Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 5

Lede Section is a Mess

The lede is currently,

'Sigmund Freud (IPA: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏt]), born Shlomo Sigismund Freud (May 6, 1856 – September 23, 1939), was an Austrian physician who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology.[1] Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the defense mechanism of repression and for creating the clinical practice of psychoanalysis for curing psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst. Freud is also renowned for his redefinition of sexual desire as the primary motivational energy of human life, as well as his therapeutic techniques, including the use of free association, his theory of transference in the therapeutic relationship, and the interpretation of dreams as sources of insight into unconscious desires.'

You can see from the revision history that I've been trying to cut this back and make it more straightforward. It obviously needs more work, however. I think the main current problem with it is that the second sentence includes information ('creating the clinical practice of psychoanalysis for curing psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst') that overlaps confusingly with the last sentence ('his therapeutic techniques, including the use of free association, his theory of transference in the therapeutic relationship'). The third sentence does not follow from the preceding sentence in a way that is logical. The solution is probably to cut back the second sentence, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More Mess

Part of the article reads, 'While many Enlightenment thinkers viewed rationality as both an unproblematic ideal and a defining feature of man[citation needed], Freud's work implied a more complex and contradictory conception of rationality. On the one hand, his model of the mind drastically reduced the scope and power of reason. In this view, reasoning occurs in the conscious mind --the ego-- but this is only a small part of the whole. The mind also contains the hidden, irrational elements of id and superego, which lie outside of conscious control, drive behavior, and motivate conscious activities. As a result, these structures call into question humans' ability to act purely on the basis of reason, since lurking motives are also often at play. Moreover, even apparently rational mental activity may be motivated by hidden urges or societal forces (e.g. defense mechanisms, where reasoning becomes "rationalizing"). On the other hand, Freud's entire impetus was toward expanding the scope of rationality, both through the theoretical understanding of these irrational forces and through the process of psychoanalysis itself, in which the repressed unconscious motivations, memories, and feelings that underlie neurotic symptoms are brought to the light of consciousness, comprehended, and integrated into the rational self. Freud's motto for psychoanalysis was, "Where it (the id) was, I (the ego) shall become." That is, the non-rational and irrational shall give way to rationality.' This is an unattractive, not very well written paragraph, and I'm unsure whether to start rewriting it or just to delete it altogether. Skoojal (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Maybe a tidier and better written version of this could go back in the article, but I have serious doubts about the accuracy of this section. For instance, the equation of the conscious mind with the ego is misleading; Freud made clear that parts of the ego were also unconscious. That the ego is simply and purely 'rational' also seems dubious. Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Principle

The article reads, 'Some also refer to the death instinct as the Nirvana Principle.' This should be rewritten to make it clear who the 'some' was. If I remember correctly, it was Freud himself. Skoojal (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this temporarily, because it seems to imply (in either version) that the death instinct and the Nirvana principle are the same thing, and I'm not sure this is true. Skoojal (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements with Csloat

The first disagreement is over whether to include this sentence: 'While he saw himself as a scientist, Freud greatly admired Theodor Lipps, a philosopher and main supporter of the ideas of the subconscious and empathy.' This sentence appears to imply that, because Freud admired Lipps, he was a philosopher (or at least not a scientist). This is misleading. Freud was not a philosopher, and his admiration for Lipps did not make him one. Nor does Freud's admiration for Lipps show that he was not a scienist (maybe he wasn't, but if not, that is for other reasons). Even if Freud's admiration for philosophers did somehow show that he was not a scientist, why point this out with reference to Lipps? Why not Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Brentano, or even Plato, all of whom are better known and more significant?

The second disagreement is over this sentence: 'Freud's theories have had a tremendous effect on the humanities; especially on the Frankfurt school and critical theory.' If the reason for mentioning the Frankfurt School and critical theory is that they are part of the humanities, then this sentence is inappropriate. Philosophy is only one branch of the humanities, not the same thing as the humanities. A section about philosophy should contain only material about philosophy specifically. Furthermore, Freud's influence on the humanities has been so large that mentioning only the Frankfurt School and critical theory gives them undue importance.

The third disagreement is over this sentence: 'Freud had an incisive influence on French philosophers following the "return to Freud" of the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.' The same remarks about undue weight apply here as for the sentence about the Frankfurt school and critical theory. An additional problem with this sentence is that it implies that Lacan was a philosopher, a judgment that could be questioned. If Lacan is to be mentioned at all, it might be more appropriate to place him in the psychotherapy section, although the same problem about undue weight would still apply.

The fourth disagreement is over this sentence, in the bibliography entry for Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: 'It is also, therefore, a staunch critique of the Lacanian 'return to Freud'. My reason for removing this is that it is irrelevant. This is an article about Freud, not about Lacan or Deleuze and Guattari. A comment that relates only to Lacan, and not to Freud, should not be here. I also find the tone of this comment (thanks to the inclusion of the 'therefore') to be somewhat breathless, and therefore inappropriate.Skoojal (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) On Lipps - Skoojal is wrong, the sentence implies no such thing. Let's just deal with what it actually says rather than offering interpretations of what it "implies." It states that Freud greatly admired the philosopher, which is accurate as far as I can tell (and skoojal has offered no reason that it is inaccurate). There are legitimate disagreements over whether Freud was a philosopher, and you are welcome to your assumption that one cannot be both philosophical and scientific simultaneously, but it should have no bearing on the article. Your whole point seems to be that we cannot say that Freud was not a scientist. Fine, let's not say that -- it has no impact on whether we state that Freud admired a philosopher.

(2) I think it makes sense to include "humanities" in that sentence because the Frankfurt School was not just made up of (and did not just influence) philosophers. If this presents the kind of taxonomical problem that Skoojal seems to think it does, there is an easy solution -- change the label of this section to "the humanities" or change the word humanities to "philosophy." In either case, Skoojal's complete effacement of this sentence is not justified by his nitpicking about a single word.

(3) He makes the "undue weight" argument about both critical theory and Lacan. This is absurd. These are cited as examples, and his interpretation that it gives them "undue importance" is false. They are accurate examples, and in fact they are both quite important (particularly Lacan). Skoojal says it "implies that Lacan was a philosopher" - no it does not. It never says who was and wasn't a philosopher and Skoojal's interpretation that it does seems to be based in a stultified view of academic disciplinarity that really has no place in the article. We should not delete entire paragraphs because a single Wikipedia editor makes the convoluted assumption that it "implies" some kind of categorical statement that it does not. The "undue weight" argument is just silly in the context of Lacan, as everyone who has commented on this so far has noted. Lacan is in fact quite important, particularly in looking at Freud's impact on philosophy.

(4) The comment is explanatory and there seems no reason to remove it. Skoojal says it is about Lacan and not Freud but it is about the "return to Freud." Why someone would want to remove this from the article is beyond me. I agree about the "therefore" and would support removing it. csloat (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Lipps: declaring that I am wrong proves nothing. It's clear to me what that sentence implies: that Freud was not a scientist. I am not going to argue this point, since it's not relevant, but I do insist that this is not an appropriate way to approach the issue. Csloat gives no reason for thinking it is. Csloat unfortunately chose not to respond to some of the points I made, including the question of why it is necessary to mention Lipps at all, rather than any of several other people who could be mentioned. Some mention of Lipps might be fine for the article, but certainly not what is currently there. Skoojal (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comments on Anti-Oedipus: they may be explanatory, but unfortunately they are explanatory about Deleuze and Guattari, and in no way explanatory about Freud. The 'return to Freud' is Lacan, not Freud, and there is no reason it should be here. I grant that one could construe this as being about Freud, but it is obviously much more about Lacan. Skoojal (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the humanities/philosophy issue: no, please don't rename the section 'humanities', because if that happens, there is going to be no way of settling the issue of what should and should not be there. There is always going to be far too much that could be included, and mentioning only one thing or a couple of things would always be giving them undue importance. 'Philosophy' is a much more narrow category than 'humanities', and keeping it should make things easier to resolve. Skoojal (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding undue weight: I simply disagree. Mentioning only Lacan and the Frankfurt School 'as examples' still gives them undue weight, just as mentioning only Janov in the psychotherapy section as an example would give him and his therapy undue weight. It definitely does imply that Lacan was a philosopher to place him in the philosophy section. Skoojal (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) On Lipps, concentrate on what is actually written, not what you believe is implied. If someone wanted to say that Freud was not a scientist they do not need to "imply" it by saying something completely different; they would simply state "Freud is not a scientist." If you see that sentence in the article feel free to remove it.

(2) It is quite obviously about Freud, as you grant, and it seems reasonable to me in terms of making sense of Deleuze and Guattari, who are critiquing Freud of course, but through Lacan. What you do not seem to understand is how close Lacan claims to be to Freud; hence the "return to Freud" that he represents.

