be, and this problem, I'd argue, ought to be address before authors simply state that they are working "psychoanalytically" with schizophrenic patients. When I work with schizophrenic patients, for example, I use more of a supportive counseling approach that is supplemented by psychoanalytic listening to help me be optimally sensitive to a patient's moment-to-moment emotional state. But I wouldn't call what I do "psychoanalytic" therapy, because little or nothing is being "analysed" or uncovered. So my own position is not so much for or against analytic therapy with this population, but rather that the entire debate has been built on a shaky foundation of concepts of treatment that are being used in an imprecise manner.

On the other hand, the contributor's claims about the relationship of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy are simply false. Here's why: So-called "psychoanalysis" is done at a minimum of 3 times weekly and generally involves the use of the couch, almost exclusively insight-oriented interventions, and free association. So-called "psychodynamic therapy", on the other hand, is face-to-face, does not use the couch, and relies more heavily on supportive interventions. These are actually two different forms of treatment, and have been shown by IPA research to be appropriate for different populations. This distinction is relevant to the schizophrenia issue because no one at all today does full-fledged on the couch psychoanalysis with schizophrenic patients, Karon included.

Finally, I am struck by the fact that although I've noted that the research literature reviews linked to in the article cite plenty of actual research articles, the contributor seems to continue to ignore this fact, and tries to say that the reason few of the articles are actual studies is that few actual studies exist. I can't help but wonder if the contributor actually believes what s/he is saying. Did he or she not actually read through the articles and notice the citations of research studies? Did Masling's citation of his many-volumed review of empirical research in psychoanalysis, for example, escape his notice?

I also want to note how much the contributor relies on what might be called arguments of legitimation- criticisms based on generalizations about how widely psychoanalysis is accepted and by whom. Is science, in his estimation, essentially a popularity contest? Let's remember how broadly accepted astrology and creationism are, and how difficult a time Galileo had getting his ideas recognized.

Regarding the distinction between the physical and the social sciences, the involvement of the brain or lack thereof is not particularly relevant. The issue here is which disciplines are at work empirically studying psychoanalytic ideas, and the main discipline doing that is psychology. If the contributor wishes to criticize research methods in psychology, s/he is welcome to do so, but such criticisms belong in the psychology section, not here.

Finally, it seems that the contributor still has yet to provide support for his assertion that the article is "biased." He takes my citation of Karon to mean that the schizophrenia section is biased, but this single piece of ambiguous evidence demonstrates little. -- ( unsigned comment by 148.4.151.110 at 20:25, October 8, 2005 )

addendum
I just noticed that the contributor apparently changed the title of the section of online research papers to "online papers on psychoanalysis" rather than "online papers on psychoanalytic research." Just because a paper is not itself a research study but only reviews research studies, the title of the section in which it is placed can't include the word "research?" Nah. I've changed the title to "about psychoanalytic research" instead of "on psychoanalytic research." Hopefully writing "about" rather than "on" research makes it explicit enough that most of the papers are lit reviews. Good grief. -- ( unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 22:21, October 8, 2005 )

Resonse to addendum: Calling them research papers does not make them research papers. They are almost exclusively papers about theories, some with occasional anecdotal claims, and they cite other anectdotal papers. That maybe research in the sense of term paper being research, but it is not research in the sense of science. This belief again shows the bias of the writer. I replaced biased laguage with neutral POV language, and it is edited out. -- ( unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 on 22:40, October 8, 2005 )

reply
No, I'm not going any further with this. The lit reviews cite many research papers, but I'm not going to list them all here, because that would be silly. I'll simply undo your edit, because this is nuts. -- ( unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 23:00, October 8, 2005 )

Response
Contrary to your assertion otherwise, Pub med is the standard for health research--scientific papers on health science. Pscinfo, being The American Psychological Association website, is limited to psychological psychotherapy papers. Folks other than psychologists practice psychotherapy. Interestingly, no cites were made to papers with reproducible empirical evidence supporting psychoanalysis available on Psycinfo.

The reason that I compare analysis to such things as creationism and chiropractor is that it is similar to these pseudosciences. It is an explanatory model that arose without any real scientific research, and the suppositions of this model continue to follow blindly.

The entry continues to be poor and biased, giving a viewpoint consistent with the advocates of psychoanalysis, who represent a tiny, isolated portion of the mental health community, and a portion that is falling further and further out of the mainstrean as data reveal the hollowness of their assertions. I repezatedly point this out, showing the sources are primarily limited to the analytic community's sources, and have had outside sources edited out by the true believers. (An example of the bias is the first sentence--the psychoanalysis claims to do these thing, but no support is offered to these claims. When the sentence was corrected to point out that makes psychoanalysis to elucidate, it was edited out.)

The key thing showing bias and lack of neutral point of view is the lack of discussion of efficacy of pscychoanalysis. Presumably, people see analysts to obtain help with mental health issues. No discussion exists on this. No proof is offered that psychoanalysis is effective in treating anything. No mention is made of the cost of psychoanalysis, nor of its fall from favor over the last 50 years as a treatment modality. Once the reigning method of mental health treatment, analysis has been all but disgarded by most of the medical and psychological community. There is a reason for this: more effective treatments have replaced it. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 (talk • contribs) 22:19, October 8, 2005

Reply
Folks other than psychologists practice psychotherapy, but not many folks other than psychologists research it. And many psychological publications are not referenced in pubmed. Also, psycinfo does not only include publications in which psychologists publish, but also other mental health publications.

Again the contributor treats science as a popularity contest, as if more popular ideas were somehow more true or rigorous. I suspect that if he living in Copernicus's time he would argue that the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe represents the view of a "tiny, isolated portion" of the scientific community and therefore ought to be ignored.

Regarding the comparison with creationism, the fact that psychoanalysis arose without quantitative research at its beginning is an historical fact, but says nothing about the validity of psychoanalysis, especially now that there is quantitative research. Logical positivism, the philosophical foundation of much of contemporary science, was partly originated by Auguste Compte, who was floridly psychotic. That doesn't mean all contemporary science is invalid. The origins of an idea do not invalidate the idea.

And again, we are given a lot of vague, derisive generalizations: "poor", "biased," "hollow," etc, which are not defined or supported by evidence.

Regarding the first sentence of the article, which I did not personally edit, the assertion that the claims of psychoanalysis have not been supported is simply not true, I don't get it. Reading the lit reviews of psychoanalytic research I linked to the article, does the contributor think the authors of these reviews invented the studies they cite? Is it a conspiracy, with lit reviews reviewing nonexistent studies, conjuring up imaginary research and then getting their colleagues to also cite it? Crikey.

I still do not see the kind of intellectual rigor in this contributor's writings that would satisfy any standards of scholarship of which I am aware.

