Wikipedia

Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 11

< Talk:Sigmund Freud
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Almanacer in topic Why have all of Freud's influences been removed from his Wiki page?
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Freud and the university appointment

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion

A previous editor has introduced material into the WP:Lede which is not covered in the main body of the article, which wikipedia generally does not allow. The Lede is therefore abridged to reflect this. If someone wishes to develop the material in the main body of the article first, then that is fine, following either the Peter Gay biography on Freud or otherwise, however, it needs to be developed in the main body of the article first before being put into the Lede. Please note, that Freud never was appointed as a regular professor and did not pursue a career as a professor. The very low level appointment he did receive is usually called an "honorary" post outside of Germany. See Wikipage for Professor which states:

Professor ordinarius (ordentlicher Professor, o. Prof., Univ. Prof.): professor with chair, representing the area in question. In Germany, it's common to call these positions in colloquial use "C4" professorships, due to the name of respective entry in the official salary table for Beamte (civil servant). (Following recent reforms of the salary system at universities, you might now find the denomination "W3 professor."). Today in most German federal states this title is obsolete for restaffing. Since 2002 all full professors at universities and applied universities are called "professor". In some federal state like Baden-Württemberg it is still possible for professor at a university to make application for the title "Univ. Prof." under special conditions.

Professor extraordinarius ("extraordinary professor", außerordentlicher Professor, ao. Prof.): professor without chair, often in a side-area, or being subordinated to a professor with chair. In Germany, it's common to call these positions in colloquial use "C3" professorships, due to the name of respective entry in the official salary table for Beamte (civil servant). (Following recent reforms of the salary system at universities,[12] you might now find the denomination "W2 professor" or "W3 professor without chair-function" in the state of Baden-Württemberg). Often, successful but junior researchers will first get a position as ao. Prof. and then later try to find an employment as o. Prof. at another university. In Prussia before the First World War, the average salary of the full professor ("Ordinarius") was double that of an associate professor ("Extraordinarius") and up to nine times that of a professor starting his career.

Lede should not be changed unless the main body of the article first is upgraded to contain this information. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead and the main text are consistent in stating Freud was appointed a professor in 1902. Your objections are pedantic and, with regard to your claim it was a "low level appointment" inconsistent with Gay's account as cited (which I have now added to both the lead and the main text). Almanacer (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)



There is nothing pedantic about this distinction which Peter Gay is more than aware of in his fine book on Freud. You are also not in agreement with the main body of the text as written by a previous editor which reads as follows concerning the accurate rendering as being "honorific" as quoted directly from the Freud Wikipage:

"Early followers[edit]

Freud spent most of his life in Vienna. From 1891 until 1938, he and his family lived in an apartment at Berggasse 19 near the Innere Stadt or historical quarter of Vienna. As a docent of the University of Vienna, Freud, since the mid-1880s, had been delivering lectures on his theories to small audiences every Saturday evening at the lecture hall of the university's psychiatric clinic.[40] He gave lectures in the university every year from 1886 to 1919.[41] His work generated a considerable degree of interest from a small group of Viennese physicians. From the autumn of 1902 and shortly after his promotion to the honorific title of außerordentlicher Professor,[42] a small group of followers formed around him, meeting at his apartment every Wednesday afternoon, to discuss issues relating to psychology and neuropathology.[43] This group was called the Wednesday Psychological Society (Psychologische Mittwochs-Gesellschaft) and it marked the beginnings of the worldwide psychoanalytic movement.[44]" (boldface emphasis added)


You have now again made the Lede inconsistent with the main body of this Wikipage. If you cannot correct this error yourself by returning the word "honorific" then you would need to re-edit the main body of the text to match your claim in the Lede. Also, Peter Gay is very sensitive to the issue of anti-semitism in the fact that Freud never receives a regular professor position (see discussion of "Professor Ordinarius" above), falling short of Freud's own expectations. If you need assistance with the edit let me know, since the inconsistency can be repaired by any editor, including this editor, if you are not able to fix it within a day or so. FelixRosch (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK Felix I'm glad we agree on the merits of Gay's book.  But what he writes is not that Freud was disappointed in getting the Prof Extraordinarus appointment rather than the other one you mention, rather his disappointment was over the 17 year delay in which antisemitism was undoubtably a factor.  And far from seeing it as a low level appointment or falling short of his expectations  as you claim, it was, says Gay, the way out of his "preprofessional limbo..would open doors and improve his income substantially". (p. 139)
I repeat there is no inconsistency between the Lead and the main text.  To include "honorific' - which has a specific technical meaning in academia and is likely to be confused (as you appeared to do) with "honorary" (academic awards for film stars, etc) - is not helpful editing for the Lead.Almanacer (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC):
The Peter Gay book was and is a remarkable effort for Freud studues, and Peter Gay certainly knows the merits and dis-merits of the a.o. "professor" title in Germany, distinctly underpaid and forcing Freud into private practice throughout his lifetime in order simply to support himself. Your version of the Lede is still inconsistent with the main body of the article and something needs to be done to make it consistent with this cliam in the main body of the article quoted exactly as it is on this Wikipage now:
"honorific title of außerordentlicher Professor,[42]"
The inconsistency must be remedied. Make a suggestion to make the Lede consistent with the main body of the article. The is required by wikipedia policy for material to appear in the Lede. It must be consistent with the main body of the article. FelixRosch (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Previous editor has not answered Talk regarding contradiction between Lede and "Early followers" subsection below. Prof Peter Gay recognizes that Freud was not a regular Professor and that Freud had only an a.o. honorific title, basically without sufficient money to support himself without going into private practice. Repair contradiction of Lede & "Early followers" subsection below. Move Peter Gay reference to current footnote #42 in "Early followers" subsection. FelixRosch (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove a long established sourced text from the Lead without consensus in contravention of WP guidelines.I have explained clearly my objections to changing the reference to Freud's professorship in the Lead which, in summary form, is consistent with the main text and the cited source Gay pp. 136ff. Almanacer (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, and WP:Lede requires the Lede to be consistent with the main body of the article. You have added a reference which directly contradicts what Prof Peter Gay states in his book, which is BLP violation since Prof Peter Gay is a living author. You appear to be deliberately misquoting his book through your odd "summary form" for your own point of view of wanting Freud to be a regular professor which Freud never was. Also, this is not "long established" as you state since you have only yesterday added your citation misquoting Prof Peter Gay who knows full well that Freud was only an a.o., and that Freud was principally supporting himself through his private practice and not any regular professor's position. You appear to be deliberately distorting the fact that Freud never became a regular professor. If you read the book of Prof Peter Gay from end to end you would know this, and you would know that the fact that Freud did not become a regular professor is a significant theme for his book on Freud. Why are you deliberately distorting this and causing a BLP issue. Your deliberate distortion of what a living author says in his book is against Wikipedia policy and you should stop. Make a constructive comment or present an alternative to your present misleading claim of a "summary form". Your misquotation of Prof Peter Gay only makes it worse. If you have read the book from end to end, you must know that Freud never became a regular professor. FelixRosch (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying to follow this - why not just use the German title in the lead then, as it is the most accurate description of what it was rather than "professor" or "honorary professor", which each of you point out has problems? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no reference in the Gay passage I cited to Freud, in 1902, seeking any other title than the one he was eventually, after much delay, awarded and by which time he already had a flourishing private practice. We are obviously reading Gay differently so Felix needs to cite specific passages (as I have done above). Gay says the title was prestigious and opened doors, Felix says I am distorting Gay and it was of low-importance.

His unsubstantiated claims of “deliberate distortion” are serious, contrary to WP guidelines and should be withdrawn. I have no interest in representing Freud’s professorship as anything other than what Gay say it is – a prestigious title without salary or teaching commitments (which is what “honorific” means) which “opened doors”, improved Freud’s financial prospects and enhanced his intellectual profile.

Thanks to Casliber for suggesting a way forward but the Lead text should be as accessible as possible and including the German title in it makes it less so. The fact that Felix confuses “honorific” with “honorary” (cf Jimmy Saville’s Hon Doctorate of Law) suggests to me it would not be a helpful addition to the Lead, though obviously it needs to be part of the main text which could be usefully expanded to provide further context. Almanacer (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This continues to be a BLP isssue since Prof Peter Gay, a living author, never states that Freud became a regular professor. You have generrously been given an opportunity to discuss this BLP issue on the Talk page by User:Casliber and are ignoring this offer by re-posting your erroneous claim about Freud becoming a regular professor and erroneously attributing it to a living author. Prof Peter Gay never, never claimed that Freud was a regular professor. Resolve your issue on Talk prior to re-posting your edit. You have been given a generous offer for Talk discussion by Casliber and then you ignore it by re-posting your own erroneous attribution to Prof Peter Gay for your own personal reasons. Prof Peter Gay never claims or states that Freud became a regular professor. Please note that if you continue multiple reverts to text which has been flagged for BLP for your own personal reasons that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy for multiple reverts. Take the invitation of User:Casliber and resolve this on Talk prior to re-posting an issue that has clearly been identified as a BLP issue concerning a living author. This message is re-posted on your Talk page for notification. FelixRosch (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Almanacer - all I can add is that accuracy trumps accessibility, so I'd think that if neither English word can be used without confusion then the German must be used....but this isn't my area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Best we look at the sources over personal opinions for this. So what do the translators say about this? Sigmund Freud; Translated by J.A. Underwood; John Forrester (2006). Interpreting Dreams (CLICK HERE TO SEE SOURCE). Penguin Books Limited. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-14-191553-1. Affiliated Professor' seems to me to be the best translation of professor extraordinarius, which position has the rank of full Professor, but without payment by the University. A professor extraordinarius is not an employee of the University, but is ... appointed professor extraordinarius would not alter his position – there were no duties attached to the position - but would be a mark of recognition and prestige,... -- Moxy (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Forrester's account as helpfully provided by Moxy above corresponds with the Gay citation I have added to the Lead and confirms that FelixR's view of Freud's professorship as of "low importance" is a misreading of Gay.  It would be useful to incorporate it into the main text. FelixR needs to acquaint himself with the basics of propositional logic (regarding the meaning of contradiction and inconsistency) and accommodate the notion that the set of all professorships is inclusive of the subsets of (what he calls) regular, emeritus, honorific, affiliate, associate posts.  None of these terms needs, in my view, to be added to the lead as long as specifics are referenced in the main text. I have never claimed Gay attributed "regular" to Freud's post - which he doesn't - and he has provided no evidence support his accusation.  His claim that I am misrepresenting the nature of Freud's post has no substance and the referencing of BLP issues is absurd. His persistent reverting of the statement in the Lead about the 1902 award as appropriately sourced to Gay - contavenes WP guidelines. Almanacer (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article locked

Right - I've locked this - can folks please set up a RfC on this, like now? I'd do this but it is late here and I am goin to sleep. I strongly recommend getting some broader input so we can make a binding decision. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


@User:Almancer: Agreement with User:Casliber that consensus on Talk page is important. You appear to be intentionally ignoring the generous offer from User:Casliber to offer useful material for Talk page discussion of this edit. The Page is now locked which occurred in the process of my writing this response. You appear to have no knowledge of the difference between an ordinary professor in Europe and an a.o. professor, and you insist on what appears to be intentional misrepresentation of what a living author Prof Peter Gay at Yale University states explicitly in his book on Freud (not Professor ordinarius (ordentlicher Professor, o. Prof., Univ. Prof.): professor with chair). You may include the complete quotation of the Prof Peter Gay material here on this Talk page so that everyone can look at it and evaluate it. You are causing a BLP issue and are involved in multiple reverts against 3 editors who have tried to engage with you on the Talk page. Establish consensus here against 3 editors, Casliber, Martinevans and this editor, and establish consensus on the Talk page for the BLP issue as you have posted it. FelixRosch (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


(Repost of request for comments from blp noticeboard)

Prof Peter Gay of Yale University, a living author, has written a well-received biography about Sigmund Freud which is referenced on the wikipage for Sigmund Freud, and which appears to be intentionally distorting the discussion which Prof Peter Gay makes of Freud never having become a regular Professor. The editor making the incorrect attribution in the Lede to Prof Peter Gay, a living author, has refused to present the full quotation from the book by Prof Peter Gay which he/she is referring to, since Prof Peter Gay never claims that Freud became a regular professor. Another editor, User:Casliber has generously suggested that the reference be changed to the Correct German version which refers to Freud as an a.o. in German, however this has been rejected by User:Almancer. The consensus of scholarly research on Freud since the early biography by Ernst Jones, to the biography on Freud by Anthony Storr of Oxford University, up to the biography by Prof Peter Gay have accepted that Freud never became a regular professor, but only an a.o.: Freud's own preferred self-reference was consistently as "Dr Sigmund Freud". Since Prof Peter Gay is a living author, the misrepresentation of his very clear position that Freud never became a regular professor represents a BLP violation, since the current Wikipage for Freud alleges Prof Peter Gay as representing a position which he does not endorse. The Freud Page is currently locked and the BLP issue should be remedied as quickly as possible. This report is not copying the misquotation here as instructed on this noticeboard instructions, and the wikilink to the Page and its associated Talk page is provided here: Sigmund Freud. FelixRosch (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems quite fair. He certainly qualified as a doctor of medicine in 1881. But note that Penelope Balough, in her 1971 book Freud, writes: "In September 1885 he was made Privatdozent - a term which had no counterpart in Anglo-Saxon medical establishments. For Freud it involved writing a thesis on the anatomy of the medulla, and of being examined orally by three professors. He also had to give a public lecture, and a formal clearance of his character with the police headquarters was required." I think the term might roughly translate as "outside lecturer" or possibly "unaffiliated lecturer". But whatever, this was of course when Freud was only 29, long before his 1902 honorary award of außerordentlicher Professor. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC) reposted by FelixRosch (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wall of text - So why dont we just add the qualifier "Affiliated" as per the source above over outright removal of the idea. He did get an upgrade in 1902 and it should be mentioned no?. -- Moxy (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. (Not sure why Balough gives Privatdozent as 1885 not 1886). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at some other sources, there’s a little more to it than in the Forrester account Moxy has provided. Clark’s biography (p. 424) records the award to Freud of a “full” professorship (presumably Prof Ordinarius) in 1920 (this is confirmed in Freud’s correspondence with Abraham, letter dd. 16/01/1920), a fact not mentioned in Gay (as far as I can find). This, like the 1902 award of Affiliate or Associate Prof (Clark’s term), was a titular post, but nonetheless one Freud valued as adding to his international prestige. Almanacer (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The important development for Freud was that he could call himself “Herr Professor” (most of his colleagues, even close ones, addressed him as such) and this was the case from the 1902 award onwards. So I suggest “and attained the title of Professor in 1902” as the most concise possible summary compatible with factual accuracy. Gay should be replaced in the citation by Clark (who provides more comprehensive information) and hopefully this will put an end to FelixR’s frankly bizarre BLP remonstrations (as well as his abusive ad hominems). More content needs be added to the main article on this topic. Almanacer (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could link to Professor Longbeard? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing "bizarre" about pointing out your alledging Prof Peter Gay stating something which he never stated. And you have just now admitted to everyone on this Talk page that you have misquoted Prof Peter Gay, a living author, with your statement: "...a fact not mentioned in Gay (as far as I can find)". This is your admission after claiming the opposite in your edit presently locked in the Lede. Since you are the one that misquoted Prof Peter Gay and misattributed his book, you appear now to be offering some kind of "back-peddling" correction to your erroneous attribution (with citation no less) to Prof Peter Gay for something which he never stated. Your information and claims have been, at the very least, defective, and they should be removed from the Freud page as quickly as possible. Freud was never a regular professor. Prof Peter Gay never said that he was. Even you have now admitted this.
@Martinevans123, I gave serious attention to looking up the exact date of the Privatdozent dates after you brought this up and I looked it up on the London Freud Museum archive. The date given there is 1885. Also, in the process of looking through the chronology on Freud given there which does mention the 1885 privatdozent, the 1902 issue is considered so minor that it is not even mentioned as being relevant to Freud's chronology as updated and maintained by the London Freud Museum. Perhaps the London Freud Museum should be treated as informing this discussion as well. This is the url: http://www.psychanalyse.com/freud/biography-sigmund-freud-early-years.php FelixRosch (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. Well, that's a very interesting development. If anything, I would have guessed it might be the exact opposite over at Maresfield Gardens! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The term “regular Professor” is entirely one of FelixR’s own making. I have never used it or attributed it to Gay’s book or any of Freud’s biographers all of whom agree Freud was made a professor (Professor Extraordinarius or Associate Professor) in 1902 and thus verify the statement in the Lead that Freud “became a Professor in 1902”. Clark (p. 424) and Jones also state Freud was made a Professor Ordinarious (full Professor) in 1919/20 – contrary to FelixR’s claim that he never received this title. See also my quotation from Gay p. 139 above on the importance of the 1902 title for Freud (confirmed further by the Forrester quote Moxy provided) to refute FelixR’s unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that it was “of very low importance”. Reference to it should therefore remain in the Lead as other editors have proposed. Almanacer (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record here are the page references on Freud’s professorship awards. The 1902 award of Prof Extraordinarious (usual translation Associate Professor): Gay pp. 136-8 (“on Feb 22, 1902 the Emperor signed the decree giving Freud the Title Professor Extraordinarious” p. 137 ), Clark pp. 208-210 , Jones Vol. 2, p. 12. For the award of Professor Ordinarious see Clark p. 424 (Clark gives 1920 as the date, Jones 1919).