(3) I think you seem a little stuck on very specific and exclusionary definitions of such things as "philosophy" and "scientist" for example, but I'll let it drop - we can simply change the term "humanities" to "philosophy" and agree to leave it in? Or, better, change it to "the humanities, particularly in the discipline of philosophy"; either way, there is no justification for deleting it all as you have been doing.

(4) You may "simply disagree" all you want as long as you stop deleting things that are extremely accurate and consistent with what the overwhelming majority of scholars write about Freud's legacy. More to the point, however, these must be seen as examples; there is no "undue weight" issue. The issue is one of using examples to explain otherwise vague claims about Freud's legacy. Please stop turning this into some kind of balancing game.

(5) Nobody is being called a philosopher here. We can clarify that Lacan has had a huge impact on the discipline of philosophy if the claim somehow offends your exclusionary definition of the discipline, but once again, deletion of this material is not indicated. csloat (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) No one who edits an article can ignore what language implies. Your apparent conviction that anyone who wanted to say that Freud was not a scientist would necessarily do it directly, rather than by implying it, is baseless. So I stand by my position that the reference to Lipps should be rewritten and placed somewhere else in the article, if it is to be there at all.

(2) Regarding Deleuze and Guattari, this issue is not so important as the others, so I'm content to let that part remain, minus the 'therefore.'

(3) Changing 'the humanities' to 'philosophy' would still leave the article implying that Lacan is a philosopher, which is questionable. If you are suggesting that the majority of scholars of Freud and psychoanalysis accept Lacanianism, then that is news to me. I'll be interested to see what evidence you provide for this. Even leaving aside the correctness of the ideas, I doubt strongly that there is a consensus among scholars that Lacan is the most historically significant figure after Freud (in terms of the overall impact of their ideas, it would probably be easy to argue that Jung or Reich was more important). Skoojal (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You want to delete references to well-known facts because you think they "imply" something that is completely different from what they say. Nobody is saying Lacan is a philosopher or Freud is not a scientist, and the only reasoning you can give that someone would infer that from what is written is based on logical fallacies a grammar school kid should be able to pick out. How can you even expect me to take your claim seriously? And then you compound the issue by raising a complete strawman -- who is comparing Lacan to Jung or Reich?! Not me, and not the Wikipedia article. It doesn't say Lacan "is the most historically significant figure after Freud" (and if it does, I won't struggle with you over removing that language). Please deal with the text at hand, not some mythical text that you claim the text "implies." csloat (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, this is getting out of hand. As far as I'm concerned, csloat knows what he is doing, so let's just let him do it. We can see how things look afterwards. Your input is certainly welcome, Skoojal, but right now these objections to csloat seem to me like needless hairsplitting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What I want to delete includes at least the first seven words of this: 'While he saw himself as a scientist, Freud greatly admired Theodor Lipps, a philosopher and main supporter of the ideas of the subconscious and empathy.' This is not a fact. It is an opinion. It would count as a fact without the 'While', but the addition of that word turns it into an opinion (eg, that, because Freud admired Lipps, he was not a scientist) which I find bizarre. I have explained in some detail the problem with this, and the responses from csloat are not adequate. With all respect to Cosmic Latte, csloat does not, in this instance, seem to know what he is doing. Nor does he know what he is doing with his remarks about Jung and Reich - I obviously wasn't suggest that he had made such a comparison. The point of my remark was to address the issue of undue weight. Skoojal (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this? You have a problem with one word, you even suggest a solution yourself (delete the one word), and then you go ahead and butcher the whole section. As for Jung and Reich, I understood your point, Skoojal; it was simply wrong, and I explained why. Once again, your arguments are based on shoddy logic, and I have shown why. Please stop deleting this material. And do not delete the part about the humanities again; nobody is confusing the categories here except for you. Thanks. csloat (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep doing this because Freud and psychoanalysis are the subjects in which I have the greatest interest. I care deeply about them, and hence about this article. My removal of flawed, misleading material does not constitute "butchering" that section. I am afraid I find your remarks about Jung and Reich incomprehensible - perhaps you had better start again from the beginning and explain yourself more carefully. Your remarks about the humanities are, dare I say it, wrong; it's obvious that a section titled philosophy should deal with philosophy specifically and not the humanities in general. Skoojal (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You reverted me inside of two minutes? If you care deeply about these issues you might try reading about them because if you did you would see that you are deleting material that is pretty well established among scholars in the relevant fields. If you find my remarks about Jung and Reich incomprehensible then perhaps you should re-read them or at least let me know which word you are having trouble understanding. If you want to change the word humanities fine but please stop censoring valid information about freud's legacy based on your flawed understanding of the disciplines! csloat (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not well established that Freud's admiration for Lipps shows that he is not a scientist. As per Jung and Reich, it's your responsibility to explain yourself clearly - just repeat your position, if you have to. If you want to demonstrate that philosophy and the humanities are one and the same thing, then it's up to you. As far as I know, they aren't. Skoojal (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? Nobody says Freuds admiration for Lipps "shows that he is not a scientist." The article doesn't take a position on whether he is a scientist, and once again I must ask you to take a look at your own need to incessantly categorize these things in a mutually exclusive way. As for Jung and Reich, you're the one who brought them up so please see burden of proof -- I am not adding anything about Jung or Reich to the article at this time so I really don't understand what it is you want me to prove about them. As for philosophy and the humanities, again, your need to make categories exclusive really stands as a barrier to your understanding the issues here. I am not equating the two. Philosophy is part of the humanities yes. But Freud's influence on philosophy was also an influence on the humanities more generally -- particularly through the Frankfurt school, which has influenced sociology, anthropology, political science, literary theory, and more. So it is quite accurate to speak of Freud's influence on philosophy specifically and on the humanities generally. But I am not wedded to a particular way of putting this -- reword it if you want but please stop deleting it. Thanks. csloat (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I have changed my comments. In the original version, I wrote that the sentence implied that Freud's admiration for Lipps showed that he was not a philosopher - which was a mistake I made because I was getting annoyed and not thinking clearly. I've now corrected that. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I corrected my response then too; the problem here is that you think the section somehow says he is or is not either one of those things. It doesn't. You are the only one making such statements. csloat (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version is not so bad (thanks to your rewording), so the issue is at least partially resolved. The question of why that section has to mention Lipps at all remains unanswered, however. Skoojal (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Lipps is a philosopher who was working very much in similar territory to Freud. It's right there in the sentence you were deleting. csloat (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory answer. Much the same could be said of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Brentano - but the section does not mention them. There is no logic to mentioning Lipps there but not others - the section looks like something that was put together without much thought. Skoojal (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true at all; you can't say the same of any of those. If you think they should be added for other reasons, be bold. csloat (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can indeed say that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were working very much in similar territory to Freud - it's a well known fact. The article says that itself. Brentano may be a more arguable case, although there again, it's fairly well known that Freud admired Brentano, and may have been influenced by him. I can't see any reason why that section should mention Lipps, but not Brentano, a much more well known figure. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say that Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Brentano were main theorists of the subconscious or of empathy, which is what I was referring to in the article. csloat (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That 'Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Brentano' were main theorists of the subconscious or of empathy wasn't my point. The point was, they were all important philosophical influences on Freud, and have as much or more right to be mentioned in that section than Lipps, an obscure figure I freely admit that I had not heard of before reading this article. Skoojal (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, you're back to the same straw man that you were advancing with Janov then. Good day. csloat (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Skoojal, your last two edits on this material were perfectly reasonable and constitute exactly the position I was taking above -- if you have problems with specific words, direct your solutions at that language rather than deleting entire paragraphs. And there is no need to be so snide in your edit summaries -- I have no disagreement with either of those edits, and I have been encouraging you to do exactly that for some time now. csloat (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think my edits were reasonable, great. It does go to show I've been listening to your comments - you'll also note that I have not removed the mention of Lacan. Skoojal (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously False Claims in the section on the Unconscious

The article read, 'Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud made to Western thought were his arguments concerning the importance of the unconscious mind in understanding conscious thought and behavior. The western world overwhelmingly supported positivism up until Freud's time- the belief that self-knowledge as well as self-control is possible. Freud, however, came up with a revolutionary as well as controversial idea by declaring that people essentially have no free will.'