As for the cost of psychoanalytic treatment, it nowadays ranges from anywhere between 10 bucks a session with an analytic candidate to 250 with a senior training analyst. I will add this fact in the technique section. -- ( unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 23:00, October 8, 2005 )

Response Again, no evidence is provided of the efficacy of psychoanalysis. Instead, ad hominem attacks--but that is consistent with psychoanalysis. Ask for proof, and you will get attacked as a non-believer. You can make claims, but none of the papers you have cited offer any reproducible evidence that psychoanalysis is effective, let alone cost effective, in treating anything. You, along with this article, do not address this. There is undoubtedly a reason for this--the lack of data supporting psychoanalysis as a treatment modality.

As to your incorrect claims about PubMed, I suggest you search it. There tens of thousands of articles on psychology and psychoanalysis in its database. (For example, a search using the terms "depression" and "psychotherapy" results in 8750 hits, while "psychoanalysis" generated 8630 hits.) There are not many about rigorous statistically valid studies on the in efficacy of psychoanalysis in it, as there are not many of these anywhere.

Of course your posts, similar to psuedosciences such as psychoanalysis, creationism, chiropractic, and homeopathy, are lacking in verifiable, objective data. -- ( unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 on 23:55, October 8, 2005 )

Reply
Evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalysis is cited in the research articles and in the open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis that is linked to the article. The studies cited are quantitative and replicable. I really think I've done enough work in this regard, and am not willing to continue searching for and linking research papers to the article forever, especially when you automatically deny the existence and/or validity of those I do present without, apparently, reading them closely enough to know what the research is that they cite.

But maybe repeating this fact won't help. I don't seem to be getting through by the use of reason. Let's instead examine your position: you say first that "no evidence is provided of the efficacy of psychoanalysis." Then you say "none of the paper you have cited offer any reproducible evidence that psychoanalysis is effective." You've also said that the research cited "lacks rigor." So, psychoanalysis has no efficacy research, and this nonexistent research is not reproducible, and lacks rigor. Here, you've essentially blended two incompabible criticisms together. Somehow, psychoanalytic efficacy research both does not exist and is not rigorous.

Most of your postings (for verifiable data, scroll upward) have followed this paradoxical argument-psychoanalytic research doesn't exist, and psychoanalytic research is poor research. Not only do the articles I linked lack citations of research, the reseach they cite is bad research. Not only do outcome studies of psychoanalysis not exist, they lack scientific rigor.

If you didn't make this double argument, your position would be in more trouble than it already is, because on the one hand, if you simply said psychoanalytic research did not exist, then you'd have to explain just what are these citations of studies in the papers that I linked.

If on the other hand, you simply said that psychoanalytic research is poor research, then you'd have to concede that psychoanalysis has research and would have to agree to allow a section to be titled "papers on psychoanalytic research."

But either of these maneuvers would require you to compromise, to concede some ground in the argument, and you aren't willing to do that. "No!," you say, "Psychoanalysis has no research!" Then confronted with citations of studies, you reply, "Well, it is poor research!" And then you switch back to the former position (no research) when needed.

This isn't about reason, it isn't about science. This is about cutting down psychoanalysis in any way that you can, really, from any angle you can. If it isn't bad because it has no research, it is bad because it has poor research, or it is bad because it didn't begin with research, or it is bad because it is expensive, or it is bad because other therapies are supposedly better. The constant refrain: it is bad. Any weapon you can use to drive this home, you pick it up and start stabbing away.

I am curious, analytically, about what put you on the attack. A bad experience with an analyst? Discomfort with the kinds of icky things Freud talks about? A sense of inferiority you handle by putting down others' ideas? -- ( unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 00:54, October 9, 2005 )

Response: Really, I get this feeling that you don't understand research or the idea of efficacy. The papers posted, with one exception, do not address efficacy as you claim. If they do so, then cite some studies that do so, here in the discussion area. I did not see a whole lot of such papers in the list posted. You keep on saying these papers to which you linked do this, but I looked at them and did not see one that really addresses the issue efficacy of any specific population, let alone a randomized population. These papers look at cases and historical ideas but do not examine data on the efficacy of psychoanalysis to the degree of rigor required in research for such therapies as CBT, DBT, or IPT. None of the papers you listed do that. Read them--they are not about efficacy data. They are about theories and some anecdotal reports. That is not considered good research. There are no cohort studies, no randomization of patients, no comparisons, nothing. The only paper cited that comes close is [http://www.apsa.org/japa/524/Wilczek-P.1163-1184.pdf Wilczek, A. et al. (2005). Change after long term psychoanalytic psychotherapy]. However, the design contains numerous flaws, such as a lack of blinding, lack of comparison to other or alternative therapies, etc. Also, there is no way for showing that the population is self selecting, etc. But it is far closer to a reasonable examination of analysis than the others.

I am curious about your inability to answer the questions trutfully and your need to make ad hominem attacks. You characterize disagreeing with views psychoanalysis as "as putting others down" and "cutting down psychoanalysis...." Apparently, when unable to answer questions, you result to insults posed as quasi-intellectual posturing. Why this is personalization when the efficacy of analysis is questioned? Why this inability to admit you have not addressed the questions? Your responses to your own failing seem like an extreme example of projection.

You seem unable to realize that this article on psychoanalysis fails to address the core questions that must be asked of any type of therapy: Is the therapy safe and effective?

There is nothing in this article addressing this question; you certain seem unable to provide data that does so. Let's see some data. When other therapies are shown to be ineffective in healthcare, they are discarded. The frontal lobotomy, for example, is no longer regarded as appropriate in almost all cases. -- ( unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 at 01:48, October 9, 2005 )

=2004=

Validity of Psychoanalysis
I think that ist article is not NPOV. There are more effective pychotherapies out on the market, and many psychologists think that Psychoanalysis ist neither scientific nor effective. --unsigned

Your point is well taken, in fact, psychoanalysis is listed as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Freud conceived of science in a nineteeth century way and his methods and conclusions would not meet modern standards. However, there is a vast body of writing, research, and theoretical writing as well as professional experience. Material critical of psychoanalysis is certainly welcome in the article, but so is material regarding the theories and practices of both orthodox psychoanalysis and the other schools. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Just because there are more effective treatments does not mean the article is not NPOV. Psychoanalysis (especially its modern form) has advantages over other treatments because it is more comphrehensive. Joseph Wayne Hicks 03:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands is not NPOV simply because it does not talk about the many critics of psychoanalysis, including Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, Adolf Gr&uumlaut;nbaum, Frederick Crews, Edward Erwin, et al. The s olution to this is very simply to add more material about the criticisms of psychoanalysis. I will start. --Macrakis 05:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" In spite of its popularity in some circles, recent studies examining utilization a nd psychotherapists' identification with various schools of therapy indicate that interest in psychoanalysis is clearly waning." Can you provide source? --pippo2001 22:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This article apparently being controversial, I've added a temporary NPOV tag to prevent further POV edits. // Pathoschild 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