These are more than adequate sources to verify the statement “[Freud] became a professor in 1902”. All these sources describe the award as of great significance to Freud who made strenuous efforts to overcome the political obstacles which for many years blocked it. FelixR’s efforts to represent it as “of very low importance” and his charges of inconsistency are based on misreadings of Gay (for which he provides no citations) and his confusion of honorific with honorary posts (such as the Hon Doctorate Freud was awarded at Clarke University in the USA in 1909).

Historically accurate and appropriately source information should not be removed from the lead unless informed and coherent arguments to do so have been presented and gain the agreement of other editors. This is not the case with FelixR’s contributions; he is demonstrably wrong about the “very low importance” of the 1902 professorship, about the equivalence of honorific and honorary (the basis of his inconsistency charge) and about Freud’s preferred form of address (which was Her Professor not Doctor, qv Jones, Vol 2, p. 8).

He provides no sources to verify any of these claims, fabricates the attribution of “regular Professor” which no one has ever made about Freud, was ignorant of the 1919 award of Professor Ordinarious and then twists and distorts the provison of this information into spurious grounds of back pedalling re the status 1902 award.

And BTW the approved procedure is to flag up controversial changes and seek consensus before making them rather than making them and edit warring when they are reversed. Almanacer (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Almancer has failed to provide, and continues to fail to provide the text from the Peter Gay book on Freud which he/she claims as verification that Freud became a regular professor in 1902, i.e., a Professor Ordinarius. The current version of the Lead section provides a false reference to Freud being such a professor in 1902 because the page is now locked and cannot be corrected in the normal manner. User:Allmancer has refused to provide this reference for over a month from the Freud book by Peter Gay because Prof. Gay never states or writes that Freud became an Ordinarius, but only an a.o. This false reference in the Lead section should be deleted as unverified and false. Since Prof. Peter Gay is a living author, stating that his book includes material which it does not include is also a WP:Copyvio issue requiring attention. FelixRosch (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that "stating that a book includes material which it does not" is a WP:COPYVIO issue. It's just wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As was mentioned above we should just add the qualifier ..so I was bold and added ``Affiliated`` as per Sigmund Freud; Translated by J.A. Underwood; John Forrester (2006). Interpreting Dreams (CLICK HERE TO SEE SOURCE). Penguin Books Limited. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-14-191553-1. Affiliated Professor' seems to me to be the best translation of professor extraordinarius, which position has the rank of full Professor, but without payment by the University. A professor extraordinarius is not an employee of the University, but is ... appointed professor extraordinarius would not alter his position – there were no duties attached to the position - but would be a mark of recognition and prestige,.... All this is over one line of text. --Moxy (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An excellent source and explanation. I don't see how one could do better than this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail for the Lead in my view and exactly the same affiliated status applies to the lectureship too - but if it helps to draw a line, thanks to Moxy, and lets go with his/her revision. Almanacer (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes to infobox

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For most of the history of the Freud article there was a reasonably uselful list in the infobox of influence/influenced. These lists were reduced to an arbitrary minimal content by User:FelixRosch|FelixRosch. This was done without any coherent rationale being provided or discussion on the Talk Page. I have now restored in a slightly amended form the previous listings. Almanacer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminism

Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments3 people in discussion

It is quite ridiculous to follow a reference to debates over the therapeutic efficacy and scientific status of psychoanalysis with a reference to debates over whether psychoanalysis "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause." It's perfectly obvious that debates over the merits of psychoanalysis as therapy or as science are more relevant to Freud's legacy than debates over its relevance to feminism, which is, in contrast, a secondary issue. In fact I don't think that anyone, even among those sympathetic to psychoanalysis, seriously claims that Freud genuinely advanced the cause of feminism, so the material that appears in the lead misrepresents the issue. Flyer22 was wrong to revert me. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits that ImprovingWiki are talking about are here and here. The lead should summarize the article, per WP:Lead. Per WP:Lead, significant matters of debate should also be in the lead. Given the impact that Freud's theories had on female sexuality and on feminism (topics of significant debate), as also shown by the article, yes, one or both of those aspects should be mentioned in the lead. I was not at all wrong to revert ImprovingWiki, considering that his edit removed feminism completely out of the lead and others might disagree with his removal for one or more reasons. Thus, I reverted him and directed him to this talk page. Whether or not the exact wording I reverted should be in the lead is a different matter, but feminism should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not the exact wording; the issue is basic factual accuracy. The lead suggests that there is a debate over whether Freud's theories advanced or impeded the feminist cause. As I said, I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing that Freud somehow advanced feminism as a political movement. I'm not convinced that what appears in the lead is even an accurate representation of the source material. As for summarizing the article, while the feminism section does indeed note that some feminist writers have taken an interest in psychoanalytic ideas, it doesn't say anything about feminists, or anyone else, claiming that Freud advanced feminism as a movement. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I stated, something about female sexuality and/or feminism, given what is presented in the article and in many WP:Reliable sources connecting Sigmund Freud and feminism, should be in the lead. Those sources clearly show that Freud's writings have had a significant impact on feminism. If no one else watching this talk page weighs in on the matter, the next step can be a WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead doesn't say that "Freud's writings have had a significant impact on feminism." Actually neither does the feminism section of the article. What it shows, rather, is that most feminists have regarded Freud in a hostile and negative way, and that a much smaller group has taken some interest in (drastically modified) psychoanalytic ideas. The material you restored to the lead (about a supposed debate over whether Freud's work "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause") is not an accurate representation of that. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
If the source supports what it claims, that is something to think about; I doubt that it's the only source making such a claim. There is more than one section on feminism in the article; there are two, and both sections indicate that Freud's views have significantly impacted feminism. Many feminists taking the time to discredit his work, or whatever, is a significant impact on that area of thinking. And I already stated, "Whether or not the exact wording I reverted should be in the lead is a different matter, but feminism should be mentioned somewhere in the lead." I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not personal opinion, on editing matters such as these. You are arguing for something based on your personal belief; you are not showing that the source does not support the content, and you are not providing WP:Reliable sources to show that your stance is correct. Simply stating "[i]t is quite ridiculous" is not justification. I again suggest that you either wait for others to weigh in, or start a WP:RfC. You have not convinced, and will not convince, me that the line should be removed based on "[i]t is quite ridiculous." Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect that there are two sections on feminism. There is one section on feminism, and one section on "femininity and female sexuality." Perhaps you are confusing that with feminism? I can understand why. The "femininity and female sexuality" section contains a significant amount of material that does not belong there and should probably be moved elsewhere in the article, as it relates to debates after Freud's death. The first two paragraphs of that section - on Horney's criticism of Freud and Jacqueline Rose's criticism of Horney - certainly do not belong there. The rest of your comments just aren't to the point. What you need to do is to show that the article supports the statement that psychoanalysis has generated debate over whether it "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause". Obviously, the fact that feminists have criticized Freud doesn't at all suggest that there is debate over whether psychoanalysis "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause"; it shows that feminists typically have a negative view of Freud, and that's all. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, would you support a mention of the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights in the lead? Why would that be any less worthy of mention than its effects on feminism? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite having looked at this article more than once, my brain, during my debate with you, read "femininity" as "feminism" regarding the Femininity and female sexuality section. I stand corrected; there is only one section on feminism in the article, though the Femininity and female sexuality section has feminism aspects. I don't agree that any of the material in the Femininity and female sexuality section does not belong in that section based on the reasoning that it's a subsection of the Ideas section and partly includes material that happened after Freud's death. There is no reason that an Ideas section regarding Freud cannot include "debates after Freud's death." As for my having to do something in this discussion, I don't. You are the one challenging the sourced material, suggesting that the source may not support the content, without providing any proof that it does not. And as for "support[ing] a mention of the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights in the lead," I would if it was WP:Lead material, and was focused on Freud's work rather than on psychoanalysis in general. I am involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and work on Wikipedia LGBT topics, after all, as also noted on my user page. But nothing in the article suggests that the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights is WP:Lead material for the Sigmund Freud article. By contrast, much (not most or all, of course) criticism of Freud concerns female sexuality, and Freud's work by extension concerns feminism; like the Feminism section states, "The decline in Freud's reputation has been attributed partly to the revival of feminism." And either way, what makes psychoanalysis's effects on gay people and gay rights "any less worthy of mention than its effects on feminism" is determined by its level of coverage in WP:Reliable sources. So if you are trying to suggest some sort of bias on my part, you are looking in the wrong place. I have already noted what WP:Lead is about.
Also, what you keep objecting to is the idea that psychoanalysis or Freud advanced the feminist cause; you don't seem to be disputing the argument that he was detrimental to the feminist cause. Perhaps because you are aware that many sources state that his views were detrimental to women's health and rights? It seems to me that you might also be interpreting the "advances the feminist cause" aspect differently than the source does. The source perhaps means that, like I've been indicating above, Freud's beliefs created many argument points for feminists and discourse specific to those matters. Whatever the case, I've already pretty much noted that I don't mind if the specific line you object to is removed from the lead. What I am asking for is a solid argument for you to remove it, and I am stating that something about Freud's impact on female sexuality and/or feminism should be in the lead. If you can come up with a good replacement sentence, I would be okay with that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You may have noticed that the article includes a "legacy" section. Obviously material about debates after Freud's death belongs in a section on his legacy: debates about the merits of someone's ideas are part of their legacy. There is no logic to having the material on Horney and Rose in its current location. As for your other points, I'll consider them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We disagree on what an Ideas sections should cover, at least regarding this article, but I am glad to see that we seem to be coming closer to a resolution concerning our dispute. If you can't prove the disputed line is inappropriate with a WP:Reliable source, then I am fine with you removing it, since no one else has objected to its removal. But again, I would like to see something in the lead about female sexuality and/or feminism. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your position is not reasonable. As currently written, the section on femininity gives Horney's criticism of Freud, and Jacqueline Rose's criticism of Horney, even before saying what Freud's ideas actually were. Isn't it obvious that that's inappropriate? ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What a childish response. Of course a section on Freud's ideas about femininity should begin by saying what they actually were; Horney's and Rose's views are in large part responses to Freud, and aren't fully comprehensible without knowledge of his views. Can you actually give a rational explanation of why a section on Freud's ideas about femininity should instead begin with Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose? Or are single-word responses (eg, "No") the only ones you're capable of? They do come across as foot-stomping, you know. Remember that I'm not the only editor you may need to persuade; I think other editors interested in this article might also expect a more adult and articulate response. I could take this to third opinion, and I don't think your response above will do you any favors with anyone reviewing this discussion. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"No" is not a childish response just because you don't like it. I don't have to respond in a way you personally find suitable. I disagree with you, and that's all to it. As is if "No" is worse than your "It is quite ridiculous" arguments, where you've argued that text must be removed because you find the argument silly and disagree with what the source likely states. Your response (your 09:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) post) is childish and out of hand. I'm beginning to think you are not at all familiar with the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia, such as your disregard for what should be in a WP:Lead. But you should thoroughly read and study WP:Talk and WP:Civil. We settled one matter, pretty much anyway, and now you are harping on another matter. People will disagree with you on Wikipedia. You are not always right. Accept it. With several years of experience editing this site, improving a wide variety of articles in many ways, I don't need you lecturing me on a Wikipedia matter and imposing your view on me as to what makes a good article. I already brought up WP:Dispute resolution (in the form of a WP:RfC) earlier on in this discussion. You want to take any of these minor matters there? You are more than free to do so. As if your "I could take this to third opinion" and "and I don't think your response above will do you any favors with anyone reviewing this discussion" words are supposed to be some kind of threat or intimidation. Does not intimidate or scare me in the least. I'm not very invested in these matters. You are, as is clear by your temperamental responses. Keep your unpleasantries to yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You're quite right about one thing: "No" is indeed not a childish response because I don't agree with it. Rather, it is childish because it doesn't give any reason for your position. I gave reasons for thinking that describing the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose before those of Freud, in a section ostensibly about explaining Freud's views, is inappropriate; you gave and seem unable to give any reason to think that it is appropriate. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project where people give reasons for their views. It demands a kind of maturity that you aren't showing in your comments above. Of course you don't "have to" give a reason for your position; it's simply a good idea. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The "whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" wording was added in 14 October 2012 and it appears to have been in the lead since then (nearly two years). This is a well-watched article so it should be assumed that there is a consensus supporting the current text—it's unlikely that anything obviously inappropriate would last that long. I suggest waiting to give time for others to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Slow down" is pretty patronizing advice, considering that the only editing on this issue that has taken place so far was a single edit by me and a single revert by Flyer22. Do you have any comment on any of the various other issues that have been discussed? That would be more helpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, my use of "no" was still not a childish response. And again, stop trying to lecture me on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I don't need to be told that it "is supposed to be a collaborative project"; my user page shows that I've collaborated on many things. The above discussion shows that I tried to collaborate with you on the first thing you objected to in this section. Do people have to give reasons for their views on Wikipedia? No. But in this case, my reason is simple: I disagree with you that "describing the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose before those of Freud" in the Femininity and female sexuality section is a problem. There is nothing more to it than that. Sometimes reasons are very simple, even if you consider them childish in their simplicity. I don't see a problem with the matter; that's my reason for your objection to the material there. You do see a problem with it. It's as simple as that. You don't get to insult or lecture me about how you think my response should be deeper. If you had more experience interacting with editors on Wikipedia, you'd know that simple "I disagree; I think the text is fine as it because I don't see a problem with it." type of responses are common on this site, including matters handled at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). I've disagreed. My mind won't be changing on the matter, though I don't care if Freud's views are placed first or second. If you want to move Freud's views to first in that section, I have no objection. If you want to remove the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose from that section, I disagree. Now you either wait for others to respond, if the latter is what you seek, or you take the matter to WP:Dispute resolution. Johnuniq has already given his opinion on one of the matters discussed above -- the "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
For any position you take on content, you should be able to give a reason. I'm not impressed by statements of the "I think the text is fine the way it is" kind if they are unsupported by any argument, and I truly don't care whether that kind of response is common or not. It's foolish to give Horney's and Rose's views first in the "femininity and female sexuality" section, given that the section is supposed to be about Freud's views, not theirs. One can't even understand Horney or Rose properly unless one knows what Freud's views were, so of course they shouldn't go first. Your inability to make any response to that argument simply leaves me thinking that you can't make any. I stand by calling your response childish. Fundamentally, the Horney and Rose material doesn't belong in that section at all, and it doesn't belong there because it's material about debates over the merits of Freud's ideas. There are no good grounds for putting it in an expository section on Freud's ideas when there is an entire section of the article, Legacy, for material on all the criticisms and arguments over Freud's work. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I gave a reason (there was no "inability to make any response" on my part). I don't care what you are not impressed by. I'm not impressed by your continued insistence that I provide an answer that is suitable to you. Just like I am not impressed by your "Horney's and Rose's views don't belong there because I say so" arguments. Just like I am not impressed by your arguing over nothing, except for me to state that you are right (for example, arguing that Horney's and Rose's views should not go first when I already stated that I don't care if you place them second; you will not get me to agree that they should go second). Just like I am not impressed by your WP:Personal attacks. Continue the WP:Harassment, and I will report you to an appropriate noticeboard, if I don't decide to ignore you. Be impressed by that, and move on to seek a third opinion as you were advised to do and stated that you would do. Again, one third opinion has already been put forth on one of the matters above. You are clearly a "Things must go my way; my arguments are superior to everyone else's" type of person, and that's the type of person that is not compatible with Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Now who's making personal attacks? There's an ongoing argument here, and you don't like the way I've argued, apparently. In that case, just why would you feel compelled to continue the argument, instead of finding something else to do? I think a fair-minded person, reviewing everything above, would conclude that it's you, not me, who has taken the "because I say so" position. As I said, the main reason Horney and Rose's views should be removed from the section on "Femininity and female sexuality" is that the section is about Freud's views, not theirs. Readers interested in learning what Freud's views were can reasonably be expected to want a section on Freud's ideas in an article about Freud to actually describe Freud's views, not those of Horney, Rose or anyone else. Nothing you've said is a rational response to that point. I don't think my arguments are necessarily superior to everyone else's, but I do think that they are superior to yours. Just deal with it, instead of making silly accusations of harassment. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Read the WP:Personal attacks policy. There's apparently a lot of Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines that you need to read. I made no WP:Personal attack on you. But you have made more than one on me, and you have engaged in WP:Harassment. You also responded very predictably by stating, "I don't think my arguments are necessarily superior to everyone else's, but I do think that they are superior to yours." And now you are telling me to "[j]ust deal with it," when you have been advised to do that by two editors above in this section so far -- the "[j]ust deal with it" part meaning to wait and see what others state or to take the matter to WP:Dispute resolution. You apparently cannot do that, and would rather continue engaging in your ridiculous need to belittle. Time to ignore you now, and to only interact with you when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and, since it's not clear to you, stating/asking "There's an ongoing argument here, and you don't like the way I've argued, apparently. In that case, just why would you feel compelled to continue the argument, instead of finding something else to do?" goes both ways. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the harassment policy; it forbids wikihounding and various other behaviors, none of which a reasonable person would find me guilty of. Pardon me for suggesting that the problem here is largely that you are behaving in a hyper-sensitive way and can't cope with disagreement. As for dispute resolution, I actually asked for a third opinion some time ago; you apparently didn't notice. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
More WP:Personal attacks (including implications that I'm not reasonable) and more silliness on your part, including blatant hypocrisy (hyper-sensitive/can't cope with disagreement, for example). WP:Harassment certainly does include what you have engaged in at this talk page -- steadily pressing an editor to answer the way that you want and continually stating or implying that they are childish, inferior, incapable of reason, etc. when they don't answer the way that you want. As for you asking for a third opinion, why would I know that you have unless I follow your contributions, like I just did here? That page is not on my WP:Watchlist; nor should it be. And I see in that request, you primarily focused on whether or not "Horney's and Rose's views" should come first in the Femininity and female sexuality section. What a minor thing to focus on out of the matters above, and completely moot since I stated that I don't care if those views are placed first or second. Oh, but course, you want someone to agree with you that not only should those views come second, but that they shouldn't be in that section at all, and will see it as a victory if one person agrees with you on either of those topics. So no wonder you focused on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And newsflash: Many editors watch this talk page. Yet none of them, except Johnuniq if he now watches this talk page, have weighed in on these disputes. Not even when this section was relatively bearable, without all of the drama. In other words, they don't care about what you are objecting to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm still here, but as you suggest, no one is likely to want to get involved in yet another long winded dispute. I'm afraid all I can offer is more patronizing advice—everyone should take at least a 48-hour break from this article because the back-and-forth is not helping. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Harassment, as normally understood on Wikipedia or off it, refers to repeatedly making unwelcome contacts with a person. Flyer22's decision to participate in an argument with me (which I see she is still doing even after saying that she would ignore me - decidedly not reasonable behavior) is not equivalent to me harassing her. You may note that the harassment page states that, '...there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user.' Flyer22's peculiar post above seems to imply that I'm interested simply in scoring some kind of victory, which is incorrect; I focused on the issue of the Horney and Rose material because that happens to be what I'm mainly concerned with. I could have been clearer in my 3O request that the issue is partly whether it should be in that section at all. It's quite possible, as Flyer22 suggests, that no one besides me really cares about that point, but that in itself of course doesn't alter my views. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:Harassment is faulty. Perhaps if you were more experienced with editing Wikipedia, such as consistently seeing the matters that go on at WP:ANI, you'd know how to fully interpret that policy...correctly. Continuing to reply to you does not mean that I welcome a thing from you; if such logic were a part of WP:Harassment, then harassers I've kept replying to at my talk page who were warned and/or blocked for continuing to interact with me there would not have been warned and/or blocked for WP:Harassment. With my words above, I clearly did not welcome your insults and repeatedly indicated that you should stop making them. You did not, and still persist with an insult in your latest post (your "decidedly not reasonable behavior" wording). I stated, "Time to ignore you now." If I had stated, "I'm ignoring you now," that would be a different matter. But either way, I was not going to let your follow-up jabs go without a response. That stated, since I am quite capable of not taking the WP:Bait, and since Johnuniq is obviously tired of this back-and-forth mess, go ahead and keep blasting away with your need to insult and twist matters. See if I reply to you. If I reply again to you at this talk page, it will be because I've reverted you on a matter and am "obligated" to interact with you on the talk page or because I am responding to something involving the person or people offering a third opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Given what you recently said on your talk page (which I looked at only just recently), I'm not going to respond to that. I think you know very well which comments I mean. I'm sorry if I've offended or upset you; that truly wasn't my intention. I would have behaved differently had I known more about you. I can only suggest that the best thing you could do would be to stay away from articles on controversial subjects or even to take a break from editing altogether. Let other editors handle these issues. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