Most of this, especially the last sentence, is rubbish. Determinism was already a common idea. The definition given of "positivism" is wrong. All of it is badly written (and what does "people essentially have no free will" mean? one supposes they either have free will or they don't). Furthermore, it appears to contradict many of what immediately follows after it, so I have removed it. Skoojal (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The free will part is obviously poorly written but the rest of this paragraph is quite clear and accurate (or at least consistent with the mainstream in terms of freud scholarship) aside for a subject-verb agreement issue. Which word or phrase are you having trouble with Skoojal? Once again it looks like you're making a rash deletion based on your own misunderstanding of the text (and/or of Freud). csloat (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not accurate. It is a confused, misleading mess. If you want to show it's accurate, then refer to sources - can you find a dictionary (or any other source) that defines "positivism" that way? (I wouldn't really encourage anyone to rely on Wikipedia as a source, but it defines "positivism" this way, 'Positivism is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience', which is a completely different statement). I think you'll have some trouble there. Also, if you look at the article more closely, I think you'll find it does contradict other parts of it. If need be, I will copy them here and we can take a close look. Skoojal (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If the word you are having trouble understanding is "positivism," please feel free to add to the interpretation there (I'd say those are assumptions of positivism, but not a complete definition). That hardly invalidates the paragraph. csloat (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your personal definition of positivism has nothing to do with anything. As I said, I don't expect people to rely on Wikipedia, but on this issue it doesn't agree with you - or with the way that section uses the word "positivism." Skoojal (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then improve the definition but stop deleting the overall point which you seem to agree is valid and well established. I struck out a sentence from your comment that was uncivil and totally non sequitur in this discussion; hope this helps. csloat (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Update - I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your comments were not intended to be insulting and I struck them for you on that basis. You have restored them so I assume you intended the insult. I'll try to remain civil in response but the insult is noted. csloat (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made it clear that I consider those sentences to be completely wrong. They contradict other parts of the article. I do not know where you got the idea that I think they are valid and well established. Skoojal (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not made it clear what is wrong with those sentences and you have not shown what they contradict. Are you saying you don't agree that Freud's most significant contribution was his understanding of the unconscious? Then what, pray tell, do you believe it was? csloat (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the quoted material is correct, if not very well written. Pretty much everything else there is either factually wrong or else misleading (did no one until Freud think that free will doesn't exist? that idea wasn't "revolutionary"). Skoojal (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The free will part is poorly written as I acknowledged above -- fix it, don't delete the whole thing. Freud is revolutionary in that he showed an era which believed in "man" as the universal origin, telos, center, and judge that "man" wasn't entirely in "man." That is also poorly written but hopefully it makes more sense than "free will." Do you disagree that Freud's understanding of the unconscious is revolutionary in this way? Also, if you agree that the first sentence is correct, why are you deleting it? csloat (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Freud was not revolutionary in saying that people did not have free will. 'Revolutionary' implies that this was somehow a new idea. That is not the case. As for the first sentence about, 'Perhaps the most significant contribution...', I don't believe I did delete it. Skoojal (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, we're agreed that "free will" is not the right word for Freud's revolution. Now please go back and answer my question if you will. Thanks. csloat (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which question? Skoojal (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do you disagree that Freud's understanding of the unconscious is revolutionary in this way?" csloat (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way exactly? If you mean, because it showed that free will doesn't exist, I hardly think so. Skoojal (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How many times do you wish to have the same conversation? I didn't say free will. In fact I agreed with you multiple times now that that was poor language, and I offered other language. csloat (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you want to add something about Freud showing that 'man was not entirely in man' to the article? Skoojal (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just forget it, ok? I'm not interested in playing games. csloat (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hairsplitting

Skoojal, I'm glad, as I'm sure the rest of us are, that you're passionate about psychoanalysis. I'm sure that csloat is also passionate about it, but at this point I take it that he is relatively uninterested in the sorts of microscopic fine-tuning that might be more appropriate at a WP:FAC stage. Your knowledge and interest are valued, Skoojal, but with all due respect, the manner in which you've been applying them in the talk page lately seems largely to amount to nitpicking. The time may--and should--come when a more exacting revision of the article is warranted. But right now, the article is in need of large-scale improvements, and csloat seems willing and able to help make them. So I think it's in the best interest of the article to let him do his stuff and, if you happen to disagree with aspects of his work, to "choose your battles carefully," as the saying goes. Just as I am trying to avoid alienating you now, so you might seek to avoid pushing him away from the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What specific changes have I made that you disapprove of? A vague, general complaint about my editing is not helpful - please be clear about exactly what you are objecting to. You will note that I have gradually been resolving my differences with csloat. Skoojal (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No you have not. You're still engaged in nitpicky revert warring, and you only back off of revert warring after extensive ad nauseam arguments where you repeat arguments that have been defeated over and over again in increasingly insulting tones. I appreciate the fact that you do eventually back off, but it makes it difficult to edit the article. As I've said before, you should read WP:OWN carefully. csloat (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have! See the discussions above. Most of the disagreements are over. I'm sure we will be eventually able to reach agreement on the matter of phallocentrism. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have backed off only after extensive and convoluted ad nauseam argumentation. And you're doing it again with phallocentrism. It's very off-putting. As I said, it would really help if you would click on WP:OWN and read it carefully. Thanks! csloat (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you see anything wrong with the current wording about phallocentrism? If so, what is it? Skoojal (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Borch-Jacobsen

I have removed Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen's comments from the article. This is because the comment ('The truth is that Freud knew from the very start that Fleischl, Anna O. and his 18 patients were not cured, and yet he did not hesitate to build grand theories on these non-existent foundations...he disguised fragments of his self-analysis as ‘objective’ cases, that he concealed his sources, that he conveniently antedated some of his analyses, that he sometimes attributed to his patients ‘free associations’ that he himself made up, that he inflated his therapeutic successes, that he slandered his opponents') is primarily criticism of Han Israëls rather than criticism of Sigmund Freud. I added an explanation that this comment was part of a review of Israëls's book published in The London Review of Books (necessary, since it is so oddly sourced) but this created the problem that the comment could look as though it were based on Israëls's book rather than being criticism of it. I do not think that this could be properly explained without quoting so much of Borch-Jacobsen's comments in that review that they would become undue. Skoojal (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the comment; it's pretty clear it's about Freud. I think we can do a little better in terms of describing whose opinion it is (BJs or I's) but it is a pretty notable assessment. csloat (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think it can be clarified, then please clarify it - otherwise I will just be tempted to remove it again (although I won't do that immediately). Skoojal (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who seems to think it needs clarification; I thought you did plenty of that already. It seems fine to me -- could be better, but "could be better" is a reason to improve it, not delete it. csloat (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment in relation to something Skoojal wrote above: "... the comment ('The truth is that Freud knew from the very start that Fleischl, Anna O. and his 18 patients were not cured, and yet he did not hesitate to build grand theories on these non-existent foundations...he disguised fragments of his self-analysis as ‘objective’ cases, that he concealed his sources, that he conveniently antedated some of his analyses, that he sometimes attributed to his patients ‘free associations’ that he himself made up, that he inflated his therapeutic successes, that he slandered his opponents') is primarily criticism of Han Israëls rather than criticism of Sigmund Freud."

The suggestion that the quote in the parenthesis is actually a criticism of Israëls rather than of Freud is belied by the very article cited at the end of the paragraph in question. Borch-Jacobsen is supportive of Israëls on virtually every item to which he refers in Israëls' book Der Fall Freud: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/borc01_.html Esterson (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that it's pointless to comment on talk page content that doesn't concern a current debate? Talk pages are for discussing changes that should be made to articles, not for general commentary and discussion about the article's subject. Skoojal (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page on the Borch-Jacobsen section is open for any editor to read, and to amend at any time. Someone who did read your comment would be most unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of the matter to be aware that what you wrote about Borch-Jacobsen in relation to Israëls is the opposite of the truth, as can be ascertained by reading Borch-Jacobsen's review of Der Fall Freud (e.g., "Israëls's demonstration is meticulous, relentless, devastating") or from a knowledge of the published writings of Borch-Jacobsen and Israëls. It is evident (since they didn't contest the actual validity of this aspect of what you wrote) that the editors who challenged your comment at the time were not aware that it was the opposite of the truth, and in my view a misleading statement of this order should not be allowed to stand unchallenged and so mislead future readers of this discussion section Esterson (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be that BJ supports Israels on all points except the one that matters, which has to do with the reasons psychoanalysis is important and as BJ says the difference between fabrication and a lie. To positivists, Israels charges and evidence (whcih I agree BJ accepts) would invalidate psychoanalytic theory. But BJ is not a positivist and the way I read him he is not saying that psychoanalytic theory is at all invalidated. He is saying that positivists like Israels do not understand how stories co-created by the therapist and patient through therapy can be important and truthful, even if they are not factual. He ends his review by saying that the big mistake of psychoanalysis is when they try to be positivists and make the same kinds of truth-claims positivists make. BJ approvingly cites Lacan, and there are many other followers of Freud who believe that his work has value and merit not because it meets positivist standards for factual accuracy but for other reasons.

I think the real issue is the question BJ askes about lies and fabrications. For positivists, Freud lied and lies are bad. For non-positivists he fabricated, and fabrications are good. There is no meeting ground in this debate and both points of view are notable, so it is worth developing a section that explains in a neutral way the difference between these two points of view. 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My reply to this considered response: Even if this interpretation of Borch-Jacobsen's (2001) final two paragraphs were correct, every one of the items in parentheses in the paragraph in question (above) that Skoojal says is a criticism of Israëls are actually supported by Borch-Jacobsen, so it remains the case that the statement is the opposite of the truth.