=2003=

Effects on scizophrenia?
From the article:
 * and the prevailing view is that psychoanalysis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Cite, please? -- The Anome 09:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UT C)

 * The article apparently no longer states this. // Pathoschild 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Undated: Validity of psychoanalysis
As such, its effectiveness is questionable and it is a very expensive therapy, often a patient will see an analyst for 50 minute sessions over a period of years at a rate of $100 a session or more. [[

Whose POV is it, that psychoanalysis's effectiveness is questionable? I myself happen to think this is true, based on my eclectic reading, but I'd like to see a methodical study comparing psychoanalysis to, say, simply doing nothing. I seem to remember a comment by Erving Goffman that '''a certain researcher or hospital found out that inmates got better faster just from hanging out == on the ward than by having any psychoanalysis sessi ons at all -- can anyone else confirm this? --Uncle Ed

title: Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 1


text:
Billy Harris (ice hockey, born 1935)

William Edward "Hinky" Harris (July 29, 1935 – September 20, 2001) was a Canadian professional ice hockey player in the National Hockey League (NHL) from 1955 to 1969.

Playing career
Harris began his NHL career with the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1955–56. He helped Toronto win 3 straight Stanley Cups in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In total, he played 10 seasons with Toronto before being traded in the off season to the Detroit Red Wings along with Andy Bathgate and Gary Jarrett for Larry Jeffrey, Eddie Joyal, Lowell MacDonald, Marcel Pronovost, and Autry Erickson on May 20, 1965. After playing 24 games for Detroit in 1965–66 he was sent down to the Red Wings AHL affiliate Pittsburgh Hornets. He spent the entire 1966–67 season in the AHL with Pittsburgh leading the team with 34 goals and helping them win the Calder Cup Championship.

The following year the National Hockey League expanded from six teams to twelve and on June 6, 1967 Harris was selected by the Oakland Seals in the expansion draft. During his second season with Oakland he was traded to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Bob Dillabough. Harris would retire from professional hockey at the conclusion of the 1968–69 NHL season.

Coaching career
After finishing his playing career in 1970 with the Canadian national team, Harris became head coach of the Swedish national ice hockey team in 1971–72. He then became the first head coach of the Ottawa Nationals in the WHA's inaugural 1972–73 season and coached Team Canada in the 1974 Summit Series against the Soviet Union.

Harris went on to become an assistant coach with the Edmonton Oilers under Glen Sather for two seasons beginning in 1981–82.

He ended his coaching career after serving as a head coach in the OHL for the Sudbury Wolves in 1982–83 and 1983–84.

In later years, Harris and Dave Keon operated one of Canada's biggest hockey schools.

Awards and achievements

 * 1961–62 – Stanley Cup Champion – Toronto Maple Leafs
 * 1962–63 – Stanley Cup Champion – Toronto Maple Leafs
 * 1963–64 – Stanley Cup Champion – Toronto Maple Leafs
 * 1966-67 - AHL Champion – Pittsburgh Hornets

Transactions

 * May 20, 1965 – Traded by the Toronto Maple Leafs with Andy Bathgate and Gary Jarrett to the Detroit Red Wings for Larry Jeffrey, Eddie Joyal, Lowell MacDonald, Marcel Pronovost and Aut Erickson
 * June 6, 1967 – Claimed by the Oakland Seals from the Detroit Red Wings in NHL expansion draft
 * November 28, 1968 – Traded by the Oakland Seals to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Bob Dillabough

Death
Harris died as a result of cancer / leukemia, in Toronto, Ontario, on September 20, 2001. He was 66 years old.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Billy Harris (ice hockey, born 1935)


text: Category:Churches in Bulgaria

title: Category:Churches in Bulgaria


text:
Premature burial

Premature burial, also known as live burial, burial alive, or vivisepulture, means to be buried while still alive.

Animals or humans may be buried alive accidentally on the mistaken assumption that they are dead, or intentionally as a form of torture, murder, or execution. It may also occur with the consent of the victim as a part of a stunt, with the intention to escape.

Taphophobia, the fear of being buried alive, is reported to be among the most common phobias.

Physiology
Premature burial can lead to death through the following: asphyxiation, dehydration, starvation, or (in cold climates) hypothermia. A person trapped with fresh air to breathe can last a considerable time and burial has been used as a very cruel method of execution (as in cases of Vestal Virgins who violated the oath of celibacy), lasting sufficiently long for the victim to comprehend and imagine every stage of what is happening (being trapped in total darkness with very limited or no movement) and to experience great psychological and physical torment including extreme panic. The medical term for the fear of being buried alive is taphophobia.

Accidental burial
According to a popular legend recorded by Joannes Zonaras and George Kedrenos, two 11th-century and 12th-century Byzantine Greek historians, the 5th century Roman emperor Zeno was buried alive in Constantinople after becoming insensible from drinking or an illness. For three days cries of "Have pity on me!" could be heard from within his verd antique sarcophagus in the Church of the Holy Apostles, but because of the hatred of his wife and subjects, the empress Ariadne refused to open the tomb. This tale is likely apocryphal, as earlier and contemporary sources do not mention it even though they too were hostile to Zeno's memory.

Revivals of supposed "corpses" have been triggered by dropped coffins, grave robbers, embalming, and attempted dissections. Folklorist Paul Barber has argued that the incidence of unintentional live burial has been overestimated and that the normal, physical effects of decomposition are sometimes misinterpreted as signs that the person whose remains are being exhumed had revived once in the coffin. Nevertheless, patients have been documented as late as the 1890s as accidentally being sent to the morgue or trapped in a steel box after erroneously being declared dead.

Newspapers have reported cases of exhumed corpses that appear to have been accidentally buried alive. On February 21, 1885, The New York Times gave a disturbing account of such a case. The victim was a man from Buncombe County, North Carolina whose name was given as "Jenkins". His body was found turned over onto its front inside the coffin, with much of his hair pulled out. Scratch marks were also visible on all sides of the coffin's interior. His family was reportedly "distressed beyond measure at the criminal carelessness" associated with the case. Another similar story was reported in The Times on January 18, 1886, the victim of this case being described simply as a "girl" named "Collins" from Woodstock, Ontario, Canada. Her body was described as being found with the knees tucked up under the body, and her burial shroud "torn into shreds".

In 2001, a body bag was delivered to the Matarese Funeral Home in Ashland, Massachusetts with a live occupant. Funeral director John Matarese discovered this, called paramedics, and avoided live embalming or premature burial.