influenced: Alan Watts


listen to any of Alan Watts philosophical talks about the topic of "MONEY", watts refers to Freud on many occasions. google it/ youtube it

41.151.69.149 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names

Latest comment: 10 years ago51 comments12 people in discussion
NAC: The previous version of the article had 47 names as "Influences" and 21 names as "Influenced". The difference in numbers is not important. There is consensus that the number of names in the infobox can be reduced. The RFC did not propose specific names in the reduced infobox. Another editor, realized that there was consensus to reduce the number of names, trimmed down the infobox. Yet another editor, seeing that the RFC had not been closed to establish consensus, reverted the infobox. There has been edit warring. Stop edit warring. A shortened version of the infobox is the consensus version. Restoring the large infobox is editing against consensus. Take any further disputes to any of the other dispute resolution processes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor Goethean has indicated that forty-four (44) names of "Influences" and "Influenced" by Freud are all essential to the Infobox of the Freud page at Wikipedia. Other editors have indicated that this is excessive and not useful for the purposes of the Infobox. Editor ImprovingWiki has taken the position that five to seven names is sufficient. Those who wish to Support the short number of names written in the Infobox should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to maintain a list of 44 names should indicate "Oppose" concerning a shorter version.

For most of the history of the Freud article there was a reasonably uselful list in the infobox of influence/influenced. These lists were reduced to an arbitrary minimal content by User:FelixRosch|FelixRosch. This was done without any coherent rationale being provided or discussion on the Talk Page. I have now restored in a slightly amended form the previous listings. Almanacer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reposted the above as the same objection applies to the same arbitrary and undiscussed reduction of content in the infobox. The previous listing are in my view appropriate, helpful, usable and informative contrary to the claims of the editors who have removed them without presenting any arguments for the arbitrary minimal listing that remain.  They have an appropriate range of references for influenced: early followers, 2nd and 3rd generation psychoanalysts from Europe and America, ditto scholars in the humanities and feminists.   For influences list - see the index of any major Freud biography. The listings are comparable in length to that of other major figures in the humanities  eg Marx, Derrida, Heidegger, Adorno. They have been an established part of the Freud article for many years and are a useful set of links for those seeking to explore Freud's background and legacy further. Almanacer (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support for ImrovingWiki. Too many names in the Infobox is not needed. FelixRosch (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
FelixRosch: You are edit warring. You need to stop. — goethean 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful. I don't believe it is. The longer the list is, the less useful and the more confusing it must surely become. Many of the names on the list are only minor figures. The list Almanacer supports could be made even longer, but to no good purpose; a shorter list is better than one so long that the eye skims over it. Also, note that although Goethean warned FelixRosch about edit warring, Almanacer is actually more guilty of this, since he has reverted multiple editors who disagree with him. Almanacer should not have made this edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No edit warring is intended here. @Goethean appears to have accepted the form of the Infobox as it was by adding two names of his own to the list which was accepted in good faith. Possible clarify. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Goethean for his clarification. In the absence of any response to the above post I made in defence of the set of listings of influences/influenced, which has been part of the article for many years and was removed by FR here, the argument by repetition of "too long" or "too many" takes us no further forward and are purely subjective opinions which continue to be made whilst ignoring my referencing of other comparable WP articles.