But is your interpretation of those final two paragraphs valid? You write "the way I read him he is not saying that psychoanalytic theory is at all invalidated." Well, here is what Borch-Jacobsen writes in the article itself:

"Indeed, we all but forget that Freud's patients and colleagues swallowed his lies, including the biggest and (to us) the most blatant. [...] In the end, if psychoanalysis must be criticised, it is not because it fabricates the evidence it adduces, nor because it creates the reality it purports to describe. It is because it refuses to recognise this and attempts to cover up the artifice."

I personally don't think this is consistent with the view that he is not saying psychoanalysis is invalid, though I accept that within the full context of the final two paragraphs this might be argued. So let's see what Borch-Jacobsen says elsewhere in a recent article that does indicate that he believes psychoanalysis has been shown to be invalid:

"How does one explain that a false theory like psychoanalysis has had such success?" ("Comment expliquer qu'une théorie fausse comme la psychoanalyse ait eu tel succès?")

"What is there within psychoanalytic theory that has enabled it to fulfil so many functions? Nothing, I would say: it is precisely because the theory is perfectly empty, utterly hollow, that it has proved itself so adaptable to so many different contexts." ("Qu'y a-t-il dans la théorie psychoanalytique qui la rende capable de remplir tant de functions? Rien, à mon sens: c'est précisément parce qu'elle est parfaitement vide, parfaitement creuse, que cetted théorie a pu se propager comme elle l'a fait et s'adapter à des contexts si différenent.")

"Une théorie zero", pp. 178, 182, Le livre noir de la psychanalyse, Les Arènes, 2005, pp. 178-195.

You write: "BJ approvingly cites Lacan." In fact his one reference to Lacan in the review of Israëls' book reads: "As Lacan candidly recognised, this is what likens psychoanalysis to a pre-modern practice such as alchemy." So he is approving one specific statement of Lacan's (a candid likening of psychoanalysis to practices such as alchemy!), not Lacanian ideas in general.

Borch-Jacobsen ceased to be a follower of Lacan some time ago. Here is a recent comment of his indicating his current critical view of Lacan:

"I shall argue forcefully that psychoanalysis has the character of being both everything and nothing, and this is eminently applicable to Lacan. Lacanism is a wonderful illustration of the chameleon-like and opportunistic character of psychoanalysis." ("Je suggérrais plus haut que la psychoanalyse a la particularité d'être tout et n'importe quoi, et cela s'applique éminemment à Lacan. Le Lacanisme est une merveilleuse illustration du caratère opportuniste et caméleon de la psychoanalyse.")

("Lacan ventriloque", Le livre noir de la psychoanalyse, 2005, p. 264.) Esterson (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My point precisely - many things in life are absolutely false, and zeros as scientific theories - say, a Shakespeare play, or Moby Dick. And yet they are very truthful and valuable. BJ is saying that the great failure of psychoanalysis is its failure to recognize this. It fails to recognize its actual truthfulness. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Borch-Jacobsen is saying... that [psychoanalysis] fails to recognize its actual truthfulness."

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that Borch-Jacobsen describes psychoanalysis as "a false theory" (see above)?

Someone who believed in the truthfulness of psychoanalysis would hardly be the editor for English language authors of Le livre noir de la psychoanalyse, 2005, Sous la direction de Catherine Meyer, avec Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Jean Cottraux, Didier Pleux, Jacques Van Rillaer.: http://www.arenes.fr/spip.php?article198&var_recherche=livre%20noir

The title The Black Book of Psychoanalysis is an allusion to The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, translation of Le livre noir du Communisme (1977): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221506113&sr=1-1 Esterson (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have added that Borch-Jacobsen contributed seven original articles to Le livre noir de la psychoanalyse. Esterson (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that by "theory" he means the term in the sense used by physical and life scientists, which is perhaps what Freud himself meant, and not in the sense used by people in the humanities (if for example he meant "theory" in the Wittgenstinian sense of language-game it woud be neither true nor false - in fact, I think one could view psychoanalytic theory in just this sense. It is in this sense that I read BJ's book on the Freudian Subject, which seemed to me to be demonstrating that Freud's body of work was tremendously insightful but in an entirely non-linear, even deconstructive, way i.e. not in the way that any scientific treatise supposes to be insightful.) I have met many people in the humanities who have little use for work by positivist sociologists or psychologists i.e. those who claim to be developing scientific theories based on huge samples objectively represented, that can generate falsifiable hypoptheses. These people in the humnanities simply seem to have little use for a scientific theory and the fact that one is "true" would not be a compliment. However many of these people have found Freud very useful (like Leo Bersani) and as far as I know they never claim that it is because his theories were "true." They mean something else by theory, and the value of their theories does not have to do with the kinds of truth-claims made by scientific theories. All of their theories are false in the positivist science sense - and yet valuable and meaningful for them. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Sujet freudien was published in 1982. To use a book written more than 25 years ago as an indication of Borch-Jacobsen's current views (which is what we are discussing here in relation to his review of Der Fall Freud) is not altogether unlike contending in 1993 (when he wrote the famous/notorious NYRB review/article "The Unknown Freud") that Frederick Crews favoured Freudian ideas on the basis of what he wrote in The Sins of the Fathers: Hawthorne's Psychological Themes (1966).

The question remains: Is it conceivable that Borch-Jacobsen believes that psychoanalysis is truthful/valuable when in 2005 he was editor for English language authors of The Black Book of Psychoanalysis (and himself contributed seven articles), possibly the most anti-psychoanalytic book authored by academics ever published? Esterson (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a student in his class. He's completely against pyschoanalysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.15.172 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography section

Below (stored for future work) is the excellent, but much too long, bibliography that was in the main article. I've kept only the major works in the article. For my explanation and suggestion, see my edit summary for the removal in the article history. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It should probably go in a separate article then; I'd hate to lose this stuff. List of works by Freud isn't good enough though since many of the works are about Freud, not by him. csloat (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little annoyed that you removed something I spent a lot of time improving, although I'm not going to re-add it right away. Perhaps you could give a more detailed explanation of why you removed it? I removed the bibliography from the talk page - it absolutely does not belong here, as it is stored in the revision history of the article, where it can be found if anyone needs it or wants to add it to a different article. Skoojal (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is quite simple: It was good, but too long for a main biographical article, so rather than A) keep it in the article or B) wipe it from the face of the earth, it might be best to C) give it a seperate article of its own. A pretty standard Wikipedia argument, really. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored part (but only part) of the bibliographic material that Cosmic Latte deleted - I see no valid reason for removing this. Skoojal (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

"In 1896 Freud posited that the symptoms of 'hysteria' and obsessional neurosis derived from unconscious memories of sexual abuse in infancy, and claimed that he had uncovered such incidents for every single one of his current patients (one third of whom were men). However a close reading of his papers and letters from this period indicates that these patients did not report early childhood sexual abuse as he later claimed: rather, he based his claims on analytically inferring the supposed incidents, using a procedure that was heavily dependent on the symbolic interpretation of somatic symptoms."

I don't see any source for the second sentence here. It is not very difficult to write good Wikipedia articles; a great part of it just requires donkey work, rather than confident but unsourced assertions like this. Since this particular one goes right to the heart of the controversy about Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory, it is in dire need of some kind of citation to support itself. Lexo (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general note: I have noticed that a lot of contributors on this page are passionate about psychoanalysis. That's good. But on the evidence of the article itself, you need the attention of some people who are passionate about Wikipedia. The article is not supposed to be a battleground in which one interpretation of Freud must be given prominence over another; it's meant to be a place where conflicting interpretations can be given due space. I am frankly astonished that an article on such a major topic does not have Featured status, but I guess it's because it has attracted more attention from people who want to argue a particular line than from people who want to make a decent encyclopedia article. I am one of the latter; a layman, interested in Freud but with no axe to grind, who is primarily interested in making this article better. I invite ideas on how to do so. Lexo (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I'm sorry to say this to a bunch of people who are probably more well-versed in Freudian psychoanalysis than I am, but this article needs a major rewrite.

At the moment, it doesn't even begin to conform to Wikipedia guidelines about well-written articles. It is riddled with unsourced assertions and what appear to be violations of WP: Original research. You know that what you are saying is more or less true; I know it too. But for goodness' sake provide references to Freud's own works, if possible. I have an entire shelf of his books myself, and if nobody else can be bothered I will do my best to provide sources. But it would be easier if we all chipped in, and we need to do so, because right now this article is a shambles.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

"Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud made to Western thought were his arguments concerning the importance of the unconscious mind in understanding conscious thought and behavior." This is an unsourced assessment of Freud's importance, and as such violates WP: Original Research.

"Freud hoped to prove that his model was universally valid and thus turned to ancient mythology and contemporary ethnography for comparative material." I don't disagree. But prove it, by citing a statement by him where he said that that's what he hoped to do.

"Freud's views have sometimes been called phallocentric." Yeah, I know they have. Quote me somebody saying so, though.

"However, Freud has had a tremendous impact on psychotherapy." I'm sure, but who said so, and where?