In 2014 in Peraia, Thessaloniki, in Macedonia, Greece, the police discovered that a 45-year-old woman was buried alive and died of asphyxia after being declared clinically dead by a private hospital; she was discovered just shortly after being buried, by children playing near the cemetery who heard screams from inside the earth; her family was reported to be considering suing the hospital which was responsible. In 2015, it was reported that a separate incident also occurred in 2014 in Peraia, Thessaloniki. In Macedonia, Greece, a police investigation concluded that a 49-year-old woman was buried alive after being declared dead due to cancer; her family reported that they could hear her scream from inside the earth at the cemetery shortly after burial, and the investigation revealed that she died of heart failure inside her coffin. Later, it was discovered that medication given to her by her physicians as part of her cancer treatment was what caused her to be mistakenly declared clinically dead.

The family of Timesha Beauchamp of Southfield, Michigan called 911 on August 23, 2020, when they found her unresponsive at home. Upon arrival, paramedics found her to be unresponsive and not breathing. After they provided cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 30 minutes, she was pronounced dead by a local emergency department physician based on the medical information provided by the paramedics on the scene. Resuscitation efforts were discontinued, and Beauchamp was taken to a funeral home in Detroit. Staff at the funeral home were preparing to embalm her body when they found her to be breathing. She was taken to Children’s Hospital of Michigan, where she died on October 18, 2020.

Natural disasters
Natural disasters (earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, avalanches) have also buried people alive, as well as collapsing mines.

Attempts at prevention
According to the history of Nicephorus and perhaps because of the legend of Zeno's premature entombment, or perhaps for other reasons, the Proconnesian marble sarcophagus of the 7th-century emperor Heraclius was left open, on his own instructions, for three days after his interment in the Church of the Holy Apostles' Mausoleum of Justinian.

Robert Robinson died in Manchester in 1791. A movable glass pane was inserted in his coffin, and the mausoleum had a door for purposes of inspection by a watchman, who was to see if he breathed on the glass. He instructed his relatives to visit his grave periodically to check that he was actually dead.

Safety coffins were devised to prevent premature burial, although there is no evidence that any have ever been successfully used to save an accidentally buried person. On 5 December 1882, J. G. Krichbaum received for his "Device For Life In Buried Persons". It consisted of a movable periscope-like pipe that provided air and, when rotated or pushed by the person interred, indicated to passersby that someone was buried alive. The patent text refers to "that class of devices for indicating life in buried persons", suggesting that such inventions were common at the time.

In 1890, a family designed and built a burial vault at the Wildwood Cemetery in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, with an internal hatch to allow the victim of accidental premature burial to escape. The vault had an air supply and was lined in felt to protect a panic-stricken victim from self-inflicted injury before the escape. Bodies were to be removed from the casket before interment.

The London Association for the Prevention of Premature Burial was co-founded in 1896 by William Tebb and Walter Hadwen. Tebb suggested methods such as stethoscopic auscultation of the heart and lungs, application of electric current, and artificial ventilation.

Execution

The burning of books and burying of scholars was purportedly carried out by Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of a unified China. Books and texts deemed to be subversive were burned and 460 Confucian scholars were reportedly buried alive in 212 BC. Modern scholars doubt these events – Sima Qian, author of the account of these events in the Records of the Grand Historian, was an official of the Han dynasty, which could be expected to portray the previous rulers unfavorably. The single most numerous case of people being buried alive as a way of execution was after the Battle of Changping, where around 200,000 surviving and captured soldiers of the state of Zhao were buried alive.

Tacitus, in his work Germania, records that German tribes practiced two forms of capital punishment; the first where the victim was hanged from a tree, and another where the victim was tied to a wicker frame, pushed face down into the mud and buried. The first was used to make an example of traitors; the second was used for punishment of dishonorable or shameful vices, such as cowardice. According to Tacitus, the Ancient Germans thought that crime should be exposed, whereas infamy should be buried out of sight.

Fleta, a medieval commentary on English common law, specified live burial as the punishment for sodomy, bestiality and those who had dealings with Jews.

Herodotus in his book Histories wrote that burying people alive was an ancient Persian custom, which they practiced in order to be blessed by gods. "They [Xerxes and his troops] marched into the Nine Ways of the Edonian to the bridges and found the banks of the Strymon united by a bridge, but being informed that this place was called by the name of the Nine Ways, they buried alive so many in it so many sons and daughter of inhabitants. It is a Persian custom to bury people alive for I have heard that Amestris, wife of Xerxes, having grown old, caused fourteen children of the best families in Persia to be buried alive, to show her gratitude to the god who is said to be beneath the earth."

In ancient Rome, a Vestal Virgin convicted of violating her vows of celibacy was "buried alive" by being sealed in a cave with a small amount of bread and water, ostensibly so that the goddess Vesta could save her were she truly innocent, essentially making it into a trial by ordeal. Vesta never intervened. This practice was, strictly speaking, immurement (being walled up and left to die) rather than premature burial. According to Christian tradition, a number of saints were martyred this way, including Saint Castulus and Saint Vitalis of Milan.

In Denmark, in the Ribe city statute, which was promulgated in 1269, a female thief was to be buried alive, and in the law by Queen Margaret I, adulterous women were to be punished with premature burial, men with beheading.

In old Swedish province laws ("landskapslagarna"), live burial ("kvick i jord", literally "live into earth"), could be stipulated for a variety of crimes, most notably theft of money or goods of more than one mark's value, though only for women; men were instead hanged. Men could be sentenced to be buried alive as a punishment for bestiality.

In 1611, within Sunnerbo härad in Småland, Sweden, a man faced a death sentence from the Sunnerbo district court for committing bestiality with a horse. The court's archives indicate that the prescribed punishment was either burial alive or burning at the stake, along with the animal. However, the final outcome remains unknown, as the sentence required the King's approval and the relevant documents from that period are believed to be lost.

In 1616, the 18-year old farmhand Tiufrid was sentenced by the governor in Jönköping, Sweden, Nils Stiernsköld, to be buried alive together with the cow with which he had committed bestiality. The execution was carried out in January 1616 at Kinnevalds häradsting (district court). The court records tell how Tiufrid was buried, together with the animal, inside a large stone mound: "Vilket och nu skedde, att förberörde Tiufrid samt kreaturet som han denna synd begått (med), bleve lagda uti ett stort rör tillhopa".

