Talk:Edmund Bergler

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Started new article

Needs a better source for the quote about homosexuals than Lewes, of course, but I'm using that book as a source to get things started. I'll try and find a better source. Skoojal (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I've replaced the quote from Lewes with a different and more suitable quote. I'll re-add the other one at such time as I find a proper source. Skoojal (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yodi77 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for starting this article. I'm the second contributor to it. My name is Peter Michaelson (QuestForSelf.com). I'm a psychotherapist, with a private practice in Ann Arbor, MI. I've written five books that are based on the work of Edmund Bergler. I also spent many years as a client of a Berglerian analyst. I have provided a synopsis of the central idea of Bergler's work, that people are unconsciously attached to unresolved negativity. My sources are directly from Bergler's books.[reply]

Today I made a few small changes and completed the list of Bergler's books in the bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodi77 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest in the article. I've had to remove most of your additions because they did not seem to be sourced properly, and many of them were inappropriately worded (eg, the description of Bergler's writings as "brilliant" - you're entitled to this opinion, but it's not appropriate to put it in the article unless it is simply mentioned as the opinion of a published source; see WP:NPOV). I appreciate that you based much of your additions on Bergler's own books (which I admit to not having read), but it's not a good idea to add this sort of thing unless the sourcing is clear. You might want to try looking at other articles to see how this is done. There are guides to doing it properly, and I'll try to find them and direct you to them. I don't have a problem with your additions to the bibliography; I'm simply going to assume they are correct. Skoojal (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to discourage you by doing this. On the contrary, your contributions are welcome, but they do have to be brought in line with site policy. I'll maybe readd some more of the material you added soon. Skoojal (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was Bergler himself homosexual? 107.77.231.176 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Jane Doe[reply]

Section titles

It is not appropriate to have a section called "biography". The entire article is meant to be a biography. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?

@GPinkerton: @JzG: @Crossroads: @Markworthen: The article Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? was created by recently banned sock-puppet, Freeknowledgecreator, and the book, the discredited ideas of one man, is longer than Bergler's article. Same thing applied to what he did with Nicolosi's book What remains notable should go under one article? I note that Freeknowledgecreator has made numerous articles of other books in similar areas... articles which are much longer than the authors. Now when googling "homosexuality neuroticism" this article comes up. Not very useful when you're trying to look for J. Micheal Bailey's research and you get fed this. Sxologist (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some other articles made by Freeknolwedgecreator, which need checking. Some look like they should be deleted or at least add notices about undue weight.:

Reasonable books, but may need checking for undue weight. FKC appears to have included negative reviews in the opening summaries:

There are other articles created/added to by FKC which can be seen in various Wiki tools. These are just ones I picked up briefly on this tool. Sxologist (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! I don't have the motivation for the work involved, I hope someone else can fix this up. Thanks for tracking all this down though, very disturbing. GPinkerton (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sxologist, shit. And of course this one was created by Skoojal, whose sock FKC turned out to be.
Should we just move all these monographs to Draft until they are reviewed for neutrality? Guy (help!) 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez. Good sleuthing though. I'm not sure what should be done with all this. As an example of the kind of POV issues that can exist, see this edit of mine to Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why. That article, in particular, I would be willing to take responsibility for and think should not be draftified or stubbified. As for the rest, I would be more skeptical of articles on works (generally 30+ years old) that are themselves heavily about the fringe idea that sexual orientation is learned and changeable. For those, it may be worthwhile to do more drastic things like merge with the authors' articles or stubbify, so we aren't lovingly relating outdated ideas from the book and its old reviews. For newer and/or mainstream works, we could go on more of a case by case basis. Summaries of the book can be trimmed if it seems like there could be bias, non-noteworthy reviews trimmed out (like in the edit I linked to), and noteworthy reviews added. If there is excessive detail given to summarizing only reviews aligned with outdated ideas, that excessive detail could be trimmed. I think there is some salvageable material though. Crossroads -talk- 22:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what a mess. I don't mind if some are moved or merged. These are largely irrelevant and my real issue is them showing up for search terms when they're not informative in nature at all. As we know, FKC also tries to create a guise of balance by presenting a 'reception' section featuring 50/50 split of positive and negative reviews. Is it possible to just merge the obvious ones with authors pages based on the outcome of the Joseph Nicolosi article, and because he was a sockpuppet? From my knowledge any article created by a sock-puppet can actually be deleted immediately. Sxologist (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By "obvious ones" do you mean the ones about outdated or fringe ideas? If I were you, I would WP:BOLDly merge those one at a time, noting that the creator was a sockpuppet when doing so and link to the ANI discussion to show the POV issues, then wait a couple days for objections before moving to the next one. If an objection pops up, start a merge discussion. Feel free to ping me to any such discussion or if an article is borderline and you want input. I noticed that one article listed here is a WP:GA; such an article, if you do something with it, may need wider discussion at WP:FTN should you choose to do something major with it. Smaller trimming for POV would not necessarily need that though IMO. Crossroads -talk- 16:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the debate over these wiki articles is still ongoing, I support merging and deleting these articles. They are overly detailed and make these fringe ideas look more scientifically accepted than they are. The only book that I think might be notable enough to keep on Wikipedia is Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, since John Boswell's work was a notable contribution to the study of the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality. The articles for Simon LeVay's books should stay too. I noticed the article for Irving Bieber's book Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals was deleted a few months ago, so I support merging Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? into the article for Edmund Bergler. Dustytumble (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policies

Thank you for the excellent research Sxologist. ¶ For every article created by FreeKnowledgeCreator, the following policies should be part of the discussion:

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, particularly, "1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially "1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." (emphasis added)
  • This policy might be relevant to some of the articles about books: Non-contemporary books "... possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age."

I'll try to add some more comments later.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markworthen thanks for your comments. I think at least Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? should be merged (or downsized?) given how much larger it is than Bergler's article itself. It also ranks well in google for a variety of search terms meaning it is essentially become a promotional article for fringe views, and it includes that Freud image that FKC loved to put into every single article. The reviews section also focuses on a number of positive endorsements from 1900's psychoanalysts. Sxologist (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sxologist good points. I would personally be in favor of just deleting the article, but I suppose it's notable to the history of psychoanalysis (?). If not deletion, then merging a paragraph from FKC's agenda-promoting article into the Bergler article might be a solution.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markworthen: it isn’t that useful given the lack of context as historical fiction. Regarding deletion, maybe @JzG: can help/provide insight. Sxologist (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: what do you think on merging into Edmund Bergler? Sxologist (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sxologist, I've created a subheading below now that you've officially proposed a merge and where votes can go. I will change the templates you added to link to this section. You can ping everyone from the pre-existing discussion per WP:APPNOTE as well. Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC) rewrote Crossroads -talk- 20:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've boldly merged both Rekers books into his article, which provides more context and is appropriate per WP:Article size. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge officially proposed of Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? into Edmund Bergler

Consensus to merge (t · c) buidhe 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • Support per my and other comments above. Crossroads -talk- 19:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustytumble (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the article is tremendously long compared to the authors page (despite the books relative insignificance), it was almost entirely edited by a POV pushing sock-puppet, and because it's loaded with undue weight (especially in the reviews area). A shortened synopsis could be merged into the Bergler article. Sxologist (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The present article, simply titled "Edmund Bergler," should not be merged with any other article.

Bergler's main thesis concerned what he refers to as "Psychic Masochism," as he explained the phenomenon in The Basic Neurosis, Curable and Incurable Neurotics, Principles of Self-damage, Divorce Won't Help Neurotics, Parents not Guilty of their Children's Neuroses, and other books. Bergler's discussion of homosexuality is a side-issue. It was not the main focus of his work. I approve of the present article as it is mostly biographical and focuses on Bergler's central thesis. 2600:8801:BE26:2700:11A9:1693:7BCB:B491 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) JJ Elias.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Edmund_Bergler"