I hope I have begun to convey the extent to which this article needs to be revised in order to conform to Freud's own published statements, and to be less of a place where people get to sound off about what they think he meant and how important they think he really is, or isn't. Contributions, please. Lexo (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the biography section is one huge violation of WP: Original research. I have to reiterate that the article is not a place for wikipedia contributors to give their opinions about the relative worth of books about Freud. I will cut that section down to size, because it is simply way too big and in violation of wikipedia standards. Lexo (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly most of that is not OR; it is just uncited. It is entirely uncontroversial to state that Freud's biggest contribution concerns his understanding of the unconscious mind and I don't think you'd find anyone to disagree with that. Tracking down a source is a tedium for people who have read a lot of this stuff -- what assessment of Freud doesn't acknowledge this point at least implicitly? -- but it's a good idea, and I don't think edits adding sources to such claims would be challenged. I don't think it's a good idea to cut sources the way you did here, though I would support moving all this stuff to a separate article as has been suggested (I also think your cuts of the explanatory material in that same edit were reasonable). csloat (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Adding sources can't hurt, and it certainly conforms to WP policy, but it is possible to overstate the point. To claim that it's WP:OR to assert that Freud's most important contributions were to our understanding of the unconscious mind, strikes me as a bit like challenging an assertion that Einstein's most important contributions were to our understanding of the physical universe. It can't hurt to source either claim--after all, to do so would expand our reading lists--but I hardly find it necessary to do so. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Freud projecting?

A lot of his theories sound like he was trying to place his own beliefs and views onto the public at large, in his case study with hans he admits that he fed his own beliefs into the subject who didn't have those beliefs before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.47.235 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is orginal research. Orginal research is not suitable for wikipedia Wikipedia:No orginal research

However, in keeping with the policy of netural point of view Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View both positive and negative critiques of Sigmund Freud's ideas should be included. To me, the questions is this: where do we put this material? I suggest a page entitled "Freud Wars" show the historial evolution of such critique. Writerz (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly are the dates of Freud's birth and death Wikified?

Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says, 'Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so.' So, why are Freud's birth and death dates linked? I've seen a lot of articles do this, but it appears to have no justification in terms of the style manual. I will de-link them if there are no objections. Skoojal (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Early Work

I have modified the previous penultimate paragraph of this section, and replaced the last paragraph with a fuller account of recent scholarship on the seduction theory, with numerous references. Esterson (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're here to promote one particular point of view in a controversy over Freud's work, be aware that any changes you make are likely to be modified extensively. Biased or one-sided editing is usually fairly easy to detect, and swiftly changed. I think that, if you had any interest in presenting controversy on this subject fairly, you would have mentioned the views of David H. Gleaves and Elsa Fernandez. Forgive my accusation of self-interest; you did, after all, use your own work. I am not going to insist that anything you add to this article must be removed, as Wikipedia does not work that way, but I am going to insist on balance. Skoojal (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those wondering what I was talking about in my edit summary will find some answers here http://www.indiana.edu/~histpsy/abstracts.html. Skoojal (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor: Please excuse the length of the following, as this needs a comprehensive response. Skoojal has evidently taken it upon himself to police Wikipedia website contributions that he does not like. To see what I mean, please read my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Freudian_Coverup

As I say there, I regard Skoojal's propensity to remove completely contributions he does not like as Wikipedia vandalism. I am not concerned with promoting one "point of view" (and note that I have not, like Skoojal, removed contributions I believe to be erroneous), but I have a great deal of knowledge of the topic on which I recently contributed, having read widely on it over some 15 years, and having published three articles in history of psychology journals on the subject. I therefore added closely documented information about the seduction theory episode, all fully referenced, often from primary sources. For instance, one statement on the current webpage that Skoojal evidently approves is "most of [Freud's] patients in the mid-1890s reported early childhood sexual abuse. He believed these stories…" One has only to examine Freud's 1896 seduction theory papers to recognize this is false, and only widely believed because that is the story that was the final version of Freud's ever-changing accounts of the episode. Numerous scholars who have returned to the original documents have published articles recognizing the falseness of the received story currently on the website.

What I posted was an account of the original events as evidenced by Freud's own words that he wrote at the time, a view that has now been accepted by numerous scholars who have published on the subject. (I cite some half-dozen such authors in the above Talk link.)

Skoojal writes that if I had any interest in presenting the subject fairly I would have mentioned the views of David H. Gleaves and Elsa Fernandez, and adds a reference link. He needn't have bothered, as I am perfectly familiar with the article in question. It is full of factual errors and misconceptions, so much so that I submitted a 13,000 word critique to History of Psychology. As it happens they only accept brief responses to their published articles, and eventually published a short precis of my critique. So why would I want to cite an article that supports the story that is already on the webpage (which I have not removed) when I believe it to fundamentally flawed?

Skoojal writes: "Forgive my accusation of self-interest; you did, after all, use your own work." What Skoojal omits to mention is that in relation to the Freud webpages everything I have referenced of mine has been published in peer-reviewed history of psychology/psychiatry journals. (I think Skoojal may have previously removed citings to seduction theory articles on my website, but please note that these are pre-publication versions of published articles, as the journals in question did not allow the published version to be posted for copyright reasons.)

I ask the Wikipedia editor to adjudicate on this matter. I shall replace the paragraphs Skoojal has removed. I suggest that if he takes exception to them, he first reads the numerous references I supply, including Freud's original 1896 accounts, and then reports on this Comment page what reasons he can give for contending that the conclusions arrived at by myself, and by the several other authors I cite, are in error. Esterson (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have noted with reference to the 15 years mentioned above that I first published on the seduction theory in a chapter devoted to it in my book Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud, Open Court, 1993. Esterson (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. to above comments. Having checked the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, I withdraw my allegation of vandalism against Skoojal. But this is just a question of terminology, it does not make the way he has behaved in regard to my contributions any less inappropriate for Wikipedia. That this does not only apply to behaviour towards me is evident from comments made about his behaviour here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_Crews Esterson (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson wrote, 'He needn't have bothered, as I am perfectly familiar with the article in question.' Yes, obviously you are familiar with it. However, you and I are not the only editors on Wikipedia. I posted the link for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the article, so that they can have some idea of what is going on here. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy [1]. Among other things, it says: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.'

Now, you chose to represent only one side of a controversy, the one you agree with. Your personal view that Gleaves and Fernandez are wrong doesn't give you an excuse for this behaviour. In terms of what goes into the article, it doesn't matter whether they are wrong or not, and the purpose of talk pages is not to discuss issues like this. I'm therefore not going to enter into discussion on the subject. Nor is it relevant that what you call the received story is given here, as the controversy is over modern reassessments of it. The only relevant point is that Gleaves and Fernandez's views have been published in something that counts as a reliable source, per the Wikipedia definition.

Since I don't expect you to take my word for it that your changes weren't appropriate, I've asked a couple of other editors to comment. The problem with your changes wasn't that you mentioned your side in the controversy (which, taken by itself, would in fact be welcome), but that you didn't word things neutrally or let the other side speak. Regarding your comments about Frederick Crews: it is (I suppose) predictable that you would use this issue to attack me. However, I'd advise against it; this matter is off topic for this page, and your using it this way is a violation of the policy against personal attacks, given here [2]. Skoojal (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal: Thank you for alerting me to the current dispute. But with all due respect, Skoojal, it seems clear to me that Esterson, a published expert on the topic, has a WP:CLUE. If we want to bring in Gleaves and Fernandez, then we'll have to allow Esterson to present his counterpoints. WP:NPOV, right? Well, then we might get into issues with length, readability, WP:SS, etc. Please choose your battles carefully. We don't want to alienate folks who have something (such as Esterson's expertise) to contribute. My advice to you regarding Esterson is essentially the same as it came to be with csloat: Let him be. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte: with due all respect, I don't think Esterson has a clue as to what counts as neutrality. His contributions here would be welcome were he interested in representing both sides of this controversy fairly, but unfortunately this appears not to be the case. Your comment, 'If we want to bring in Gleaves and Fernandez, then we'll have to allow Esterson to present his counterpoints' is simply baffling; Esterson already has inserted his side of the controversy into the article. Recall that the Neutral Point of View policy states, 'The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.' Esterson has egregiously violated this principle. Expertise is a fine thing, but it's no good when it comes with a strong bias and inability to be neutral. Skoojal (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Skoojal's argument defies logic. He makes no objection to the original accounts on the three webpages to which I made additions on the seduction theory (while leaving the traditional story unchanged for readers to see), though they present a single viewpoint, and despite the fact there is scarcely a single primary source reference among them, bar one. (Some of the statements to which Skoojal has made no objection have been refuted by the simple expedient of examining the primary sources, namely, Freud's own accounts of his clinical experiences in 1895-1896, rather than his very different retrospective reports that became received history.) On the Sigmund Freud webpage, for instance, there is only a single primary source reference, apart from my numerous ones now added. I have explicitly given an alternative view of the seduction theory episode, supported by numerous Freud scholars, and based on a meticulous examination of primary sources and a very wide reading of all points of view. I have already explained why it would make no sense for me to cite "Gleaves and Fernandez" [sic] in that context. Gleaves and Hernandez are already cited in the appropriate place on the Seduction Theory webpage, note 21, a reference I have left untouched. Did Skoojal object to the paragraph in question, and the citing of Gleaves and Hernandez there, on the grounds that this was just one viewpoint, and therefore not neutral?