Within the Holy Roman Empire a variety of offenses, including rape, infanticide, and theft, could be punished with live burial. For example, the Schwabenspiegel, a law code from the 13th century, specified that the rape of a virgin should be punished by live burial (whereas the rapist of a non-virgin was to be beheaded). Female murderers of their own employers also risked being buried alive. In Augsburg in 1505, for example, a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl were found guilty of killing their master in conspiracy with the cook. The boy was beheaded, and the girl and the cook were buried alive beneath the gallows. The jurist Eduard Henke observed that in the Middle Ages, live burial of women guilty of infanticide was a "very frequent" punishment in city statutes and Landrechten. For example, he notes those in Hesse, Bohemia, and Tyrol. The Berlinisches Stadtbuch records that between 1412 and 1447, 10 women were buried alive there, and as late as 1583, the archbishop of Bremen promulgated (alongside the somewhat milder 1532 Constitutio Criminalis Carolina punishment of drowning) live burial as an alternate execution method for punishing mothers found guilty of infanticide.

As noted by Elias Pufendorf, a woman buried alive would afterward be impaled through the heart. This combined punishment of live burial and impalement was practiced in Nuremberg until 1508 also for women found guilty of theft, but the city council decided in 1515 that the punishment was too cruel and opted for drowning instead. Impalement was, however, not always mentioned together with live burial. Eduard Osenbrüggen relates how the live burial of a woman convicted of infanticide could be pronounced in a court verdict. For example, in a 1570 case in Ensisheim: "The verdict commanded the executioner to place the perpetrator in the grave alive, "and place two layers of thorns, the one beneath, the other above her. Prior to that he should place a bowl over her face, in which he had made a hole, and to give her through that (in order that she would live for a longer time and expiate the evil act she was condemned for), a reed/tube into the mouth, then jump three times upon her, and lastly cover her with earth"."

In this particular case, however, some noblewomen made an appeal for mercy, and the convicted woman was drowned instead.

Dieter Furcht speculates that the impalement was not so much to be regarded as an execution method, but as a way to prevent the condemned from becoming an avenging, undead Wiedergänger. In medieval Italy, unrepentant murderers were buried alive, head down, feet in the air, a practice referred to in passing in Canto XIX of Dante's Inferno.

In the Faroe Islands, a powerful 14th-century female landowner in the village of Húsavík was said to have buried two servants alive.

In the 16th century Habsburg Netherlands, when the Catholic authorities made a prolonged effort to stamp out the Protestant churches, live burial was commonly used as the punishment for women found guilty of heresy. The last to be so executed was Anna Utenhoven, an Anabaptist buried alive at Vilvoorde in 1597. Reportedly, when her head was still above the ground she was given the last chance to recant her faith, and upon her refusal, she was completely covered up and suffocated. The case aroused a great deal of protest in the rebellious northern provinces and foiled the peace feelers which King Philip III was at the time extending to the Dutch. Thereafter the Habsburg authorities avoided further such cases, punishing heresy with fines and deportations rather than death.

In the seventeenth century in feudal Russia, live burial as an execution method was known as "the pit" and used against women who were condemned for killing their husbands. In 1689, the punishment of live burial was changed to beheading.

Among some contemporary indigenous people of Brazil with no or limited contact with the outside world, children with disabilities or other undesirable traits are still customarily buried alive.

During the Holocaust many victims of mass executions were not shot dead and instead buried alive. Some people were able to escape the mass graves after the execution was over.

During Mao Zedong's regime, there are some accounts that premature burials were used in executions.

Wars
It has been used during wars and by mafia organizations.

Serbian officials are documented to have buried living Bulgarian civilians from Pehčevo (now in the Republic of North Macedonia) during the Balkan Wars. During World War II, Japanese soldiers were documented to have buried living Chinese civilians, notably during the Nanking Massacre. This method of execution was also used by German leaders against Jews in Ukraine and Belarus during World War II.

During the Algerian War, French troops used to bury Algerian prisoners or civilians alive.

During the Vietnam War, live burials by the Viet Cong were documented during the massacre at Huế in 1968.

During the Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers were knowingly buried alive by American tanks of the First Infantry Division shoveling earth into their trenches. Estimates for the number of soldiers killed this way vary: one source puts it at "between 80 and 250", while Colonel Anthony Moreno suggested it may have been thousands.

In 2014, ISIS buried Yazidi women and children alive in an attempt to annihilate the Yazidi tribe.

Voluntary
On rare occasions, people have willingly arranged to be buried alive, reportedly as a demonstration of their controversial ability to survive such an event. In one story taking place around 1840, Sadhu Haridas, an Indian yogi, is said to have been buried in the presence of a British military officer and under the supervision of the local maharajah, by being placed in a sealed bag in a wooden box in a vault. The vault was then interred, the earth was flattened over the site, and crops were sown over the place for a very long time. The whole location was guarded day and night to prevent fraud and the site was dug up twice in a ten-month period to verify the burial before the yogi was finally dug out and slowly revived in the presence of another officer. The yogi said that his only fear during his "wonderful sleep" was being eaten by underground worms. However, according to current medical science, it is not possible for a human to survive for a period of ten months without food, water, and air. According to other sources the entire burial was 40 days long. The Indian government has since made the act of voluntary premature burial illegal, because of the unintended deaths of individuals attempting to recreate this feat.

In 1992, escape artist Bill Shirk was buried alive under seven tons of dirt and cement in a Plexiglas coffin. The coffin collapsed and almost killed Shirk.

In 2010, a Russian man died after being buried alive to try to overcome his fear of death but was crushed to death by the earth on top of him. The following year, another Russian died after being buried overnight in a makeshift coffin "for good luck".

In 2021, the YouTuber MrBeast was voluntarily buried alive for 50 hours. This event was documented and filmed. In late 2023, he again buried himself alive for one week.

Buried Alive is a controversial art and lecture performance series by art-tech group monochrom. Participants have the opportunity to be buried alive in a coffin for fifteen to twenty minutes. As a framework program monochrom offers lectures about the history of the science of determining death and the medical and cultural history of premature burial.

Myths and legends
St. Oran was a druid living on the island of Iona in Scotland's Inner Hebrides. He became a follower of St. Columba, who brought Christianity to Iona from Ireland in 563 AD. When St. Columba had repeated problems building the original Iona Abbey, citing interference from the Devil, St. Oran offered himself as a human sacrifice and was buried alive. He was later dug up and found to be still alive, but when he described the afterlife he had seen and how it involved no heaven or hell, he was ordered to be covered up again. The building of the abbey went ahead, untroubled, and St. Oran's chapel marks the spot where the saint was buried.

In the fourteenth through nineteenth centuries, a popular tale about premature burial in European folklore was the "Lady with the Ring". In the story, a woman who was prematurely buried awakens to frighten a grave robber who is attempting to cut a ring off her finger.

The TV show MythBusters tested the myth to see if someone could survive being buried alive for two hours before being rescued. Host Jamie Hyneman attempted the feat, but when his steel coffin began to bend under the weight of the earth used to cover it, the experiment was aborted.

In fiction
The 1980 Italian horror film City of the Living Dead features a woman who is buried alive after being mistaken for dead. She panics and a man hears her cries—he uses a pickaxe to penetrate the casket (nearly killing the woman) and saves her.