If ImpWiki thinks "No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful" then he hasn't read what I wrote carefully enough. If people choose to skim the list they are free to do so; but they also have the option, which he and FelixR are trying to remove, of paying it more detailed attention and following the relevant links. Almanacer (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My name is ImprovingWiki, not "ImpWiki". Maybe you did consider whether having a long list of names in the infobox is helpful, but your comments didn't suggest that you considered it very carefully. The longer the list is, the less likely it is that anyone will read it at all. There has to be a limit somewhere to the number of names included, and I think the limit should be a strict one. For the list of people influenced by Freud, 47 names is just too many. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"The longer the list is, the more likely it is that a reader will see a name they recognise"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if that were true, why should it matter? Being useful and informative is not the same thing as containing something that readers already recognize. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Most people find that "more information ... is more informative"? The issue here seems to be partly one of layout size constraints? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You're again ignoring the fact that "more information" can only become confusing past a certain point. I don't think adjusting layout can solve that problem by itself. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Less of a fact, more of a hypothesis. And one which depends on the readership, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Too many names in the infobox: At first I hardly noticed it, but after thinking about it, I think it is problematic to have so many names. It would be more useful for the readers to have a section under the Legacy heading such as "Influence" and then list each of the people currently in the info box with a little bit of information about each of them. I might be willing to work on that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support some reduction in number of names, simply because at various resolutions and window sizes including the native one's on both my machines as well as a partners tablet it leaves a hell of a lot of white space prior to the article. Collapsible lists may resolve this but the question we need to ask is what does a reader gain by that list being their rather than a more detailed section within the article? SPACKlick (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a short list. Remember, this is the infobox and, as such, the information in it should be "a quick and convenient summary" of the article's contents. Go ahead and knock yourselves out :-) in the main body of the text! Include an exhaustive list, if you feel you must! But the blessed little infobox should not be weighed down by some misguided tendency for completism. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Completism is not the issue rather it getting a representative sample across the range of historical and contemporary figures (see my post above of 8 September). There is no conceivable reason why the listings should be fewer than those of Jung (32) or Derrida (43) or Lacan (23). These and other similar articles provide the objective criteria that should be applied in these deliberations - as opposed to the endless parroting of "too many", "too long" and the arbitrary declaration that seven is the appropriate number of listings by self-appointed arbiters of "strict limits" such as ImprovingWiki. Almanacer (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I never said anywhere that 7 is the appropriate number. Rather, all I said was that there has to be a limit somewhere. Almanacer, in contrast, seems perfectly comfortable with a bloated list that could be expanded indefinitely. Regarding other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The real issue has to do with continuous maintenance of the infobox. It is not Almanacer or myself who added 47 names to the infobox. It is various editors who may be interested in Freud's relationship with Brentano, or with Dostoevsky, or Fliess, and would like to highlight that relationship in the infobox. One potential criteria for inclusion in the infobox is that the figure is mentioned and reliably sourced in the article as an influence on or as having been influenced by Freud. Enforcing this criteria will take quite a bit of effort/commitment from editors who watch this page (I've been through this at the Nietzsche article already (currently at 37 influences and 110 influencees).) But to create an additional criteria, such as being a "primary influence" on Freud is hopelessly subjective and unsourcable and may result in prolonged debate or edit war with people interested in this or that of Freud's influences or influencees. — goethean 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The process goethean has described above has gone on at least since 2011 since when there have always been over 30 listings. Apart from the arguments I have already made, it’s disrespectful of the editors who have contributed to these listings to have them removed wholesale as they were here by FelixRosch without any reference to this Page and the requirement to be sure there is consensus. If ImprovingWiki is saying that the opinion attributed to him by FelixRosch in initiating this RfC “that five to seven names is sufficient” is a misrepresentation then he would have done us all favour by pointing it out somewhat earlier. Perhaps, in the absence of any consensus, he will now stop editing the article with that end in mind. It’s a pity he hasn’t evidently learnt anything from the exchange with Flyer22 (in the Feminism thread above) about conducting a dialogue without aiming cheap slurs, sidewipes and abusive ad hominems at other editors. Almanacer (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Almanacer might have noticed that I stopped doing reverts at this article some time ago. So his comment that "perhaps" I will stop making reverts without consensus is uncalled for. It is a pity that Almanacer would gratuitously drag in a totally unrelated discussion with another editor. For the record, however, I found and still find Flyer22's position about the feminism material in this article to be unreasonable. I apologized for the aggresssive tone of my comments and ended discussion with her because I found posts on her talk page in which she acknowledged having mental health problems, up to and including suicidal thoughts. {REDACTED} ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My comments were no more or less off topic than Almanacer's, or indeed yours. In the interests of good taste, I didn't mention any of this information before, but I do mention it now to explain my conduct. I have revealed absolutely nothing that Flyer22 has not already revealed openly on her talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if I have strayed off topic. But I really don't think "Flyer22's position about the feminism material in this article" is relevant here. Thanks for partially redacting. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Choor monster's suggestion to have the influences/influenced parameters be completely removed, it is an impossible task to identify and continuously name individuals influenced by Freud. Theoretically the list could go on indefinitely and to attempt to limit would be subject to subjective interpretations becoming an invalid list. Fraulein451 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The issue of the utility of the historical listing of influences/influenced per se should be addressed elsewhere - see WP:INFOBOX. The argument being made here is that to have them in the Freud article, where they have been over a period of years, is consistent with other articles on other influential intellectual figures.  The size of the listings is, as other editors have shown, is not exceptional by these standards. The listings are the product of a proceess of collaborative (ie non-subjective) editing over a period of years and the result is a representative range of "influencees"; the "influences" are derived from the major Freud biographies as reference to their indexes will confirm (and there is no reason this list should expand significantly). I have suggested links be made to appropriate Category pages ( List of Psychoanalysts, List of psychoanalytical theorists) in the Infobox to obviate the need for any further significant expansion of the "influencees" listings and am awaiting a response from editors who are opposed to this option. (see below). Almanacer (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BRD discussion of further Infobox additions

Split from talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names

I’ve added the following to the Info Box : List of Psychoanalysts, List of psychoanalytical theorists (there is a Category:Freudian which adds nothing notable to these and probably should be merged with them). This should obviate the need for further significant expansion of the existing influences list though in my view should not preclude additions eg from the humanities and names not on the Lists provided. Almanacer (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently an open RfC regarding the Infobox and edits to the Infobox should await the completion of the RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no WP guideline precluding the adding of valid content during a RfC. Moreover, the editors you cite in the initiation of the RfC both claim you have misrepresented their views, making it of questionable validity. Almanacer (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Undid revision 625783962. Your bold edit is reverted under BRD guidelines and policy. Please discuss it on Talk page following BRD guidelines and policy prior to further edits. FelixRosch (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Almanacer I've re-removed your edit. It doesn't improve things. I think possibly it could be a logical addition if the giant list of names is removed but until then it's better as a see other or just in the text. SPACKlick (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
àê
Almanacer I sectioned your comment off from the RFC per Talk Page Guidelines bullet point Sectioning, as it's different to the topic of the RFC. Now would you care to justify the inclusion of those items to the infobox?SPACKlick (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The revision history of this page shows Almanacer edit warring against multiple other editors. That's clearly unacceptable, and I call on Almanacer to stop such behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I call upon Improving Wiki to stop fabricating complaints  of edit warring to cover up the paucity and incoherence of his arguments as exposed by other editors on this page. Perhaps he could decide what he wants to propose. What we don't need is his  arrogant posturing about imposing strict limits, a suggestion inimical to the whole WP project. SPACKick  needs to look at what I wrote above again where he will find the rationale for including the Category Page links; edit warring over including links to other category pages is a new low for this talk page. Almanacer (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm not misreading you, your reasoning for inclusion is that category:Freudian exists and doesn't add to these two lists? If that's your reasoning I'm not yet convinced. SPACKlick (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What is your problem with linking a list entitled  List of psychoanalytical theorists   to  the Freud page infobox? Or the other equally valid link Category of psychoanalysts. What links could be more relavant ?  But if you want an additional reason to include tham, as I have pointed out, doing so will at least partially address the issue of further expansion of the existing listings as names can be found on or added to these lists. I don't accept your view that I am introducing a different topic or that it is a WP:BOLD edit issue. Almanacer (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 
Almanacer, anyone can see, simply from looking at the revision history of this page, that you were edit warring against multiple other editors, FelixRosch and SPACKlick. So I'm "fabricating" nothing, and it's frankly ridiculous to suggest I was; the evidence to the contrary is there in plain sight. "Arrogant" would better describe your comments and behavior than mine. Remember, please, that you can be blocked for the kind of behavior you have indulged in. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I obviously need to repeat my earlier suggestion that you go back to review your exchange of a few weeks ago with Flyer22 in the Feminism thread. It's a great pity that one of the few female contributors  on this page should have to state she "did not welcome your insults and repeatedly indicated that you should stop making them. You did not, and still persist " and that "to insult and lecture" as you did amounts to harassment WP:HARASSMENT.  Her advice to you "you should thoroughly read and study WP:Talk and WP:Civil" is, notwithstanding your later apology, advice you should take.  Your latest abusive ad hominem/threats aimed at me demonstrates you still need it. And while you're at it check out WP:REMOVE and the need to gain consensus. Almanacer (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Almanacer, you do not need to do any such thing. That was an unrelated discussion, and has no relevance to what we are discussing. It is unfortunate that you would take a simple factual observation - that you were edit warring - as abusive or threatening. Maybe you should take time out from Wikipedia. Is it causing you stress? ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern but before I do finally fall apart under the pressure of your forensic examination of my alleged editorial misconduct it would be good to know (1) if you still maintain a listing of "five to  seven is sufficient" in the infobox, as was claimed on your behalf in the initiation of the RfC but which you have apparently denied was your view; (2) what objection you have to the links in the infobox I have proposed. Almanacer (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judaism and sexuality

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

The category "Judaism and sexuality" is irrelevant to this article, as I explained when I removed it. Almanacer should not have restored it as he did here, and I do not accept his rationale. It is not enough to point to a couple of articles about Freud's Jewish identity, and declare that they somehow show that "Judaism and sexuality" is an appropriate category. Freud himself, as Almanacer probably knows, was emphatic that his Jewish identity was not based at all on belief in Judaism - as such, it's foolish to try to imply that Freud's Jewishness makes a "Judaism" category proper. The category should be removed, given the absence of anything in the text of the article that connects Freud's ideas on sexuality to Judaism. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Do you think it's possible that Freud's Jewish background influenced his work despite his own (later) beliefs? Or do you think that work by later interpreters is a valid basis for categories about a subject? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My point is simply that it is inappropriate to add a category such as "Judaism and sexuality" to this article in the absence of anything in the text suggesting that Freud's ideas about sexuality had anything to do with Judaism. It's wrong to add the category simply because Freud was a Jew or because his Jewish identity (not the same thing as belief in the Jewish religion) was important to him. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you make of those two sources which were cited as the justification for this addition? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing, since I have not read them. Actually they are irrelevant: it is only the content of the article itself that can justify a particular category. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In tend to agree (although I suggest that you should still read them). It looked to me a bit like a simple summation going on here: FREUD: JUDAISM (heritage) + SEX (psychoanalytic theories), therefore = "Judaism and sexuality" must be an appropriate Category. I await to be convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's quite ludicrous. Including a category such as "Judaism and sexuality" implies that Freud's ideas about sexuality are somehow connected to Judaism; the "simple" summation unfortunately looks like a fake attempt to prove that in the absence of real evidence. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The objection you raised in the first place - Freud was an athiest - is the irrelevancy, not the proposed link as you claim, since the article refers to his secular Jewish identity as having a "substantial effect on the content of psychoanalytic ideas." That content obviously includes sexuality as the cited sources demonstrate - see in particular the discussion of Moses and Monotheism in the Robert. Not BTW "a couple of articles" but a substantial book and an article - please pay more attention to the text of the article before intervening editorially and on this page with offensive remarks about "fake attempts" and make some effort, as advised above, to consult the cited sources before pronouncing on their relevance of lack of it.Almanacer (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Almanacer, the fact that Freud was an atheist and made it completely clear that he did not accept the Jewish religion is not irrelevant. A "Judaism" category implies that Freud's ideas are related specifically to Judaism - not to secular Jewish identity. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Judaism is widely understood, including by Freud as the cited sources make clear, to refer the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people, and thus to be inclusive of but not co-extensive with its religious practices. Almanacer (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
When you say "demonstrable relevance in the article - see Notes 30 & 31", are you referring to Robert, Marthe (1976) From Oedipus to Moses: Freud’s Jewish Identity, New York: Anchor pp. 3-6, and to Frosh, Stephen. (2004) "Freud, Psychoanalysis and Anti-Semitism," in The Psychoanalytic Review, 91, p. 309? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Judaism is a religion, just as Christianity and Islam are religions. The category is inappropriate and should be removed. Almanacer might have a stronger point if there were any material in the article itself indicating that Freud equated Judaism with "the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people", but there is none. I note that the Wikipedia article defines Judaism as, "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people", which is significantly different from "the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people", a very vague and somewhat unfortunate definition. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Whilst it is no big deal whether it stays or goes I fail to see the problem with the link since Freud wrote extensively on Judiasm and these writings were like everything else he wrote informed by his theory of sexuality. Yes they are the cited sources I was referring to - but see also the Religion section of the article for a specific reference to Freud's argument about circumcision which in itself, it seems to me, provides validity for the link. What exactly are your objections? Almanacer (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The justification for your addition seems to be four pages from a 1976 book by a non-notable author, and a single page from a specialist journal? While the category might possibly be relevant to those five pages, I think it's stretching it a bit to say it is therefore relevant to a characterisation of the life of Freud as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. Circumcision has no "sexuality" categories?
Just for the record the Judaism/sexuality link wasn't my addition. When ImprovingWiki removed it on the spurious grounds that Freud's atheism rendered it irrelevant I restored it. I have pointed out two parts of the article which demonstrate its relevance, explicitly so in the sentence in the Religion section which connects Judaism (ritual circumcision) and sexuality (castration complex) in Freud's work viz: "Freud theorized that the universal fear of castration was provoked in the uncircumcised ...". I don't see the point of your reference to the WP article on circumcision. And why should a category link have to be "relevant to a characterisation of the life of Freud as a whole" rather than a specific feature of his work? Almanacer (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, your "re-addition". I was suggesting that circumcision, as far as Wikipedia sees it, is not a central part of "sexuality". I should amend "the life of Freud as a whole" to "a notable feature of Freud's work". The sentence quoted in the Religion section was a footnote (literally) in his 1909 Little Hans analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record the full footnote is as follows:"I cannot interrupt the discussion so far as to demonstrate the typical character of the unconscious train of thought which I think there is here reason for attributing to Little Hans. The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-semitism; for even in the nursery little boys hear that a Jew has something cut off his penis—a piece of his penis, they think—and this gives them a right to despise Jews. And there is no stronger unconscious root for the sense of superiority over women. Weininger (the young philosopher who, highly gifted but sexually deranged, committed suicide after producing his remarkable book, Geschlecht und Charakter [1903]), in a chapter that attracted much attention, treated Jews and women with equal hostility and overwhelmed them with the same insults. Being a neurotic, Weininger was completely under the sway of his infantile complexes; and from that standpoint, what is common to Jews and women is their relation to the castration complex.
There is some interesting commentary in Speaking the Unspeakable by Diane Jonte-Pace (2001), pp 103-104 &ff:"This passage has generated a large body of analytic literature in recent years. (See, for example, Le Rider 1993, Gilman 1993, Boyarin 1994, 1997, Geller 1997, 1999.) There are major differences in the interpretations of these scholars, but several have emphasized the fact that Weininger and Little Hans were Jews, although they are not so identified in Freud's text. The Jewish identity of the figures who stand as illustrations of castration anxiety, misogyny, and anti-Semitism in this footnote, in other words, is obscured. Hans and Weininger both suffered from self-disgust or deep ambivalence about their Jewishness, an ambivalence which, these scholars argue, Freud shared, and which he endeavored to hide. Boyarin states, “by occluding the fact of Hans's Jewishness and by obscuring the role of his own here, Freud is hiding something” (1994: 37). Again we find that Jewishness and circumcision are not only heimlich, but also unheimlich. Boyarin finds in these remarks not only a theory of misogyny and anti-Semitism, but also an analysis of Jewish self-contempt: “We have in Freud's note on Little Hans not only an anatomy of misogyny and antisemitism — both read as products of the unconscious—but also of Jewish self-contempt, also read as a sort of inevitability” (Boyarin 1997: 237)." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you check the cited source Anti-semitism: A History and Psychoanalysis of Contemporary Hatred, Avner Falk Greenwood Press 2008 pp. 67-69 you will find in addition to reference to (p. 67) the footnote from the 1909 Little Hans case (which makes a specific point about anti-semitism) there is also a substantial quotation from Moses and Monotheism (SE21 p. 91) about "the Jewish practice of circumcision which aroused the fear of castration among non-Jews" (p. 69). Frosh as previously cited also references this section of the Moses book as illustrating how Freud links circumcision to "the power of castration, the mark of violence, the allure of sexuality" p. 14. If ImprovingWiki had checked out Frosh as the cited source instead of dismissing it as irrelevant he would have found that the article's reference to Freud's "allegiance to his secular Jewish identity" was supported by the following: "Freud’s investment of psychoanalysis with his Jewish consciousness had several sources, including a rather mystical sense of some hidden power drawing Freud towards identification with Jews and Judaism (despite his consistent and principled atheism)..." (p. 2). I don't see the "significant difference" alluded to in the definitions of Judaism cited by ImprovingWiki but individual editors opinions are not what matters in determining the validity of content - this depends on reliable and verifiable sources and I await the provision of better ones than those currently cited, all of which support the validity of the link. Almanacer (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