Skoojal wrote: "The problem with your changes wasn't that you mentioned your side in the controversy (which, taken by itself, would in fact be welcome), but that you didn't word things neutrally or let the other side speak." Note that what I posted were not changes, they were additions giving a different account based on Freud scholarship of the past 30 years. As to "letting the other side speak", they had already spoken, in the account already on the relevant websites, which I left untouched.

Skoojal wrote: "Recall that the Neutral Point of View policy states, 'The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly'."

That is precisely what was not the case before when only the traditional story was given, whereas now readers can see both accounts on all three webpages. Since I am able to document from primary sources (and cite numerous Freud scholars taking the same position from an examination of these sources), it would make no sense for me to cite alternative views that are already on the webpage.

Skoojal wrote: "Cosmic Latte: with due all respect, I don't think Esterson has a clue as to what counts as neutrality." This comes from someone who made no objection at all when only one viewpoint was present on all three websites that treat the seduction theory, and now objects because I present an explicitly alternative view (leaving the traditional presentation untouched), profusely referenced from primary sources. Esterson (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now replaced the two paragraphs I previously posted by amended/rewritten paragraphs, with references to academic articles and books that cite the same primary sources and present essentially the same narrative to the one described here.

Note that the traditional account of the seduction theory remains untouched, without any caveats, as before. What I have provided is an alternative narrative that is in line with the views of not only the academic authors I have cited, but quite a few others I could name. Esterson (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the italics removed by Skoojal in the following sentence: "In these papers Freud recorded that with his patients the imputed memories were not conscious, and that on his theory they must be present as unconscious memories if they were to result in hysterical symptoms or obsessional neurosis."

I have restored the italics because (i) the previous paragraph introducing the seduction theory episode makes no mention of the fact that the seduction theory entailed that the putative memories of infantile abuse had to be unconscious, (ii) the italics occur here in the clause noting what Freud himself stated about the seduction theory; it is evident from numerous articles, including academic books/articles that it is not generally appreciated that a fundamental aspect of the theory was that it required the postulated "memories" to be unconscious, (iii) to emphasize how essential this was, Freud himself put the words "unconscious memories" in italics in the relevant passage in the 1896 "Aetiology" paper. Esterson (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Thank you for the explanation. I've no intention of reverting you. Skoojal (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson's use of Freud

I removed the following passage, added by Esterson: 'It is evident from these papers that the patients did not report early childhood sexual abuse, as he was later to claim: "With our patients these memories are never conscious... The [infantile sexual abuse] scenes must be present as unconscious memories " The 1896 papers indicate that it was Freud himself who insisted to the unbelieving patients that they had repressed memories of such abuse: "Before they come for analysis the patients know nothing about these [infantile sexual abuse] scenes... the patients assure me emphatically of their unbelief"..

As I said in the edit summary, I am well aware that Esterson has used published sources for his side of the controversy, but it just won't do to use Freud himself this way. It amounts to original research (which there is a strict policy against [3]), even though these are simply comments on quotations from Freud. The policy states, 'Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.' This is what Esterson did. Skoojal (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is frankly ridiculous. Skoojal makes no objection to the statement "most of his patients in the mid-890s reported early childhood sexual abuse. Freud believed these stories, but then came to realize that they were fantasies", though it is unreferenced. (I could supply the primary source – it is from Freud's grossly misleading 1933 report of the episode.) On the other hand he removes a paragraph of mine which not only gives the primary sources (Freud's accounts at the time), but actually quotes the very words Freud used. He justifies this by describing what I wrote as original research!

On this he writes: "The policy states, 'Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources'." But I actually quoted precisely what Freud himself said so how can it be said that the paragraph advances a position not clearly advanced by the sources? And for Skoojal to describe this as "new analysis" reveals just how ignorant of Freud scholarship he is. The reporting of these words of Freud's to demonstrate what actually happened in 1895-1896 has been used on numerous occasions by Freud scholars since at least 1973.

Skoojal objects to my presentation in the paragraph in question. But in the 1896 "Aetiology" paper Freud himself refers to "the strongest compulsion of the treatment" in the face of patients "who still attempt to withhold belief" in the preconceived sexual abuse "scenes" he was insisting they experienced in infancy; and in another paper written soon afterwards he wrote: "If we keep firmly to what we have inferred, we shall in the end conquer every resistance by emphasizing the unshakeable nature of our convictions." There is clearly every justification from Freud's own words for my writing that it was he himself who insisted to the patients that they had repressed memories of abuse. Why does Skoojal not object to the misleading story on the website that "most of his patients in the mid-1890s reported early childhood sexual abuse" and "Freud believed these stories", clearly contradicted by what he wrote at the time?

The logic of Skoojal's position is that an unsupported statement that Freud's patients reported to him sexual abuse in early childhood poses no problems, while an account that is supported by Freud's own words at the time, fully referenced, is not permissible.

Skoojal: "It won't do to use Freud himself in that way." So accounts of events as described in secondary sources are alright, with all the inherent possibilities of errors and misconceptions, but accounts that return to the original sources to see how Freud himself described events at the time "won't do".

It is evident that Skoojal will resort to any tortuous argument he can dream up to remove my contributions to this subject. For this reason I shall be replacing the paragraph that he has removed. Esterson (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with what Esterson is doing. Much of This deletion baffles me, as the information was thoroughly sourced. As for neutrality, WP:NPOV does not mean that any and all potential viewpoints need to be represented. What it means is that there needs to be a fair representation of "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This would include Esterson's disagreement with Gleaves and Fernandez. It was not appropriate to call Esterson "one very self-interested editor" in an edit summary. Regardless of where his interests lie, he is a published editor, and he is perfectly entitled, within reason, to use his published expertise to help sculpt the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it isn't WP:OR to put Freud's words in context. Of course, the more implicit the context, the better it is to cite a secondary source, but I trust Esterson to use good judgment while editing in accordance with WP:OR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR to provide a sourced account of someone's verifiable view, like Jeffrey Masson. However, it is a violation to use primary source material to make an argument. I think this is the issue. The article should not be arguing for which view is right or wrong, and it certainly shouldn't be marshaling primary sources to suggest that one view is right and another wrong. It should provide all notable views, yes, contextualize them. Esterson did much of this and I appreciate that, it improves the article. But Esterson also editorialized and wrote in an argumentative style that is at best inappropriate to an encyclopedia and probably violates NPOV and NOR. The problem is that too many editors too often just add views they themselves agree with. I know I have done it. There is nothing wrong with it but we have to bend over backwards to make sure we are not doing this to further our own views. Here is a quick test any editor should use when adding a strongly felt POV - it is what I do and I find it very helpful. Imagine that the view you were adding were the opposite of the one you were actually adding (or, imagine that you completely and passionately disagree with the view you are adding) - would you write about it the same way? Sometimes I realize that the answer to this question is"no" and it leads me to rewrite my contribution. The result is a much better contribution. Of course, I do not always have to do this: I edit assuming others will improve on what I wrote. We should all edit making this assumption, that someone will change what we write, because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I do not see Skoojal rejecting Esterson's contributions. I see him editing them to make them fit more with an NPOV NOR encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I'd actually like to suggest that Esterson contribute his critical points primarily to the "Freud's legacy" section of the article, because that's where criticism of Freud has (rightfully, I think) been ending up. It'll also be a lot "cleaner" to have counterpoints to Freud in their own location. After all, this is Freud's article--let's not try to refute him before we've even introduced him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, I suppose there is a fine line between contextualizing (all's well) and analyzing (WP:OR) primary material, and I wouldn't say categorically that the material removed here didn't cross that line. Always good to play it safe and cite a secondary source--even if it's Esterson's own. (I can't imagine that WP is the first place he's critiqued the primary text.) Overall I (now) think that Skoojal's concerns were a tad overstated, but nonetheless valid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm coming here after SLR dropped me a line about it. I have to agree with SLR & Cosmic Latte. There is a half way point where the information that User:Esterson is adding may be kept but where the "editorializing"/essay-style that Skoojal objects to is brought in line with the NPOV etc.
  It seems to me that Esterson and Skoojal are both working in good faith here but I recognize that some of the communication between the two has been terse, some of it border-line incivil (and in edit summaries - which makes it worse) however it would be of great benefit to the project if both editors could let by-gones be by-gones and start afresh. Cosmic Latte and SLR have given good advice and I urge both Skoojal and Esterson to reflect upon it--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some points of information, please:

Slrubenstein: You wrote: "It is not OR to provide a sourced account of someone's verifiable view, like Jeffrey Masson."