Premature burial is a major plot point in Paul Sheldon's Misery's Return, the book-within-a-book in Stephen King's 1987 novel Misery.

In a 1993 storyline of Days of Our Lives, a character is drugged to appear dead, and afterwards is buried alive with the essentials to keep her alive for an extended period.

In the series 2 finale of The League of Gentlemen, after Justin Smart spurns Herr Lipp's advances, Lipp buries him alive with a snorkel.

In Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004), Uma Thurman's character The Bride is buried alive.

In the fifth season finale of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, "Grave Danger", Nick Stokes is buried alive in a plexiglass coffin, with a video camera connected to a web site to let his colleagues watch his suffering.

In a 2008 episode of BBC soap opera EastEnders, Max Branning was almost buried alive by his wife Tanya Cross but was saved by her at the last minute.

The premise of the 2010 thriller film Buried is that an American contractor in Iraq wakes up having been buried in a coffin with only a mobile phone.

In a 2013 episode of American comedy series The Office titled "The Farm", fictional character Dwight Schrute alludes to a history of premature burials in his family. In order to make sure the "dead were completely dead", Schrute kicks open the coffin of his aunt at her funeral and fires several shotgun rounds at her body.

In the Australian TV series Harrow second season episode "Sub Silencia" ("In Silence"), Harrow attempts to dig up the grave of antagonist Francis Chester to prove that he's still alive. Chester, an anesthetist, hits him with a fast-acting anesthetic, and Harrow wakes up inside the coffin, buried alive, with a cell phone Chester uses to taunt him and to send video as he stalks Harrow's daughter.

At the end of Bacurau (2019) Udo Kier's character, Michael, is buried alive by villagers.

title: Premature burial


text:
Hongi Hika

Hongi Hika (c. 1772 – 6 March 1828) was a New Zealand Māori rangatira (chief) and war leader of the iwi of Ngāpuhi. He was a pivotal figure in the early years of regular European contact and settlement in New Zealand. As one of the first Māori leaders to understand the advantages of European muskets in warfare, he used European weapons to overrun much of northern New Zealand in the early nineteenth century Musket Wars. He was however not only known for his military prowess; Hongi Hika encouraged Pākehā (European) settlement, built mutually beneficial relationships with New Zealand's first missionaries, introduced Māori to Western agriculture and helped put the Māori language into writing. He travelled to England and met King George IV. His military campaigns, along with the other Musket Wars, were one of the most important motivators for the British annexation of New Zealand and subsequent Treaty of Waitangi with Ngāpuhi and many other iwi.

Early life and campaigns: 1772–1814
Hongi Hika was born near Kaikohe into a powerful family of the Te Uri o Hua hapū (subtribe) of Ngāpuhi. His mother was Tuhikura, a Ngāti Rēhia woman. She was the second wife of his father Te Hōtete, son of Auha, who with his brother Whakaaria had expanded Ngāpuhi's territory from the Kaikohe area into the Bay of Islands area. Hongi said later in life that he had been born in the year explorer Marion du Fresne was killed by Māori (in 1772), and this is generally now accepted as his birth year, although some earlier sources place his birth around 1780.

Hongi Hika rose to prominence as a military leader in the Ngāpuhi campaign, led by Pokaia, the uncle of Hōne Heke, against the Te Roroa hapū of Ngāti Whātua iwi in 1806–1808. In over 150 years since the Māori first begun sporadic contact with Europeans, firearms had not entered into widespread use. Ngāpuhi fought with small numbers of them in 1808, and Hongi was present later that same year on the first occasion that muskets were used in action by Māori. This was at the Battle of Moremonui at which the Ngāpuhi were defeated; the Ngāpuhi were overrun by the opposing Ngāti Whātua while reloading. Those killed included two of Hongi's brothers and Pokaia, and Hongi and other survivors only escaped by hiding in a swamp until Ngāti Whātua called off the pursuit to avoid provoking utu.

After the death of Pokaia, Hongi became the war leader of the Ngāpuhi. His warriors included Te Ruki Kawiti, Mataroria, Moka Te Kainga-mataa, Rewa, Ruatara, Paraoa, Motiti, Hewa and Mahanga. In 1812 Hongi led a large taua (war party) to the Hokianga against Ngāti Pou. Despite the defeat of Ngāpuhi at Moremonui, he recognised the potential value of muskets in warfare if they were used tactically and by warriors with proper training.

Contact with Europeans and journey to Australia: 1814–1819
Ngāpuhi controlled the Bay of Islands, the first point of contact for most Europeans visiting New Zealand in the early 19th century. Hongi Hika protected early missionaries and European seamen and settlers, arguing the benefits of trade. He befriended Thomas Kendall, one of three lay preachers sent by the Church Missionary Society to establish Christianity in New Zealand. Kendall wrote that when he first met Hongi in 1814, he already had ten muskets of his own, and said that Hongi's handling "does him much credit, since he had no man to instruct him". Like other Europeans who met Hongi, Kendall recorded that he was struck by the gentleness of his manner and his charm and mild disposition. In written records, he was often referred to as "Shungee" or "Shunghi" by early European settlers.

Hongi's older half-brother, Kāingaroa, was an important chief, and his death in 1815 led to Hongi becoming the ariki of Ngāpuhi. Around this time Hongi married Turikatuku, who was an important military advisor for him, although she went blind early in their marriage. He later took her younger sister Tangiwhare as an additional wife. Both bore at least one son and daughter by him. Turikatuku was his favourite wife and he never travelled or fought without her. Early missionary visitors in 1814 witnessed her devotion to him.

In 1814 Hongi and his nephew Ruatara, himself a Ngāpuhi chief, visited Sydney with Kendall and met the local head of the Church Missionary Society Samuel Marsden. Marsden was later to describe Hongi as "a very fine character ... uncommonly mild in his manners and very polite". Ruatara and Hongi invited Marsden to establish the first Anglican mission to New Zealand in Ngāpuhi territory. Ruatara died the following year, leaving Hongi as protector of the mission at Rangihoua Bay. Other missions were also established under his protection at Kerikeri and Waimate North. While in Australia Hongi Hika studied European military and agricultural techniques and purchased muskets and ammunition.

As a result of Hongi's protection, ships came in increasing numbers, and his opportunities for trade increased. He was most keen to trade for muskets but the missionaries (particularly Marsden) were often unwilling to do so. This caused friction but he continued to protect them, on the basis that it was more important to maintain a safe harbour in the Bay of Islands, and in any event others visiting the islands were not so scrupulous. He was able to trade for iron agricultural implements to improve productivity and to grow crops, with the assistance of slave labour, that could be successfully bartered for muskets. In 1817 Hongi led a war party to Thames where he attacked the Ngāti Maru stronghold of Te Totara, killing 60 and taking 2,000 prisoners. In 1818 Hongi led one of two Ngāpuhi taua against East Cape and Bay of Plenty iwi Ngāti Porou and Ngaiterangi. Some fifty villages were destroyed and the taua returned in 1819 carrying nearly 2,000 captured slaves.