These are the opinions of one commentator? Ah yes, and Moses, the guy who wasn't even a Hebrew but an Egyptian nobleman, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting as it would be to discuss other authors on the topic (as you cite above) or the merits of Freud's arguments about Moses, as we are reminded at the top of the page "this is not a forum for general discussion." The relevant issue here is the three cited sources (one ?? - try starting from the top: Robert, Frosh, Falk) all in agreement on Freud, Judaism and sexuality and therefore supporting the validity of the link. I note you are not disputing this. Almanacer (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I had thought it wholly pertinent to the discussion in hand, about what Freud actually meant in the footnote - the one partly quoted by the soundbite in the article. Would you like me to remove it all? or perhaps strike it all through? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea to have chunks of Freud's texts on this page (we can all look them up), nor from commentaries, however pertinent, other than those referenced in the content of the article. We can all exchange our favourite commentaries/texts of Freud but this, as the terms of reference of the Talk Page indicate, is not the place to do so. By all means add to the article if you think the range of relevant opinion on a topic is not adequately represented. Meanwhile I'd be grateful for a response to my question: What exactly are you objecting to in the Judiasm/Sexuality category link? Almanacer (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How do new commentaries, which might be added to the article, get discussed? Why should this be "a favourite"? I added because I thought it was relevant to this discussion. The Category isn't relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Almanacer, for what I've read of him, Falk is not very precisely associating Freud with Judaism. He is indeed questioning Freud's position to it but does not come to a definite conclusion. He is stating himself as coming, together with Yerushalmi, Rice, Gilman, to the conclusion that Freud's feelings are ambivalent and confused regarding both Judaism and Zionism. Frosh takes as is subject "the complex quadrangular relationship between Sigmund Freud, anti-semitism, Judaism, and psychoanalysis". He is advancing "Psychoanalysis as a response to anti-semistism", a kind of logic that, together with its probable adequacy can also a possible inheritance of psychoanalysis itself. Then there is the shape of the movement ( family-like bonds in the beginning ) but that's not an argument regarding the content of the material. Thus, if not considering Robert, a category "Judaism" dependent on Frosh depends in fact on (Gilman's) the idea of "The Jew the embodiment of feminised masculinity", once usefull for the building of a theory of a sexuality. Could not find anything more decisive: any French student in Calais and many Russians, Morroccan, Phillipinos and so on had the same basic material at their disposal. No, Freud is the product of a teutonic culture. On that precise ground his theories were only distantly and reluctantly considered early in France (seek related articles or projects). --Askedonty (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC) By contrast 1938: XVe Congrès International de Psychanalyse, in Paris, notable very strong dissensions between Europeans and Americans, regarding pratice of non-doctors.

Welcome to the discussion. The issue being debated here is simply: is a link to the Category:Judaism and Sexuality valid in the Freud article? I don't find anything in your interesting comments to suggest that it isn't. Almanacer (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Associating "Judaism and sexuality" together with Freud is purely arbitrary, as you perfectly know. You can associate a toy with sexuality, or a type of dress, or an event. The same regarding a (once) living being, unless so explicitly specified by the concerned, will always raise questions. Except by the part of readership eager for that given categorization naturally. Associate psychoanalysis with Judaism and sexuality if you will. Few of us need it for a living anyway. --Askedonty (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm objecting to the very tenuous nature of the connection between the Category and Freud's work. If anything, there may be a slight connection between Judaism and sexuality through the medium of psychoanalytic theory but I don't think this is how Categories are meant to function. For me the evidence provided in the article is too meagre to support this Category. There seems to be little that Freud himself saw in his work as a whole to connect Judaism with sexuality. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't think adding or not the Judiasm/sexuality category is a big deal. And though I disagree that there is only "meager" relevant content in the article I think this thread has gone on long enough. My main concern was to defend a good-faith edit by a new editor against the spurious charge of irrelevance. Almanacer (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure the edit was made in perfectly good faith. I'm equally sure it's irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Per Wikipedia standards, notable controversies should be summarized in the lede and I have done so. I have also restored a paragraph of Freud criticism I wrote several years ago.

No doubt the previous attempt to include this content was removed for good reasons, eg  newspaper clippings and duplication (see Science section) of archaic 1915 commentaries  - even if they were cited properly - falling below acceptable standards for a modern encyclopaedia Almanacer (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
did you mean "pervious", Almancer? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
ooopsy..copathological Almanacer (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

@ImprovingWiki (talk | contribs)‎, @SPACKlick (talk | contribs)‎, @Martinevans123; User:Almancer appears to be edit warring against the consensus of multiple editors from the RfC. He has been asked to stop edit warring against the consensus of multiple editors from the RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you remind us of the RfC outcome? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is how it was posted all subject to refinement/revision by Admin from the Admin noticeboard. The RfC ended over 30 days ago, with no further comments in the last 30 days. Consensus edit of majority viewpoint pointed to Goethe version as the majority view. There was an exception of 1 or 2 holdouts against majority consensus. The majority consensus view was posted subject to refinement/revision by Admin posted on Admin notice board. FelixRosch (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And what did the closing Admin say exactly? A link might be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As previously observed the RfC was set up FelixRosch in a way which misrepresented the views concerning the list of Influencees by both editors he cited, as both have stated in the previous thread. No reference of any kind was made to the Influences listing. He has no basis, therefore, for replacing the long-established listings crowd-sourced by many editors over a period of years with his own unrepresentative and arbitrary minimal listing for which he continues to refuse to provide any rationale. Even if there was a clear consensus (a "majority consensus" is his own spurious concoction) which in my view is not the case he would still need to provide a rationale for his selection beyond banalities about "too many names not needed". Almanacer (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what the RfC concluded? Are you saying that you now need to open another RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

All I can say at the moment is that FelixRosch has invented a fantasy consensus based on the contribution of a fantasy editor called Goethe. It would be good if he answered your reasonable questions. Almanacer (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Have we reached 3RR yet? I guess someone may take this to an Admin page re edit warring if it carries on, regardless of whom is "right". Accusations of sockpuppetry should be dealt with elsewhere, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreement with @Martinevans123 and @ImprovingWiki. This is the third instance over the last three months of disruptive editing and edit warring by User:Allmanacer. The edit is restored by majority consensus. FelixRosch (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with @Martinevans123 on need for independent input, probably Dispute Resolution in due course in face of obdurate refusal to engage collaboratively in discussion or even answer straightforward questions. Instead we get a bizarre reference to a non-existent "Goethe version" providing the basis of the alleged consensus. Almanacer (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess some editors think this guy should appear in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The edit was by Goethean for adding Goethe, which shall likely daze User:Allmanacer for days. This is the diff and date for anyone who cares to look it up:
(cur | prev) 16:55, 4 September 2014‎ Goethean (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,345 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (+goethe, schopenhauer to influences. These are well-known, easily sourced, important influences.) (thank)
The accusations of User:Allmanacer are again lacking in reliability and he makes a repeated personal attack. FelixRosch (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC Outcome

I have closed the archived RFC. There was consensus to reduce the number of names listed in the infobox. The close is at Talk: Sigmund Freud/Archive 11. Stop edit-warring. The long version of the infobox is against consensus. Any question about the specific names in the shortened infobox should be taken to one of the dispute resolution processes, such as a third opinion, another RFC, or moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That didn't take long, did it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Robert, I don't think you should edit an archive, or close an RfC that has as you say "expired" into an archive. Please see my response to FelixRosch here, and my response to your rather peremptory request that I unprotect the article.[1] Sorry I didn't ping you; I assumed I wouldn't need to when you'd come to me. Anyway, I don't think there was consensus for any one proposal in the archived RfC, so I suggested in my response to Felix's appeal on my page that there needed first to be a focused RfC on the single issue whether the Freud infobox should have the "influences/influenced" parameters at all. Note that they have been removed from the infobox template.[2] Heck, I'll propose a new RfC on that myself, see below. Sorry, I realize you're all tired of the infobox argybargy, but I really think getting this bit decided will save time in the long run. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC).
This raises two questions. First, should anyone ever close an RFC that has been archived? I know that the archive says not to edit it. I have also been advised that archived RFCs can be closed. Do we need another RFC on the question of the closure of archived RFCs? I was trying to help by closing the RFC. Should I discuss the issue of the closure of archived RFCs at WT:RFC, or somewhere else? I don't have a strong view. Second, does anyone have a view as to how to handle RFCs that have expired into archives? I just want to know what to do. User:Bishonen: You are an administrator. Where do we go from here? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Should an RFC ever be archived before it's been closed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Robert, I suggest if you strongly want to close an archived RfC, which would presumably be quite rare, you'd better unarchive it first, and handle it on the live page. But that's surely moot in this case, as there's a new RfC below, that comes before the old RfC logically, even though after it chronologically. I'm sorry I didn't indicate my proposition about that to Felix on this page, rather than merely responding to him on my own; it might have saved you some trouble. OTOH, you could have done things in a different order, and begun by touching base with me, as the protecting admin. That would have worked too. As for making a general rule about archived RfC's, you'd better take it to WT:RFC, if you think that would be a good use of your own and others' time. Me, I'm beginning to think we spend more than enough time refining our rules and regulations and not enough time on the factory floor. Martinevans123, as for the archiving of the RfC, I got the impression that was done by some crazed bot? Hard to keep those in check. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC).
Almost as much trouble as crazed editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The archiving of an RFC is done when sections of the talk page that the RFC is on are archived by the bot. The archival happens under particular circumstances, if the RFC has very little response and only in the first few days, or if the responses to the RFC all happen within three weeks after it is posted, or if the archival parameters for the bot are set too fast. Usually the RFC should not be archived during the response period, but under those circumstances it is archived. The need to close archived RFCs arises because there is a list of RFCs needing closure at WP:AN, and it includes RFCs that have been archived. I will take the issue to WT:RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Robert, I think your good faith action has uncovered a bit of a loophole. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

New RFC?

The section below, by User:Bishonen, appears to be a new RFC, and has responses, but it doesn't have an RFC template for the bot. Should the RFC template be inserted immediately below the section header? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it definitely should. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: I've been tempted to wield my tools in regard to the recent editing of the article, but since I set up the RfC, I've instead mentioned it on WP:ANI for the attention of fresh admin eyes. Bishonen | talk 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

RFC: Should the Freud infobox have "influences/influenced" parameters at all?

Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
There is a clear consensus to remove the two parameters in question. Further edit-warring against consensus will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't see any clear consensus for any one alternative in the archived RfC. Asked to choose between a very long and a very short list of names, people naturally also suggested various compromises, using the "hide" option, etc. It's difficult to fit those suggestions onto a procrustes bed of long vs short list of names, in fact imposing a consensus on this variety seems to me to be a recipe for continued eruptions of conflict. In that RfC, User:Choor monster proposed removing the influence parameters altogether, with reference to [this discussion, and received a couple of supports for this, just before the discussion went off the rails (in my opinion). Yet it surely makes sense to try to first come to an agreement about the simple question whether the parameters should be there at all, before arguing about the very thorny question of how many, and which, people/schools of thought should be listed as influenced by Freud (one of the most influential thinkers of our time), in case the parameters are kept. Could people please discuss the proposal to remove the influence parameters, and indicate whether they support or oppose it ? Bishonen | talk 01:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

  • Support removal Many notable people have been influenced by Freud and their names will be added as soon as the article is unprotected, despite the infobox guidelines. An infobox is a useful summary of simple and uncontested facts—editors should not take it upon themselves to declare as a fact that a few selected people were "most" influenced by Freud by using an over-simplified summary. If the issue is important, a section in the article can discuss which individuals have written about the influence of Freud upon their work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per the arguments given above, and as the simplest and cleanest option. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per comment above on avoiding future "recipe for continued eruptions of conflict". Cleanest option from @Bishonen. FelixRosch (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment What seems to me necessary before further discussion on removal or not is to establish the legitimacy of the terms of reference of this RfC – I have asked for admin advice on this. Can it really be tenable that Infobox Template parameters are determined by the Talk pages exchanges of individual articles? Seems to me this free for all would fatally undermine the measure of consistency between similar articles Templates are in place to help establish. The place for determining Infobox parameters is surely the Infobox Project Talk Page, as was the case with regard to the Infobox:Person template as referenced above by Bishonen. Almanacer (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, he's not just a person, of course, but a scientist. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Exactly my point – unlike the Person Template RfC, there has been no question of removing the parameters in question from the Infobox: Scientist template over on the WP:INFOBOX project page. The objective set out there: “Creating standard sets of parameters to be used in related infoboxes” would therefore be undermined by their removal from the Freud article and entail a lack of consistency with articles on comparable figures eg, Max Weber, Durkheim and a whole range of articles linked to the Infobox Philosopher Template. Almanacer (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment With a few exceptions, usually related to enforcing BLP or copyright law, the content of articles always depends on talk page discussion and consensus. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Consulting the Infobox Project Page, it's obvious that WP policy is that parameters/guidelines for infobox templates are to be determined by the wider WP community there (by consensus and to achieve a measure of consistency) and not on an article by article basis. Which may well explain the lack of interest in this RfC. Almanacer (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal per the 2013 discussion linked above, in which many editors supported removing these subjective, controversial POV parameters from the infobox. In my view, infobox fields should be for incontrovertible objective facts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


So where does that information go, if anywhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Martinevans123; Perhaps it has something to do with the iceberg which has fully appeared on the Freud page earlier today [3]. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. Was closing this RfC a "titanic" mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Do you suppose that was meant to "chill" discussion?
No, it seems clear that closing the RfC was correct. There clearly is consensus to remove the influence parameters, despite one editor insisting otherwise. Incidentally, I think this edit by Almanacer should be reverted. The graphic he restored to the article is not "useful"; it is irrelevant visual distraction. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was insisting on was compliance with WP Policy.  With respect to which what we have here a travesty of WP:CLOSE  since it has been  made prematurely and without response to the policy issues editors had explicitly requested be addressed by administrators. So Freud now joins the company of film stars and celebs instead of scientists and philosophers apparently because of the shocking notion there might be controversy over content. Unheard of on the Freud Talk Page.  (And icebergs supported by two commentaries and Freud's own text are best steered around). Almanacer (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you either take the issue up at ANI or stop complaining. Future Perfect at Sunrise's close seems perfectly appropriate to me, and I think the larger admin community would agree. There is no point in endlessly griping on the talk page because the result was not to your liking. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Freud's personal life

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

This edit by Martinevans123 is misguided for a number of reasons. In the first place, there is no reason why material pertaining to Freud's personal life should be placed in a dedicated section. It should be integrated into the already existing discussion of Freud's life. In the second place, the current placement of the section is illogical. It follows a section on how Freud's ideas have been discussed and criticized after his death, which is wrong, as it concerns what Freud did while alive (what part of "this is the wrong place for such material anyway" did Martinevens123 have a problem understanding?). Finally, the material is uncited. Why would Martinevans123 restore material that is not properly cited? It was an inept edit in the first place. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he obviously had a problem understanding. I would have thought that spouse(s), children and grandchildren was requisite information for any biographical article, whether a fuller separate article exists or not. A also think a separate section would be clearer Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Explain why you restored uncited material, explain why you placed the material in an illogical location (do you have any understanding of or respect for article organization?), and explain why the article even needs a section dedicated to Freud's personal life, his marriage, and his children when these are not part of the reason why Freud is important. I don't accept the "it is clearer" argument; the material would be perfectly clear if it were properly integrated into the discussion of Freud's life. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
ImprovingWiki, you are almost in danger of sounding sincere. Could you be a little more condescending and abrupt? I'd welcome views from other editors. Many people have children and grandchildren, even if they aren't "important". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
What an infantile response. You give no excuse for your actions, no excuse for restoring uncited material, no excuse for placing it in an illogical location. Forgive my rudeness, but I do expect that if an editor makes an edit, he would be able to properly explain his reasons. My being rude doesn't excuse your failure to do that. I do intend to move that material, at the least. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It’s a complete mystery to me how edit wars ever develop in such a collegiate and collaborative atmosphere. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) yes, I'm hoping to develop it into a full neurosis ...
If I move the material, do you object to that? ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If you went ahead and moved it anyway, without any response from me, I certainly wouldn't immediately go and move it back again. But I'd welcome input from other interested editors here (over hours or days), before any other changes were made. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
When examining Freud's interest in sibling rivalry, it made sense to include the redirect to the Freud family page at the start of this article on Freud. After doing this, it was then apparent that the material in the short subsection was duplicating the identical information on Freud's siblings already covered in the early Biography section on the Freud page; therefor include the redirect message to the Freud family article in the earlier section on the Freud page and archive the short section which contains redundant material already covered in the early Biography section. Section is archived and no information is lost. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That all seems quite sensible, although I still think readers might expect this article to state somewhere how many grandchildren he had. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC) or even how many rogue male killer whales...