Could you please explain this? Far from Masson's view being "verifiable", his account has been refuted, implicitly or explicitly, by several Freud scholars, e.g., Cioffi (1998 [1984]): "Masson is mistaken in holding that Freud based his conviction of the reality of the seductions on stories recalled and recounted by his patients… he is the victim of Freud's retrospective confabulatory or mendacious accounts"; Schimek (1987): "the seduction theory had never been based on patients' direct statements…"; Israëls & Schatzman (1993): "Masson attributed to Freud a version of the seduction theory that never existed"; Esterson (1998): http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm; McCullough (2001): "Masson's book Assault on Truth [is] deeply flawed…"; Eissler (2001): "Masson misrepresented the seduction theory in the identical way [that Alice Miller did]". Again, Masson's general account of events is fundamentally flawed: Borch-Jacobsen (1996); Esterson (2002): http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm; McCullough (2001).

Slrubenstein: "I do not see Skoojal rejecting Esterson's contributions. I see him editing them…"

Within 24 hours of my posting my contributions Skoojal simply removed virtually all of them. In what way is this constructive "editing"?

Cosmic Latte: "I'd actually like to suggest that Esterson contribute his critical points primarily to the "Freud's legacy" section of the article, because that's where criticism of Freud has (rightfully, I think) been ending up."

What I was providing was not criticism of Freud as such, but an account of an important event based on the primary sources, namely, what Freud wrote at the time. Why is an account like the traditional version, which, as Cioffi has written, can be seen to be false from an hour's examination of Freud's 1896 papers in a library, deemed to be acceptable as an account of an important episode, but a primary-sourced account is deemed not to be? And how can it be appropriate to place a primary-sourced account of this episode in the "Freud's legacy" section? Esterson (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson, several people have made encouraging and constructive comments, yet you seem defensive and combative. Is that really how you want to interact with others? As for your questions: "reliable source" according to Wikipedia does not mean what you think it means. It has a particular meaning here at Wikipedia and we go by the policy/community sense of the term. Moreover, you seem to think that what matters is whether a view is right or wrong. Wikipedia does not care whether a view is right or wrong. What Wikipedia cares about is whetehr a view is notable. Our NPOV policy is designed with the premise that different editors will have very different ideas of who is right or wrong and there is no point arguing. So we simply do not argue over who is right or wrong. It does not matter. If it matters to you, then you either have to bracket that while you collaborate with people at Wikipedia, or you need to find another venue to express yourself. Also, you write, "What I was providing was not criticism of Freud as such, but an account of an important event based on the primary sources, namely, what Freud wrote at the time." What you are describing is what we at Wikipedia call "Original Research." And we have a policy against it, called "NOR, No Original Research." By your own admission, what you wrote violated our policy. Any edit that clearly violates our policies - like the edit you just admitted was original research - gets deleted without discussion. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia but only if you are willing to accept our core content policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and also our core behavior policies like WP:AGF and WP:CIV and WP:CON and WP:CO. Do you accept all these policies? If so you will have a good time editing here and people will help. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my total removal of Esterson's contributions from this article: I'd like to apologize for that, because I can see now that it was an over-reaction. There is no reason why the view you added should not be mentioned in the article. However, it does have to be worded neutrally and in a way appropriate to an encyclopedia. Skoojal (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you wrote this, Skoojal - I hope Esterson will accept your apology and take this as a sign that compromise is possible. both sides have to be willing to compromise; the only things that cannot be compromised are NPOV, V, and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal: Yes, I accept your apology.

Slrubenstein: You wrote: "Esterson, several people have made encouraging and constructive comments, yet you seem defensive and combative."

I really cannot understand this comment. I politely asked for information on statements that had been made on which I wanted clarification: "Some points of information, please." What is wrong with my asking other editors for clarification of something they have written (including my spelling out precisely why I didn't understand the points being expressed)?

Slrubinstein: You wrote: "What you are describing is what we at Wikipedia call "Original Research." And we have a policy against it, called "NOR, No Original Research." By your own admission, what you wrote violated our policy. Any edit that clearly violates our policies - like the edit you just admitted was original research - gets deleted without discussion."

Are you seriously telling me that citing original sources constitutes "original research", and is unacceptable, whereas citing secondary sources, with all the errors to which such are prone (e.g., inaccurate reporting, misconceptions about the original material, and tendentious interpretations) is unproblematic? Esterson (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked through the Wikipedia "Original Research" pages. The relevant information is as follows:

"No original research": "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

There is clearly nothing here to say that original published sources should not be referenced or quoted from. On the Freud/seduction theory pages I have not once presented summaries, or given citations, for material that is unpublished, or given accounts that are not in one or other of the several published articles that I cited. Esterson (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson wrote: "Why is an account like the traditional version, which, as Cioffi has written, can be seen to be false from an hour's examination of Freud's 1896 papers in a library, deemed to be acceptable as an account of an important episode, but a primary-sourced account is deemed not to be?" To answer this, I quote the opening line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). Even if it is factually questionable, information in WP:RS's (including Esterson's own writings, which may be factually fine) is eligible for inclusion in WP. The perceived truth of the information can help in selecting sources, so long as the selection doesn't preclude WP:NPOV. In contrast, interpreting Freud's words in the main article may amount to an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," which is not allowed under WP:OR. However, Esterson, if you have previously published your interpretation of the primary material in a WP:RS, then it is, by default, eligible for inclusion. And, if it is included, then it must be cited directly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte: Thank you for your clarification. I was just about to write here that I intended to add citations from published articles to the paragraphs I had posted on the Wikipedia pages citations, at places where I had only given primary source citations. I also was about to say to slrubinstein that I fully intended to take up the considered suggestions he and you had made, but needed to clarify some remarks in these suggestions before I could usefully do so. And that I intend to take up the suggestion that I look at the paragraphs I have added to see if I can amend/rewrite them to conform more to usual Wikipedia presentation.

Thank you for spelling out the Wikipedia definition of "verifiability". Please bear with me in that I am unfamiliar with some of these kinds of regulations, and have mistakenly tended to take terms as understood more generally, and obviously need to develop the habit of checking the terms in the Wikipedia explanation pages. I have now done so in relation to "verifiability". I quote here so I can refer to it in my comments below:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

As I've already indicated, everything I have written in the paragraphs I added to the seduction theory material on the webpages in question has been previously published in numerous articles in books and journals. I am now completely clear that, while I still think it is valuable to cite original sources, I must add to such citations other publications which have given accounts or presentations along the lines of the one I am posting. (My citing of original sources is a carry-over from the writing of articles for scholarly journals.) I now understand why Skoojal and slrubinstein made the points they did in this connection, and I apologise for the fact that my ignorance of the Wikipedia technical terminology led to my responding at cross-purposes on some occasions. The above exchanges have led to my really beginning to get the ropes of Wikipedia usage, something I obviously had failed to do before. Esterson (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to be of assistance. It took a little while for me to figure things out on here, too, and I'm still learning. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson, here is the quick answer to your question about OR. You can included material from published primary sources, but not if you do so in order to develop an argument, synthesis, interpretation, or explanation about those sources or their author(s). You quoted an important passage: Wikipedia prohibits our adding "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Now, if a scholar has used the primary sources you added, in order to provide their own interpretation of what Freud meant, or how Freud worked, and that scholar published in a notable journal or book - i.e. a secondary source - then we (and you) can add that scholar's views, with the proper citation to the secondary source. But we cannot draw on primary sources to develop our own account of something, that violates original research. Here is a simple rule of thumb: if the point of view you want to add is in any way controversial, by which I mean, someone who has published in a reliable source (a book published by an academic press or major trade press, or an academic journal or other publication of good standing) interprets the primary material differently from you, you cannot use the primary material to argue your point. You need to see of some other published scholar has made the argument and add that scholar's views. This is the only way really to comply for sure with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I am sorry that I imputed false meanings to your inquisitive posts. I hope this helps explain our policies a bit better. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubinstein: Your wrote: "Here is a simple rule of thumb: if the point of view you want to add is in any way controversial, by which I mean, someone who has published in a reliable source (a book published by an academic press or major trade press, or an academic journal or other publication of good standing) interprets the primary material differently from you, you cannot use the primary material to argue your point."

Point taken.Esterson (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad it helps. As you seem to have realized, it is perfectly fine for you to quote yourself if you have published in a reliable source. I would not consider your own website a reliable source, but your article in History of the Human Sciences certainly sounds as a reliable source, ditto other articles published in peer reviewed journals, or books especially published by academic presses. Notable views in such reliable sources really do belong in the article. Just stick to NPOV also - never present a view as true or false or right or wrong, but rather as "a view" and when there are multiple notable views try to add all the major ones, even conflicting ones, in the same neutral language. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Points taken again! Esterson (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Father spelling

From sites I've been checking, Sigmund's dad's name was spelled Jacob, not Jakob.DragonZero (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My history-of-psych book says Jakob, which looks more likely to me anyway, given that Jakob is the German spelling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well can you tag it as a source then, case many sites show Jacob and it should be sourced so no one will change it. DragonZero (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigmund and Minna

When in the 1980s a BBC drama raised the possibility that Freud had had a sexual relationship with his sister-in-law Minna, this idea was publicly repudiated by Sigmund's grandson, Anton Walter. More recently, he told a journalist for The Times Literary Supplement that if such an affair took place it must have been with Martha’s permission.

