Talk:Todd Dufresne

Controversy section

I have removed the "Controversy" section, which comprised the bulk of this article. I appreciate that it does have numerous sources. Unfortunately, however, those sources are all or nearly all used in an unacceptable way. Many of them are primary sources, such as Dufresne's own books. While these would be acceptable as sources, if used judiciously, in this case there is the appearance that the article has largely been based upon them. That would violate WP:BLP, under which biographical articles cannot be based mainly on primary sources.

In other cases, the sources used - such as Ernest Jones' official biography of Freud - do not properly substantiate the statements in the "Controversy" section, eg, "According to Dufresne, CFS refers to scholarship on Freud and psychoanalysis that is not overtly driven by partisan interests and agendas, and that begins with skeptical responses to Ernest Jones's official biography of Freud's "life and work" that was published in the 1950s" (the source given is Jones' biography of Freud, which would actually support only the last of the many assertions in that sentence). Much of the content of the "Controversy" section appears to be biased and partisan, expressing a particular viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice, as in the following:

"The critical "after-Jones" period begins in the 1960s with historian Henri Ellenberger, political scientist Paul Roazen, and philosopher Frank Cioffi, and includes contemporary scholars like historian Frank Sulloway, literary critic Frederick Crews, and philosopher Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen. Despite the differences between the many figures of CFS, they have been subjected to the same kinds of criticisms as the so-called "Freud bashers": Oedipal-inspired parricide, negative transference, infantilism, naïve positivism, objectivism, and even, absurdly, fascism and anti-Semitism." That's sourced to one of Dufresne's books, and it certainly doesn't seem to be in accord with WP:NPOV. It could be rewritten to be more neutral, but I question whether it merits inclusion in any form (it could be re-written to qualify it as Dufresne's view, but might not meet the test of WP:DUE). Another example is the following: "Dufresne attempts to "own" the overblown rhetoric of the defenders of Freud even as he mocks them, a playful and irreverent side of his writing that isn't to everyone's taste." Again, that's probably not in accord with WP:NPOV, and it's definitely not writing suitable for an encyclopedia. Then there's this: "Arguably his best-known book is Tales From the Freudian Crypt of 2000." Again, unacceptable. Properly written articles never or almost never contain statements about what is "arguably" the case.

I could continue to give a line by line commentary on the "Controversy" section, but I trust the basic point is clear. It's opinionated material that's unacceptable under multiple Wikipedia policies, especially but not only WP:NPOV. Some of that material might be restored in a drastically modified form, but I ask other editors not to simply restore the "Controversy" section as it was - under BLP, an opinionated section about "Controversy" shouldn't make up the bulk of a biographical article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)