Diagram

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

Almanacer, although it may be true, as you say in this edit, that removal of content should be discussed first, that absolutely does not give you the right to edit war to restore that content, and especially not against multiple users. The essay that you are appealing to, WP:RVREASONS, has no official standing and does not over-ride basic policy such as WP:EDITWAR. It was never intended to be interpreted or used the way that you are using it. There is no doubt or ambiguity on this point. I suggest you stop edit warring immediately. Furthermore, although I am aware that it is sometimes tempting to direct rude or uncivil comments to other editors and am not innocent in this regard, I will point out that edit comments such as those you make here are inappropriate. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgement that discussion of the topic on this Talk Page is now in order, a process I have being trying to encourage so far without response. The content in dispute meets WP:RELIABLE standards (when you questioned this I added a further citation). The cited sources demonstrate the utility of the diagram and refer to the diagram Freud himself uses on which the digitalised version is based. The text of the article states ‘the "Iceberg Model"… represents the roles the Id, Ego, and Super Ego play in relation to conscious and unconscious thought’. The diagram provides an accurate and relevant representation of the model. You and FelixRosch now need to clarify what objections you have to the inclusion of this content in the article without making assumptions based on your personal opinions about how distracting or relevant it may appear to others. Almanacer (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring is not the usual way of trying to encourage talk page discussion. I have taken a look at the revisions of the article in which the diagram is included. It is obviously much too large, and an inappropriate distraction from the text. I have not the least idea whether readers of the article will like the diagram or not. It is irrelevant whether they like it or not. It should not be included in the article, as a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Good editorial judgment is based on assessing and referencing relevant commentaries and texts not on the personal opinions of editors, yours included, about what is or is not "obvious". If Freud thinks a diagrammatic representation of his theory of mental structure is appropriate and this is confirmed by two reliable commentaries it merits inclusion in the article. If size is an issue go ahead an adjust it. Almanacer (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the diagram is used in the article Unconscious mind where the caption says this: "An iceberg is often (though misleadingly) used to provide a visual representation of Freud's theory that most of the human mind operates unconsciously." I'm not sure it's a good idea to include so prominently something that is, essentially, misleading. You defend the addition with reference to "two reliable commentaries". How many reliable commentaries of Freud would you estimate there are in total? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. and why exactly is the sun shining?

Good judgment about absolutely anything always involves noticing and respecting the obvious. In this case, it seems obvious that we should not include content if it is considered misleading. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 
The “iceberg” model[1] of Freud’s theory of mental structure.
There are as suggested many commentaries to choose from in Freud studies so there is no excuse for not accessing one’s appropriate to the topic as had been done in this case. Accordingly there is certainly no need to rely on unsourced editorialising in other WP articles and least of all on personal opinions on what “seems obvious” which continue to completely ignore the sourced material, including Freud's own text. Almanacer (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
My question was "two out of how many" i.e. what proportion of the huge number of Freud's commentators think that the diagram is useful? If you believe the descriptive caption used at Unconscious mind is unjustified, the Talk Page of that article might be a good place for you to establish consensus before you propose re-adding it here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want numbers go to Google scholar – don’t ask me. The requirement to provide reliable sources doesn’t include the obligation to survey the entire available literature since other editors can do their own researching and present their results which may or may not correspond with the sources currently cited and then the content may or may not need changing/debating/reviewing. This is known as collaborative editing. Compare this to “the image is too big and its obvious I’m right to remove it and you’re wrong” kind of approach and you get some idea of why WP is regarded by many as a hostile and unwelcoming place to be, an observation you have made yourself in the previous thread. With regard to the Unconscious mind article, I would suggest Start Level articles should take the lead from B rated content rather than vice versa. So to repeat my previous question. The Iceberg model as mentioned in the article was illustrated by a model of the iceberg - what is distractingly inappropriate/irrelevant about that edit? Could ImprovingWiki "properly explain his reasons" for removing the content? Almanacer (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The caption says the "The iceberg metaphor is often used to explain the psyche's parts in relation to one another." Used by whom exactly? What's the support for "often"? And just because it might be often, doesn't mean it's not still a static and gross over-simplification of what is a fluid and complex process? What use did Freud himself ever make of such a diagram? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The deletion of this odd graphic is removed because there are at least two editors who believe it is odd and it is unused by Freud himself. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have re-worded the caption in view of the objections to the current wording. See the inline citations for sources, including Freud’s use of a diagram on which the digitalised version is based. I think you will find it difficult to find reliable sources which dispute the utility of a diagram given Freud’s own use of one. Editor’s POV’s on what appears odd to them are not grounds for removing the content which is reliably sourced. Almanacer (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that tweaking the caption can make everything better here. Where did Freud ever publish a diagram? What did it look like? Not much like this, I suspect. And the sun is still shining for some unknown reason. Maybe we could have some penguins thrown in, for good measure? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Martinevans123; Is it true that you are organizing a committee to search for the source of the iceberg. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Freudian crew-men locate the "Monster of the ID" with a plaster cast of its footprint.

Of course! Unless I slip. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Martinevans123; And is it also the case that you are to be providing safari helmets for the participants of your search committee? There is no quotation of Freud given to support this spurious iceberg graph. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123Last time I checked you could still click on an inline citation to get to the source material. (Since it has been removed from the article I have swapped your somewhat less relevant image for the one under discussion). And I can confirm that Freud's lecture of 1933 (as cited) does include the analog diagram on which the digital "iceberg model" - as referenced in in the text of the article - is based. Hopefully the New Year will bring a return to collaborative editing instead of an attritional deletion agenda, bogus objections and obstructive edit-warriing. Seasonal greetings. Almanacer (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am quite honoured that you thought that Forbidden Planet image was "mine". But is that 1933 diagram still covered by copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. was the sun shining even back in 1933? To me the diagram looks like an advert for Freud Ice Cream Cones.
@MartinEvans123; Do we want to see the Freud quote in Freud's words or are you accepting this childhood treat in the shape of an ice cream cone? FelixRosch (TALK) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It’s a welcome development that you are expressing an interest in cited sources. It’s always advisable to consult them and avoid assuming that what you don’t know about doesn’t exist. Here is the diagram that Freud thinks is appropriate for an “introductory” presentation of his theory of mental structure. However hilarious you may find the much-maligned iceberg, the objective in using a digitalised version of Freud’s diagram is the same – to present the concepts in an accessible way at an introductory level. Almanacer (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"No preview available for this page. Buy this book." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC) ... although a bit of ice always comes in handy...

Freud influential in feminism?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"As such, it continues to generate extensive and highly contested debate with regard to its therapeutic efficacy, its scientific status, and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause." Freud's viewpoints seem to be the opposite of those of feminists to me. No serious scholar has ever suggested Freud was a supporter of feminism. For example, feminists are very adamantly against men making sexual advances on women unless the women unambiguously want them. Freud's teenage female patient Dora (case study), also known as Ida Bauer, was being pursued by a friend of her father's, and Freud told her it was her fault because she was in love with him and leading him on. I do not know enough about Dora to know if Freud's interpretation was correct, but I do know that's the opposite of what feminists would think. The feminists were obsessed with going after Clarence Thomas when he was accused of sexual harassment, and after Senator Bob Packwood when he was accused of that. Freud very clearly in some of his writings also states that women are inferior to men. In some cases he does not just hint at it, he directly states it. He also says that homosexuality is a perversion, which is also the opposite of what most feminists think. Although Freud was a left-winger politically, he influenced German Jewish philosopher Otto Weininger, a woman hater, who credited Freud with influencing his book denigrating women, Sex and Character. The part of the book that Weininger seems to be influenced by Freud is the part denigrating women, not the other part (the anti-Jewish one) obviously. But Weininger does mention in the book that he conversed with Freud about the project and Freud was at least mildly interested. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the above (about Clarence Thomas, etc) is off-topic here. Try to keep your posts relevant, please. Suffice it to say, that there has been plenty of discussion of the relevance of psychoanalysis to feminism, and if some feminists are completely hostile to psychoanalysis others are not and see at least some value for feminism in Freud's work. The article contains enough references to back this up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
User:PaulBustion88 is a WP:Sockpuppet of User:RJR3333. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought sock-puppets weren't allowed? Even Freudian ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish" in first sentence

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The word "Jewish" has been re-added in this edit with the edit summary "The Jews have a lot of influence in America, this should be noted." Is that sufficient/ fair justification? It seems somewhat irrelevant to me and not an improvement. Freud's Jewishness has been a subject on this Talk Page many times in the past, but I'm not sure this particular point has come up before. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Freud is a distinguished Jewish person of great achievement, which is why it should be mentioned. MLK did many achievements, and his article mentions he's african-american, so I believe this should mention Freud is Jewish. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
So why not also mention the Jewishness of persons of moderate or small achievements? It might be just as much of an important factor in their identity, perhaps more so? Martin Luther King Jr. led a civil rights movement based on racial identity, are you arguing that Freud did something similar for Jewish people? He wasn't a religious, or any kind of ethnic leader. In fact, his views on all religions were rather disparaging, to say the least. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this affects the conversation, Martinevans123, but Scaravich105nj has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha. I think the conversation may be a little shorter than anticipated. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look up entries for Freud in basic works of reference you will find that they do not generally identify Freud as Jewish at the outset; they are more likely to identify him as Austrian. Wikipedia could do worse than to follow this example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, not this one, or this one, or this one or this one. But, yes, I'm sure it could "do worse". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
What is your point here? Are you saying I'm wrong? None of those articles refer to Freud as a "Jewish neurologist" or anything similar; several identify him as Austrian at the outset. Or was your point that I'm right? I've currently got the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy open in front of me, and it calls Freud an "Austrian neurologist". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I was providing what I saw as support for your suggestion. I'd be surprised if one could find any "basic works of reference" that described him as Jewish at the outset. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  Administrator noteIt has come to light that Sacaravich 105nj was also part of a rather large sockfarm, so you can just completely discount his input in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sigmund Freud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoring sock edits

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Chevvin, I'd like to ask that you not restore edits made by users who are evading blocks, as you did here. I'm sure that you consider your edit accurate, but I have problems with it. In the first place, it's not clear that the material you added is properly cited. In the second place, are you really sure that the material is accurate and a good way of explaining Freud's ideas? I question both points. In his A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft defines the Oedipus Complex this way: "Group of largely unconscious ideas and feelings centring round the wish to possess the parent of the opposite sex and eliminate that of the same sex." Note Rycroft's use of "wish to possess" and not "wish to have sex with." I suggest that something like Rycroft's wording be added instead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the Chevvin edit is inappropriate and inadequate. Inadequate because it refers only to one sex and inappropriate (1) because it is inconsistent with the article description of the theory which refers (with citations) to both sexes (see section on Psychosexual Development) and (2) because hitherto it has been regarded, sensibly in my view, sufficient for the Lead to mention the theories Freud developed, leaving their explication for either the main article or for a designated link. Almanacer (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Almanacer, for reverting Chevvin's edit, which restored content added by a sock of Kingshowman. Kingshowman accused me of being an ignoramus who has never read Freud. I'm happy to report that his accusation is incorrect (as a total stranger he of course has no way of knowing how much Freud I have or have not read). It's a matter of some amusement to me to see content Kingshowman originally added removed on grounds of inaccuracy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Always glad to help out on the Freud article. And thanks to you for holding out against the sock puppetry. And to Chevvin for a courteous thank you (on my Talk Page) for my explanation for the revert. Collaborative editing lives ! Almanacer (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Crews

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Crews believes that psychoanalysis has no scientific or therapeutic merit. To the editor he reverted my change. How is it irrelevant that the critic is a literary critic in the science subsection? Especially when there is a literary criticism section in the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

His views aren't in dispute. There is no point in repeating them. It is irrelevant that Crews is a literary critic because he is a prominent and well-known critic of Freud. It would be strange if the article didn't mention his views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is Donald Levy and why does his opinion count? 217.38.148.194 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of your question? Why does anyone's opinion count? I'm simply trying to ask why you are making an issue of Levy in particular. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe because Levy has no wikipedia article and there is no explanation here of who he is or why his opinion counts. Some people's opinion of Freud counts because they are notable in the field of psychology in general or psychotherapy in particular. My Aunt Fanny thinks Freud's Interpretation of Dreams is utter pants. Why don't we add her views in this section too? Fred Crews is an American essayist and literary critic. What does he care about real life patients with psychological problems? 217.38.127.252 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy stating that someone has to have a Wikipedia article in order for their work to be cited on Wikipedia. Levy is a reliable source: see WP:RS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So, as I said, who is Donald Levy? He's written a book, yes. But has anyone of note actually reviewed it? Don't we need secondary sources for unknown writers? How do we know that his views matter? On the basis of what one wikipedia editor thinks, or guesses? 217.38.113.114 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the reference desk. If you care who Donald Levy is, you could try asking there. His book counts as a reliable source, and that's the only pertinent issue as far as I'm concerned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree - so why remove the content ? Almanacer (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, I changed my mind. Can't people change their minds about things? As I said when I removed that content, it seems more appropriate to The Foundations of Psychoanalysis than to the Freud article, but put the material back in if you insist. I don't care that much. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've restored a reduced version of the original content. It's a direct response to Grunbaum so is appropriate and also restores some balance to a section dominated by Freud critics. Almanacer (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Freud's belief that Jews were suprerior - unmentionable?