Hongi encouraged and assisted the first Christian missions to New Zealand, but never converted to Christianity himself. On 4 July 1819 he granted 13,000 acres of land at Kerikeri to the Church Missionary Society in return for 48 felling axes, land which became known as the Society's Plains. He personally assisted the missionaries in developing a written form of the Māori language. Hongi was not alone in seeing the relationship with the missionaries as one of trade and self-interest; indeed virtually no Māori converted to Christianity for a decade. Large scale conversion of northern Māori only occurred after his death. He protected Thomas Kendall when he left his wife, taking a Māori wife and participating in Māori religious ceremonies. In later life, exasperated with teachings of humility and non-violence, he described Christianity as a religion fit only for slaves.

Journey to England and subsequent warfare: 1820–1825
In 1820 Hongi Hika, his nephew Waikato, and Kendall travelled to England on board the whaling ship New Zealander. He spent 5 months in London and Cambridge where his facial moko tattoos made him something of a sensation. During the trip he met King George IV who presented him with a suit of armour. He was later to wear this in battle in New Zealand, causing terror amongst his opponents. In England he continued his linguistic work, assisting Professor Samuel Lee who was writing the first Māori–English dictionary, A Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand. Written Māori maintains a northern feel to this day as a result; for example, the sound usually pronounced "f" in Māori is written "wh" because of Hongi Hika's soft aspirated northern dialect.

Hongi Hika returned to the Bay of Islands on 4 July 1821. He travelled together with Waikato and Kendall, aboard the Speke which was transporting convicts to New South Wales and from there on the Westmoreland. He was reported to have exchanged many of the presents he received in England for muskets in New South Wales, to the dismay of the missionaries, and to have picked up several hundred muskets that were waiting for him. The muskets had been ordered by Baron Charles de Thierry whom Hongi met at Cambridge, England. De Theirry traded the muskets for land in the Hokianga, although De Theirry's claim to the land was later disputed. Hongi was able to uplift the guns without them being paid for. He also obtained a large quantity of gunpowder, ball ammunition, swords and daggers.

Using the weapons he had obtained in Australia, within months of his return Hongi led a force of around 2,000 warriors (of whom over 1,000 were armed with muskets) against those of the Ngāti Pāoa chief, Te Hinaki, at Mokoia and Mauinaina pā (Māori forts) on the Tamaki River (now Panmure). This battle resulted in the death of Hinaki and hundreds, if not thousands, of Ngāti Paoa men, women and children. This battle was in revenge for a previous defeat in around 1795, in which Ngāpuhi had sustained heavy losses. Deaths in this one action during the intertribal Musket Wars may have outnumbered all deaths in 25 years of the later New Zealand Wars. He wore the suit of armour that had been gifted by King George IV during this battle; it saved his life, leading to rumours of his invincibility. Hongi and his warriors then moved down to attack the Ngāti Maru pā of Te Tōtara, which he had previously attacked in 1817. Hongi and his warriors pretended to be interested in a peace deal and then attacked that night while the Ngāti Maru guard was down. Hundreds were killed and a much larger number, as many as 2,000, were captured and taken back to the Bay of Islands as slaves. Again, this battle was in revenge for a previous defeat before the age of muskets, in 1793.

In early 1822 he led his force up the Waikato River where, after initial success, he was defeated by Te Wherowhero, before gaining another victory at Orongokoekoea. Te Wherowhero ambushed the Ngāpuhi carrying Ngāti Mahuta women captives and freed them. In 1823 he made peace with the Waikato iwi and invaded Te Arawa territory in Rotorua, having travelled up the Pongakawa River and carried their waka (each weighing between 10 and 25 tonnes) overland into Lake Rotoehu and Lake Rotoiti.

In 1824 Hongi Hika attacked Ngāti Whātua again, losing 70 men, including his eldest son Hāre Hongi, in the battle of Te Ika a Ranganui. According to some accounts Ngāti Whātua lost 1,000 men, although Hongi Hika himself, downplaying the tragedy, put the number at 100. In any event the defeat was a catastrophe for Ngāti Whātua; the survivors retreated south. They left behind the fertile region of Tāmaki Makaurau (the Auckland isthmus) with its vast natural harbours at Waitematā and Manukau; land which had belonged to Ngāti Whātua since they won it by conquest over a hundred years before. Hongi Hika left Tāmaki Makaurau almost uninhabited as a southern buffer zone. Fifteen years later when Lt. Governor William Hobson wished to remove his fledgling colonial administration from settler and Ngāpuhi influence in the Bay of Islands, he was able to purchase this land cheaply from Ngāti Whātua, to build Auckland, a settlement that has become New Zealand's principal city. In 1825 Hongi avenged the earlier defeat of Moremonui in the battle of Te Ika-a-Ranganui, although both sides suffered heavy losses.

Final years and death: 1826–1828
In 1826 Hongi Hika moved from Waimate to conquer Whangaroa and found a new settlement. In part this was to punish Ngāti Uru and Ngāti Pou for having harassed the European people at Wesleydale, the Wesleyan mission at Kaeo. On 10 January 1827 a party of his warriors, without his knowledge, ransacked Wesleydale and it was abandoned.

In January 1827, Hongi Hika was shot in the chest by the warrior Maratea during a minor engagement in the Hokianga. On his return to Whangaroa a few days later he found that his wife Turikatuku had died. Hongi lingered for 14 months, and at times it was thought that he might survive the injury; he continued to plan for the future by inviting missionaries to stay at Whangaroa, planning a Waikato expedition and schemed to capture the anchorage at Kororāreka (Russell). He invited those around him to listen to the wind whistle through his lungs and some claimed to have been able to see completely through him. He died of an infection on 6 March 1828 at Whangaroa. He was survived by five of his children, and his final burial place was a closely guarded secret.

Hongi Hika's death appears to be a turning point in Māori society. In contrast to the traditional conduct that followed the death of an important rangatira (chief), no attack was made by neighbouring tribes by way of muru (attack made in respect of the death) of Hongi Hika. There was an initial concern among the settlers under his protection that they might be attacked after his death, but nothing came of that. The Wesleyan mission at Whangaroa was however disestablished and moved to Māngungu near Horeke.