Freud as a Psychiatrist vs Psychoanalist

The current page describes Freud as an Austrian psychiatrist. I think this should be changed back to identifying him as a physician. This description as a psychiatrist is a new description (see the entries of Aug 29, 2008). Freud did not describe himself as a psychiatrist, and the vast vast majority of writings in the 20th century do not identify him as such. See the NY Times for example (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/sigmund_freud/index.html ) This seems to be a recent trend to try to include Freud under the mantel of Psychiatry when the fields of psychoanalysis and psychiatry were at times competitive as well as cooperative, but in any case were distinctly different.

The use of the sentence

"Since neurology and psychiatry were not recognized as distinct medical fields at the time of Freud's training, the medical degree he obtained after studying for six years at the University of Vienna board certified him in both fields, although he is far more well-known for his work in the latter."

is non-sequitor, since it says the the degree certified him for a field that did not exist. This is unclear at best, and also tries to bring Freud under the mantel of Psychiatry.

My position is that the accurate positioning of Freud, as he used it in his own lifetime should be used, vs a revisionist recasting of his work as psychiatric. If nothing else, this recasting should be instead included in a section regarding the controversies and the status of Sigmund Freud (See this Time Magazine article, for example: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,979704,00.html ) (PsuedoName (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Legacy

So much criticism in the legacy section. As the article is protected, somebody please add a bit about the strong support for Freud in the field of neuro-psychoanalysis by recent neurologists such as Oliver Sacks and Mark Solms. --77.185.36.40 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected. You are welcome to add yourself. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I didn't know protected articles could be so open to anonymous IPs. --77.185.36.40 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I'm new at this so...

I don't think it is in neutral tone or even that accurate to say most of Freud's ideas have now been discredited and he is now only of historical interest. Some of Freud's ideas are still very much in use in psychoanalysis, although admittedly some/most are no longer in use.

Also, Freudian psychology has not been replaced by Skinnerian Behavioral psychology. In fact behavioral psychology probably has less clinical application than psychoanalysis. Which one is "better" depends on what you are trying to do. They each have their own school of thought with different practical applications.

Also, calling Skinner, in an article about Freud, "more realistic" in a single sentence stuck onto the end of the intro paragraph seems irrelevant, and opinionated whether or not it's true.

Freud's ideas have been completely disproven. It has been proven that he used unreliable methods to come to his conclusions, and there is no actual evidence supporting any of his views. No modern psychologist believes in the Oedipus Complex, it is at least as rare a belief as the belief that the earth is flat. And the point I was making in the sentence about Skinner is that Skinner's system has compeletely discredited and replaced Freudian psychology. That is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.196.250 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The conflicting opinions above suggest that it is the work of two editors, only the latter being sinebotted. Sorry, but as an observer I believe this article as it stands has been given the attention of a number of leading authorities both for and against Freud's theory and the intro is there to summarise them. Introducing the simple Freud-Skinner debate is something that takes me back to essays in a first year degree course. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the anonymous comment that opens this section. 67.52.196.250 simply does not understand our WP:NPOV policy - it does not matter whether any of us believe Freud's ideas to have been disproven or proven. Many believe the former, many believe the latter, and we have to include all significant views. I agree entirely with Motmit too. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

just a point, I find the comment in the intro about Freud's ideas being supported by recent neuroscience to be a little.. dodgy. Could the person who wrote that section provide references and examples? Would be of use to any students reading the article. - silver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.214.56 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What's on a man's mind

I begin to think that the famous drawing titled What's on a man's mind is a self-portrait from Freud himself, but I'm not sure... who's the author? does anybody know something about this? and why this worldwide famous caricature is not even mentioned in the article? I think it should be, even if it was succinctly mentioned, just compare with Charles Darwin article, where the most famous Darwin caricature appears in. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite unlikely that the drawing was done by Freud. The style appears to be from well after Freud's time, and I seriously doubt that Freud would parody himself in such a manner. And if it's "worldwide famous" that's news to me. What makes you think it's so famous? In my opinion it would contribute nothing to the article on Freud; perhaps in an article on art. But in any event, it is from a website that sells art, so it's quite likely copyrighted and unavailable for placement in Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You said it is from a website that sells art, so it's quite likely copyrighted... well that's not necessarily true, the caricature itself is not from any particular website, on the contrary it's much more older than Internet and the fact that private companies can sell it doesn't mean it's necessarily copyrighted. The link I chose IS from a website that sells art, but I could have chosen any other source in Internet... We will not include the caricature in the article, no problem, but I repeat my former question and I add some others : does anybody know the name of the author of this caricature? the year when it was drawn? the author's relation with Freud? Thanks for answering if you know the answers ! 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It may or not be defined as world famous but is certainly the most (only?) recognisable symbol of Sigmund Freud outside the realm of psychology and work. I cannot reference it as such but it is certainly the only cult symbol of Freud and if his interests extended to humour and art, he is more than important enough to show any example of his interests unrelated to his work, which should have its own article(s) rather than inhibit the display of the mans character. Sigmund Freuds work. The work of Sigmund Freud. Theories and practice of Sigmund Freud. I am sure the life of Sigmund Freud is a compelling story but, it is overshadowed here to present what modern science would pick from his work. ~ R.T.G 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Freud died 69 years ago. I think the copyright issues on Wikipedia are involving material less than 70 years old so it is unlikely that What's on a Mans Mind is copyrighted under that rule and as a unique illustration of which no depiction is available not covered by copyright, a single representation is usually accepted (not on commons). You should have no problem displaying it in the correct area (where ever that is). Freud believed most or all human psychology could be broken down into sexual motivations so the pic probably fits in somewhere. ~ R.T.G 12:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The date of Freud's death is irrelevant to the copyright of an image that was not created by Freud, and we have no evidence that Freud created the image. And I continue to disagree that the image adds anything that is not already in the article on Freud. In another article on art, maybe. But not here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I could find you a thousand references today, online alone that claim Sigmund Freud as the author yet none that claim anybody else or question it and none that put a date to it for that matter. @ward Sigmund died over 69 years ago and I believe (without checking) that 70 years is the copyright expiration time, possibly 75. So long as he drew it before he was 80 years old it should be null for copyright. @ward Can any person point out to me an image on that page created in ink by Sigmund Freud? What then does Ward beleive that the picture will not add? I wonder if any of his dream interpretation books are quoted here from the days when the housewives would call in? No they are not. This was my first and particularly striking brush with Freudianism but I do not see this side of Freud displayed here AT ALL, note, I am not the greatest proponent of Freud but I am toning it out here. Freudianism does less than enough represent Freud the person. Here is some opportunity to honestly show a piece of Freud that and in no better place. The nature of that picture being famous includes drug fans and humour. Freud would insist you displayed it without even cracking a smile. What's on a Mans Mind goes some distance to describe his objectivity in the midst of absolute madness for a job.

• He made stuff in bunches including a famous caracature printed in thousands of books, magazines, posters and now websites. He went into great length about material he theorised upon directly quoting anonymous patients, bizarre stuff but not dumb at all. I do not see one hair of this personality on the article, merely its conclusion. ~ R.T.G 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your English is quite difficult to follow, but I'll try. I'm not asking for "a thousand references". I'm asking for one or two reliable sources which verify that Freud drew the picture. If you can't do that, your entire rationale regarding copyright falls apart.

The question isn't what "Ward beleive that the picture will not add". The question is what specifically anyone who wishes to add the image to the Freud article believes it will add in an objective, non-POV way that is not already in the article. In Wikipedia articles, the burden of proof for notability is on the person who wishes to add the information. Give us specifics that are reliably sourced about the importance of the image, not just your personal interpretation of what the drawing means. Then wait to see if a consensus emerges here to add the image. Ward3001 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I caught myself now because I could not establish him as the author but it certainly is the only cult symbol of Freud regardless of interpretation. Might as well forget about it if it cannot be referenced correctly. It appears in many places but I do not believe any so far that support it well enough. I am sure it appears in a few good books but I don't have one so can't argue any further about it. It's not a bad article but it's a pity that his work overshadows his personal life on what should be a biography rather than a lecture on philosophy. Oh well back to the ranting board. ~ R.T.G 09:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anna O.

This diff is probably worth something, but it should have been made here rather than on the article itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Personality

From the intro to Freud's ideas: "He theorized that personality is developed by the person's childhood experiences." Does this not totally negate what he says about the id? That you are born with it? I thought it was Jung or somebody who contributed the childhood experience bit. --Mierk (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)