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It seem's strange that we cannot include quotes by Freud that indicate he believed that Jews were supreior to non-Jews in a section of the article which is talking about Freud's Jewishness being important to the development of his intellectual thought and work. It seems to be the perfect place for this factual information.

See The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity by John Murray Cuddihyfor details. That's an academic source not a blog or some random website.

"The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared" - Moses and Monotheism by Freud, page 112.

"When one thinks that 10 or 12 of the Nobel winners are Jews, and when one thinks of their other great achievements in the sciences and in the arts, one has every reason to think them superior" - page 36 of The Ordeal of Civility - direct quote of Freud

VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. There is no reason the article should quote every statement Freud ever made - as editors we need to use good judgement about what and what not to include. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly which quote(s) are you proposing to add and where? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important for it to be mentioned that Freud thought that Jews were better than non-Jews when quite a significant portion of his thought centres around a criticism of gentile European Christian society. It informs people of his possible reasons for those beliefs.VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Your telling us that "quite a significant portion of Freud's thought centres around a criticism of gentile European Christian society"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's just a plain fact that it does. He criticises Christianity and Christian sexual mores extensively. I think the removal of this material is clear POV pushing.VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give us an example of this "extensive" criticism? Are you now moving away from your initial tenet that Freud believed "Jews were superior to non-Jews"? And how does Cuddihy fit into all of this? Your repeated additions to the article suggest that you personally think this was Freud's view, or that you think Cuddihy's view, which you also espouse, is held generally by most scholars of Freud. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would I need to move away from that when we can see from Freud's own words that this is true: "one has every reason to think them superior"? Perhaps including this direct quote rather than a reference would be best. I'm sure we can agree on that.VivaElGeneralissmo (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think we can agree on anything? You've provided no evidence at all that these quotations formed part of any "extensive criticism" by Freud? You've given us two short quotes, without any context whatsoever. Freud said and wrote quite a lot during his long lifetime, didn't he. I'm not sure we can draw such bold conclusions from 56 words. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're supposed to WP:BEBOLD, aren't we? EEng (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This user (vivaElgeneralissmo) does not mention the previous sentence is : "I think nowadays they are", said Freud. p.36/Cuddihy. Nowadays this word seems historically significant. Moreover, we do not know the origin of this extract nor the questioner Freud, or context etc.--Doltoto (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

John Murray Cuddihy

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is the 1974 book The Ordeal of Civility by American sociologist John Murray Cuddihy a suitable source for this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the only question that has to be asked. Another question is whether the editor who was adding material from that source was using it responsibly. I don't have access to it myself, so I can't really tell. The material certainly seems to express an extreme, fringe view, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Cuddihy seems to have had quite a firm and quite skewed sociological agenda. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give us your sources please ? --Doltoto (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You'll find a review of the book (jstor - registration required) linked at the Cuddihy article. The editor who wished to use this source has now been indefinitely blocked (see thread below). Personally, if I had a copy, I suspect it would come in handy on those long winter nights. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Poorly Justified Reversion of Edits

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User (FreeKnowledgeCreator) has reverted two edits, one by myself and the other by StainlessSteelScorpion, in regards to the awkward (and in my view unnecessary) statement about feminism in the preamble. His/her justification for the reversions was "Not helpful" and "Unnecessary change". I would like to invite (FreeKnowledgeCreator) to better explain their reasoning behind the reverts.--Philip72 (talk) 01:51, 02 November 2015 (UTC)

I could equally well ask you to better explain your reasoning behind making such changes. Why complain that I did not give much justification for removing your changes when you did not give much justification for making them in the first place? In my judgment, none of them were in the least helpful. The fact of the matter is that feminism has been one of the major forces that have brought about a reevaluation of Freud's work. One may consider that a good thing or a bad thing, but it's nevertheless a basic fact the lead needs to address. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

Freud’s death

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted a previous edit on this topic because (1) the editor was the author of the cited paper raising the issue of “original research” (WP:OR; (2) what seemed to me to be tendentious claims about Max Schur’s role in Freud’s last days given that all the reputable biographies rely on Schur’s account and the role he played, as Freud’s doctor, in ending his life ( qv Freud: Living and Dying, London: Hogarth Press 1972, p. 527-29). Having now gained access to the paper I have added a reference to it in the article but without the claim that Schur left Freud’s bedside “heading for the United States” – he was in London until he took a pre-arranged passage to the States in the week after Freud’s death. Almanacer (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Anna O.

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

SusanLesch, you might find it helpful to read Malcolm Macmillan's Freud Evaluated, if you have not already done so. Even writers who are thoroughly critical of Freud are not convinced by the argument that Anna O. suffered from tuberculous meningitis - so it won't do to state that as fact in the article, as you recently did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator. You reverted me before I could add a citation. I have no plans to read another whole book about this man. I did, however, find that Anna O.'s case is explained more fully in a section under Ideas. Thank you for the correction about Popper. Your wording looks good. Now if this article could agree on one narrative I'd be happier, but it's not possible to avoid controversy. And since you plan to revert my additions I bow out. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I might have removed or modified one or two of your edits, but that does not mean that I "plan to revert" your additions. If you can make worthwhile contributions, by all means do so. And you'll find that you are missing out on something by not reading Macmillan's book; anyone who wants to reach an informed view of Freud needs to read it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
How can you revert my opposing view in a completely uncited paragraph? For shame.
Macmillan is apparently not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography. You wrote Wikipedia's summary of Freud Evaluated. Apparently the book tries to argue against Eysenck and others who think Anna O. was misdiagnosed. I happen to be one of them, because hysteria no longer exists. I am unhappy with this article but not enough to devote my valuable time to argument and to reading the only book I can be sure you will accept as a source on this subject.
Macmillan writes in his afterword on page 629 that a critical review of recent work was "unattainable": "Between 1990 and 1995 some 3,500 journal articles or book chapters and 250 books appeared with "Freud" or "psychoanalysis" in their titles...." Freud isn't worth it to me either. I won't be back. Best wishes. SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are interested in Macmillan's views, you would be well advised to read Freud Evaluated itself instead of relying on the Wikipedia article about it. Also, I did not say that Macmillan was the only source I would accept. Don't attribute to me views I've never expressed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I am sorry and feel an apology to you is needed because I failed to tamp down my responses here. It's really too bad that this article can't be better. Best wishes. SusanLesch (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline of psychoanalysis

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Almanacer, please refer to page 96 of Joel Kovel's A Complete Guide to Therapy. The relevant quote is as follows, "Freud was a transformer of Western culture, hence his influence is incalculable. It certainly far exceeds whatever particular impact the therapy founded in his name may have. Whatever the fate of Freudian psychoanalysis as an institution - and it has already sunk to a relatively minor role so far as actual therapeutic practice goes - Freud with his methods and central insight remains the progenitor of modern therapy." I do not understand your reference to Jung, gestalt therapy, etc. They have nothing to do with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with content which is accurately cited - which it now is. I mentioned Jung, gestalt therapy, etc because they are what the other pages unnecessarily cited refer to. That said I note the Kovel book is 40 years old, no less, (published in 1976, there is no indication the 1991 paperback edition was revised in any way), so in the interests of a more up to date account I suggest replacing reference to it with the following:
Psychoanalysis is not as influential as it once was in Europe and the USA though in some parts of the world, notably Latin America, its influence in the later 20th century expanded substantially. It remains a pervasive influence within contemporary schools of psychotherapy and has led to innovative therapeutic work in schools and with families and groups. From: Pick, Daniel (2015). Psychoanalysis: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. pp. 19, 121. Almanacer (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify - this is my summary of Pick - not verbatim quotation. Almanacer (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(Comment. Surely the debate over detail is more relevant to the Psychoanalysis article than it is to this one. Yes, we should certainly discuss Freud's legacy, and how far it extends, but I'm not sure the decline in psychoanalysis is of direct relevance to him per se?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The content appears in a section on Freud's legacy. The overall fate of psychoanalysis after Freud's death is certainly relevant to his legacy. I have no objection, per se, to the content being modified in some way, or being sourced differently. So long as the basic fact that psychoanalysis has declined remains, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that it has expanded in influence in a particular region such as Latin America. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have no objection to Almanacer's proposed edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree the topic should also be covered here. And also agree with proposed edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

Lead

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Almanacer, I am disappointed by your latest edit to the lead, visible here. The answer to your question "Why these and not Rank, Reich etc?", is perfectly simple: Adler and Jung are better known than Rank and Reich. They are, in fact, the figures most often associated with Freud. I would have assumed, frankly, that you would know this. The information you removed is a very basic piece of biographical information, and it emphatically does need to be in the lead. You should revert yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(And if you're going to demand sources for this, they can quite easily be found; thus the Alfred Adler article states, "Adler is considered, along with Freud and Jung, to be one of the three founding figures of depth psychology, which emphasizes the unconscious and psychodynamics (Ellenberger, 1970; Ehrenwald, 1991"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I would dispute that say, Adler, is better known than Reich, notwithstanding his "founding figure" status. I fail to see why any ex-Freudians merit inclusion in the Lead (anymore than ex-Marxists in the Marx article lead) and certainly not with inadequate and misleading wording such as "came to disagree with the details of his ideas". Nor do I see it as "basic...biographical information" about Freud.Almanacer (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Reich is well known, but he is not well known for being a former associate of Freud, not to the same extent that Jung and Adler are. You ask why "ex-Freudians" should be mentioned in the lead of this article when "ex-Marxists" are not mentioned in the lead of the Marx article. The reason should be obvious; Jung and Adler were associated with Freud and played a significant role in his life. Most of the people who became ex-Marxists were not even born until after Marx died. So the situations have nothing in common. That Freud worked with and later had disputes with people like Jung certainly is a basic biographical fact about him; it is exactly the sort of information people are likely to come to the lead of this article looking for further details about, and they might well wonder why it is not there. If you can propose a better or more accurate wording then by all means do so, but this information definitely belongs in the lead in some form. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

  Response to third opinion request:
Hi! Thank you for requesting a third opinion! With regards to the question on the specific sentence, I consider that it does cast a negative light on Freud that does not conform with NPOV guidelines. However, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that information on people such as ex-Freudians (as well as neo-Freudians, among others) should be presented in the lead. The best way to do this is by having a fourth paragraph in the lead that solely focuses on Freud's legacy. I hope this resolves the disagreement. Have a great day! MarshalN20 Talk 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not intend to restore that exact sentence to the lead, but it's not clear to me precisely what is supposed to be objectionable about it, and while I thank you for your third opinion, it does not clarify this matter. My own opinion is still that any material about Adler and Jung should follow the paragraph on Freud's ideas (the one beginning "In creating psychoanalysis...", and I do not see how a fourth paragraph in the lead would work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the number of paragraphs for articles range from 1 to 4 (depending on length). Freud being such a notable person clearly would do fine with fourth paragraph that focuses on his legacy. As for clarity, I can be more straightforward: It is not acceptable by NPOV standards to have a sentence that emphasizes post-Freudians who dissented with Freud without providing information on other post-Freudians who did not (or, rather, expanded Freud's work). Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Very well, I have no objection to a fourth paragraph per se, but I still think an addition about Adler and Jung could probably best be placed following one of the existing paragraphs rather than in a brand new paragraph. To me it seems very awkward to have to follow something about Freud's former followers disagreeing with him with something about other people agreeing with Freud, and I think that only a forced reading of NPOV would demand that. I await comments from other users. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion but I suspect such a fourth paragraph, however desirable, would lead to the frequent trading of POVs about the relative importance of the many and various figures in the history of psychoanalysis such as is now the case between myself and FreeKnowledgeCreator - all in good faith of course. I still remain unconvinced that the fact Adler and Jung went off to found their own schools (as noted appropriately in the main article) is relevant material for a concise summary of Freud’s life and work. I note that there is no reference to Freud in the lead of the Jung article. (I accept that the Marx lead, as FreeKnowledgeCreator points out above, was not a good comparator). If a fourth para as suggested is formulated - and I agree with the point made above by MarshalN20 re NPOV - let it be presented here first for comment/review of its NPOV status. Almanacer (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Fourth (unsolicited) opinion: there can be little doubt that Adler and Jung are more well-known than Rank and Reich, e.g. only Adler and Rank appear here and in Haggbloom et al (2002) here, Jung is 23 and Adler is 67, while Rank and Reich again do not appear. (But poor old Sigi is third behind Skinner and Piaget and so this may not be the best ranking process for "depth psychology"). I'm sorry if this is too populist/ simplistic. And I realise that this is not the basis on which Rank and Reich have been proposed/ preferred. But I'm just pointing this out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The absence of any mention of Freud in the lead of the Jung article only suggests that the Jung article leaves much to be desired. I definitely do believe that Adler and Jung should be mentioned briefly in the lead of this article. The case for mentioning Jung is even stronger than the case for mentioning Adler. If one wants to make comparisons, not mentioning Jung in the lead here would be like not mentioning Engels in the lead of the Marx article. I see no reason to think arguments about the neutrality of this would be worse than arguments over the neutrality of anything else in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Come, come now. We all know Engels was really just a Manchester cotton manufacturer. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you think of any more constructive comment to make? Perhaps you would like to expand on the point you were making in your edit summary, which would have been better explained on the talk page? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Alas, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a constructive comment? I intend to add something about Adler and Jung to the lead, but I would prefer that something be agreed on the talk page beforehand. SlimVirgin may be too busy with other matters, but she has edited the lead of this article in the past, so it might be helpful to hear from her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you there is a stronger case for mentioning Jung – his reputation/name recognition has a comparable status to Freud’s – but this is not the case with Adler. I think the third party advice above from MarshalN20 re neutrality WP:NPOV is pertinent and not to be dismissed as lightly as you do. The new paragraph would need to put Jung’s dissention in the context of the establishment of the IPA and the growth of interest in and support for Freud’s work in Europe and America. Otherwise the topic is best left to the main article. (BTW if you want a mention of an Engles equivalent for Freud, try Ernest Jones, unlike Jung and like Engles he stayed on board). Almanacer (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Very well then, I will try to find an acceptable way of discussing Jung in the lead and will not bother with Adler. I will consider your suggestions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This is simply a suggestion, but I don't believe it is necessarily a good idea to separate the discussion of Freud's life from his ideas, which seems to have been the effect of Almanacer's recent edits. The lead currently reads as follows:

"Sigmund Freud (/frɔɪd/;[2] German pronunciation: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏ̯t]; born Sigismund Schlomo Freud; 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the father of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst.[3] Freud was born to Galician Jewish parents in the Moravian town of Freiberg, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Freud qualified as a doctor of medicine at the University of Vienna in 1881,[4] and then carried out research into cerebral palsy, aphasia and microscopic neuroanatomy at the Vienna General Hospital.[5] Upon completing his habilitation in 1885, he was appointed a docent in neuropathology and became an affiliated professor in 1902.[6] Freud lived and worked in Vienna until he left Austria in 1938 to escape the Nazis. He died in exile in the United Kingdom the following year.