Frederick Edward Maning, a Pākehā Māori, who lived at Hokianga, wrote a near contemporaneous account of Hongi Hika in A History of the War in the North of New Zealand Against the Chief Heke. His account said that Hongi warned on his deathbed that, if "red coat" soldiers should land in Aotearoa, "when you see them make war against them". James Stack, Wesleyan missionary at Whangaroa, recorded a conversation with Eruera Maihi Patuone on 12 March 1828, in which it was said that Hongi Hika exhorted his followers to oppose against any force that came against them and that his dying words were "No matter from what quarter your enemies come, let their number be ever so great, should they come there hungry for you, kia toa, kia toa – be brave, be brave! Thus will you revenge my death, and thus only do I wish to be revenged."

Legacy
Hongi Hika is remembered as a warrior and leader during the Musket Wars. Some historians have attributed Hongi Hika's military success to his acquisition of muskets, comparing his military skills poorly with the other major Māori war leader of the period, Te Rauparaha, while others have said he should be given credit for being a talented general. In any event, he had the foresight to acquire European weapons and evolve the design of the Māori war pā and Māori warfare tactics; this evolution was a nasty surprise to British and colonial forces in later years during Hone Heke's Rebellion in 1845–46. Hongi Hika's campaigns caused social upheaval, but he also had influence through his encouragement of early European settlement, agricultural improvements and the development of a written version of the Māori language.

Hongi Hika's actions altered the balance of power not only in the Waitemata but also the Bay of Plenty, Tauranga, Coromandel, Rotorua and Waikato to an unprecedented extent, and caused significant redistribution of population. Other northern tribes armed themselves with muskets for self-defence and then used those to attack and overrun southern tribes. Although Hongi did not usually occupy conquered territory, his campaigns and those of other musket warriors triggered a series of migrations, claims and counter claims which in the late 20th century would complicate disputes over land sales in the Waitangi Tribunal, for example Ngāti Whātua's occupation of Bastion Point in 1977–78.

Hongi Hika never attempted to establish any form of long-term government over iwi he conquered and rarely attempted to permanently occupy territory. It is likely his aims were opportunistic, based on increasing his mana as a warrior. He is said to have stated during his visit to England, "There is only one king in England, there shall be only one king in New Zealand", but if he had ambitions of becoming a Māori king, they were never realised. In 1828 Māori lacked a national identity, seeing themselves as belonging to separate iwi. It would be 30 years before Waikato iwi recognised a Māori king. That king was Te Wherowhero, a man who had built his mana defending the Waikato against Hongi Hika in the 1820s.

His second son, Hāre Hongi Hika (having taken his older brother's name after the latter's death in 1825), was a signatory in 1835 to the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand. He became a prominent leader after his father's death and was one of only six rangatira to sign the declaration by writing his name, rather than making a tohu (mark). He was later to be a prominient figure in Māori struggles for sovereignty in the nineteenth century and was instrumental in the opening of Te Tii Waitangi Marae in 1881. He died in 1885, aged in his seventies. Hongi Hiki's daughter Hariata (Harriet) Rongo married Hōne Heke at the Kerikeri chapel on 30 March 1837. She had inherited her father's confidence and drive, and brought her own mana to the relationship. She had lived for some years with the family of Charlotte Kemp and her husband James Kemp.

Hongi Hika is portrayed leading a war party against the Te Arawa iwi in a 2018 music video for New Zealand thrash metal band Alien Weaponry's song "Kai Tangata".

title: Hongi Hika


text: Talk:Billy Harris (ice hockey, born 1935)


text:
Daltons Weekly

Daltons Weekly was a newspaper published in the United Kingdom every Thursday until July 2011.

Established during the late 1860s by Herbert Dalton, Daltons Weekly was initially a single broadsheet listing 'Accommodation for Gentleman' in the then fashionable middle class suburbs around Vauxhall in South London. The paper proved very successful, but within two years of starting the paper, Dalton died, leaving it to his brother, who was a butcher and had no interest in publishing. The brother sold the paper to two brothers by the name of 'Hebert', for £100. For the next 102 years, Daltons Weekly remained a family business owned by the Heberts.

Over this period the paper grew and began to cover additional market sectors. In June 1972, the paper was purchased by Morgan Grampian Ltd, who focused on the three main market areas of holidays, property and businesses, and closed down unrelated sectors. In 1987 Morgan-Grampian was acquired by United News and Media, currently known as United Business Media. The Daltons brands were acquired by Innovare Media Ltd in 2012.

Daltons Business
Established in 2002, Daltons Business is a UK database of businesses for sale, listing over 29,000 businesses, including franchises, commercial property and businesses abroad. Daltons Business has an average of 3,500,000 page impressions every month.

The website lists businesses for sale classified into the sectors of Agricultural Businesses, Care Businesses, Commercial Property,- Corporate Businesses, Distribution Companies, Entertainment and Leisure Businesses, Restaurants and Takeaway, Hotels, Internet Businesses, Manufacturing Businesses, Marine Businesses, Motor and Transport Businesses, Pubs, Retail Businesses, Service Businesses and Franchises.

Daltons Holidays
Launched in 2003, Daltons Holidays listed holiday properties of all types worldwide. It generated an average of 500,000 page impressions through natural search and an average of 28,000 unique visitors, until its closure in September 2014.

Daltons Property
Launched in 2004, Daltons Property listed properties for sale in the UK and abroad. Daltons Property generated an average of 350,000 monthly page impressions, and approximately 20,000 monthly unique visitors, until its closure in September 2014.

title: Daltons Weekly


text:
User talk:Link 36p

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ral 315   WS  04:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Link 36p


text:
User talk:Tape

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HollyAm 04:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free media (File:UnderAKillingMoon.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:UnderAKillingMoon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tape


text:
Ando (disambiguation)

Ando or Andō is a Japanese surname.

Ando may also refer to:

Geography

 * Ando, Nara, Japan
 * Ando, Togo
 * Amdo, traditional Tibetan province (alternative transliteration)
 * Ando, Chinese Korean transliteration name of Antu County
 * Ando, New South Wales, a rural hamlet in New South Wales, Australia
 * Ando, an islet and the approximately coterminous ri located in Yeosu, South Jeolla Province, South Korea

People with the given name

 * Ando Kiviberg (born 1969), Estonian musician and politician
 * Ando Leps (1935–2023), Estonian jurist and politician
 * Ando Meritee (born 1974), Estonian renju player

Other uses

 * Ando (mobile app), a food delivery app
 * Ando Media, a company that provides digital content services for Internet radio stations
 * Ando, a letter in the artificial Tengwar script
 * "Andó", a song by Juana Molina from Halo

title: Ando (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:The Firm (1989 film)

Film or TV series?
I'm confused by the wording in this stub - is this a film or a TV series? If it's a film it should be moved to The Firm (1988 film). 23skidoo 04:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's both!--Rayc 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Music
There is music in this film. Dean Martin sings that 'moon hits your eye song' when they're playing football. The lack of music quote is false information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.10.148 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Firm (1989 film)