In creating psychoanalysis, Freud developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association and discovered transference, establishing its central role in the analytic process. Freud's redefinition of sexuality to include its infantile forms led him to formulate the Oedipus complex as the central tenet of psychoanalytical theory.[7] His analysis of dreams as wish-fulfillments provided him with models for the clinical analysis of symptom formation and the mechanisms of repression as well as for elaboration of his theory of the unconscious.[8] Freud postulated the existence of libido, an energy with which mental processes and structures are invested and which generates erotic attachments, and a death drive, the source of compulsive repetition, hate, aggression and neurotic guilt.[9] In his later work Freud developed a wide-ranging interpretation and critique of religion and culture.

Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy, and across the humanities. As such, it continues to generate extensive and highly contested debate with regard to its therapeutic efficacy, its scientific status, and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause.[10] Nonetheless, Freud's work has suffused contemporary Western thought and popular culture. In the words of W. H. Auden's poetic tribute, by the time of Freud's death, he had become "a whole climate of opinion / under whom we conduct our different lives".[11]"

I originally placed the material about Freud's escape from Austria in 1938 and subsequent death in the United Kingdom before the sentence about psychoanalysis remaining influential, and I continue to believe that this is where it properly belongs. A discussion of the continued influence of Freud's work after his death should logically follow on from the sentences about where and how he died. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The content of the Lead is divided into three paras: the first has biographical detail; the second is about Freud's theories; the third about his legacy. Seems to me details of his exile/death are biographical and therefore best allocated to the first para. Thanks for your consideration of the post above. Almanacer (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
One could see the Freud Museum as part of his legacy, but it's only in London because of his exile? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Almanacer, I can see how the lead is currently arranged. You arranged it that way. My point is that what you have done is not the only possible way the lead could be written, and that maybe other arrangements would be better. There is no reason to have separate paragraphs for biographical detail and for the theories. A lead that gave proper details of both could easily place Freud's ideas in a biographical context. I cannot see any reason why doing so would not be helpful. Martinevans123: I cannot see what point you are trying to make. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
How disappointing. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I am looking for a constructive response. Even disagreeing with me would be constructive, if you can explain the basis for your disagreement. Your comment above is not constructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'l have to try and disgree with you more often. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Vitz

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Here, User:Martinevans123 claims that Vitz is a notable commentator on Freud. Can any evidence be offered for this claim? I don't find him notable, or credible, or authoritative at all. — goethean 21:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Vitz is the author of a book - Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious - that has its place in the literature on Freud. It is not clear to me why, of the many people whose views on Freud are mentioned in the article, you would single him out or demand evidence that he is a notable commentator. Do you have any reason to think that the material cited to Vitz is inaccurate? Specific criticisms of Vitz would be helpful; vague dismissal is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
He seems like a crank. There is zero evidence that his bizarre comparison of Freud to Aquinas has any relevance or credibility. See the below comment by User:Martinevans123 - he cites a comment Henry Morris of all people, the founder of the fundamentalist christian scientific creationism as support for including Vitz as a credible source on Freud, which is simply a bizarre argument. Is this article actually being written by fundamentalist Christians? — goethean 22:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"He seems like a crank" is not an argument. Can you not produce any more credible reason for removing Vitz? Why would comparing Freud to Aquinas be any more bizarre than comparing Freud to Plato or Aristotle? Again, what actual evidence do you have that Vitz is mistaken? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"Dr Paul Vitz has recently published an important analysis of this aspect of Freud's life and thought in his book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious" - Morris, H.M. & Morris, John D., Modern Creation Trilogy: Scriptures & Creation 1996, Green Forest: Master Books, ISBN 978-1-61458-170-3, p.68. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You are citing Henry Morris, the founder of fundamentalist christian scientific creationism as support for the idea that Vitz is a significant or credible author on Freud? You must be joking. — goethean 22:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Goethean, if you look through the published literature on Freud, you will see that Vitz is cited. As I said, his work has its place in the literature. At this time, it's my view that the material you removed should stay in the article. If you can suggest a cogent reason why Vitz should not be used as a source, then I am willing to reconsider my position - but so far you have provided no such reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be letting your strong personal dislike of Vitz get in the way of his suggestion about the influence of Franz Brentano, which I don't see is particularly contentious, in this article. Where is your evidence that Vitz is generally regarded as not being "notable, or credible, or authoritative"? And please don't start accusing other editors of making attributions as jokes, or of being "fundamentalist Christians", just because you disagree about citing Vitz in this article. Even if you disagree with Vitz, it's a relevant suggestion. If someone, who you regard as more worthy, has made that suggestion, then we could use him instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. didn't you know that the fossil record was just a clever illusion? And that evolution was just dreamt up by Darwin?
You think that's funny? I don't. — goethean 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Do you think it's true? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Goethean, I agree with you that the comment by Martinevans123 above is not funny. I suggest, however, that instead of wasting your time by pointing out that unamusing comments are unamusing, you stick to the subject and actually address Vitz. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you've both found something to agree on. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
My advice to you would also be to stick to the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone was suggesting that Henry Morris was part of the subject, weren't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Your comment ("didn't you know that the fossil record was just a clever illusion? And that evolution was just dreamt up by Darwin?") was not about Morris and is irrelevant to this talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel I have misrepresented Morris. Or indeed goethean's knowledge of Freud's work on fossils. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Toril Moi

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Almanacer, respectfully, I believe this edit was a mistake. While Toril Moi herself may have a reputation as a commentator on Freud, that does not automatically make anything she writes or publishes on Freud worth mentioning in this article. No doubt, she has written any number of things about Freud, and the article cannot discuss them all. As I said when I originally removed the material you restored, the importance of recently published articles by definition cannot be clearly established. See WP:RECENTISM. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect many people will not accept that a Professor of Literature and Romance Studies (or of English, Philosophy and Theatre Studies) has anything important to say about Freud. But I think her adaptation of his ideas is quite interesting. Not sure, though, that I'd want to use the word "finitude". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth repeating the obvious point that an enormous amount has been written about Freud and the article simply cannot mention all of it. There has been a huge amount of commentary about Freud and psychoanalysis by feminists, and clearly, we need to be selective and mention only the most significant parts of that commentary. That Moi's views are "interesting" is really not a good enough reason for including them. Anyone in favor of including that material needs to explain what is so important about this very recently published article by Moi that it merits mentioning here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Then we'll have to ask Almanacer, respectfully, to provide a good reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The claim to establish QUOTE: a new feminist theory of psychoanalysis arguing that it is a discourse that "attempts to understand the psychic consequences of three universal traumas: the fact that there are others, the fact of sexual difference, and the fact of death" END QUOTE is manifestly a claim important and relevant enough to appear in the article provided it meets the usual WP:VER criteria which I think it does. Juliet Mitchell, widely cited in the article, was also an English professor. A 2004 article is "very recently published" ? Not according to my calendar. Almanacer (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems fair. Within the past ten years would be "recent", I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I simply disagree with Almanacer that this material merits inclusion. If Moi is claiming to establish a new feminist theory of psychoanalysis, then how many other scholars accept that theory? If there are other scholars who accept Moi's theory, then it may be worth mentioning, but if there are no scholars who accept the theory, then it definitely is not worth mentioning. Almanacer's reasoning seems to be simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT, arguing for the inclusion of something based on purely personal views. No worthwhile case has been made for including the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, secondary sources would help to clinch it for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator. For the record I didn't add the content about Moi to the article because I happened to like it (another editor did) but I objected to your removing it with the entirely spurious reference to WP:RECENTISM. It seems to me a feminist scholar with a specialist interest in psychoanalysis who has been publishing in that area for over 30 years has strong enough credentials for a mention in the feminist section of the Freud article. She has usefully provided free access to her many papers on her website (accessible from her WP article). Check out their citations on Google scholar if you want further confirmation/secondary sources though I would have thought the peer review process is adequate enough in this respect. She is referenced widely in Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary. Ed E. Wright, Oxford: Blackwell.

The content is also arguably a contribution which adds a degree of balance to the section (as per WP:NPOV) which references a majority of Freud critics (Freidan, Millet, Firestone, Gilligan, Chodorow). I have included a link to the article within the citation and modified the wording slightly. Almanacer (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Almanacer, I realize that you didn't add the content originally (which is irrelevant). As I'm sure you realize, a huge number of articles get published about Freud, and it is quite impossible to mention them all here. An encyclopedia only summarizes the most significant contributions in any area; it does not mention every article that happens to pass through peer review. There has been a great deal of feminist writing on psychoanalysis, and there is nothing about Moi's views that convinces me that they are an especially significant contribution. I have no intention of edit warring over the issue, however, and will leave the matter to the judgment of other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Is she mentioned only in the Cavell book? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sigmund Freud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

[4] failed "404 error"

Legacy: Frankfurt School

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The relation between Freud and the Frankfurt School is a bit more complex: Marcuse as well as Adorno speak of "using Freud against Freud" in a similar way as Marx had used "Hegel against Hegel" and "Feuerbach against Feuerbach". Basically, they saw Freud as a conservative who had stumbled upon some fundamental facts: When confronted with putatively or factually deviant drives, he regarded integration into a conservative society as more important than personal happiness, even where circumstances and social conditions rather than the nature of the drives themselves were to blame (when it came to sexual deviation, Freud had little of a concept of circumstances causing detrimental effects to begin with, only of circumstances causing "perversions") and thus already laid foundation to the later desexualization of the mind and even his own theories by the psychological mainstream, but unlike the revisionists that came after him he was still aware of what damages this integration (which he considered obligatory) did to the unfurtunate individual. The main difference between Reich and the Frankfurt School is that the latter also were aware of repressive desublimation, which is the acting out of drives that have already become dysfunctional and detrimental due to society's repression. Sources would include Eros and Civilization as well as Adorno's essays The revised psycho-analysis and On the relation between sociology and psychology (particularly Adorno constantly touched upon this issue of Freud's conservativism, and how he was still more perceptive and insightful than the later revisionists, in many works and essays). --2003:71:4E48:5296:1D5B:439C:739:4463 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is Siegmund Freud called neurologist?!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whare you supporting destruction of Wikipedia. Freud was not neurologist. There was no neurology in 1930s. Cutesolar (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See, for example, the third edition of The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, page 286. Freud is described as a "Viennese neurologist". Wikipedia describes Freud as a neurologist because that is what reliable sources support. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapy section

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The psychotherapy section states that, "Though there have been predictions of a progressive decline in support for psychodynamic therapies, there is a body of research findings which support their efficacy in treating a wide range of psychological disorders." I do not believe that sentence is acceptable as written. It implies that the existence of research findings supportive of psychodynamic therapies means that there will not be a progressive decline in support for them, which falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. Whether there will be a decline in support for psychodynamic therapies does not necessarily depend on whether there is actually evidence to support them; therapies can of course continue to be influential and popular even if not supported by evidence, or fall out of favor even if there is evidence they are effective. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest removing the first sentence entirely and relocating the second sentence to the first para. Citing a prediction made in 16 years ago is outdated content for an online encyclopaedia. Indeed it is doubtful that any predictions in this area is worthwhile content. Almanacer (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
FKC, I think you might find a sentence like that in any number of UK broadsheets, but yes it is a bit journalistic. And your logical linguistic decomposition shows that it's a fallacy, or at best a non sequitur. So it should be replaced. Almanacer's proposal looks quite sensible. But I'd like to see some more up-to-date analysis of any movement, up or down, in the support for psychodynamic therapies. There ought to be something useful at psychotherapy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not object to removing "Though there have been predictions of a progressive decline in support for psychodynamic therapies". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

160th anniversary Google Doodle

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Surprising to see that Google Doodle template at the top of the article. But I'm not getting any "doodling" here in UK? Are you? All I get was a very subtle link to "Explore the life and work of Sigmund Freud", although I must say that the Freud Museum London slideshow it leads to is quite elegant and informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more than simply "surprising" - it's absolutely un-encyclopedic content, and should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm really unsure how it warrants mention in that form. Do you think the link to the Museum slide-show deserves inclusion at External links? I don't think it adds much to the content of the article, but some people might find it interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: I've been trying to get discussion going about the (lack of) consensus surrounding the use of Template:Google Doodle, and just nominated it for deletion at WP:TfD. Anyone interested in chiming in should head over there to give your opinion. 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it certainly tested my patience here. I thought Google used to typically link to our articles? What happened here? Do you see any doodle? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why have all of Freud's influences been removed from his Wiki page?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I always thought it was interesting to note his influences like Dostoyevsky, Plato, Schopenhauer, etc. Why have they been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.118.128 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

See "RFC: Should the Freud infobox have "influences/influenced" parameters at all?" in Archive 11. Martinevans123 (talk)
It's worth revisiting this issue. Without rehearsing the entire debate again it should be noted that whilst there were differences between editors as to the content of the paramaters influences/influenced the proposal to remove them from the article infobox came from an admin person who referenced a decision made on the the InfoBox Project Page to remove these parameters from the INFOBOX PERSON template and then intiated an RfC where unsurprisingly there was support to remove the content from other admins and editors with no history of involvement on the Freud article but who had been active on the InfoBox Project Page.
If the assumption was that changing the general Infobox Person template thus would lead to articles with other person templates following suit then this has evidently not been the case - there have been few if any attempts to remove the influences/influenced parameters from articles on figures in the history of ideas similar in stature to Freud. Consequently the Freud article, which has the Template:infobox scientist is now inconsistent with other comparable articles (Marx, Derrida, Foucault, Weber, etc) and, anomalously so, with other articles on major psychoanalysts/psychologists (Jung, Ferenczi, Klein, etc).
In restoring the content I have addressed the concerns expressed about the potential length of the influenced listings by using links to the appropriate categories (cf the Marx article). I have rechecked the influences listings and reduced them to those mentioned in the Gay biography.Almanacer (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Adapted from Freud's New Introductory Lectures (1933 SE vol22), Lecture 31. See Tony Thwaites Reading Freud, London: Sage 2007, p. 40.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigmund_Freud/Archive_11&oldid=1142777892"